Mini 828 - ProzacMod 3 - Lost Mafia - Over

[EmpTyger]

/confirm

[EmpTyger]

I would like to preemptively request a No Season 6 Spoiler Policy, please.

Random

vote ChannelDelibird

---

CB:
Speaking as an ex-LOST mafia moderator, if you haven’t seen S5 and don’t want to be spoiled, I suggest you either get caught up fast or replace out.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:

I also don't like the pushing for a Lockewagon. RV on Locke, okay. Pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum, no.

Who has been “pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum”, rather than RVing?

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
…That’s your interpretation of Jebus’s post? Don’t you think that’s a little overliteral for the first 12 hours into the game? Why don’t you think that he was RVing there?

---

CB:
Are you asking me something?

[EmpTyger]

Unvote: ChannelDelibird

Also, note that I’m going to be rather busy this week.

---

Reckoner:
That’s not what I meant. I’m asking why you thought that Jebus’s declaration (on p2, within the first 24 hours of game start) that a player (who hasn’t yet posted) was “obviously scum” was significantly more serious than RVing.

Which I still want to know.

---

VP:
What do you think about Reckoner’s reaction to the LL bandwagon?

---

CD:

Vote: Zoneace

for posting as if the last two pages of discussion didn't happen.

I see signs of theoretical differences of opinion in the last couple of pages, not any real suggestion of scummy intent from any party.

If there hasn't yet been any "suggestion of scummy intent", what's wrong with still randomvoting?

[EmpTyger]

Zoneace:
Given how strenuously you are arguing that "nothing serious" had happened in the first 3 pages, what do you think of Reckoner's interpretation of Jebus's posts?

---

Reckoner:
It seems like it should be incredibly obvious from context that those posts were about as serious as everything else posted before page 3. I really don't get why you are insistent that Jebus was genuinely declared that LL was "obvious scum".

In fact- if you genuinely thought Jebus was pushing a LL bandwagon, wouldn't that be something significant for Zoneace to comment on? But instead, you agree with Zoneace, who's arguing that nothing serious had happened.

---

Jason:
What's with all the ;)s to Zoneace?

[EmpTyger]

Still in one of my busiest weeks of the year. May not get another chance to post until Monday or Tuesday.

---

Zoneace:
Why haven’t you posted in this game in the past 3 days?

---

Jebus:

<snip>

certainly bigger than "you ignored the random votes before you". you made a nub scum move of jumping on a weak case to move forward a wagon.

you had nothing ot add to the reasoning, you simply restated what CDB said. everything you did is indicative of scum.

Despite the (bluntness?) crude wording of it, a post that I agree with.

Juls, I had already said I was just putting what others had already said in my own words. I never once made out that they where 'fresh' or 'new'

Oh hello,

unvote, Vote: Jason

That, and pretty much what Zoneace said in the previous quote.

So, Jason is suspicious to you because he simply restated and paraphrased others’ reasons without adding anything.

…yet you express your suspicion of Jason by repeating and paraphrasing others’ reasons without adding anything?

---

Jason:

why did no one quick lynch jason? =P

this here alarms me really to be honest... why has no one quick lynched me?

CB was trying to make a joke, but mixed up Jason/Jacob.
What’s your excuse for asking this?

Locke, Zoneace has not really posted anything since his blowup, but recently Reckoner has been quite scummy, he has jumped on my wagon without giving any reasoning.

By this, do you mean that Zoneace is not suspicious?

---

Juls:
I’m paraphrasing, but you seem to be saying “either Zoneace is town or he’s pretending to be town; therefore he’s town”?

[EmpTyger]

Jason:
Why does Reckoner (or anyone) need to be “100% certain” you’re mafia?

And I still would like answers to these:

why did no one quick lynch jason? =P

this here alarms me really to be honest... why has no one quick lynched me?

CB was trying to make a joke, but mixed up Jason/Jacob.
What’s your excuse for asking this?
And:

Locke, Zoneace has not really posted anything since his blowup, but recently Reckoner has been quite scummy, he has jumped on my wagon without giving any reasoning.

By this, do you mean that Zoneace is not suspicious?

---

Zoneace:
Okay about not yet voting Reckoner, but why the unvote of Jason?

---

LL:
Okay about 193, but I don’t think Reckoner’s explanation of 183 is implausible at all. Why couldn’t town have misread, and not realized the mistake until a day later?

---

CB:
HT?

[EmpTyger]

Jason:
Then how certain are you about Reckoner?

---

VP:

<snip>
As far as Jason, definitely VI but I don't have a good read on his alignment yet. He has made some tremendously stupid statements that could have scum motivations, but he also seems to at least be

trying

to hunt scum (however poorly executed those attempts are).
<snip>

Really? I’ve been seeing Jason trying to blend in and avoid his own lynch, but I don’t really see him trying to hunt. Where are you seeing that type of behavior?

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Seems like VP just gave you your “actual case against which you can defend yourself”- you have a defense?
And, why the insistence on “actual cases”? When you first voted Jason, there was nothing of the sort, and most of your posts against him haven’t been with reasons.

---

VP:
I’m not really seeing what you see in Jason.

[83]: you originally said that this was Jason “just sheeping along”
[119]: this seems no different than Reckoner’s [229]: a call for his attacker to be more specific in their attack.
[176]: Jason defending himself, not “scumhunting”. The vote at the end seems tacked on to me.

---

Juls:

<snip>

Juls:
I’m paraphrasing, but you seem to be saying “either Zoneace is town or he’s pretending to be town; therefore he’s town”?

No, what I meant was that if he is scum, it is pretty risky to bring THAT much attention to yourself on D1. Basically what I am saying here is his "rage" seems authentic. <snip>

But that wasn’t what brought attention to Zoneace- it was his non-comments that did. He already had 3 players voting him at the time of his “rage”.
So, temporarily assuming Zoneace is antitown, and he’s gotten attention for an unrelated reason- how certain are you that he would or wouldn’t “rage”?

---

Zoneace:
Specifically, what has Reckoner done that’s “trying to appear town” but hasn’t been “being town”?

---

Jebus:
Still waiting on an answer to [187] whenever you decide to stop lurking.

[EmpTyger]

Juls:
The original comment that puzzled me was this:

<snip>
I LOL'd. I have been known to get too invested but I have to agree this reaction is just ludicris. Although I don't agree he should be lynched for it. ZONEACE, what has transpired is not worthy of this response. I have to say, that you are town or this is some pro-manufactured rage.

TL;DR
============
<snip>
~ZONEACE needs to calm down....Alot. But I think he is town at this point.
<snip>

You seem to say “either Zoneace is town or he’s pretending to be town; therefore he’s town”, which obviously doesn’t follow. You clarify in [214] that you thought Zoneace is town because he wouldn't want to call attention to himself if he were guilty. Except that at that time, he was already at the center of attention!

So, basically, I'm asking you to reconcile your analysis of Zoneace with that fact.

[EmpTyger]

VP:

Emptyger, who do you think is scum and why? You've been playing this background investigator role for far too long now.

The answers are “A lot of people” and “I’m not sure”. (Yeah, I know. I’ll elaborate.)

There’s a lot of things that are *wrong* in this game. But the issue I’m having is that Player A will pick up on some *wrong* thing X that Player B is doing- but when Player C, D, or even A themself does X, A either ignores it, or, paradoxically, they’ll say that X is an innocent thing.

So, when I look at players in isolation- I do find some suspicious enough to vote. When I look at the bigger picture, though- I can’t get past that something weird is going on. And I’m more concerned about that weirdness right now than simply making a case against whoever has done the most *wrong* things.

If I had to pick one player in isolation right now: Jason. If I had to achieve an immediate lynch: I’d go along with Reckoner. If I was simply trying to pressure someone: Jebus. But, I *don’t* have to do any of these things right now, I’d rather hear the As to elaborate on the Xs.

(Incidentally, while I agree with some of your sentiments about the current arguments for bussing, I don’t think that’s a reason to not discuss it. In fact, I’d say that that’s a reason *to* discuss. Discussing allows the opportunity to rebut something that’s false, or to get on the table something that’s a possibility. There’s no guarantee that player who notices the possibility will still be alive after the reveal- or the players who would rebut it still be alive either. In short: discussion is good.)

Also:
First you said that Jason's vote on Zoneace was “just sheeping along”.
Then you said that that vote was “scumhunting”.
Now you’re saying that

<snip>
moving the game out of RVS is more likely to be carried about by town than scum. Plain and simple. More often than not, scum are not going to want to be sticking their necks out early in the game by going after people. They would rather wait for a secure wagon to form and then chime in to try and drive it through.
<snip>

So, which is it?

---

Jason:

<snip>
Well if I think you both are scum.. have given evidence to suggest why i think you both are... then it stands to reason I think you are bussing if I see your vote on the other person I suspect of being scum no?

But you haven’t done this.

You’ve said that LL is guilty because it seems like he’s bussing Reckoner…
And then you’ve said that LL is bussing Reckoner because they’re both guilty.
That couldn’t be more circular.

The closest thing to an actual suspicion of LL that I’ve heard is “his vote was opportunistic”- but how was the way he voted any different from, say, how you voted Zoneace? Was that opportunistic of you? Were you bussing Zoneace?

I mean, earlier you attacked Reckoner for being 100% you were guilty, didn’t you? How is this different?

---

Zoneace:
I agree with that logic in theory, but as others have already said, that’s not an instance of it. Or are you implying that Reckoner deliberately misread CDB’s post?

---

Juls:
Okay, thanks for clarifying. Although, I will say that I happen to disagree with your opinion.

While I don’t have any experience with Zoneace, I have seen mafia in other games react this way when they feel they’re getting attention for illegitimate reasons. And I can certainly see it possible for a guilty Zoneace to have thought that he should not be facing a lynch (and perhaps being bussed by Jason?) for the reasons he was. In any case, according to VP, it sounds like this behavior isn’t exceptional enough that it would be difficult for him to feign it if necessary.

[EmpTyger]

VP:

<snip>
I don't quite buy your whole 'feeling out the weirdness' thing here. It's page 12 for crying out loud and you haven't voted anyone. What is your exact plan here, wait until deadline and then plunk down on the leading wagon?

No, my exact plan here is, as I just said, to inquire into why some players are making accusations against one player but ignoring or excusing the same behavior in others.

Discussing allows the opportunity to rebut something that’s false, or to get on the table something that’s a possibility. There’s no guarantee that player who notices the possibility will still be alive after the reveal- or the players who would rebut it still be alive either. In short: discussion is good.

Discussing something that has no logical reason to be believed either way is a major waste of time on D1. This is particularly true when you start going down the road that jason was heading where the 'bussing theory' was starting to become a scumpoint. In short: not all discussion is good.

If Jason is innocent- as you say you think: then it’s good to explain to him why the conclusions he’s drawing are wrong.
If Reckoner is guilty- as you say you think: then it’s good to explore with who.

(Unless, of course, you’re confident that you’re going to be able to do these things after Reckoner’s reveal?)

More importantly, if Jason is *not* innocent- a conclusion which I don’t see how you can be certain of: then why are you trying to stop him from incriminating himself?

<snip>
So you agree with me that it is a horrible discussion point? Why would you think it's a good idea to even bring to the table then?

No, I don’t agree that it’s a horrible discussion point.
I think the argument Jason was trying to make is horrible. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. See above for 3 reasons why.

---

Reckoner:
What about CDB and Zoneace?

[EmpTyger]

Santos:
Reckoner is at lynch-2. So unless one of these mysterious modquestions doublevoted you or made Reckonere 1 less to lynch, your little stunt shouldn’t have lynched him. Really, why did you vote in [292]?

---

Reckoner:
You’ve said that LL and Jason are mafia, and that VP’s case is weak. What about CDB (who, as he just mentioned, started your wagon) and Zoneace (who is also voting you)?

---

LL:
That, plus the fact that he hasn’t done anything in the past 10 days, and there no longer seems to be any excuse for it. Kind of hard to compare the suspicious things, say, Reckoner has done since then to Jebus’s nothing.

[EmpTyger]

There’s only one thing I see potentially wrong with Reckoner’s claim. And it’s not anything that’s been mentioned so far. On the contrary, I really don’t like the objections that have been raised by VP and Juls. And I happen to disagree with their conclusions.

---

Reckoner:
Why did you say “I'm the cop”? How do you know that there isn’t another cop?

---

Jebus:

<snip>
First off, I support the Reckoner wagon (currently reading in isolation, will post later).
<snip>

Despite the recent events, I would still like you to explain why you would have supported the Reckoner wagon.

[EmpTyger]

VP:
Your second choice for lynch is someone who you’ve been reading all day as innocent?

@Emp-I don't understand whatever you're getting at. I actually think your "the" vs. "a" argument is much more senseless. Please explain what is so odd about the questions that Juls or I asked.
<snip>

You seemed immediately sure about what information would and wouldn’t be included in a role, enough to conclude that Reckoner was lying. (The worst being “In other news, can someone who watched season 5 more recently inform me if the marshall who arrested Kate even makes an appearance in that season. If not, we have caught scum here.”) Not only do I not see any basis for that certainty, but my role at least doesn’t bear out the assumptions your making about flavor-matching, making me personally skeptical.

---

Reckoner:
In NY95- when you counterclaimed and using the “can’t be 2 of [role]” logic, your claim was “I’m a [role]”. Even in that situation, you didn’t say “I’m the [role]”.
But in this game, you did. You speculate a detail into your claim, at a time when you weren’t even claiming more obvious detail: your flavorname.

(That may be “too much” for you. But you’re not making this decision. 11 other players are.)

---

LL:

<snip>
I think Jason's unvote has added to his scumminess; it read as though he was doing it because he thought it was a pro-town thing to do.
<snip>

How is that suspicious?

[EmpTyger]

Sayid:
I think I can help here. I’m not certain enough to propose a massclaim (although that may be good for other reasons), but I think we have a window. If you want to try, I want you to know that I am not asking you to say anything to put yourself at risk. If you don’t want to try, I am disappointed, but I understand- however please keep the potential outcomes in mind tonight.

---

Someone who knows that I shouldn’t be talking to Sayid:
I hope you can understand what I mean, especially because I’m not sure that we have enough to trust each other, but the same goes. I hope you understand why I chose Sayid.

---

Everyone else:
I apologize being cryptic. I do not intend to explain further at this time, unless the above make explicit that they are willing to discuss this. I do not want this to become a distraction.

[EmpTyger]

I want to emphasize that I do not want my previous post to become a distraction.

---

Reckoner:

You want me to claim?

Fine. Whatever.

I'm a town-aligned Roleblocker. Which is why I find inHim's claim so odd, because I don't think there should be TWO town-aligned roleblockers. I roleblocked Xylth last night.

In NY95, you didn’t say “I’m *the* roleblocker”- not even when you were counterclaiming a fakeclaiming rolebloker. You said, “I’m *a* roleblocker.” And in this game here, you have even less basis than that for thinking that you’re the only cop.

Here though, you’re certain enough to say that you’re “the cop”. And, forgive the irony, but I can think of an explanation for this oddity which involves you being guilty.

---

VP:
Yes, I do find it quite healthy to question claims on D1 as well. Which I have done.

No, I don’t find it healthy to first state that a certain detail cannot possibly be in the role PM, then when that doesn’t gain traction reverse to oh-wait-I-actually-do-have-something-like-it-in-my-PM, then try to sweep the matter away by deciding outguessing-the-mod-is-a-bad-idea. Which you have done.

If you feel that players have been wishy-washy, I invite you to point out specifics.
If you’re trying to slander me specifically, I challenge you to say what’s been wishy-washy, because I have been quite precise in pointing out exactly what I feel.

Also, I stand behind my characterization of your treatment of Jason. Considering what you’ve said about Jason and what you’ve said about, say, me, I don’t understand how Jason is who you’re voting.

<snip>
BTW, you any closer to actually coming to any sort of conclusions instead of sniping from the sidelines and committing to nothing?

I’m reaching the conclusion that after 4 days absence, 6 days of I’ll-post-soons, and then finally a disavowal of what he was saying 10 days prior, it’s time for that pressure

vote: Jebus

.

---

Jason:
What do you think of VP’s treatment of you?

---

CKD:

<snip>
I am pretty sure I have seen Zone blow up for these reasons as scum and town. Null tell at best. My impression, I think ZA thinks he is the shit and gets fustrated at reasonless wagons. I can say this, because I can relate. I too get fustrated and curse like sailor when wagoned for little reason. Though it should be noted, that I have have never seen ZA go to that extreme.
<snip>

Er, that was my point. Juls was saying that that made Zoneace innocent. I was showing that her reasoning didn’t eliminate the possibility of Zoneace being guilty.

[EmpTyger]

VP:
First of all, okay about the timing issue, so I’ll concede the insinuation that you made up the PM detail. But I didn’t “intentionally ignore it”. I saw that you stated definitely that there was no way that a certain type of detail could be in a role PM *before* you checked whether you had it in your own. And those parts of my argument I still maintain:

In other news, can someone who watched season 5 more recently inform me if the marshall who arrested Kate even makes an appearance in that season. If not, we have caught scum here.

Outguess the mod isn't all that useful of a game to play.

You 180 from being certain that something can’t be in a PM, to outguessing the mod is bad, and I’m not seeing any justification for this sudden reversal.

<snip>
If Jason flips scum, you are almost certainly his buddy.
<snip>

You have reasoning to go with this non sequitor? Or did I just do that good a job of convincing you that discussing pairings before reveals can be helpful?

Really? Wow, because I don't have much of a clue who you think is scum and who is not. This is your progression in this game simplified: you random vote, unvote, you pop in and ask some questions that never seem to come to a conclusioin, and now you want to pursue a lurker wagon. That's some pretty aggressive scumhunting you have going on there.

First of all, that’s the opposite of specific.

However, to respond: as I’ve already explained, I’m not going to just blindly vote a top suspect in isolation when in the context of this game, that suspicious behavior is rampant. I’m going to try to figure out *why* it’s rampant. I have been on the record. I’ve stated who I think is suspicious, either by pointing out what they’re doing that’s suspicious, or by explicitly saying so. (Such as in [285] in response to your asking me, remember?) And I’ve also pointed out who I don’t think is suspicious when that happens. So unless your "wishy-washy" accusation is that I'm not stating categorically that X must be guilty, but to that I'd say unapologetically that it's better to be doing that and giving a specific reason for *why* and try to do something about it, than, say, to make the categorical statement and then follow it up with "jk nevermind don't outguess the mod". For example.

And Jebus isn’t just a lurkervote. I’ve been suspicious of him since [143], and gave him plenty of time to answer, and I’m not satisfied with his response, for the reasons I gave when I just placed my vote. For comparison, let’s look at the only thing you’ve said about Jebus:

<snip>
@Jebus-do you think players should always provide original reasoning before joining a wagon?

Is that different from what you’re now attacking me for? Did I miss where that reached a conclusion, or did you just have no good reason for asking it in the first place?

I’m curious: whose level of contribution (besides your own, I’m sure) fits your criteria?

---

Reckoner:
Guess again.

<snip>
Except, by that point, we had established that there were pairs in the game, and so I didn't necessarily disbelieve the claim. Oh, and he turned out to be a roleblocker just like me.

You want me to claim?

Fine. Whatever.

I'm a town-aligned Roleblocker. Which is why I find inHim's claim so odd,

because I don't think there should be TWO town-aligned roleblockers

. I roleblocked Xylth last night.

(and note that you were maintaining a vote on inHim at the time)

[EmpTyger]

1) You are fake scumhunting

(Going to need something more specific to reply to this one. I’m guessing you meant that my questions are not actually trying to find mafia, but all of them have been exploring suspicious things that I’ve found other players have done.)

2A) You only put up a case when prompted

Not what happened. When prompted, I explained that I was *not* ready to put up a case. More importantly, I explained why I wasn’t. My case on Jebus doesn’t happen until after further suspicious behavior, including a lack of explanation.

For that matter, when is the proper time to put up a case on Jebus?
1) Immediately after he does the first suspicious thing?
2) While he’s on declared LA?
3) The second he returns?
4) After he can’t explain his suspicious behavior?
5) Never today?

2B) and it is majorly weaksauce

Jebus does something I find suspicious. (Which, presumably you found suspicious too, given how you questioned him on it too.)
Jebus can’t provide an explanation for it.
Jebus hasn’t done anything protown during this time. (Or do you think he has?)

Where is Jebus being protown according to you?

3) You try to excuse your lack of scumhunting because of "weirdnes", when many other players don't seem to have a problem.

The only person who has had any problem with my [285] is *you*.

Unless, by “many other players don’t seem to have a problem”, you just mean that since they haven’t said anything opposing it, that means that they’ve completely analyzed it and don’t see any problem with it. In which case, well, many other players don’t seem to have a problem with “attempts to call your points hypocritical. I guess that means that many players think that you’re hypocritical.

4) You have made several attempts to call my points hypocritical, when that clearly is not the case

You defended Jason with a “town gut read”, and then said he’s your number 2 suspect.
You said that Reckoner’s flavor must make him guilty, then said that outguessing the modflavor is a bad idea.
You say that Jason trying to reasonlessly link 2 players before alignment flips is antitown. Then you try to link me and Jason before alignment flips without reason.

So there’s some reversals. In fact, after I asked you, you just admitted that after some reconsideration you changed your mind and didn’t document it in thread. You may have a good explanation for this, or you may not. But not only is it not “clearly not the case”, but I think that seems to make my questions to you more than legitimate.

5) You are expressing a strong obsession with semantics, a common scum tactic

Uh, because you say so?

Maybe you meant that “mafia commonly express a strong obsession with unhelpful things”, and then “semantics is commonly useless”. Except that in this case, my follow-up questions have already revealed that, at the very least, Reckoner included a detail in his claim that was not part of his given role. Maybe it was a legitimate assumption, maybe it was an unconscious fabrication. But either way, it’s not useless- unless any exploration of how a player a player’s claim.

And I submit that making definitive statements about flavor to try to push through the lynch of a powerrole postclaim is a much more common tactic.

---

VP:
Here’s your non sequitur:

Except you intentionally ignore where I explained why I don't think that detail fits given my PM, and instead try to charactarize it as "oh-wait-I-actually-do-have-something-like-it-in-my-PM". Your 'not gaining traction' theory is complete bullshit because the time between me saying the first and second thing was LESS THAN AN HOUR. If I was really trying to push that angle, don't you think I would have waited at least long enough for someone to log on and actually read what I wrote?

Also, I like how you are now stating that I'm covering something up, when I have done no such thing. Questioning the format of a role PM and outguessing the mod about what character would be which role are two very different things.

If Jason flips scum, you are almost certainly his buddy.

You’re talking about how *I*’m questioning *your* statements about *Reckoner*’s claim- and then all of a sudden “If *Jason* is mafia then so is EmpTyger”. So, again: how does the blue follows from the green?

Nor is it the same as what I was saying was wrong with people calling buddies earlier. Mine is conditional on jason flipping scum. Earlier people were making the argument that 'player X is bussing player Y', without seeing an alignment at all. Do you think these are really similar statements?

(If Reckoner were to be revealed as town, I’m pretty confident that even Jason wouldn’t be able to make the argument that LL bussed Reckoner.)

The point is that both you and Jason were making statements that 2 players were mafia together without any actual reasons connecting the 2. Just like Jason. And regarding Jason’s action, you had this to say: “Discussing something that has no logical reason to be believed either way is a major waste of time on D1.”

Yes, it very much is different and I don't understand what anything I said about Jebus has to do with you not following up on your suspicions

If Jebus’s behavior wasn’t suspicious, then why did you ask essentially the same question?
If Jebus’s behavior was suspicious, then what in Jebus’s behavior since indicates that he’s innocent to invalidate the suspicion?

[The rest of [364] I believe is covered above.]

---

Reckoner:
No, you made an assumption that there’s no other cop in the game. That assumption didn’t come from your PM. I’m trying to figure out where it did come from. That’s hardly “useless”.

[EmpTyger]

VP:
1)

<snip>
The point is that your scumhunting seems to have no real direction. That is why I feel it is fake. I don't care how effective you think your questions are, they aren't reading that way to me.

Again, it would be really nice to have specifics instead of trying to guess at what you “feel is fake”.

2A) I’ll concede this point because I had forgotten about the second prompting. But your prompting was not what prompted my vote of Jebus. His actions did. And you seem to be implying that there’s no possible situation that any serious D1 vote on Jebus could be valid.

2b)

<snip>
Again you are deflecting to a lesser point. I'm saying that if after 15 pages of a game the best case you can come up with is a mostly lurker vote on Jebus you are clearly not trying. You have considerable experience on the site, and I expect you are more than capable of effectively scumhunting. This fits nowhere near those expectations.

Well, after 14 pages the best you had was a bandwagon hop onto someone you had been defending until then.

Are you really willing to lynch Jebus over one single statement?

No, but I’m willing to lynch Jebus over his behavior this entire day. (and more on this below)

3) [sorry, misinterpreted what the “problem” was you were referring to. Responding to the original accusation]

You try to excuse your lack of scumhunting because of "weirdnes", when many other players don't seem to have a problem.

Didn’t you just say that according to you, only 3 other players “seem like they are genuinely scumhunting”? Which is the “weirdness” I mentioned, in which far too many players are

4) 1)

<snip>And you failed to explain how my refutations to these in examples

within actual context

is wrong. Instead, you prefer to continue comparing apples to oranges, which is why I say your arguments are not the actual case.

Huh? That’s not what you attacked me for, nor what I responded to.

You were attacking me for “calling your points hypocritical, when that clearly is not the case”. If you require a contextual refutation involving thoughts not documented in this thread, then it’s not “clearly the case”. And so my questions have merit, regardless of whether your explanation is valid or not..

Or, am I supposed to say “Player X just did 1 or 2 or 3 contradictory things. I’ll ignore them because I’m sure X has a perfectly good contextual explanation for all that.”?

And speaking of ignoring actual context…

5)

No, you're arguing semantics and it's scummy. Reckoner's "a" vs. "the" thing is the most obvious example.
<snip>

Let’s hear the antitown motivation for the following context:
Reckoner claims cop/Kate.
VP and Juls try to get Reckoner lynched because Kate doesn’t match cop and because marshall was mentioned.
EmpTyger makes up an attack on Reckoner while simultaneously rebutting the attacks that 2 others have against Reckoner.

How does that make any sense? Unlike, say, that I’m genuinely reacting to questionable statements made by each of VP, Juls, and Reckoner?

re: non-sequitor- Fine, I should have pushed the return key there so it wasn't so confusing for you. The point still stands.

There’s still no point to stand!

Why am I guilty if Jason is guilty?

If Jebus’s behavior wasn’t suspicious, then why did you ask essentially the same question?
If Jebus’s behavior was suspicious, then what in Jebus’s behavior since indicates that he’s innocent to invalidate the suspicion?

I find these questions rather irrelevant. Please explain how they are necessary.

Well, of course you think they’re irrelevant and unnecessary. They undermine your argument.

You’re saying that my attack on Jebus is invalid because you “don't see how anyone could have anything better than a null read on him.” I’m pointing out that based on *your* actions, either:
You think he’s behaved suspiciously, or
You were doing the same thing you’re accusing me of doing.

No, you made an assumption that there’s no other cop in the game. That assumption didn’t come from your PM. I’m trying to figure out where it did come from. That’s hardly “useless”.

Hint: This is a mini-game. There is no way in hell there is multiple cops unless the mod is horribly stupid. That is most certainly not the case. Ergo: there aren't multiple cops and this is you pushing semantics.

Reckoner did not even go that far in his conclusion: he quickly admitted (in response to my question) that there could be another cop with a different sanity.
Alternatively, I can very easily see that slip being made by a mafia cop overconfidently saying “I’m the cop”.

Do I think that that is definitely what happened? No. But I don’t see why a potential slip shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s “semantics”. Do mafia never misspeak when they make up a claim?

[EmpTyger]

VP:
I’ll agree that more people need to post. I think I’m going to separate out the questions pertaining to my attack on Jebus into a separate post I’ll make later- I do not have much time now.

<snip>

Well, after 14 pages the best you had was a bandwagon hop onto someone you had been defending until then.

Really? How would you assess my involvement in the Reckoner wagon? Do I seem to be genuinely pursuing my case against you?

I was referring to your vote on Jason.

<snip>
This is some really BS selective quoting you have going on here. You asked for persons who met my expectations for contributions. I gave you three names. That doesn't mean I think there are only three players who are contributing. I have an admittedly high standard. Jason, CKD, LL, and Reckoner have all been regularly contributing, but it doesn't necessarily meet what I consider good contribution.

That was exactly my point! According to you , Jason, CKD, LL, Reckoner, and the rest “don’t meet what you would consider contribution” or however you want to phrase it. That’s 8/11 players = most of the game…

The difference with your play and their play is that your attempts to scumhunt seem especially disingenious, which is why I think you are likely scum.

“Disingenuous”? I gave reasons and explanations. With a basis that you seem to agree with: that there is an issue with how most of the players in the game are contributing. Except for me, it is that they are being contradictory in their behavior.

You seem to be vaguely implying that since I didn’t just blindly sheep along onto bandwagons, I’m guilty.

Or, am I supposed to say “Player X just did 1 or 2 or 3 contradictory things. I’ll ignore them because I’m sure X has a perfectly good contextual explanation for all that.”?

What I'm saying is that when you brought up every single one of those "contradictions" originally, I explained why, based on the context of my words, your accusations were incorrect. You then simply restated the "contradictions" again out of context, as if I had never addressed them in the first place.

This is ridiculous. You want to talk out of context? Here’s the timeline.

You contradict yourself x3
I point it out and ask for an explanation. x3
You explain yourself. x3
You attack me for calling you hypocritical when according to you clearly were not.
I point out that you clearly had been before you explanations (without going into whether you still were after the explanations)
You accuse me of restating contradictions out of context as if they were never addressed.

The only reason I brought it up again then was to rebut how you falsely claimed that I made up the contradictions in the first place!

Let’s hear the antitown motivation for the following context:
Reckoner claims cop/Kate.
VP and Juls try to get Reckoner lynched because Kate doesn’t match cop and because marshall was mentioned.
EmpTyger makes up an attack on Reckoner while simultaneously rebutting the attacks that 2 others have against Reckoner.

How does that make any sense? Unlike, say, that I’m genuinely reacting to questionable statements made by each of VP, Juls, and Reckoner?

The anti-town motivation is that you are casting suspicion on both sides of an argument so you are guaranteed to come out on the "right" side of it later.

You’re saying that I’m guilty unless I agree with every single argument made against a player, or unless I disagree with every single argument made against a player? That’s ridiculous. Some arguments may be good, some may be bad.

Here, there were [at least] 2 arguments against Reckoner.
One of them was bad, and so I said so.
One of them I wanted to explore further, and so I did.

Also, please quote for me where you "rebutted" anything Juls or I said about Reckoner's claim.

There’s only one thing I see potentially wrong with Reckoner’s claim. And it’s not anything that’s been mentioned so far. On the contrary, I really don’t like the objections that have been raised by VP and Juls. And I happen to disagree with their conclusions.
<snip>

Why am I guilty if Jason is guilty?

If jason flipped scum, I would suspect your "attack" on me as being a chainsaw defense.

So, then, if Jebus flips scum, you are almost certainly his buddy, right?

Speaking of which, what is your opinion on jason anyhow? I don't remember hearing you clearly state which side of that argument you're leaning.

If I had to pick one player in isolation right now: Jason.

To elaborate: I think he’s suspicious taken in isolation. But I’m not at this point willing to just vote one player in isolation without considering the context of the rest of the game, for reasons I’ve also already pointed out.

<snip>

Do I think that that is definitely what happened? No. But I don’t see why a potential slip shouldn’t be dismissed just because it’s “semantics”. Do mafia never misspeak when they make up a claim?

What do you place the odds at that this game has multiple cops in it?
<snip>

Non-zero. Reckoner in his claim put it at zero. I feel that that is a discrepancy worth asking about. Especially when nothing is lost by asking.

[EmpTyger]

In [143] Jebus voted for Jason, with the reasoning being things that Jebus himself was doing.

Jebus’s explanation was part “laziness at 1am” / part no excuse. I don’t buy the explanation. (At least, not for a protown. Although, I would believe that coming from mafia.)

Jebus’s vote and attack on Jason came in the middle of a lengthy post in which he argued against and even voted Zoneace. And then after voting Jason, he continued to list other suspicions, against Drench. There’s absolutely no sign of laziness there- that’s a serious attempt to justify a vote on the current leading bandwagon, by mindlessly parroting popular reasoning without thinking to see if it’s something that Jebus actually thinks. Given his own actions- it’s clear that he doesn’t.

Now, if Jebus had other protown behavior, this might be less of an issue. But there’s nothing else from him. Other than 8/3 and randomvoting, Jebus has done only one other thing today: say that he “supported for the Reckoner wagon”. Which I am also skeptical about (and have asked him about, still without reply). Because he was still voting Jason at the time he said that. Perhaps he simply didn’t realize where his vote was- but an hour later, after the mod posted a votecount, Jebus unvoted Jason without voting Reckoner, or providing any of that promised contribution.

---

VP:

<snip>

you seem to be implying that there’s no possible situation that any serious D1 vote on Jebus could be valid.

How does me saying that there is no way you could have a read on Jebus at this time given his contribution thus far to the game translate into "there's no possible situation that any serious D1 vote on Jebus could be valid"? Blatant exaggeration.
<snip>

Exaggeration? That’s exactly what you are saying! You’re saying that any vote made against Jebus today can’t be legitimate because there’s no way anyone could have a valid read on him given his actions.

(And, incidentally- um, isn’t that behavior of Jebus’s suspicious in itself, then? At least, using the reasoning you’re trying to use against me.)

You’re saying that my attack on Jebus is invalid because you “don't see how anyone could have anything better than a null read on him.” I’m pointing out that based on *your* actions, either:
You think he’s behaved suspiciously, or
You were doing the same thing you’re accusing me of doing.

So, because I questioned one thing he said you think I have a scummy read on him? If that were the only criteria for me to consider someone scum, then pretty much everyone in the game would be a suspect of mine.
<snip>

First of all, I wouldn’t have to deduce what your read is if you’d just answer the question about what your read of Jebus was, instead of trying to deflect the question so you can have the cake of “EmpTyger is doing something suspicious” while still eating your “I did it too”.

Second of all, strawman. Here are the 2 explanations I can see for your questioning Jebus:
1) You find him suspicious because you questioned one thing *and* he can’t provide a reasonable explanation for it and hasn’t done anything protown since and doesn’t have any kind of some tellingly protown behavior before.

2) You’re not sure and were doing the exact same thing I was doing- asking a question to see what his reply was for his contradictory behavior. Which contradicts some of your attacks on me. Namely that you haven’t seen the kind of contradictory behavior in this game that I’ve been pointing out. And that asking questions and waiting for replies is a suspiciously disingenuous tactic.

---

Reckoner:
I’ll still go along with a Jason lynch, although the rules have submajority lynches at deadline. So I’d rather use the last few days of D1 to try to pressure Jebus.

[EmpTyger]

Does anyone know whether Santos has been active elsewhere on site?

---

Reckoner:

<snip>
I think Emp is scummier, but should Emp be town, I support Jason's lynch.
<snip>

First of all, this seems to be assuming that no further information will be obtained between one lynch and the next. Which is a rather odd thing for an alleged cop to be assuming.

Seccondly, are you saying that if I’m guilty, you wouldn’t support Jason’s lynch? Or would you still support Jason’s lynch if I’m guilty, making this statement completely pointless? (Unless you’re expecting me to be revealed as town and are trying to line up a Jason lynch?)

(Didn’t notice that you were voting me until now. What do you think about Jebus?)

---

VP:
Most of what I posted is a defensive response to your attacks, so if you don’t have response to it, then I’m done too. However, for the questions about your own behavior, I would like a response. In particular, the “chainsaw defense”: I’d like you to explain how what you’ve done with Jebus isn’t the exact same thing you’ve said is a suspicious thing I’ve done to Jason.

<snip>
For the record, I did not agree with and found it too declarative of VP to say that if the marshall wasn't in season 5 we had found scum. I didn't mention it at the time because I was caught up in the sleuthing more than the scum-hunting.
<snip>

Also, what do you think about this?

---

Juls:
That’s your idea of a strategy for dealing with Jebus? Let’s run through the options:

Ask him to be replaced.

He’s either declared V/LA or posted filler. And he’s indicated he’s been keeping up with the thread. There’s absolutely no grounds for replacement. “Not helping the town” isn’t grounds for replacement; it’s grounds for lynching.

Ask him to be prodded.

He’s been following the game. So what would prodding accomplish?

Evaluate his activity and the cases and comments he makes

Which is what I’ve done and you seem to have a problem with. My vote isn’t for his inactivity- it’s for his activity. (His inactivity is just a compounding factor.)

Evaluate his activity and the cases and comments he makes, but don’t pressure him to be active or make cases or comments.

What do expect to happen? If you give Jebus a free pass to do as little as he wants, what do you think will happen if Jebus is guilty?

Assume he’s innocent with no basis whatsoever.

Just listing this for completeness.

…Did I miss something else?

<snip>Now I am starting to get irritated. Quotes. Show me where I said he was scum or did anything other than question Kate as cop. I did not suspect him before. My largest problem with Reckoner is this point of contention. I don't intend to vote him based on this inconsistency because it very well could be his role. You are seriously misrepresenting my views here. And don't think I haven't noticed this, your second attempt to lump VP and I together.

For the record, I did not agree with and found it too declarative of VP to say that if the marshall wasn't in season 5 we had found scum. I didn't mention it at the time because I was caught up in the sleuthing more than the scum-hunting.

Pop quiz:
Player A makes a statement that you disagree with. You’re town. Do you:
(a) State that you disagree with A’s conclusion.
(b) Go to lengths to show that A’s premise is true.

You didn’t do anything coming anywhere close to (a). You did do (b) by quoting imdb listings.
I stand by my interpretation of your actions.

[EmpTyger]

No reason to hammer Jason. He'll be lynched at deadline per Rule 1.4, and it's better to let the clock run out to give Jebus and Santos as much time as possible to get on record/deliberately avoid participating today.

---

Santos:

Well, you can replace me or let me catch up.

Or we can lynch you.
Not today, realistically. But just pointing out that the options here aren't limited to "do something out of our control" and "sit by and allow you to not help the town".

[EmpTyger]

VP:

Outguess the mod isn't all that useful of a game to play.
<snip>

<snip>
re: outguessing the mod--there are not generally "facts" in mafia games to go on and most of what you lynch people over ends up being speculation and what you feel the optimal play is. I'm saying the mod has a history of making setups that are reasonably balanced. There is little reason to believe that this game would be any different.

(Your cue to start attacking me for making baseless accusations, or somesuch.)

I mean, according to you, one of {Reckoner, Jason} is lying because:
(a) a detail in Jason's role that Jason hasn't actually said and
(b) you apparently don't think the mod has ever heard of mafia roleblockers?

And for all you say about "site meta" and "balanced games", the newbie cop+doctor+mafia+roleblocker setup seems to be a clear indication otherwise.

That's... a bit too much on the far-fetched side for me. And this is the second time that you reasoning has, in my opinion, taken a huge tumble to get to the conclusion.

---

Jason:
Why did you *breadcrumb* if you really did not want to claim?

Honestly LL yes, if he had not claimed I would have supported his lynch.. I had been making points for his lynch in the lead up to his claim.
<snip>

If that's how you felt when Reckoner claimed- then why would you say "you want my role, you lynch me" when a significant number of people wanted to do just that?

Yes, I know the reasons you gave:

<snip>
that is why I

DID NOT

want to claim... I did not want to have the doc and cop outed on day 1... Also it now gives the scum a great advantage.
<snip>

But you were willing to be lynched instead of claiming. Which per your logic should outs the doc and cop day 1 even worse, and gives the scum an even greater advantage. So how do those reasons explain your actions?

---

Reckoner:

1. Richard Applet =/= Richard Alpert
2. Why the bolded red font to describe his claim?
3. In S5, Alpert wasn't really the doctor. He took Ben into a temple and supposedly healed him even though we never saw Ben again the rest of that season, and when he patched up Locke's leg, he was just doing what Futurelocke was telling him to do. Richard doesn't fit the doctor claim IMO.

Remind us again what your reasoning was for voting me? I *really* want to hear the reasons you have for asking these questions, given how voteworthily useless you declared my "a vs. the" question.

---

LL:

<snip>
People need to make their minds up now. There's less than 48 hours to the deadline (regardless of which deadline post you look at) so we really need to see a definitive decision from everyone after this claim from Jason too. We do get a lynch even without a majority but I don't want to see people sliding by and not voting at this stage and given that Jason has claimed now I want to hear what everyone has to say on the matter.

Coincidentally, I'm already voting Jebus.

[EmpTyger]

1) canadianbovine
2) Zoneace
Again, I do not intend to explain further at this time.

---

Reckoner:

So.

I got "no result". In addition, I am told that now I am back on the island (?) so I have no need to investigate now and am now vanilla.

You know, maybe if you weren’t so overeager to prematurely justify how an alleged cop would be staying alive for more than a night after a doctor’s death, you would have actually claimed your target.

I also really can’t help but recall my observation yesterday: “First of all, this seems to be assuming that no further information will be obtained between one lynch and the next. Which is a rather odd thing for an alleged cop to be assuming.”

What role can take away someone else's power?

1) A thief. And I’m having trouble seeing who and how a thief’s flavor could fit “back on the island/no need to investigate now/now vanilla” when we have a confirmed Richard Alpert, Doctor.
2) A psychiatrist. Are you claiming ex-SK?

---

Zoneace:

Everyone on that Jebus wagon gets an fos That looked like an organized last minute effort to not lynch reckoner, and anything organized like that in mafia is generally bad.

Where do you see this? Granted, I have a bias regarding this, but where do you see any sign of this? Of the 3 people who voted Jebus:
1) I had been voting Jebus for over a week before, well before the last second push to Reckoner.
2) Reckoner can hardly be faulted for not wanting himself lynched, regardless of his alignment.
3) CB’s “lynching” vote on Jebus was what got Jason out of lethal range.

Better question: if that is what you feel happened, why only those who were voting Jebus? Why not Juls and CKD also?

also,

fos me

for not showing up to vote reckoner. I'm sorry guys, between work and my messed up sleep schedule I missed the end of the day.

Nice defense you prepared, but it wasn’t necessary:

<snip>
Day 1 deadline ended a day early.
<snip>

[EmpTyger]

Yeah,

vote: xRECKONERx

.

[EmpTyger]

VP:
I think I would have appreciated a self-hammer there, but okay.

---

Santos:
No. It’s not that “townies are back on the island”.

Because I’m *not*.

And it’s not because a thief targeted him with an ability, for a couple reasons, most significantly because you’re saying it happened to both of you.
And no, it’s not because Locke turned the wheel in the flavorscene, because

2.8 I write flavour scenes solely for the players’ and my own enjoyment. They do not contain any info that could be used to catch scums or clear townies, or be relevant to the game in any other possible way.

It could be Reckoner had to make up a lie to explain what he claimed D1 and you’re supporting it, though. And there is at least one innocent reason for doing this, so if that’s the case, say so now.

(As for the “not taking anything into consideration of RECKONER's explanation”, see below.)

---

Reckoner:

<snip>
I find it truly ridiculous that he's not even considering my claim.

This would be more believable if Zoneace or CKD *had* considered your claim, and if I *hadn’t*. Instead of what actually happened, which was the other way around.

Because, um, I did so consider your claim.
And I had a problem with it. And I said so.
And the response you gave me was (1) to just repeat that the flavor makes sense and is consistent, ignoring my objection or (2) that the mod lied to you.
And I don’t accept those. And there’s enough other cause. And so I voted you.

Incidentally, have you given a single non-OMGUS reason against me all game?

I mean, if I was just making up that I got roleblocked, why would I go through the trouble of giving the town information that my role got completely taken away?

You were too overeager to prematurely justify how an alleged cop would be staying alive for more than a night after a doctor’s death? I’m mean that was just off the top of my head. Maybe, because it’s false information too?
Or, maybe it has some basis in truth, but because you lied about being a cop D1, you had to alter what you claimed happened, creating an inconsistency.

---

CDB:
Why is Santos “just being silly”? That’s awfully dismissive of something that should be relevant, to whatever alignment Santos has.

[EmpTyger]

EDWODP:
Just to clarify this "And there is at least one innocent reason for doing this, so if that’s the case, say so now."
Just say that it's the case if so. Don't say specifically why.

[EmpTyger]

Unvote: xRECKONERx

. From where I am, I honestly don’t see how he can be telling the truth. But if he and Santos somehow are…

If VP is the only one here besides me who began off-island and still is off-island, we can confirm each other as innocent.

Is anyone else off-island who thinks they shouldn’t be based on what Reckoner and Santos have said?

---

VP:
I know there’s a good chance you don’t see how what I’m talking about above is possible. If I’m right in my guess,

don’t panic

. Because if Reckoner is telling the truth, we probably shouldn’t.

[As for who with a mafia Reckoner: that’s a good point. It would have to be Santos + somebody else, given what Santos has claimed. And the only other one who seems possible for the somebody else is CKD. Maybe Juls, but I can’t get past the imdb attack. And this makes me start to worry that Reckoner + Santos are somehow telling the truth.]

---

Zoneace:
If it’s you, you don’t need to say anything unless someone else is lying.

---

Santos:
/acknowledging [626], but until I hear from someone, it’s not my place to tell. I don’t think any harm would come of it, but it’s a trust thing, and I need for them to know they can trust me.

[EmpTyger]

People being off-island doesn't prove anything. In fact, I was thinking the Losties are on-island and the scum are off-island. I don't see how being off-island confirms anything though.

I don't know why I was worried that you were telling the truth.
You just said that you began off-island.

Vote: xRECKONERx

[EmpTyger]

I know I have a bias here, but for what it’s worth, I don’t have any problem with a cop choosing to have investigated VP in this situation.

Also, I hate second-guessing myself.

---

Santos:
Point blank- will you vouch for Reckoner’s innocence? Yes or no.

---

CB:

no it was because i write things as i read through, since i always come home to 1-3 pages to read. i voted you because i dont like the fact that you still pushed a reckoners lynch. maybe i dont think he's had protown behaivour, maybe i've felt that he's been very unlucky. maybe he is a cop and maybe he did lose his power. Then what? then its day 3, we've lost cop and doc, we've lost an additional 4 more town players. I say 4 because i think we've assumed that there is a serial killer, unless this game has weird post day 1 flavor kills? didnt think so. Anyways, 6 town players gone, it'll be lylo tommorow. I'm not ready to take that risk by voting for the one person who is currently cop.

Wait right there.
“We” haven’t done any such assuming. There hasn’t even been any discussion even remotely related to this. (And incidentally a SK in that situation you outline would not be targeting innocents.)

Moreover, if you believe that Reckoner was a cop, then if he were targeted by a thief, we’d still have a cop.

I don’t like either of these assumptions.

---

Juls:

<snip>

1) A thief. And I’m having trouble seeing who and how a thief’s flavor could fit “back on the island/no need to investigate now/now vanilla” when we have a confirmed Richard Alpert, Doctor.

Who is simple. Sawyer is a thief on the show. He is a conartist. Why wouldn't this be extremely obvious to you? Second, Sawyer would have reason to bring Kate back to the island. It's a crazy little thing called love.
<snip>

And- I repeat- how would your proposed Sawyer-thief work with the *confirmed* powerroles we have? Specifically, “Richard Alpert, Doctor”?

[As for who with a mafia Reckoner: that’s a good point. It would have to be Santos + somebody else, given what Santos has claimed. And the only other one who seems possible for the somebody else is CKD. Maybe Juls, but I can’t get past the imdb attack. And this makes me start to worry that Reckoner + Santos are somehow telling the truth.]

I explained that my comment was that I thought VP's questioning was a good question. What I didn't agree with was that if it proved to be true that this automagicly made him scum. With this knowledge, please explain what you have a problem with?

(You’re arguing that I *should* be thinking you’re mafia with Reckoner…?)

I don’t believe that you disagreed with VP’s argument.

Because- as I’ve already said- a player who disagrees with “If A then B” does not spend as much effort as you did to prove A, while not saying a word about the “but that doesn’t imply B” part, as you didn’t.

---

Reckoner:
You just burst out with sudden and out of nowhere total agreement with something VP said, and while I don’t have time to check, this isn’t for the first time it’s happened this game.

---

VP:
(Sorry, which previous questions are you waiting for me to answer?)

I don’t think there’s anything I can say to make you trust me. Maybe with a massclaim, but if there’s even a grain of truth in what Reckoner has said, I don’t think that’s a good idea- and I think there might a grain of truth regardless of his alignment.

As for Reckoner/CB: I remember considering it and rejecting it, because the last second switch from Jason to Jebus made me think CB was unlikely to be aligned with a mafia Reckoner. (In fact, I remember considering whether he could be a SK, but dismissed that too.)
Reconsidering now, though- I might have been too hasty. I am still leaning towards CB being more likely to be in a non-Reckoner mafia.

[EmpTyger]

Oh god I'm a moron. I just realized something.

Unvote: xRECKONERx

because right now I need to reevaluate the entire game.

[EmpTyger]

To the person who I was hoping would understand me:
I think I know who you are. I know I know what you are.

I cannot protect you. Do not come forward, or identify yourself as my audience in any way.

I was wrong- not about everything, but about enough- and I’m sorry, and please believe me.

(Still rereading)

[EmpTyger]

I believe Santos and think he’s innocent.
I believe Reckoner, but I don’t think that means he’s innocent, and yet I don’t think he’s the right lynch today.
I’m feeling much happier about CDB and a little happier about VP.
I’m dead tired and need to get to sleep. Sorry.

VP:
You got the result of your question/answer right away? Can Reckoner or someone else corroborate this?

[EmpTyger]

VP said that his role changed immediately.
Reckoner said that his role changed at dawn.

I would like this discrepancy cleared up immediately.

Santos:
When did you learn you lost your ability?

---

Zoneace:
I think Santos is innocent because regardless of Reckoner’s alignment, I don’t see any reason for a guilty Santos to defend him in the way that he did.

---

VP:
Yes, done rereading. Just haven’t had the time irl to figure out what to do with it, sorry.

[EmpTyger]

I think that Reckoner or VP is lying. And I can think of good reason for each to be doing so if not town.

Santos:
Why don’t you how anything to say about how VP was told immediately about his role change? Considering how strenuously you defended Reckoner- why didn’t you have anything to say about VP?

---

CB:
You went to a lot of trouble to breadcrumb Korean- why?

<snip>
lynching me.... the last time we needed to lynch someone, we chose the wrong person because they didnt contribute or post a lot. Deja vu?
<snip>

Yeah, 3 of us were voting Jebus who wasn’t contributing.
Another 3 of us *were* voting LL and Jason, who were participating.
What’s your point?

---

Reckoner:

No, I don't think me losing my powers was a result of me answering that question.
<snip>

So what do you think your losing your power was a result of?

---

Zoneace:

<snip>
I think he is the lynch today, and that we gain a SIGNIFICANT amount of information if we lynch him. I believe him to scum, but, on the off chance he isn't we gain confirmation of his role being lost, which would then give us a solid town prospect in santos, and would bump VP up in the townliness meter. If he's not town, HEY HE'S SCUM AND OH LOOK, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE IN SANTOS.
<snip>

We don’t need to lynch Reckoner to gain that significant information. We’ll know it today, as soon as we get another question or 2.

[EmpTyger]

Juls:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about whether VP flavorclaims. He's already given the relevant mechanical information, and flavor isn't the issue here. If he thinks it's important (or if someone else wants to argue that it is), that's his (or their) call.

---

Reckoner:
Okay, fine, what do you think your returning to the island was a result of?

Why don't you know what the point of your question was, when Juls and VP do?

---

Santos:
Despite what I said earlier, I'm getting an increasingly bad feeling about you.

ZONEACE, you're tunneling an awful lot. Why are you not looking at other players like curiouskarmadog and canadianbovine who have not been doing much at all except asking random questions?
<snip>

Huh? First of all, Zoneace just voted CB to lynch-1.
Second of all, *you* hadn't given one look at either CKD or CB!

Yeah, I would vouch for RECKONER in losing an ability now being on the island.

But that's different from "Reckoner is innocent". Unless you're saying that it makes him innocent, which is what I wanted to know.

[EmpTyger]

I would not believe that name claims predict the validity of alignment. (although the "have not clearly expressed a view whatsoever" group was accurate)

---

Santos:
This better be good. If you believed that name claims predicted the validity of alignment, why you didn't suggest a massnameclaim?

And, again, being more direct:

ZONEACE, you're tunneling an awful lot. Why are you not looking at other players like curiouskarmadog and canadianbovine who have not been doing much at all except asking random questions?
<snip>

Why did you say this, when it's not true about Zoneace, but is true about *you*?

Yeah, I would vouch for RECKONER in losing an ability now being on the island.

Does that make Reckoner innocent?

[EmpTyger]

I did a quick votecount and think CB’s at 3: VP, CKD, Zoneace. But don’t treat that as official. There’s no rush, and at the very least there’s still Santos’s explaining for today.

---

CB:
Let’s try this one more time. This time, why don’t you not evade the questions that someone who isn’t voting you is asking you when at best you’re at lynch-2 with someone else willing to vote you.

1) Why did you breadcrumb Korean? I don’t care if it’s “minor details”. I want you to explain those minor details.

2) No, *you’re* changing what you said. Which was this:

<snip>
lynching me.... the last time we needed to lynch someone, we chose the wrong person because they didnt contribute or post a lot. Deja vu?
<snip>

Not this

<snip>
the town has been 0/4 for trying to lynch people.
<snip>

So, again, what’s your point? Are you saying that since some of us voted innocents yesterday, you must be an innocent today?

---

Juls:

mod:

I would like a votecount please. I think my vote on CB would be the hammer so I am trying to hold off so conversation can wrap up. Does anyone (besides CB) object to my hammer? Is there more to be discussed?

Um, Santos? Why don’t you want to hear what he has to say:
If you think he’s innocent, then why don’t you want to hear his theory, either because it’s useful if he’s right, or to correct an innocent’s misconception if it’s wrong?
If you think he’s guilty, then why don’t you want to have him explain himself?
If you’re uncertain, then why don’t you want to hear him speak further?

[EmpTyger]

Santos:

ZONEACE, you're tunneling an awful lot. Why are you not looking at other players like curiouskarmadog and canadianbovine who have not been doing much at all except asking random questions?
<snip>

Why did you say this, when it was not true about Zoneace, but was true about *you*?

Yeah, I would vouch for RECKONER in losing an ability now being on the island.

Does that make Reckoner innocent?

---

CB:

<snip>
i was having fun with the game, that was in the point of RVS.

No, here’s the actual post:

Reckoner:

I also don't like the pushing for a Lockewagon. RV on Locke, okay. Pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum, no.

Who has been “pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum”, rather than RVing?

[says to someone who hasnt posted yet]

그는 그녀를 좋아하는 그녀가 알고 있는것 같아요 ?

Reckoner is making a serious point. I ask him a serious question. You quote us, and then add your line in response.

again. Reckoner breadcrumbing desmond...yet no ones asking why he isnt desmond. I breadcrumbed Jin...so everyone assumes im Jin? What role could jin possibly fit?

This might be more believable if your primary argument against Jason hadn’t been that you didn’t like how he breadcrumbed his role.

<snip>

3 town members tongiht? there were only 2 kills last night, did you just let slip something?
<snip>

since im lynched at dusk, dusk is the start of night.

Me (1) + Scum kill (2) + SK/vig kill (3)
<snip>

Why is (3) going to be killing a town? This is the second time that you’ve stated that.

---

Zoneace:
Stop rushing the CB lynch. He’s not going anywhere, and I’d have thought that you’d have been interested in having Santos explain himself.

On the jebus lynch was CB, EMp, and reck. I would bet money that 1 (or more) scum was on this lynch...call it gut

I said this at the beginning of today. That entire wagon looked premeditated. except for emp (who was on jebus for a long time) it was like the wagon was specifically an attempt to derail the reckoner wagon yesterday.

You’re already conceding me, and Reckoner clearly is not going to vote himself over anyone. So that leaves CB, who if anything derailed the *Jason* wagon, not the Reckoner one. And that’s neither an “entire wagon” nor “premeditated”. If anything, it’s 1 person being opportunistic.

---

VP:
I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I would definitely be revealing something significant today. At this point, I don’t expect to be. I can elaborate on [737] if you’d like, but for the most part it won’t be directly related to what prompted my reread, just incidental things I noticed in the course of it. (Actually, I should probably do this anyway, but running to work now.)

[EmpTyger]

That’s still only lynch-2. CKD unvoted. Not that that makes CB’s not-self-hammering defense any less ridiculous.

---

Juls:
Why do you still have no interest in hearing Santos?

---

CB:

<snip>
what i said in korean has absolutely nothing to do with what you guys were talking about. it was irrelevant.
<snip>

Once again: no, here’s the actual post.

I also don't like the pushing for a Lockewagon. RV on Locke, okay. Pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum, no.

Who has been “pushing for a wagon on the basis of obvious scum”, rather than RVing?

[says to someone who hasnt posted yet]

그는 그녀를 좋아하는 그녀가 알고 있는것 같아요 ?

If it had nothing to do with what we were talking about, then why did you quoted the conversation between Reckoner and me. Why did you do that what you were saying was “irrelevant”?

Although, it’s getting to be a better question why you keep giving quick denials that don’t hold up and as little explanation as possible, instead of a straight answer.

---

VP:

I believe Santos and think he’s innocent.

This was the manner of his defense of Reckoner. I’m having second thoughts about this.

I believe Reckoner, but I don’t think that means he’s innocent, and yet I don’t think he’s the right lynch today.

[waiting on the question I keep asking Santos]

I’m feeling much happier about CDB

If CKD were mafia, I can only really see it with Santos and CB. The attacks on Reckoner are too consistent to be feigned, I feel, and [554]- there’s got to be some reason why he avoided the Jebus wagon. And I am having a really hard time seeing Reckoner and VP innocent with Santos guilty.

and a little happier about VP.

Reckoner lying is a big point in your favor. I don’t see you 2 aligned.

<snip>
My main concern is that if you are town and the scum come after you tonight, your information dies with you. Obviously it is a calculated risk to reveal, but it's not going to help us if you just simply die when there is something we should know.

/acknowledging that I am aware of your concern, and am not ignorant of the scenarios involving my being targeted tonight.

Incidentally, how come you’re not worried about CB self-hammering, like you were Reckoner?

Also, is there something in particular we should be looking at in CB’s prior? I’ve not enough time irl to aimlessly delve through CB’s history.

[EmpTyger]

I’ve not yet gotten a question from the mod.

I am way too tired tonight to look for a reason to list all the reasons why I don’t believe Santos. Maybe over the weekend. Better is to consider who do I think is mafia with him. Possibilities:
1) Juls. Tried way too hard to lynch CB to end the day before Santos needed to explain himself.
2) CB. Why is Santos doing this drawn-out theory-launching *now*?
3) Reckoner. For the defense. I don’t know. I’m less sure as I think about it.

I do not think Zoneace, but the rest I think I need to look closer at. Not voting because not ready to lynch yet.

[EmpTyger]

I think CB is still the correct lynch today.
Does anyone know if CDB is active anywhere on site?

---

VP:
Why is Juls “obvtown”? I read her as being shut-up-Santos-before-you-do-more-damage.

---

CKD:

<snip>
you know this is all based on fucking flavor..so i dont know..I am going with what I know..started on the island..dont have a power...never had a power.

No, here’s what you *know*:

jasonT1981 - Alpert - Doctor - Killed Night 1

Started on the island, had a power. Not based on flavor, or Santos’s word. That’s based on mod-revelation. So, why are you insisting that you “know” something that completely contradicts this?

---

Reckoner:

VP has been giving me odd vibes (as I've already said), but I don't want to lynch him.

What odd vibes, where did you already say this? Because I’ve been noticing a couple times VP will say something, and you will immediately drop everything to agree with him, without any kind of prior indication that you thought whatever it was.

---

Santos:
Do I need to ask why you think I should be trusting you?

[EmpTyger]

CKD:
We're not talking about your role. We're talking about everyone's roles.

You said: "Being on the island...means you dont have a power."
Richard Alpert was on the island.
Richard Alpert had a power.

So either an explanation for the mechanics of Others' was in your role PM, or you're trying to hand-wave a complete guess you have about flavor as something you "know from your role", or you're lying. Which is it?

[EmpTyger]

Quick clarification I just caught: I typoed in [918]. That should read: “

I’m feeling much happier about CDB.

If

CKD

CDB

were mafia…”

Need to look into permutations involving CB, not sure I’m going to get to tonight. But CB’s still today’s lynch. [1090] is hilariously desperate, and not just because of the “CKD is Sun” error:

ckd and juls are sun and jin..

there was implied that they are related somehow.

usually in a lovers/brothers/ w/e situation, one is town, and one is scum..

CKD is sure that i am vt because our role pms match up, so im going to.

Vote: Juls

So, CB thinks that CKD is an innocent with a *non-vanilla* role.
Because CB thinks CKD accurately knows a *vanilla* role PM.

---

CB:

<snip>

2) CB. Why is Santos doing this drawn-out theory-launching *now*?
<snip>

how does the bolded make me a possible scum partner?
<snip>

If you and Santos are both mafia, he launches this theatrical theory to stall your lynch. If you’re innocent and Santos is guilty, I don’t see why he doesn’t keep his mouth shut and wait for you to swing.

What’s your explanation for what Santos was doing? (Keeping in mind of course that he’s claimed Sun, not CKD.)

---

VP:

Why is Juls “obvtown”? I read her as being shut-up-Santos-before-you-do-more-damage.

Mostly meta reasons. Juls and I have been playing a lot of games together recently (in which she was always town), so my gut says town on her based on that. I'm not ruling out the possibility of her being scum, but for the today it's not even really a consideratioin of mine.

Don’t like this a lot.

1) You go from “obvtown” to “gut for meta reasons that only you have”.
2) I’m leery that you apparently need me to point out the logical fallacy here. (Consider the following analogy: “Juls hasn’t been eaten by giant purple alligators in your many recent games. Juls was town in your many recent games. Therefore, since Juls hasn’t been eaten by giant purple alligators in this game, she’s town in this game!”)
3) More seriously, you’re implying that if Juls were mafia, she’d stupidly behave so obviously differently that you’d be able to catch her? That’s almost implausibly absurd thinking on your part.
4) I’m rather dubious that there’s a precedent that explains Juls behavior here. She seemed to be trying as hard as she did anything up until that point to get the day to end before Santos spoke (once ignoring my directly pointing out that we were still waiting on Santos). Then she tried to convince him to drop his argument. And she abandons the very principle she was arguing to do the very thing she is allegedly arguing against.

For those of us who haven’t played a lot of games recently with Juls and you, can you provide any specifics of what is so telling to you?

---

Juls:
Just out of curiosity, do you have anything to say about VP’s gut read of you?

---

CKD:
You’re betting your life that mafia role PMs look nothing like town role PMs? How do you know with that much certainty what mafia role PMs will look like?

[EmpTyger]

Juls:

Emptyger, I am sick of you characterizing me as someone who was "trying" to not allow Santos to explain his theory.
<snip>

Fine, let me cite actual evidence:

---

Also, I have an enormously favorable argument to present

in favor

of ZONEACE's position, but I would like to hear from those 'neutral' folks, please.

(Same page, same day, 2 hours later...)

mod:

I would like a votecount please. I think my vote on CB would be the hammer so I am trying to hold off so conversation can wrap up. Does anyone (besides CB) object to my hammer? Is there more to be discussed?

(I call you on it. You plead misunderstanding. Yet a few days and pages later...)

Thank you. I will post my theory, POA, tomorrow now that everyone is playing.

(Same page, same day, 14 hours later...)

OK, the conversation has died down. I am still good with his lynch and it seems others are as well. No need in holding this up any longer.

vote: canadianbovine

---

There’s the evidence in support of my characterization. You have any evidence for an alternate characterization, or are you just going to say “you're wrong because I say so”?

<snip>
You, however, seem to be going back and forth about him. I seem to recall you saying you felt good about him before now you seem to be going a different direction. Is that a fair assessment of your stance?

Not really. As I explained in [918], I felt a little better about VP because I didn’t see him aligned with Reckoner. And I still think that. But I’m looking at the permutations involving VP as well as the ones involving Reckoner, especially after comments like [1068].

Out of curiosity, how has VP’s play been different here, to you?

[EmpTyger]

I was asked the other question. It’s a good one and I’m still thinking about my response, but I’m leaning towards diverging from what happened on-screen. I want to think over it for a little bit, but I’ll PM my answer tonight.

Do not end the day until I get a chance to learn what if anything the result was.

Other than allegedly Reckoner, has anyone *not* been told the result of their answer? I had thought Santos, from the way he was vouching for Reckoner, but he’s since clarified that he wasn’t asked a question.

Haven’t had a chance to look at groupings. I keep having the site not load property <frustrated>

---

Reckoner:
Do you have any reason for suspecting me beyond the (a) “I attacked you D1” that you mentioned D1 and (b) that I “didn’t consider your claim” earlier today (which, I already showed in [595] is not true)?

---

CKD:

<snip>
CKD:
You’re betting your life that mafia role PMs look nothing like town role PMs? How do you know with that much certainty what mafia role PMs will look like?

Noting your choice to ignore this.

---

VP:
Can you provide any of these “few different aspects that seem indicative to Juls being town”?

You didn’t say “Juls is town for meta reasons”.

You said Juls is “obv town”.

Does that mean something other than “Juls is obviously town” to you? Because while I do see a basis for how you could use that term to describe Zoneace in that situation, I don’t see any way that you could legitimately call Juls obvtown. And you haven’t. You’ve just given vague assertions that you say only you could possibly know, that you aren’t trying to clarify, that apparently can only mean something to you, and you keep saying these nebulous reasons outweigh the exceptions that I’ve brought up that you agree are suspicious!

<snip>
Yes, the Santos thing looks sort of bad and I noted it as well, but several members of the town (yourself included iirc) looked awful at the beginning of the day to me because they wanted to lynch Reckoner with almost no discussion whatsoever. That may or may not have been a royal mistake, but given the revelations this day has brought I am glad that I went out of my way to stop it.
<snip>

None of those other members of the town (myself included) attempted a few days after being warned to lynch again Reckoner. Juls did, with Santos.

You don’t have a control.

If you don’t know how Juls acts when *not* town, how do you know that it’s not like this? I repeat: you’re implying that if Juls were mafia, she’d stupidly behave so obviously differently that you’d be able to catch her. And that’s implausibly absurd thinking on your part.

[EmpTyger]

/submitted answer. I’m deviating from canon. Again, wait until me (and CKD) can see what reply the mod gives.

I really need to consider groupings. There are a lot of suspicious behavior that I do not think are compatable.

---

VP:

I'm curious why you have such an issue with that.

Nah, I think your trying to deflect your suspicious behavior by trying to allege that my accusation is groundless. But to make sure no one forgets tomorrow, I’ll repeat and clarify:

1) Deceptive reasoning.

You use “obvtown” to mean “gut for meta reasons that only he has and don’t apply to anyone else”. And in the same sentence where you’re using “obvtown” about Zoneace, I might add.

2) Insists on logical fallacy.

You have no experience, no extra knowledge with how Juls behaves as *mafia*. But you’re claiming to know exactly how she’d behave differently if she were mafia.

3) Implausibly bad play.

You assume that if Juls were mafia, she’d stupidly behave so obviously differently, despite their recent games together, that you’d be able to catch her out D1. And since she didn’t behave so stupidly obviously differently, she must be town.

4) Can’t give an explanation.

You say you have an explanation for the behavior Juls has done in this game, which you concede is otherwise suspicious. But you conveniently can’t give it, and supposedly won’t ever be ever to give it.

Also, why do you think it's ok for me to say it about zone and not Juls? I don't have any experience playing with zone at all, so it seems like the vice versa would be the valid argument to make.

…Huh? What’s to be argued about Zoneace?
There is in-thread evidence that Zoneace is town, and I *agree* with your conclusion.
There is no in-thread evidence that Juls is town, and I *disagree* with your conclusion.

---

CKD:

<snip>
please post where I said I was betting my life betting on PMs...thats why you are scummy, nice misrepping.

but to address your "point". I do not know what mafia Pms look like...I also dont know what power role PMs look like. What I do know I have said over and over and over and over again..CB's claim looks exactly like mine. If you had our PM you would know that...point noted.

I am betting my life that VP is scum.
<snip>

Okay, fine. Do you have any reason that “VP is scum” other than your certainty of role PMs?
(Yes, I know, he’s not taking your wager. But that wasn’t until after you made it.)

---

Reckoner:

Actually, I think he's asking for us to take the wager of lynching VP today and if he's not scum, lynching CKD tomorrow. It would appear that he's trying to avoid a CB lynch. I wonder why? What makes CB the "most important scum"?

For someone who wants us to believe you didn’t lie about being a cop who got no result last night, you have a really unconvincing way of showing it.

Also, I’ve lost track of the number of times you haven’t answered the why-do-you-think-I’m-suspicious question.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Once upon a time you claimed that you got "no result" for your alleged cop investigation. Now, you can't seem to find a reason why some mafia might be more important to lynch than others.

---

CKD:

<snip>
Emp, me thinking that VP is scum has little to do with PMs.

Then, for those of the town whose mindreading abilities aren't up to your expectations, could you tell us what it does have to do with?

[EmpTyger]

VP:
I don't see a mafia Zoneace reacting that way to Santos.
If Santos is guilty: I don't see him pushing, not when CB is waiting to hang. (Although I'll admit I didn't consider a CB/Santos/Zoneace possibility until just now.)
If Santos is innocent: I don't see Zoneace going to all that energy to try to end Santos's distracting misconceptions.

...If you are proposing that your statement that Zoneace was obvtown was baseless, okay, sure, I'll bite:
Why did you say that Zoneace was "obvtown"?

[EmpTyger]

VP:
It's not up to me. The game's not going to move forward until the *mod* gets back from V/LA. I can't get any result untli then. And, CB's lynchscene wouldn't be posted until then either.

Not that we can't listen to CKD and anyone else (I personally would also like to hear Reckoner) explain themselves in the meantime. (Or, *not* explain themselves, as the case may be.)

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
The incredibly vague "it's the people you're putting in the hotseat that interest me" that you're claiming consistently makes me your number 2 suspect.

And, no, you can't stall for a reread. Not when this past week you went from this:

<snip>
I guess I should read CB and Emp in iso, because their names keep coming up.
<snip>

to this a few days later:

<snip>
As for now, I'm in support of a CKD or Emp lynch.

So either you just did a reread, or your reasoning for supporting my lynch doesn't depend on a reread. (Or you're lying about finding me suspcious.)

[EmpTyger]

I received a PM.
I’m on the island.
Jacob is not mafia.
My role did not change.
He is hiding in the shadows.
I am confident that Reckoner lied about not getting a PM before D2 dawn.

---

Grouping analysis, assuming CB/Reckoner/X

I don’t see VP or CDB being the third, because of the D1 finalvotecount. Zoneace went to a lot of trouble to stop the Jason lynch, and pushed too genuinely I feel against Reckoner and CB. That leaves:

Juls: not sure what to make of CB’s WIFOMy vote on her. OTOH, the imdb attack on Reckoner.

Santos: “if reckoner is scum, im pushing your lynch” to CB. OTOH, tried very hard to distract from CB’s lynch.

CKD: not sure what to make of the “CKD is a vanilla lover town Sun” that CB was pushing. And his Reckoner votes never stuck for more than a few hours. And quickly joined the CB wagon. Although he definitely tried to protect CB.
CB/Reckoner/no one:

I’d be curious to compare who was on what bandwagons/off what bandwagons. But that can wait.

If Reckoner is revealed as not-Kate, Santos (who insisted that Reckoner = Kate = innocent) and CKD (who pushed the mafia don’t have safeclaims theory) shoot to the top of the suspect list.

---

CKD:
You have anything final at all to add? I’m done today.

[EmpTyger]

Vote: canadianbovine

. Lynch-1.

I think I don't agree with anything CKD said in [1201]. It reads to me like a desperate attempt to buy out breathing room for CB and Reckoner, who at a couple points today he's tried to assert cannot be today's lynched. And I really don't like how so much of CKD's logic is based on how he knows exactly what mafia role PMs must look like. That's all he's said about why VP is guilty, and all he's said about why CB is innocent. (I don't believe he actually has another reason against VP. Both because he can't provide one, and because he after a reread "felt okay" about VP on 8/30, but one week later was so confident that VP was mafia- and according to him then, it was based solely on name claims [1073].)

The only incongruous thing is why Santos is back on the island. Because either he lied (presumably to save Reckoner?), or that it did happened, for a reason. And I'm not thinking of any reason that doesn't include him lying. The only thing I could think of would be if he was brought back as a result of someone else's question, but I'd expect that to be Juls and she didn't receive a question until D2.

So, CB/Reckoner/CKD. With Santos if one of CB or Reckoner are not mafia. "santos, vote me if you want too...but you better back up that vote." in [1020] feels very much that CKD instructing Santos to bus him.

---

Santos
My mistake: CB said that to you. Point stands- I think it makes a CB/Reckoner/Santos less likely.

[EmpTyger]

Waiting for the mod to clarify something.

To the person who understands me:
Thank you and you're welcome. Don't say anything else at this time.

[EmpTyger]

Zoneace, please don't reveal what happened just yet. I think I've earned your trust, yes?

[EmpTyger]

VP:

<snip>
Also, if Juls' previously stated one shot ability was a protect, I would like to know who was protected so we can confirm that person as well.

Why do you think Juls made a protection?

Hi gingers, ladies and instruments of some inadvertant usage...

I aM quite obv. DRUNK. DRUNK LIKE A SKUNK.

A few things to let you know...

I have all night choices in.

I think I will be processing them asap. Then the thread will reopen.

I am still searching for a Juls replacementr.

50 page mini replacement is a hard job so would appreciate some help. Will post in the replacement queue when sober... Thanks guys. Love and Kisses.

[EmpTyger]

It's almost tragic how the mafia, who apparently made all these "we're in lynch-or-lose" doomsday plans to push the town into today, now have to resort to desperately fishing for the protective and killing roles that we so obviously have, which so obviously make this not lynch or lose.

Don't reveal things to the mafia. Intentionally or unintentionally. Zoneace, especially you.

[EmpTyger]

CKD:

right now, waiting for emp to put his foot in his mouth....and quit stalling answering my questions.

You mean, the way you didn't stall on answering my question yesterday: why would you bet your life that VP is guilty?

---

VP:
But why would you think that Juls submitted a nightchoice *after* she requested replacement?

[EmpTyger]

Santos:
That's reread-worthy. For starters, why does my being innocent make VP and CDB guilty?

---

CKD:
Just for fun, what happens if I refuse to answer? Will you vote me, will you vote Santos, or are are you going to play selfvote games again?

[EmpTyger]

Santos:
1) Why did you think Kate was super-pro-town D1, way before you allegedly used your ability N1?

2) Do you have any justification for Sun having the ability you're claiming?

3) Why did you vote me D2? Specifically, one of the reasons you gave was because I "completely ignored the fact that some people are now 'back on the island' which tells me he is scum and doesn't know that townies are back on the island." But know you're saying that you were responsible for Reckoner returning to the island, so... how would I have known that?

4) Why did you use your ability on Reckoner in the first place?

5) After that elaborate lie, why did you come forward now?

---

Reckoner:
You've anything to say re Santos's revised claim?

---

VP:
That's really all you have to say here?

---

CKD:
Let's try this another way.
"I refuse to answer you."
Now, are you going to vote me, vote Santos, or vote yourself?

(I also completely forgot to point out how ludicrusly circular "VP is scum because I thought he was scum" was.)

[EmpTyger]

CKD:
Me (yesterday):

"Do you have any reason that “VP is scum” other than your certainty of role PMs?
(Yes, I know, he’s not taking your wager. But that wasn’t until after you made it.)"

You:

"Emp, me thinking that VP is scum has little to do with PMs."

Me:

"could you tell us what it does have to do with?"

You (for the rest of yesterday and now today): <stalling> <refusing to answer the question> <being scared to express your thoughts> or whatever you want to call it.

---

Santos:
Sure, whenever it's good.

---

VP:
Sure, whenever it's good.

Although, why aren't you more curious why CKD is refusing to answer me- to say what his alleged reasoning for you being 100% guilty is?

[EmpTyger]

CKD:

- He tried to paint me as not paying attention, when indeed I was paying attention. Then we 3 other people made actual mistake when they werent paying attention he said jack...

That doesn't makes someone 100% guilty. That certainly doesn't make someone so-certain-that-I'd-be-Willing-to-lynch-myself-first-guilty.

- once CB claim, and I claim stating that I had the exact same PM down to the spacing and format, he immediately went to a fake claim, which is really quite rare. once that shit didnt fly, he spent the rest of the day trying to discredit me.

No, you said: "Emp, me thinking that VP is scum has little to do with PMs."

- once he intially refused to take the wager, and once I kept pushing, I knew that I had him...which made me want to do it more.

No, you said that you were certain when you first made the wager, *before* he refused to take it.

- his general play and avoidance of questions.

I really don't know which is more hilarious:
Your constant vagueness and inability to give anything remotely specific.
Or your newfound irony in stating things that apply just as much to you.

Anyhow, so me and VP are mafia? Anyone else?

---

Santos:
The silence presumably was because of the recent white screen crash. Although, in my case, I'm about to head to work.

<snip>

That's reread-worthy. For starters, why does my being innocent make VP and CDB guilty?

I'm confused with why you are bothering to ask me this, but hopefully the post before this one from me will paint it clearer for you.
<snip>

Uh, it was because you had just said:

<snip>
VP Baltar
Channeldelibird - these two are my choices for a safe, scum lynch today.<snip>

As for the rest: 0/5. You are a really bad liar. At least we know the fakeclaim composition talents of the rest of the mafia. Someone wrote you a beauty.

[EmpTyger]

Santos:
I’ll explain what’s so wrong with your claim explanations when I’m ready to lynch you, don’t worry. For now, though, let’s hear why you only were looking for mafia in {EmpTyger, VP, CDB}. We know your alleged reason regarding Reckoner. That leaves:

So, why *didn’t* you think {CKD, Juls, Zoneace} were mafia?

---

VP:

<snip>

Although, why aren't you more curious why CKD is refusing to answer me- to say what his alleged reasoning for you being 100% guilty is?

Further answering this, I think he is asking you legitimate questions that you need to answer.
<snip>

No, I quite understand what you’re asking. That’s not my point.

I want to know why you say that CKD’s question to me is legitimate, but you don’t show anywhere near that concern about wanting my questions to CKD. Isn’t asking him to justify why you’re 100% guilty a legitimate question? Especially, since from your point of view (temporarily assuming you’re town, of course), you know that CKD is completely groundless?

But, more generally, why are you focusing all your attention today on trying to get information about people who you think are innocent? Yes, I know, you say you’re trying to clear people. But that’s not how you do it, as town. You do that by having the suspicious players claim first, to force them to guess. And then the rest give out their information. Now, if you’re mafia, trying to make sure you or your partners don’t misclaim, that’s when you do it your way. But not if your town. So, why has that been your strategy?

---

CKD:
You really don’t want to put forth a real case against VP, when it comes down to it, now do you.

[EmpTyger]

VP:
Hi VP-from-right-now. I’d like you to meet VP-from-a-few-hours-ago.

<snip>
I don't like Santos claiming without prompting
<snip>

<snip>
I'm saying if people are confirmed town I want to know that.
<snip>

I think you 2 have a lot to talk about.

But more importantly, if we're assuming that Juls somehow sent in a nightability, do you really need me to explain why the mafia might really like to figure out asap whether she protected an innocent or roleblocked a guilty?
Or, would you like me to go on to explain that it's not specifically Juls and her alleged hypothetical nightchoice? Whatever happened, the mafia have to be desperate to know asap before they're forced to claim whether their intended killer got IDed, or whether their intended victim got protected.

[EmpTyger]

CKD:
A page behind in what?

---

CDB:
Let us know when you're all caught up.

---

VP:

<snip>
just that I don't like he claimed without being prompted to do so
<snip>

Yes, exactly! Here's the timeline of D3, where X = "come forward if they can confirm an innocent"

1) VP wants Juls to X.
2) VP doesn't like that Santos did X.
3) VP wants Zoneace to X.
4) VP wants EmpTyger to X.
5) VP wants anyone who can to X!

So, at the risk of incurring a comment from Santos, what happened with number 2?

---

Zoneace:
Just a reminder that per Rule 2.9, you are supposed to post at least once every 48 hours. I suggest that you post "4 8 15 16 23 42" until I otherwise instruct. Yeah, I know that it might get a little boring for you for a little bit, but I'm getting plenty of help in keeping this plenty entertaining for you.

[EmpTyger]

Santos:

Wait, you want to lynch me too?
<snip>

Quick lesson in logic:
I said I would explain what was so wrong with your explanation when I wanted to lynch you.
I haven't yet explained what was so wrong with your explanation.
Therefore, what can be concluded?

Now, unless you'd like to provide reasons why I should lynch you, could you answer why you didn’t think {CKD, Juls, Zoneace} were mafia?

---

VP:

<snip>
I said I could see him doing that as town. I never said I didn't believe his claim, just that I don't like he claimed without being prompted to do so.
<snip>

It's not about whether you believed his claim or not.
It's that you said that you didn't like that Santos decided to claim. He decided to do the exact thing that you've been saying protown players should be doing, the thing that you've been arguing is helpful for the town- and you say you didn't like it.

So are you lying about it being helpful for the town? Or are you just trying to discredit Santos? Both?

And why would you think CKD's questions to me today are so much more answer-worthy than the questions put to him yesterday?

[EmpTyger]

VP:
That’s some theory you’ve got there, that Juls/CDB are mafia. Does that theory have a way of explaining the missing kill last night?

---

Reckoner:

@CDB: No, he's saying he randomly inherited my ability the day I lost mine.

That’s really all you have to say about Santos’s claim?

---

CKD:
Do you have a plan B, for after you get tired of trying to pressure me?

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, for recent absence: internet disconnect + extra shifts.

---

Santos:
What’s the basis for “millers aren’t told that they’re millers”? And do CDB/VP have another partner, or do you think it is just the 2 of them?

---

Reckoner:
Why do you want a massclaim, when you’ve no interest in evaluating the claim you just got? Santos’s claim is so juicy that Tropicana could open a processing factory next to him.

---

VP:
Do you have a theory that explains the events of the game? I’m not asking you to say that such-and-such definitely happened. Just to speculate on what *could* have happened. What you proposed in [1326] doesn’t have any way to explain the missing kill.

[EmpTyger]

BM:
When you’re ready, please give us any initial impressions/suspicious, any questions you have.

---

Reckoner:

<snip>
Personally, I'd be happy with a lynch on CDB or CKD. Process of elimination tells me it has to be one of them: though I still don't like the Emp/Zone interactions in the slightest, and the jury's still out on VPB/Juls.

What makes CDB/CKD different from VP/

Juls

BM?

---

CKD:
Why replace CDB?

<snip>
quit deflecting....I was more than willing to lynch VP yesterday...still could today...but I got my eyes pinned on you now. now answer my questions.
<snip>

To clarify: I was referring to “pressuring me” as your Plan A. I asked what your Plan B was because you don’t seem to be making any progress with Plan A.

[EmpTyger]

BM:
Can you at least confirm whether or not you've received your role yet?

[EmpTyger]

BM:
This is not the time for you to be playing the lurking game. I am setting a schedule for you of:
12 hours- confirm inthread
48 hours- at least skim the thread
either 72 hours or until CDB recovers- post your initial thoughts.

I feel this is reasonable. You are welcome to argue otherwise if you feel so. But note that (unlike others in this game) I am not going to make idle threats.

---

Santos:
What do you think about Juls/BM?

---

VP:

<snip>
Right now, Emp, zone and Santos are town in my book, so I really wish we could get on with this game and start hearing from them.

Why not "I really wish we could get on with this game and start hearing from

the players who I'm not sure about

."?

---

Reckoner:

<snip>
Personally, I'd be happy with a lynch on CDB or CKD. Process of elimination tells me it has to be one of them: though I still don't like the Emp/Zone interactions in the slightest, and the jury's still out on VPB/Juls.

Are you just picking names at random, or do think that's what we want to hear?

[EmpTyger]

BM:
So be it. You had a chance to play, and you choose to play the lurkergame.

---

Everyone else:
This isn’t how I was hoping to do this, but Zoneace pretty much let the cat out of the bag prematurely, and I stalled as best I could while waiting for Juls’s replacement, but I’ve no choice but to conclude now that BM’s deliberately not playing. So here’s how this is going to work instead.

Zoneace was the SK.
I was the psychiatrist.

Unless someone wants to counterclaim either of us, we are 100% confirmed not-mafia.
We are not going to be claiming anything further about ourselves or each other unless to rebut someone’s claim.

Now, everyone who believed Santos’s claim needs to explain why they believed him. And they need to be very specific. Starting with:

---

Reckoner:

I believe Santos' claim, Emp.
<snip>

Why? Again, you need to be very specific.

Emp, your question to me is one where I cannot answer either way and look good, so I'll decline to respond. I stand by what I said.

Uh, that’s my point: I don’t see any good reason for you to have said what you said in [1365]. I asked you to clarify in case there was an innocent explanation that I missed. But apparently there isn’t.

For someone who is repeatedly insisting that we’re in lynch-or-lose, you are incredibly content to sit back and not do anything about it.

---

CKD:
You ignored Santos and his claim, in order to pressure me- despite how Santos supposedly cleared me. You need to explain why you ignored Santos’s claim.

<snip>
and no CDB is not the lynch.....

Just out of curiosity, why not?

<snip>
Actually out of EVERYBODY who has claimed anything….my has been the closet to being proven truth. As scum, how would I have know he was vanilla and not a power role…or an SK…or anything else?
<snip>

How about:
You’re mafia. CB isn’t in your mafia group. So you knew that CB was telling the truth when he claimed vanilla. That’s how you knew. It’s very similar to…

---

VP:
…Hey, remember yesterday when you had these wonderful metareads that Juls and Zoneace were innocent, but you said you wouldn't ever post them because then you'd never be able to use them in a future game? Well, now you’ve processed-of-elimination that Juls is mafia and Zoneace is a confirmed SK. So those alleged metareads seem pretty worthless. You have a new excuse for why you can't reveal them?

But, more importantly:
You didn’t like the timing of Santos’s claim (which I’ve already pointed out is incongruous) but you haven’t had anything critical to say about his actual claim. Just vague tentative hedging that “it’s something he would do as town” etc. Time to explain yourself fully.

---

CDB:
You like VP, disliked the timing of Santos’s claim, but didn’t really say much about the substance. Except you vaguely leaned towards it being true, and eliminated Santos from lynch consideration today. Why, and be specific.

---

Zoneace:

We are not going to be claiming anything further about ourselves or each other unless to rebut someone’s claim.

Understand?

Otherwise, go to town on whichever of the other 6 you want.

[EmpTyger]

Running to work now, more later, especially about Santos’s claim and people’s reactions (or lack of) to it.

---

VP:
But how do you know that Juls doesn’t get frustrated as mafia, and that she only gets frustrated as town? Moreover *Juls* was the first one to bring up frustration = innocent in this game (re Zoneace), so what did you think you were hiding from her re tells? But evenso- as far as frustration goes, I don’t really see it in her play. In fact, she seems to me to be rather consistent in her demeanor.

[EmpTyger]

Everyone excapt Santos:
I really don’t get why you all have so much trouble finding stuff to discuss regarding Santos’s claim. Here, I’ll start you off:

1) This statement makes no sense.

<snip>
- since I am alive today it seems my plan to defend reckoner on false information kept me alive during the night.
<snip>

Except no one died last night! How could Santos think that his being alive had anything to do with his claim? Unless he didn’t write that after dawn. He wrote it before dawn- expecting someone to be dead.

And consider what would have happened if someone *had* died overnight. Then this statement makes sense: Santos points to the fact that that the only reason he lived was that mafia chose a different target.

2) In order to clear Reckoner D2, Santos jumped through a flaming hoop of doom involving complex flavor speculation, drawn out polling, and a 100% made up claim- all just so that he wouldn’t have to reveal his cop ability.
But in order to clear me D3, Santos blurts out his ability as soon as he can at the start of the day.

3) D2 Santos claims that he must find for Jin. Then Juls claims Jin.
And now that Santos, having found Jin, despite having turned into a complete blabbermouth regarding himself and me- has absolutely nothing further to say on the subject of Juls/Jin.

4) Santos claims he allegedly learned Reckoner was innocent based on something that happened either N1 or D2.
But Santos was already stating on D1 that Reckoner’s claim of Kate makes him definitely innocent- before this alleged event occurred..

5) Santos getting a cop ability…
…is not the result of the question to Santos, because he didn’t get his question until much later.
…is not the result of the question to Reckoner, because Reckoner allegedly still had the ability N2.
…is not the result of a town ability, because that person would have said something yesterday when Santos made his fakeclaim. (Especially after Zoneace opened the way with a Santos vote.)
…is not the result of a mafia ability, because mafia aren’t going to give a cop ability to a townsperson. (Unless, of course, Santos himself is mafia.)

---

BM:
If you showed any intention of playing this game, I would be less rude and you wouldn’t be audacious enough to use that reasoning to vote a confirmed innocent.

However, instead, it seems that you either xreplaced into a game you had no intention of playing, or you’re using replacement as an excuse to drag your feet. Change your behavior, I’ll change my attitude.

(Seriously, we have a deadline in 14 days, and it takes you X days to merely *confirm*? What reaction are you expecting?)

BM, I am seriously expecting some good analysis from you or you need to die.

I specifically want your thoughts on CDB and Reckoner.

Also, I’m sure VP will have a good explanation for how he left Santos off this list, but in the meantime, why don’t you put Santos on that list.

---

VP:
…I’m sure you have a very good explanation for how you left Santos off that list, right?

As for Juls: 1 game, LI758. She was innocent, I was mafia, mafia win, mafia killed Juls N1 (daystart), I lived until endgame. As a comafia argued: “Juls: One of the more active players. She actively scumhunts and usually comes off town while doing so, which is bad for us. She is my #1 candidate for night kill.”

---

Reckoner:

My case against CDB is simply a process of elimination, given the fact that I believe Santos' claim, others are eliminated from the possibility of being scum.
<snip>

What process of elimination? What makes VP/Juls different from CDB/CKD:

“Personally, I'd be happy with a lynch on CDB or CKD. Process of elimination tells me it has to be one of them: though I still don't like the Emp/Zone interactions in the slightest, and the jury's still out on VPB/Juls.”

Also you insist out of one side of your mouth that we must have a 3-person mafia, while at the same time out of the other side you insist that the only players who can be mafia are CKD/CDB. So, how can we have a 3-person mafia when you’ve eliminated all but 2 from contention?

And again, please explain *specifically why* you believe Santos.

---

CKD:

<snip>
as for VP, thought he was scum yesterday....thought he was scum today (with Emp?) but ZA/Emp's claim has swayed that...so you are getting the vote and hopefully the lynch you deserved yesterday.
<snip>

(Did you learn nothing from yesterday?)
What *specifically* made you think VP was mafia? With me or without me?

[EmpTyger]

My point about reactions to Santos is that even the slightest scrutiny with Santos’s claim should find some issue with it. And when a player lies that blatantly, I expect some level of scrutiny from protowns. So what happened here?

---

CKD:
(What I meant by “should have learned from yesterday” was “don’t say someone is mafia without giving reasons why”. It had sounded like you were saying that VP had been acting suspiciously *today*.)

Here’s what you said about Santos after his claim:

“not sure why ZA, Emp, and Santos should not be considered today...”
“I think that 2-3 scumbags are amoung these 4 people (santos, VP, Emp, and ZA)....”
“As it stands, I don’t believe Emp or Santos”
“I think the scum team falls somewhere between (VP, Emp, ZA, and Santos)……”
“If all things remain constant, at this point, I am only willing to vote VP or Santos (leaning VP, for all the reasons I have stated yesterday and today)….”

“On the other side of this…lets say Emp is a shrink or something and has flipped za from an sk to a townie..this might confirm them….and means we are not in lylo…if that is the case..I would say that the Scum might be Santos, VP, Juls/CDB)”

You never put anything specific about Santos. You just consistently put him as the least suspicious of the people you find suspicious, without ever saying why. You do not put any kind of pressure on Santos. Instead you just pressure me/Zoneace/VP (and I have to drag the VP reasons out of you). And after you finally concede me/Zoneace, you immediately back off of Santos (despite the above underlined statement), and instead say:

“dont know what to think of Santos.....”
“now you bring up some interesting points about Santos....think I will reread him to compare to your points.... “

Specifics about Santos *now*. This only requires a reread if you were lying all today about Santos being suspicious to you, and about you not believing him.

<snip>
but it might be important to find out if anyone has obtained a one shot ability....

Um, why? What does this have anything to do with Santos?

[EmpTyger]

CKD:

Santos is claiming that he has received a one shot ability
<snip>

Nope. Not in his claim D2, not in his claim D3, not anywhere in this thread.
Maybe it was part of what you were talking about last night when he was getting help designing this fakeclaim?

you are quoting posts from the game as my opinion has changed..what is your point?
<snip>

My point is that your behavior in no way matches these alleged opinions.
My point is that you can’t provide any reasoning to explain these alleged opinions.
My point is that a player shouldn’t need to reread the thread to explain the opinions they’ve been saying all day- unless they made those opinions up in the first place.

1) *You* said you thought Santos was suspicious. *You* said you didn't believe his claim. And *you* said it on multiple occasions today. You shouldn’t need a reread to say why- unless you were lying before.

2) You now say that you’ve changed your mind and you’re not sure about Santos. What changed your mind? As far as I see, the only thing that seems to have changed is a confirmed protown player provided more evidence against Santos.

3) You are more than capable of focusing attacks on who you suspect. You did it with VP yesterday, with me and Zoneace today. But- despite repeatedly saying that you suspect Santos today- you have consistently said as little as you possibly can about Santos.

So, once more: explain *with specifics*.

---

VP:

<snip>
Does this mean that you don't want Santos to respond to the points you made? I think he'd be the best to address them and I'd like to hear his counter arguments.
<snip>

I’ve heard enough from Santos, and not enough from others. This is about finding multiple mafia, and right now I more want answers to “why has Santos been ignored?” And that’s not something that Santos can answer.

<snip>

…is not the result of the question to Reckoner, because Reckoner allegedly still had the ability N2.

This is interesting. Can you quote me the evidence for this? The timeline is a bit muddy in my memory.
<snip>

Sorry, typo, but the point still stands. That should read:
“Santos getting a cop ability is not the result of the question to Reckoner, because Reckoner allegedly still had the ability N

1

.”

Here’s the timeline of what Santos/Reckoner have claimed:
(D1)
Reckoner gets question.
Reckoner answers question.
(N1)
Reckoner investigates VP.
Reckoner loses ability. Reckoner comes to island.
(D2)

Santos has been ambiguous about whether he gained the ability N1 or D2, but it doesn’t matter. The point is, Reckoner says he still had the ability N1.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Specifically, he said this D1.

<snip>

FoS: those who are advocating lynching Kate at all

Vote: VP Baltar

for apparently having no problem with lynching one of the most pro town roles ever.

So, what's your next stall? You only get one more, so make it good. This will be the last time I ask you these questions:

What process of elimination? What makes VP/Juls different from CDB/CKD:

“Personally, I'd be happy with a lynch on CDB or CKD. Process of elimination tells me it has to be one of them: though I still don't like the Emp/Zone interactions in the slightest, and the jury's still out on VPB/Juls.”

Also you insist out of one side of your mouth that we must have a 3-person mafia, while at the same time out of the other side you insist that the only players who can be mafia are CKD/CDB. So, how can we have a 3-person mafia when you’ve eliminated all but 2 from contention?

And again, please explain *specifically why* you believe Santos.

[Yeah, I know, I'm an awfulawful hypocrite because I wasn't answering questions earlier today, so how dare I demand you answer some? Save it, because here's the difference: I had an ace in the hole. I knew I could confirm myself innocent. So if I didn't think something would be helpful, I could simply not do in whatever manner I thought best. Because there's no consequence. I don't need to explain myself, because I'm not at risk of lynch.

But you don't have an ace. You can't confirm yourself. You need to explain yourself. Because if not, you're going to be finding out just how at risk of lynch you are.

Last chance. Answer the questions.]

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
I'm sorry, I just figured it out. I'm about to fall asleep, but for now I guess you don't need to explain if you don't want to, I'll post more tomorrow provided it still all makes sense in the morning.

[EmpTyger]

The short version of my realization was that a Santos/Reckoner mafia only makes sense with those claims if
1) something spooked the mafia D2 into needing it critical for them to bolster Reckoner’s claim, even at the expense of Santos going back on his first claim
2) there was no one else in the mafia better than Santos available to claim became-cop.

In the morning, I’m less sure, but I’m going to reread anyway.

---

Reckoner:

<snip>
The "process of elimination" bit was more about how certain claimed roles or softclaimed roles clear other people, leaving only a few that it could be.
<snip>

What “claimed role or softclaimed role” cleared VP/Juls?

[EmpTyger]

Vote: Santos

[EmpTyger]

VP:
1) Who do you think is mafia with Santos?

---

CKD:
1) Who (if anyone) do you think is mafia with Reckoner/VP?
2) Why'd you switch your vote from VP to Reckoner?
3) Explain how you think Reckoner can be guilty and Santos innocent.
4) Why do you say "VP quickly following Emp is no surprise.."?
5) Any such surprise to BM quickly following you?

---

Reckoner:

The short version of my realization was that a Santos/Reckoner mafia only makes sense with those claims if
1) something spooked the mafia D2 into needing it critical for them to bolster Reckoner’s claim, even at the expense of Santos going back on his first claim
2) there was no one else in the mafia better than Santos available to claim became-cop.

Vote: Santos

WAT.

1) WAT is your point?

(And make it in your next post, or I'm not interested. I've had enough of your stalling with one thing in one post, something contradictory in the next, and never an answer to the actual question. Because you absolutely did say VP/Juls were cleared. You said that by how certain claimed roles or softclaimed roles cleared other people, you eliminated everyone except CDB/CKD.)

---

Zoneace:
If you have a preference for a CKD lynch, I'll hear you out. Actually,

Unvote: Santos

- I've already gotten the reactions I wanted, and I owe you the courtesy of checking with you before proceeding.

[EmpTyger]

VP:
*Why* CKD/CDB? (I forgot, I need to directly ask for reasons in this game.)

And I gave my reason for unvoting Santos: I owe Zoneace a say. If you or Santos somehow interpret that to mean that the pressure on him isn't serious, that's your and his problem.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
What still needs explanation?
* Zoneace was the SK
* I treated him last night
* You think that we have a 3-person mafia but processed-of-eliminationed all but 2 players
* You still have no explanation for how you process-of-eliminationed VP/Juls
* I'm done waiting for you to give something that's not a pathetic contradictory evasive non-answer stall.

Seems rather straightforward to me.

---

VP:
Let's talk about BM.
1) What's the difference to you between CDB and Juls/BM?
2) How come you helpfully answered BM's question in [1491], but ignored the problems with BM's [1490]? Problems that even Reckoner noticed?

Vote: Reckoner

Post 1466.

BM

i still dont understand who is asking the questions. This game is frickin confusing... 0.o

BM

As for Santos: that wasn't a pressurevote. That was purely a vote-to-lynch. Because I have no interest in hearing anything further from Santos. On the contrary- and this is not the first time I've said this- the ones I want to pressure are those who tried their best to avoid talking about Santos. Also, I completely disagree with your statement that there's no point in checking in with a confirmed innocent before deciding on a lynch.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:

<snip>
@Emp: I believe I said "the jury's still out on VPB/Juls". How in the hell does that imply that I said they were cleared?
<snip>

"Personally, I'd be happy with a lynch on CDB or CKD. Process of elimination tells me it has to be one of them”

---

CKD:

<snip>
not sure, why I should answer any of your questions, when you have avoided mine.

Because I’m a confirmed innocent and you’re not.

No matter what I do, I’m not going to be lynched. I dare you to say the same thing when Zoneace is voting you, I’m asking Zoneace for advice, you’re calling VP/Reckoner mafia, and BM is pretending not to be following the game.

1) Well, if we just have a scum team of 2...just those two.

In which case there’s no problem with lynching Santos today.

I have absolutely no reads on the lurkers..

Don’t believe this. BM is very easy to read, and if you genuinely thought VP were guilty, you’d have gone straight to Juls. Besides, you’re not doing anything about it?

2.) Reading Reck I cant see how he is a town player. I dont see how anyone can be so aloof. and he too states he thinks X is scummy but refuses to explain why. How is that protown?

Reading CKD I cant see how he is a town player. I dont see how anyone can be so aloof. and he too states he thinks X is scummy but refuses to explain why. How is that protown?

Reading your santos points (case?) it seemed to me that Reck/Santos are in this together...but I dont understand how Santos is a better lynch over Reck, especially if their is a possibility that he is telling the truth....also, I will gladly switch my vote back to VP if I thought he would be lynched.

First you need to show the possibility that Santos is telling the truth. I’ve shown the possibility of Reckoner telling the truth: there’s a mafia rolethief.

3.) I never said that reck can be guilty but santos innocent.

Good. Then you have no problem lynching Santos first. Move your vote, please.

if they are a scum pair together, I think reck should be lynched first, seems like a safer bet.

If they are a pair together, it doesn’t matter what order they’re lynched in. So we’re going to lynch Santos first because I say so.

I also didnt vote Santos, because VP (whO I also deem scummy) quickly followed your vote....didnt feel right...and I wasnt about to put anyone at -1 while we are trying to get our lurkers to post.

Nah, the way VP’s voted Reckoner earlier in the game gave you no pause.

4.) really? I think he is scummy and his quick vote doesnt surprise me...

5.) nope

So, problem for you when a player who has been following the game quickly casts a second vote with reasoning.
But you don’t have any problem when a player who claims to have not read the game quickly casts a second vote with nonsense reasoning.

now emp...care to answer my questions now?

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

1. current thoughts on me?

I couldn’t decide whether you, VP, or Reckoner were the last mafia, you've all been playing so badly. I almost wanted to reread more to doublecheck that CKD/VP isn't possible, rather than Santos/Reckoner. But you’re doing a good job convincing me it’s you.
[see question 2]

2. Why do you think ZA is voting me (what was his reason for voting me)...you agree or no?

Because you're playing so badly that it defies innocent explanation. You've focused most of your attacks today on confirmed innocents, and ignored some blatantly suspicious actions from likely-to-confirmed mafia.
[see question 3]

3.) If you think Reck and Santos are a scum pair, why is santos a better lynch?
<snip>

Because I say so and I'm a confirmed innocent. That's in itself better than any reason you've given.
But I'll give some real reasons right now, too. I mean, there's the fact that if there’s a 2 person VP/Reckoner mafia, as you’re arguing, there’s no issue with a Santos lynch. But here’s my favorite arguments:

<snip>
I think that 2-3 scumbags are amoung these 4 people (santos, VP, Emp, and ZA)....I would have had said all three, but the fact that we have 2 lurkers in the game throws shit into a tumble.
<snip>
On the other side of this…lets say Emp is a shrink or something and has flipped za from an sk to a townie..this might confirm them….and means we are not in lylo…if that is the case..I would say that the Scum might be Santos, VP, Juls/CDB)
<snip>

No Reckoner on those lists. Lots of Santos. So don’t suddenly burst out with “Reckoner has been so guilty all game he can’t possibly be protown and must be the lynch” because 2 weeks ago his behavior didn’t crack your top *5*.

You were insisting that Santos was guilty when he was in no danger of lynch, and now when the only thing that’s changed is that his lynch is actually being pushed, you are doing everything you can to avoid it.
You can’t give any actual reason or explanation for this change. Just “your opinion has changed”- but you can’t say why it changed, or what changed it.

(I bet you liked me better when I didn’t answer your questions.)

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
When you can't keep straight whether it's a .txt or a Word file, it makes me really skeptical that you ever had anything written to begin with. And in any case, losing your notes on CKD doesn’t excuse you from stalling on commenting on everyone else.

---

VP:

BM-Post something. There is no reason for you to be lurking like this whether you understand the setup or not. If you post something based on incorrect assumptions of the game mechanics, I'm sure people will correct you. WHO DO YOU THINK IS SCUM?[
<snip>

Why have you all game been bending over backwards to deny, ignore, give the benefit of the doubt, or quickly dismiss everything Juls/BM have done suspiciously all game? There's a very obvious reason for BM to be lurking like this: He's mafia and he thinks he can get away with it. In fact, I don't see any other reason for him to behaving this way.

And what’s even the point of your asking who BM suspects? That’s actually the one thing that BM has done. He voted me, and now he’s voting Reckoner.

---

CKD:
You really don’t get it, do you?

You don’t get to say “you’re innocent” and make it so. Not without proof.
That’s why I get to.
I have proof.
You don’t.
I have people who agree with me, and who go on record agreeing with me.
You don’t.
I’m not being lynched.
You’re only confirmed innocent in your own mind.

This may be your final chance. I'm giving you 2 choices:

1) You can give support for the statements you make.

I’m not going to waste time asking for all of them. Start with the following:

Why did you change your mind about Santos?

"Because I did" is not a reason.
*Why* did you change your mind?

Here's what happened.
[D3 begins.]
You consistently said Santos was one of your top suspects. (but you insist you need to reread when I ask you why you suspect him)
You never mention Reckoner as a suspect (despite listing *5* other players as suspects)
I push for Santos’s lynch.
You say you’re not sure about Santos. (but you can’t say what changed)
You say that Reckoner is the best lynch today. (but you can’t say what changed)

The only thing you said about Reckoner can be said just as much about *you*:

“Reading

Reck

CKD I cant see how he is a town player. I dont see how anyone can be so aloof. and he too states he thinks X is scummy but refuses to explain why. How is that protown?”

And your certainty about him is obviously feigned, because you also this:

“last mafia? I dont see that we have the first one.”

2) You can just repeat your reasonless contradictory assertion.

If you again answer without saying why, then I will ignore everything else you say, and wait for Zoneace to return. “Because I changed my mind” is not an acceptable answer to “Why did you change your mind?” Especially after you’ve repeatedly this game been pressed for specifics. Especially given the only reason you gave against Reckoner. If you ignore or give the same evasive answer, I tell you right now you’re pinning your survival on Zoneace changing his mind.

Your choice.

---

Zoneace:
Don’t worry, whatever happens I do plan on rereading the thread and listening to you before voting.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Okay, but, *why*?

Why do you say “the jury’s still out on VP” but “CDB is a good lynch”?
Why do you say that “the jury out on Juls” but “Santos is cleared by his claim”?
Why do you say “you believe Santos’s claim” but “you rather suspect of me for my softclaim and withholding of information”?

Also, if you spent all that time putting together a case on CKD- why are you voting for CDB?

(And okay about the Word/.txt)

---

Zoneace:
Haven't done my reread yet, but what about pairings? I just don't really see Reckoner/CKD together based on how today has gone.

(You were genuinely suspicious of Reckoner D1-D2? Honestly, until today I didn't take any opinion you gave seriously.)

[EmpTyger]

Zoneace:
I can see Reckoner as mafia, and I can see CKD as mafia- just not together. Not after the way he retreated from Santos and made up an attack on Reckoner immediately after I voted Santos.

Also all game I’ve gotten a why-didn’t-I-push-VP/Juls-more-when-I-had-the-chance tremor whenever I look away from them. You’re saying you genuinely didn’t suspect VP at all D1-2? And you still don’t see anything wrong with BM now?

---

VP:
Nice “I hate confirmed players” tempertantrum.
But it doesn’t address why you feel the need to ask BM “WHO DO YOU THINK IS SCUM?” when he’s already given an answer: me and Reckoner.
And it doesn’t address why you need BM to “post something” when you yourself already conceded that there’s no reason for him to lurk like this. (no protown reason, at least. I think we all know the antitown reason)
And it doesn’t address why you don’t call out BM’s behavior, compared to how you treat others:

@Emp-ckd for his reaction to the Santos votes and questionable reasoning for thinking Reck is scum. CDB for complete lack of anything in this game. I still feel he is scum in over his head at this point and has taken the decision to just lurk to victory.
<snip>

(BM did both of those things that you find CKD and CDB suspicious for.)

This isn’t “40 pages ago”; this is all D3. The stuff with Juls on previous days just turns it from an isolated instance into a consistent pattern of you ignoring or denying or dismissing antitown behavior from that playerslot, and now giving him opportunity after opportunity to cover it up before he gets nailed for it.

I’m not the one trying to shut down discussion; I’m trying to figure out why you’re not discussing.

---

CKD:
Option 2. So be it.

[EmpTyger]

I know things just got a little heated, but I'd like to reassure everything that my minimal posting this weekend is because of some real-life events, not anything game related.

---

BM:
Your explanations are not even close to consistent to how you've actually behaved. Detail to follow, I'm making a reread anyhow later this weekend.

---

CKD:
Forgive me for selectively reading over the "make a longer post later this weekend" bit. But I'm tired of your repeatedly stalling on a simple question that you repeatedly can't answer and absolutely should be able to: "Why did you change your mind about Santos?" And too many times when I've ask you, you just insist without any consideration of the events of that game that I'm not a confirmed innocent, as if that somehow excuses you from answering my question. So when I saw you doing that again, I had enough of the stalling and deflecting.

[EmpTyger]

Again, I apologize for my recent absense- this has not been a fun week irl. I got a little into a reread, but not very far- finishing up now.

---

Amished:
Unless you have good reason, I would not speculate into why the mafiakill failed last night. The mafia do not know, and I do not see any reason to enlighten them at this point.

[EmpTyger]

Too tired to compile out reread notes. Basically, I don’t see any way I can see myself voting for VP over CKD or Reckoner. (Despite a nagging VP/BM/Santos itch that won’t go away, but realistically CKD and Reckoner are too significantly worse.) So the issue becomes at least 1 of {Santos, BM, Reckoner, CKD} must be innocent; who?

I feel strongest about Santos’s guilt, for things already stated. And I’d like to note something I found now that search is working: Santos was definitely lurking here D1, while being active elsewhere. What is especially interesting is that when I asked about this in [398]. Juls replied specifically to other parts of my [398], but said nothing about Santos. However, at the exact same time, Santos and Juls were involved in a back-and-forth in CI821.

The interesting issue is that neither Drench/Santos nor Juls/BM ever received any serious pressure D1-2- in fact, the only significant dust up involving either was between the 2 of them, and it dissipated almost immediately. So it’s a little tricky to judge who might have been their partner. D3, after the mafiakill was prevented last night, it’s reasonable to assume some distancing, although not I’m pretty sure that a 3 person mafia would be too tempted by the thought of a potential quickwin.

I do know I still need to give specifics on BM (although, basically, compare Amished and BM). And I want to give specifics for some of the problems I have with a Reckoner/CKD pairing.

[EmpTyger]

Sorry for the doublepost, but at this point I may as well confirm that I did stop Zoneace's kill last night. I also would not believe that a mafia would no kill in the context of last night.

[EmpTyger]

hm After a night’s sleep, I think I’d like 2 things:
1) BM to claim.
Any objections?

2) Everyone to give their opinion about a traitor.
I have a really neat theory about Santos’s “Sun searching for Jin” and his desperation D2 for roleclaims. A theory that I like much better than him expecting us to believe that he got a role that lets him (1) immediately confirm Jin innocent, (2) reciprocatingly confirm Kate innocent after N1, (3+) gain 1 alignment investigation per night starting N2, and (4) whatever his actual question might grant. Besides all the other issues with his claims and play

---

Open question: what have the mafia been up to all this game?
Case 1: If Reckoner is mafia, they’ve been diverting attention from him onto convenient targets.
Case 2: But if Reckoner’s not mafia- they’ve never had a serious bandwagon on any of them, have they?

---

As for BM’s behavior:

Summary: BM is either deliberately lurking or he deliberately replaced into a game that he had no intention of playing. I suspect the former: he has a continual pattern of using ignorance as a catch-all excuse, and then doing everything he can to remain ignorant. In addition, I really don’t see anything protown out of Juls- and certainly not the obvtown reads that VP and Zoneace got.

1) It does not take 1 week to confirm. Allegedly being confused by a PM he got on October 3 doesn’t explain why he couldn’t post September 28-October 2.

2) When he finally posts, it’s the following:

“I've read the last couple of pages, so Vote: Emptyger for his rudeness.”

Note that on that very page, (a) I had claimed 10 posts prior, and (b) VP and CKD, the players who were frustrated with me, were conceding or coming around that I was town. He ignores this when casting his vote.
Also, he late in [1544] tries to plead ignorance of my claim.

3) He tries to disavow this initial post as a “randomvote”. A protown player, who allegedly just replaced in and hadn’t read the game would not just cast a meaningless vote without even checking what the votecount was. And if he had checked the votecount, he would have had to have read enough to be basing that on more than randomvoting.

4) He refuses to contribute in any meaningful way because he “hasn’t read the game”. And then he repeatedly doesn’t read the game. And now he explicitly says he just won’t be. If he were genuinely confused about the game, he would have done something other than casting unexplained votes and lurking. Instead, he’s used that convenient excuse.

5) He says

“Please explain the "problem" you had understanding 1490. It seems fairly straightforward, although, was the result of confusion on my part. “

Here’s the post in question.

Vote: Reckoner

Post 1466.

BM

Take a look at [1466] if you need to. But (1) that’s not straightforward. And (2) if BM is already admitting that his logic was problematic, why would he ask me to explain how I had a problem with it?

6) Based on the game and the question I’ve received, I don’t see how he could reasonably conclude that the question put to him was unique.

7) Despite repeatedly claiming that he has no knowledge of the game, hasn’t read the game, won’t be reading the game: he somehow in [1548] knows that VP’s stance regarding Juls is inconsistent with VP’s stance on Juls.

[EmpTyger]

Not in favor of anyone claiming just yet, except BM. And as to that:
{Amished, VP, EmpTyger, Reckoner} have explicitly asked BM to claim. (Not sure whether to officially count Santos’s

“BattleMage, can you enlighten us, please?”

)

CKD/Zoneace:
I think Reckoner is right- this is a stalling attempt, of Santos trying to shift the focus away from BM. Care to make this an unambiguous majority that says BM should claim?

---

Anyone besides Santos:
Rather than preemptively rebut Santos’s recent posts- is anyone in doubt? I’ll reply if someone needs me to, but so far it doesn’t sound like anyone believes him. If we’re all in agreement about him, I’d rather we move on to answering the “with who (and anyone else?)” question.

The one interesting thing is why he chose Reckoner/Amished with his circling-the-drain WIFOM. Speaking as someone who just completed a reread myself- I will firmly state that there is no legitimate way he just happened to stumble onto that in [1650], not when 15 minutes earlier in [1646] he couldn’t even figure out who was voting CB.

Although, I do think I want to see how Santos reacts to one thing…

---

Santos:
You received an ability that lets you find mafia.
You were told that to find Jin.
Therefore… you concluded that Jin *isn’t* mafia?

---

Amished:

<snip>
@EMP: I'm not exactly sure when I asked this of you, but did you have to "find" another player based on their flavor name? I'm thinking this might corroborate or disprove Santos's claim.
<snip>

<snip>
2a) EMP: You (basically) had to find ZA. Did your PM say anything about having to find another named role (I don't want you to out ZA's name, though I don't know if that really matters).
<snip>

No way am I answering these before BM claims, and especially not when Santos is still trying to dance around what his original role was.

For the open question: If we're right about a two person scumteam, Santos has been scum trying to clear xRx because he stole his role/got it somehow,

If the mafia are Santos/Reckoner, then Reckoner was never a cop to begin with. Santos couldn’t have gotten his role.
If the mafia are Santos/X, then why would Santos defend Reckoner so convolutedly?

while if he really needed to find Jin, Jin's been lurking pretty hardcore (Juls and BM both). If Santos is just a traitor, ckd trying to defend vanillagers and look better after they flip is a decent explanation.

First of all, I think it’s more likely a mafia CKD was trying to establish his own innocence by saying that he knew about the “your role may change” line than any kind of innocent-clearing convoluted plan. But even that explanation doesn’t seem decent to me. If Santostraitor + CKD/Juls, then I just don’t see CKD risk derailing a CB lynch or a Santos implosion by trying to force a CKD or VP axis, which fails no matter what. The only way that makes sense is if CKD felt confident that CB was a traitor (perhaps the very your role may vary he insisted on), and was confident that VP wasn’t. But that’s a one too many leap for me.

Even considering the possibility that Santos wasn’t a traitor, but rather was mafia looking for a traitor- but even then I don’t see much reason for CKD’s play.

---

VP:
2 mafia + traitor : 8 town (including psychiatrist) : 1 SK seems very balanced.

<snip>
I think the convenient bandwagons enable either of these cases to be likely. And lord knows this has been the game of convenient bandwagons. Both also come back to Santos either way.

Well, right, but who else with him? Or alternatively, who else not with him?

---

Reckoner:

<snip>
Since I

know

I'm not mafia, I'll only look at Case 2. Why would they derail a wagon on me early on? Answer: because it gave scumSantos a chance to semi-confirm a claim of Cop.
<snip>

(That’s not an answer. For the nth time, when someone asks *why* you need to give a reason. If you don’t, you’re just begging the question.)

*Why* would Santos do that? What would he get out of it that he wouldn’t get by simply having the town lynch you?

[EmpTyger]

BM:
So, how you want to play this? You going to claim or are you going to make me rustle up votes against you?

---

CKD:
And... still no specifics about why you changed your mind about Santos. Even with the stalling.

"On the off chance Santos is telling the truth" means nothing. (No more than "on the off chance Reckoner is telling the truth".)

Without reasoning, it's just your opinion.

And your opinion is worthless when you won't give any kind of explanation for holding the exact opposite opinion for the first half of today, when you argued that Santos was guilty, and had nothing to say about Reckoner.

I think I'm both done trying to find mafia #3, and done arguing with you.

(Seriously, the best thing you have against Reckoner is that he assumed that you meant "XYZ are scum together" when you said that "XYZ are probably scum"?)

---

VP:
Who are you arguing with? If Santos, why?

<snip>

If the mafia are Santos/X, then why would Santos defend Reckoner so convolutedly?

Town buddying. Clearly Reckoner was the most susceptible to it and if Santos (or any scum member) has any kind of thief ability, he saw the chance to form a game-long friend. I think it was simply poorly executed.

The problem is that we have an known example of Santos trying to townbuddy: [1280]- his alleged innocent result on me. And as I've already pointed out, how he went about "clearing" Reckoner was completely different from how he went about "clearing" me. So that means one of 2 things:
1) Either he wasn't townbuddying with Reckoner.
2) Or his attempt to buddy to me wasn't his idea- he was just doing what another mafia told him to do.

Here's the point: Either way, Santos/BM isn't possible.
If they're mafia together, it's with a third member. Either as 3 mafia, or 2+traitor.

[EmpTyger]

Amished:
No voting. Not yet. Maybe soon on BM, though. I do not want this day ended without the BM situation resolved one way or another.

[EmpTyger]

Santos:

Santos:
You received an ability that lets you find mafia.
You were told that to find Jin.
Therefore… you concluded that Jin *isn’t* mafia?

I realized I didn't want to use the investigation on Juls/Battle Mage, but instead on you because you were the most unreadable player in the game.
<snip>

I didn't ask why you didn't investigate Juls.

I asked why you concluded that Jin wasn't mafia.

<snip>
What I did for RECKONER the day before was my feeble attempt to stop a lynch on someone who 99.9% for sure HAD to be the cop. Why? Because he lost his ability and I gained an ability. What makes me even more sure? I became a cop and he is no longer a cop.

How does any person deal with this without painting a fat target on them that says LYNCH ME THE NEXT DAY?
<snip>

Why was that the right play D2 for clearing Reckoner, but not D3 for clearing me?

[EmpTyger]

Santos:
You said that D2 you lied because you needed to clear Reckoner and if you claimed cop you would be immediately killed.
But D3 to clear me you just claimed cop.
Why the difference?

And here's where you concluded Jin wasn't mafia:

Well, fuck. If she is claiming Jin that puts me in a tougher spot as there is more stuff in my PM that will clearly make me have to take my vote off of her.

I thought I caught scum... *sob*

Unvote

<snip>

[EmpTyger]

Santos:
I know why you say you did that on D2 with Reckoner.

I want you to say why you didn't do that on D3 with me.

[EmpTyger]

Vote: Battle Mage

I propose that every 24 hours without a claim = another vote on BM. Unless someone wants to argue for a straightforward lynch and skip the pretense of waiting 4 days; I'd go along with that.

---

Reckoner:
Why are you frustrated?

[EmpTyger]

Okay, instead how about I propose that every 24 hours without a claim OR every time BM posts a stall without claiming = another vote on BM.

---

Amished:
While Santos is my top suspect, for a couple reasons I think I’d prefer a lynch of BM. After BM claims- *if* he claims- I’ll explain if I still need to.

(And say what you will about Porochaz’s modding, but at this point BM’s behavior is on no one but BM. You of all people in this game should know that.)

[EmpTyger]

Amished:

Didn't BM claim in the post above yours? >_>
<snip>

Yeah, and Obi-Wan showed his identification to the stormtrooper.
Stalling, unhelpfulness, and Jedi mindtricks is not a claim. What his 1-shot ability, what question he was asked, what his flavor is: that would be a claim. What BM gave us was a bluff: he thinks he can get away with that behavior, and no one would be willing to call him on it. Let's see if he decides otherwise in his next post or in 24 hours, whichever comes first.

---

VP:
I can't remember: what are your thoughts on the full mafia group?

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
3) VP Baltar simply places a vote without waiting. I believe this is a vote to appease Emp's pursuit of Battle Mage as well as secure on a vote on another player since the Santos wagon lost its steam and died. IMO, this is a brilliant scum move to make as well as bypass Emp's request for gradual pressure on Battle Mage. I hope no one missed this.
<snip>

I hope no one missed this:

Okay, instead how about I propose that every 24 hours without a claim

OR every time BM posts a stall without claiming

= another vote on BM.

---

Santos:
D2

you defended Reckoner

and

didn't claim cop

.
D3

you defended me

and

did claim cop

.

I'm not arguing that you haven't done any of this.
I know the reason you've given for the red.
I know the reason you've given for the green.

I want to hear your reason for the blue.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Focus. It's going to take all 5 of us to deal with BM. Or whichever of {Santos, BM, CKD} we try to lynch today.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Obvscum with who?

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Then if you're not sure, focus on that "with who" question.

What are you finding believable about Santos?
What are you weighing between BM and VP?

[EmpTyger]

CKD:

<snip>
I say that Santos is not the fucking lynch today and I get the same shit again..no doubt, if Santos is lynched and flips town, I will get the same fucking shit again....or...if he flips scum, I am obviously his scum buddy.
<snip>

I'm still waiting for you to give an actual, specific reason why Santos is innocent.

Repeating it: not a reason.
Because you say so: not a reason.
A self-justified string of profanities: not a reason.
Ignoring how you argued that Santos was guilty until there was a serious effort to lynch him: not a reason.

I really dont think BM is scum today either...I think he is town and cross replaced into this game and doesnt give a rat's ass about it.
<snip>

Why not "*mafia* who cross replaced into this game etc."?

---

Reckoner:

@Emp: Santos' last post did a lot in the way of alleviating some of my concerns, but did not eradicate them.
<snip>

What *specifically* are you finding believable about Santos?

@Emp Again: With VP vs BM, it's a case of a player who has played pretty fair thus far and has not received any suspicion thrown his way versus someone who has contributed literally nothing this entire game.
<snip>

Uh... who are you saying goes with which description? Either way: specifics?

Actually, I don't think I ever said VP is scum.
<snip>

Uh, didn't you just do so in [1750]?

[EmpTyger]

BM:

<snip>
I'm not sure there's any merit to asking, but for the sake of clarity- Emp, why do you want me to claim?
<snip>

Because a majority of the town told you to.
Because I'm going to get that majority to lynch you if you don't.

---

Everyone except BM:
That's another stall. Who wants to put the third vote on?

---

CKD:
Okay, fine: I'm still waiting for you to give an actual, specific reason why you changed your mind about Santos.
Or, if you prefer: I'm getting a jumpstart on building support for your future lynch while waiting for the clock to run out on BM.

(Also, I actually agree that VP and Reckoner's play has been poor. The fact that even so no one is listening to you should clue you in to how much worse *yours* has been.)

[EmpTyger]

BM:

VP, i believe my rolename has already been claimed. You want paraphrasing of PM content?

Yes, please.

And your [paraphrased] question and result.

[EmpTyger]

Regarding CKD:

“not sure why ZA, Emp, and

Santos

should not be considered today...”
“I think that 2-3 scumbags are amoung these 4 people (

santos

, VP, Emp, and ZA)....”
“As it stands, I don’t believe Emp or

Santos

”
“I think the scum team falls somewhere between (VP, Emp, ZA, and

Santos

)……”
“If all things remain constant, at this point, I am only willing to vote VP or

Santos

(leaning VP, for all the reasons I have stated yesterday and today)….”
“On the other side of this…lets say Emp is a shrink or something and has flipped za from an sk to a townie..this might confirm them….and means we are not in lylo…if that is the case..I would say that the Scum might be

Santos

, VP, Juls/CDB)”

CKD consistently included Santos among the players he wanted lynched at the start of D3.
Moreover, he had nothing to say about Reckoner, despite accusing *everyone* except for Reckoner.

And then I pushed for Santos's lynch.

1) Then CKD all of a sudden said he were uncertain about Santos.
2) Then CKD all of a sudden said Reckoner was "obvscum".

And CKD’s been stalling or unable to give an explanation for both ever since.

He still can't explain (1). Let's be honest, at this point: he doesn’t have any reason. I think it's pretty obvious he was hiding his comafia Santos in among his suspect list, and didn't expect that we’d get around to Santos today- except then I cleared myself and Zoneace, and then I launched a real push against Santos, and that caused him to scramble.

For (2), after much stalling, here's the explanation he’s given:
2a) “Reading Reck I cant see how he is a town player. I dont see how anyone can be so aloof. and he too states he thinks X is scummy but refuses to explain why. How is that protown?”
2b) "Reckoner misrepresented my 'XYZ are probably scum' -> 'XYZ are probably scum together'."
2c) “Reckoner said mentioned rolethief D1, but D3 he said never considered it.”
2d) “Reckoner said he suspected VP D1, but D3 he couldn't remember saying it.”

None of those come even close to “obvscum”.
(2b) is laughable- I have no problem accepting Reckoner's interpretation here. On the contrary, CKD’s attempt to call this suspicious- much less “obvscum” is antitown.
(2a) is suspicious- but it’s exactly what CKD himself has done. And if he thinks that’s “obvscum” behavrior- why is he doing it himself?
(2c/d) are suspicious- but CKD has done it worse over the same day with his behavior today towards Santos.

And then also:
3) "obvscum" Reckoner is. While doing nothing to His main argument against Reckoner is to avoid specifics and berate the town’s playing ability.
4) CKD insists on a VP/Reckoner pairing, making no attempt to reconcile that with the events of D1.
5) CKD will bend over backwards with a “what if Santos is telling the truth” but no such consideration with Reckoner.

---

Does anyone (other than BM/Santos/CKD) see a problem with a mafia consisting of BM/Santos/CKD?

---

CKD:
Still waiting for you to give an actual, specific reason why you changed your mind about Santos. Repeating that you "changed your mind" doesn't say *why* you changed your mind, *what* changed your mind.

just so I have this straight emp, you are putting Reck's lie into the playing poorly catagory...and that play, is better than mine?

Yep. See above. And I bet that before the game ends, more people will agree with me than you.

[EmpTyger]

Amished:
Er, why are you arguing with Santos? I mean, don't answer if you don't want to, but no one else needs convincing. I mean, I was asking him questions because I was gauging how he reacted to inconsistencies towards BM vs inconsistencies towards Reckoner.

---

CKD:

hey emp, why dont you just vote me then? Afraid of being on another townie lynch?

also, did you mention reck's lie in that long post? think I missed it....so I guess you think that LyingReck is town? why?

Yeah, you missed it. Basically, I think Reckoner is town because there are 3 players who have been lying more suspiciously than he: Santos, BM, and you. And I can't vote you because I only have one vote and BM needs it more than you right now, sorry. Maybe later.

and emp, I keep saying this but you keep ignoring it....I havent changed my mind...I THINK THAT RECK IS A BETTER LYNCH..

why do you have such a problem with that?

I'm still waiting for you to give an actual, specific reason why. Denying that you changed your mind is not a reason.
Not when the fact is that you attacked everyone except Reckoner and consistently had Santos as a willing-to-lynch, up until I launched a real attack on Santos.
And especially not when you gave "I changed my mind" as your reason the first 2 times I asked you: [1461, 1512]

[EmpTyger]

Unvote: Battle Mage

[EmpTyger]

Do not lynch Battle Mage yet.

He's absolutely the lynch today, but first we need to give people a chance to answer questions get a modreply. But keep him at 3 votes in case there's another deadline shenanigan like D1.

---

Reckoner:
Zoneace and VP are right. You say why you need to know first.

---

Amished:
To save me from looking back through the entire thread, can you quickly clarify when you got your question?

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Actually, hold on before saying anything. I'm checking something.

[EmpTyger]

Okay, I think Reckoner has good reason for asking. I'm in favor of Jack and Sayid coming forward, but Reckoner afterwards needs to give at least a partial explanation why, and possibly a full explanation.

---

VP/Amished:
I'd like VP to first claim {Jack, Sayid, neither}. Then Amished. And then I will. Given the deadline, please be quick about this.

---

Zoneace:
Use your judgment about whether and how much to say about your question. If there's any information from me which would help you answer, let me know.

[EmpTyger]

Actually- I suppose we can nameclaim fully at this point. Same order though. VP first, then Amished, then me.

[EmpTyger]

Ben. <joke>I breadcrumbed it by annoyingly, condescendingly, and cryptically not breadcrumbing.</joke>

---

Alright.

@ALL: If one of these gentlemen had to die, who would it be?

100% kill VP/Jack. I think the town just got a guaranteed win.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
Hey, don't get too angry at CKD. His partner just claimed mafia and conceded. Of course he's a little upset.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
This is not even close. Even if you have the option to choose neither, don't take it. Lynch today + mafiakill tonight = 6 alive tomorrow. There's no reason not to take the extrakill and eliminate the outside chance of VP being guilty.

---

Amished:
Good job with the speedunvote.

[EmpTyger]

We're waiting for Zoneace to answer his question, and then for any replies he or Reckoner get.

[EmpTyger]

We should lynch curiouskarmadog quickly, before the next question gets asked. It seems we’ve gone through the playerlist once went back to the top of the order with Reckoner. CKD and I are next up for questions- no reason to chance an opportunity of to the mafia of getting an ability that might let them pull this out.

---

Zoneace:
Anything you want to report about your question from yesterday? Or can we get lynching?

[EmpTyger]

Well, if there's no longer any order to the question order, that gives us less control unfortunately, but doesn't change the fact that we don't want the mafia to get another question this game.

[EmpTyger]

Vote: curiouskarmadog

And not that it matters at this point, but Reckoner is confirmed innocent. No way does he play the question like he did yesterday if he’s mafia.

[EmpTyger]

Hold on people, something doesn’t add up here. What happened to Reckoner N1? No one vote- I want to run through some things.

[EmpTyger]

Actually, I’m overthinking this.

Vote: Santos.

No way is Reckoner/Amished mafia- Reckoner would not have asked which of {Jack, Sayid} to kill, and would not have hesitated after Jack was chosen. Lynch Santos today, and if game somehow continues, lynch Amished tomorrow.

[EmpTyger]

Reckoner:
You’re not wrong, but, here are the possibilities:

Amished is mafia with me: not possible, because of Zoneace.
Amished is mafia with Zoneace: not possible, because of me.
Amished is mafia with Reckoner: a lot of things, but also mafia should have won last night. (Also, I mean, Reckoner should have just lynched Santos and won right now.)
Amished is mafia with Santos: we still lynch Santos.
Amished is solo remaining mafia: we can lynch Santos today, and there’s time to lynch Amished tomorrow.
Amished is not mafia: we lynch Santos.

[EmpTyger]

Thanks all and mod for the game. I should have some comments for the setup, but I think I'm going to wait for the mod to lay it out before I say anything about that.

One ironic bit of trivia: I first volunteered to be a backupmod, and was told that the game wouldn't need one. Only then did I sign up as a player. Imagine how differently the game would have gone (a) with a backupmod and (b) without me playing.

And to clarify something: my first guess was that the SK was Sayid, based on the interplay that he had with young Ben/adult Ben had- that’s why I addressed myself to Sayid initially. My burst of realization D2 was the SK made more sense as Jacob. I was actually a bit confused when Zoneace later claimed Daniel- I was partially wondering if he was trying to trap someone into fakeclaiming, and partially didn’t think it mattered at that point.

For the record, after I died I was worried at the end that there was a secret 13th player in the game (Jacob, who I was guessing was ShadowLurker based on the response I got to my question). And while I was curious to see what would unfold with a reset…

<bah>Dead is dead. You don't get to come back from that, not even here.</bah>

---

As for play- and I realize that this is a very vain thing to say, especially after the grief that flared up D3, but I think I do want to explain myself, so please hear me out. But I don’t really regret my decisions this game.

I singlehandedly identified 2 of the 3 antitowns, and was able to neutralize them. And I left the town in a position where it could identify and neutralize the third. Unfortunately, in between what happened, happened. And the town wound up needing 4 neutralizations instead of 3. Again, I concede that this is a very vain thing to assert. But considering what caused the town to lose- I’m not really sure what I

The few regrets I have mainly involve CB. (And to a lesser degree Jebus- while I realized that something was wrong with all the D1 bandwagons (well, except the Zoneace bandwagon, but I had him pegged as SK at that point), I picked the wrong suspect to go to.) But I misread CB- and more importantly, I didn’t reevaluating after I learned that I had misread him. I second-guessed myself N1 and changed my target from Zoneace to CB. And I’ll admit, this probably clouded my judgment regarding him D2. I should have stopped to reevaluate once my first read was off, but instead I was just upset for second-guessing myself. I was also a little clouded because I knew that CB was a “safe” lynch, since I knew he couldn’t be the SK.

---

VP:
First of all, thanks for taking one for the team. Even if it didn’t work, I don’t think it would have changed the outcome, if it matters at all.

Second, I apologize for any condescension. I ask you to sympathize with my predicament:
After successfully converting Zoneace, and with both kills stopped, I knew I needed to be hearing reactions from everyone- but I needed to stall until the Julsslot got filled, because I wanted to hear from them most of all. And I couldn’t say why we needed to wait without giving anything away, especially since I wanted people to keep talking. Since I knew I was able to confirm my innocence, I knew I could behave in ways I wouldn’t otherwise have been able to get away with. I wanted people to talk, and wanted people to react.

Unfortunately, Zoneace was a blabbermouth, so the result wasn’t exactly what I wanted. Especially when CDB wound up needing replacement as well.

As for the VP/Amished decision- honestly, I can’t say I regret that choice.
D1 you had tried to insist that either the copclaim or the doctorclaim were false, and fished for whether the cop would be unprotected.
D2 you tried to clear Zoneace and Juls as obvtown, with reasons which didn’t hold up to scrutiny- especially when Zoneace/Juls were in fact antitown.
And you must understand, literally every time I made a post in which I attacked anyone else, I would get a twinge in my stomach that I was letting you get away. It’s to your credit that in the end, you managed to convince me not to lynch you. But when we got a safety play of letting you be lynched, I jumped at it.

---

CKD:
Yeah, I was on 4 town lynches, but I singlehandly found out the SK, and neutralized him. (And saved you from being killed in the process, I might add.) And I almost singlehandly pressured one mafia enough to get them lynched, even if I weren’t technically voting them at the end of the day. And I helped the town get to a point where we could lynch out their remaining suspects to get the last mafia.

Was I perfect? Did I win? No, and no. As it happened, we needed 4 neutralizations for 3 suspects.

You want to criticize my play? I welcome any constructive advice you have. But I suggest that you objectively compare my actions to the actions of the other 11 players. Compare how my contributions to the loss to anyone else’s.

And for the record, I do not consider what happened D4 a speedlynch. You had been asked repeatedly for half of D2 and all of D3 to explain yourself, and you had made it abundantly clear that you would not. The reveals of BM as mafia and VP as town certainly didn’t change anything. I saw no reason to wait any longer on you, not when I felt (correctly, albeit ironically too late) that the only thing the town had to fear was a modquestion.

---

Santos:
I don’t know how serious and how appeal-to-emotion your “I always play bad and get lynched” was. But, um, if you are looking for how to improve, number one is: don’t lie.

Let me repeat that:

don’t lie

.

The longer version is: don’t lie unless you’re willing to accept the consequences. And those consequences usually are death. But if you’re not sure, it’s best to err on the side of don’t lie ever.

Towns can win if the cop gets one fewer investigation. Towns can win if the cop gets roleblocked. Towns can win if the cop gets killed. But towns generally can’t win if players are allowed to make outrageous lies and get away with it, because then the mafia can get away with making outrageous lies.

[And, um, insisting that a player is town when they are actually mafia- that generally is enough on its own for a lynch. Between those 2 things- I find it really hard to fault lynching you. Even if Amished had been lynched first, had I been around the last day, I would have been hard pressed to not think you either a 3rd mafia or a traitor after.]

---

Amished:
My sympathies- that was not a fun point to replace in at.

Although, you thought you had a hard time winning with your role? I needed to, without knowing it, play my role suboptimally. If I identify the SK, I have a better chance of winning if I *don’t* target them than if I do!

Also, what happened the final night? Seems like the proper play is either to kill someone or block Zoneace.

And reading over the mafiatalk thread: Ironically, I wish the mafia *had* roleblocked me N2…

---

Reckoner:
For what it’s worth, I don’t blame you for your D6 choice. Amished was definitely guilty at that point- the only question was Zoneace. The only thing I might have done differently was to see what Zoneace’s reaction to the modquestion was, since it had already gone out. Which is what I had been hoping to do at the end of D3, but the mod incorrectly cut day off early. And since you had already gotten your second question, waiting only had the potential to harm you.

---

Zoneace:
I’d have more sympathy for you if you hadn’t stabbed me in the back, you know…

Not did I not turn you in by shouting out hey-there’s-a-SK-in-the-game-and-look-I-think-it’s-Zoneace. But also: my question D2 was whether to take a shot at Abaddon or not. I interpreted that as a choice between becoming a 1-shot vigilante or staying a psychologist. So I chose to not shoot, since I was so certain that I was about to recruit you.

So, I gave you the opportunity to be part of a team win instead of getting an individual loss.
When you had a win either way, you choose to make the rest of the team lose.
That’s your choice, certainly, and you got a win. But, don’t be surprised that there’s bitterness at what you chose.

Yeah, I originally wasn't going to become a SK again cause i thought the town was likely going to win the next day.

If you don't mind my asking, then why did you?
Also, why were you so chatty at the start of D3?

---

BM:
I don’t know how on earth you think that that is socially acceptable behavior. Making Porochaz xreplace into your game, and then refusing to play in his?

[EmpTyger]

Actually, I'm curious why Reckoner/Kate's death is labeled as "Cop turned Vanilla", but I'm still listed as "Psychologist". I hope that's an oversight, since I was told I was a "Psychologist turned Vanilla" (actually, the mod used psychologist and psychiatrist pretty interchangeably).

---

Keep in mind that I never had to express this, so I’m writing this all with hindsight and much later. But to try to explain, even if vaguely-

It was kind of, a general sense of trying to be as loud but as unlistened to as possible, if that makes sense? Obviously at the beginning Zoneace tried way too hard to keep his head down and then overreacted when he got called out. But he seemed to only care about discrediting votes on him, rather than actual suspecting those who were voting him. And he really didn’t do anything that would cause him to stand out from the herd. And I didn’t see anyone who could be your partner. And knowing that the setup has a SK is a big clue to finding them out. No one else seemed likely to be SK, for most of the day.

(In retrospect I don’t even remember what specifically turned me to CB. I do remember after tunneling on CB N1 I caught the Korean on reread and talked myself into thinking that maybe Sun could be Ben’s SK. N2 I did tell the mod that if somehow it wasn’t Zoneace D2, the only other one left that seemed even possible was CDB.)

---

VP:
Also, for what it’s worth, for all the reasons that you were suspected, I don’t quite understand the “claimed miller is mafia”. My problems with you were entirely based on your play, not your claim.

---

Amished:
(Thanks for the flattery, but if this ever does comes up again, I don’t care how much you respect me- at least play for the draw.)

I understand feeling demoralized. Until Reckoner’s question, I don’t believe I would have lynched down to you- there were too many players more suspicious. But after Reckoner’s question- not only was the VP mislynch gone, but Reckoner effectively confirmed himself as not mafia. (And that was the *good* result. The bad result causes you to lose immediately.)

I actually think CKD was your best mislynch D3, not Santos. You can’t really effectively bus BM after Santos is revealed as innocent. More people were willing to vote CKD than Santos. And if CKD is revealed innocent, VP and Reckoner are implicated. N3 you can nightkill Santos, neutralizing the cop and establishing BM/Sun as innocent.

One minor question: the flash animation said that when the psychiatrist is successful, the ex-SK becomes a doctor. (The mod had to revise rule 3.1 to include the “may be some differences” clause when I asked about this.) I was wondering if the mafia would be scared that Zoneace might be a doctor- did that thought even cross your mind?

[EmpTyger]

CKD’s question I had guessed that would have made him a lover with CB.
CDB’s question- I’m guessing it would have made him a godfather.

---

CKD:
I got a PM N2 that I had successfully converted the SK and was now vanilla. Not sure what else to do with that.

My thoughts on the setup and whether we had a shot once I confirmed Zoneace?
I’m waiting to see the setup before I talk about that. But from my current point of view- no, I don’t think we did. Even if we correctly somehow get Amished earlier- honestly, I’m going to go after a potential third mafia member when game continues, especially with Reckoner’s ability- if the mafia could lose a second member that arbitrarily, I’m going to assume that they had 3 members to begin.

My point is more that I just don’t see what I could have done differently. My options seem to be (1) not successfully find the SK (2) have the mafia neutralize Zoneace for us (3) get additional questions and hope that that helps us (4) think that I’m a psychiatrist with random sanity (5) lynch and realize that all mafia were gone, before Zoneace reverted or (6) assume that much a degree of bastard moddery that there’s no point in playing.
1) is me deliberately playing badly
2) is out of our control (and even then- the best way to get the mafia to kill Zoneace is to establish him as a confirmed innocent)
3) is more likely to cost the game than save it
4),seriously?
5) is unreasonable: Juls/CDB didn’t have their replacements until 10/12, and Zoneace’s questions were asked 10/19.
6) if we need to assume that Zoneace could turn into a SK- at that point, it’s just as likely for me for anyone else becomes a SK as it for him. So if the town must assume that any player who gets asked a question might be turned into a SK- well, there’s almost no point playing then.

That’s why I having trouble coming up with a regret about this game- little things I could have done better, maybe, but nothing that would have changed the outcome in this situation, and in general would have been more likely to get a loss.

On a separate topic-
I want to make sure I didn't imply that it’s not okay to change your mind- and please don’t let me discourage you from doing so! But, the important bit is being able to *explain* what changed your mind, especially when asked. For several reasons. (1) Otherwise the mafia can do whatever they want and not need to explain themselves. (2) If you don’t explain yourself, you generally make it almost impossible to persuade anyone. (3) If you happen to be wrong, no one can correct you.

And that’s what happened with VP/CB, and with Santos/Reckoner. You had an incorrect theory, but rather than explain yourself when asked, you insisted that you didn’t need to explain yourself, and you insisted that instead of you explaining, players should either lynch you or lynch someone that you said to.

Incidentally, I hope you realize why I didn’t want to say how I knew that antitown roles had the “your role may change” clause.

And, yeah. Lurking kills towns. But that's another rant.

---

Amished:
The mod said that the reset would not have included the SK. Also, presumably the roles would have been reshuffled as well, otherwise there’s just a massnameclaim and we lynch Sun/Sayid or lynch out the counterclaimers.

I had thought about optimal strategy for a reset, but I realized that roles/abilities would have to be reshuffled to prevent an immediate massclaim, so there wasn’t much point. In any case, the reset supposedly did not include the SK.

---

VP:
Don’t worry about getting angry at me- as I said, I was in a delicate situation where I needed to keep people talking and was doing things I could only get away with because I was confirmed. And do credit yourself for managing to put yourself in the bottom half of my suspect list despite your play D1-2. You just even then weren’t below Amished.

Knowing that a SK existed was a big clue to finding them, don’t get me wrong. But the way you cleared Zoneace, in the same way you cleared Juls- that set off alarm bells. Unexplained innocent reads are the mafia’s best friend. They allow the mafia to clear their buddies. They allow attention to be shifted off of badly playing innocents, who the mafia want to keep around. (In fact, the game I was in with Juls, in which I was mafia- we won in a large part because of this.) Basically, they let the mafia do all the things they want to do, without any of the scrutiny.

Personally, I think meta is way overrated, but that’s my opinion. But, um, don’t say a player acts a certain way only as town until *after* you’ve seen how they act as mafia.

[EmpTyger]

As far as I know, the SK had a 1-shot immunity- I essentially roleblocked Zoneace N2, but I didn’t think I protected him.

---

Santos:
In a nutshell, the problem was that you had shot your credibility to hell. You’ve got to understand that there’s good reason why people weren’t listening to you. Also, you should also note that by the time you were lynched, VP was already dead and Amished was getting lynched anyhow, so to be honest, it didn’t matter whether people listened to you or not.

Think of it this way- don’t lie D2, because then it’s that much harder for someone to believe you D3, D4, or D5.

(Which is not to say you shouldn’t go down fighting. The lesson to take away here is to change how you behaved D2- not how you behaved D3-5.)

[EmpTyger]

So that it’s not lost- I want to emphasize that I did enjoy the game and on the whole enjoyed playing with all of you (with 1 exception). Indeed, that’s my point about no regrets. So even though I lost, it’s not a bitter loss, because I had fun, and I don’t think I would have done much significantly differently.

---

Interesting point of comparison: the LOST Season 1 mafia.
That game also came down to a 3-person endgame of {SK, roleblocker, ex-powerrole}. However, the roleblocker and the ex-powerrole were town in that game.
And on the final night *2* townspeople died, without seeming cause (as it happened, 1 was the SK, the other was from an ability that one of the dying townspeople lied about). The town correctly lynched for a win.

So there, if the town had no-lynched to try the Prisoner’s Dilemma (as there were seemingly 2 killing factions), the town would have lost- but they instead lynched correctly and won.

On the contrary, here, if the town had no-lynched to try the Prisoner’s Dilemma (even though there seemingly was 1 killing faction) the town would have won- but they instead lynched correctly and lost.

---

VP:
The flattery is too kind, and more than I probably deserved… but I’m holding on to the cake anyway.

---

Santos:
Forget about the town confirming me or Reckoner for a moment. How was the town supposed to know whether *you* were innocent or guilty?

All we have to go on is your play. And, your play consisted of you (a) lurk D1 (b) fakeclaim D2 (c) contradict yourself D3 and (d) had vouched for the innocence of a role which wound up being confirmed mafia.

See the problem?

Re miller claim:
A miller claim is just like any other claim. It’s just one piece of data to be taken into account.

You’ve got to consider their play.

With any claim in a closed setup, you can’t just make an automatic determination of alignment (there are some rare exceptions, like if there’s some kind of visible proof, like with a vigilante). A miller can be an honest innocent, or they can be lying mafia. Just like a cop can be an honest innocent or a lying mafia. The only way to tell is to evaluate their play.

The problem with CKD was that his “unmistakable townie gambits” were, in fact, mistaken. His reasoning against VP and Reckoner was either wrong or he refused to provide any. And by D4 it was established that VP and Reckoner were both innocent.

[EmpTyger]

Amished:
Um... well, that's awkward...
<gives apple turnover to Amished>
My bad. We cool?

[EmpTyger]

CKD:
Please be assured that you certainly did not affect my enjoyment of this game! You and I certainly had some strong disagreements- but that's part of the game of mafia, and I expect it! I don't expect consensus (lol although I won't say I certainly don't mind it) and I have no illusions about everyone agreeing with everyone about everything. And that's true both during the game and afterwards. So while I may disagree with you regarding some aspects of how you played, I have no doubt about that you intended to play, and that's what's important.

---

BM:
I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but please understand in the future that that's not an acceptable excuse.

For comparison's sake: Porochaz didn't even have enough time to mod this game, but consider the effort he put into your game when he replaced in. Amished's situation was just as hopeless, but consider the effort he put into this game when he replaced in.

[EmpTyger]

Mod:
Still would be interested in seeing the setup here.