Mini 856 - Star Control: Zeta Sextantis - Over

[Kast]

/confirm

[Kast]

@Sigma-
Strongly disagree with your generalized statement. Scum can give themselves away on a first post on page 1 or early page 2. This is not such a rare event as to be equivalent to being unheard of.

In our current situation, I don't think anyone has publicly identified any such events, but that says nothing about the general case. Using a fallacious generalization instead of directly addressing your point of contention leaves lots of space for ambiguity and is just generally sloppy and not great play for town.

@Excedrin-
Strongly agree with this assessment of how things often work.

@Rising-
You're putting a crap straw man argument into Excedrin's mouth and justifying a stupid vote on that as though it were a serious one. He didn't setup any such trap. He made an observation that is very rational, easily corroborated with anecdotal evidence, and easily corroborated by checking any of a number of ongoing and/or completed games on the forums.

@Porkens-
Are you actually in need of replacement? If so, since we are still very early and not everyone has posted beyond confirmation, perhaps we can get the mod to "bend" the BaM rule set and replace. If not, does a player who requests replacement get modkilled and banned from future BaM games?

[Kast]

@Rising, 44-
-You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else.

-Excedrin never claimed that looking for a player who "does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town" is a valid strategy for scumhunting. You are setting up and maintaining your straw man when you repeat this falsehood. I find it extremely anti-town that you continue to perpetuate this falsehood despite multiple players pointing it out. Please stop engaging in anti-town behavior.

From context, the purpose of Excedrin's post was to counter the idea that townies should avoid placing "real" votes based on early game behavior. However, there is no advocacy for placing votes based on early game behavior. There definitely is no advocacy for placing votes based on early game behavior while ignoring future behavior.

-Your proposed "experiment" is pretty off topic. That said, if conducted in the manner you describe, then it would completely fail to test the hypothesis. The actual hypothesis (which you quoted in the same post) is "scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town". To test this, we would look at games (completed or ongoing with known scum) and find if there are times where scum make mistakes at the start of the game but appear more and more town as the game progresses.

As proposed, your straw man experiment makes a pretty petty and childish attempt to discredit both myself and Excedrin by attempting to point at irrelevant meta-statistics instead of addressing either of our actual posts.

@Sigma/Dry-fit-
I'd say the goal for generic townies right now is to find out which player is most likely to be scum and convince all others to lynch that player. Discussion is a great tool for helping us find out which player(s) is(are) most likely to be scum. A player who "generates discussion" is not necessarily a townie; practically any post or action has the capability to generate discussion.

I think Dry-fit is seriously misrepresenting Sigma's reason for voting kmd. This could in part be due to different understandings of the term "generate discussion". Sigma clearly contrasted posts which are intended to "generate discussion" from posts which are intended to "convince other players to vote your lynch target". In a literal sense, these obviously are not mutually exclusive since a post which attempts to convince other players to do anything is inherently intended to generate discussion. Despite the usage of that phrase, I don't think Sigma's post was unclear, and it looks like Dry-fit's attack is a veiled attempt to argue semantics.

@Plum, 48-
I like this post.

@Rising, 51-
-You manufactured a "tell" by creating a straw man.

-Your post is based on crap logic that assumes a fictional argument from Excedrin. If you substitute Excedrin's actual post for your fictional straw man, then your post becomes completely invalid.

This is not a semantics issue over how anyone defines the word trap. You are fallaciously claiming that others agree with your crap-logic. Nobody has done so. You may think it is a good scumtell, but it actually isn't.

Your adherence to your position and refusal to consider that you may be mistaken despite multiple players pointing out your mistake is anti-town. Worse still is that if you are a townie who genuinely believes that the players telling you that you are wrong are mistaken, then you have taken no steps to address and clarify things for them other than stubbornly insist that no matter what you are correct.

If you are a townie, re-read and realize that stubbornly holding to one idea without being open to discussion is very dangerous behavior that does not take advantage of the town's strengths and allows scum to better utilize their strengths.

[Kast]

@Plum-
-I'm assuming that "Kise" refers to "Kast"? You kinda swapped there in the middle.

-To paraphrase your argument, you admit that I am scumhunting and have raised several valid points, however, you object to my failure to vote based on any of the things I have raised. Is this an accurate summary of your reason for voting "Kise"?

I'll vote when I'm ready to vote; either if I find a player I am willing to lynch or if I feel my vote would help to elicit a response/reaction.

-I don't think it helps to give scum lots of easy wagons to jump aboard. Voting for each and every potential tell just lets scum blend easier while pushing a mislynch without getting any heat for doing so.

@KMD-
I'm not sure why you read me as obv-town. You've called me that in at least two other games we've played (I was town in both and you were town in one and scum in the other). The game where you were town, I could understand why you called me obvtown. The game where you were scum, I didn't see why you as a townie would call me obvtown, but I accepted your support nonetheless. I'll accept it again here, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

@Rosso-
Are you going to share your reason(s) for wanting to hammer me?

@Zito-
-Agreed that sarcasm itself is not inherently scummy. If it is used in place of defending oneself, that is scummy (although this is by virtue of not giving a defense, not because anything is wrong with sarcasm). I don't see Zito's situation as falling into that category.

-I'm not seeing the case against Zito. I think he is right to say it is extremely weak.

@Rising-
-When you avoid addressing an argument by attacking a player's irrelevant, personal, meta-statistics, that is petty and I'll call you on it. If you didn't post that in the first place, then I wouldn't call you on it. I didn't call it stupid.

Perhaps you felt your example was clever and relevant. I disagree and feel it was a very petty and childish way to attack other players while avoiding addressing the main point.

-Your new argument against Excedrin is much more valid; objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable. It is not the same as your initial argument which you pushed despite others pointing out it's flaws. It looks like you have abandoned your initial argument.

-Ironically, you call out Dry-fit for the same behavior that you engaged in within the same post. This has been pointed out, but should not detract from your point against Dry-fit which is valid.

[Kast]

@Thoughts regarding Rising then response to his recent post-
-Excedrin voted Zito for sarcasm
-Excedrin argued against the idea that townies should not place early "real" votes by claiming that scum often make mistakes early and correct their behavior later
-Rising attacked Excedrin for using a "trap"
-Multiple players tell Rising that there is no trap.
-Rising maintains his position without offering evidence or explaining how Excedrin's behavior constituted a trap. He also proposes irrelevant straw man experiments.
-Rising eventually changes his argument and claims Excedrin's original reason was not strong.

I get the feel that Rising is a townie and is capable of contributing, but can also quickly jump to conclusions without bothering to re-read or fact check. Despite seeing multiple things that could be tells, I'm not interested in voting for Rising today. I like some of his recent posts; his response to Dry-fit is pretty clear and I believe fairly captures and presents that situation.

I'm guessing that Rising completely misread the second point and misunderstood Excedrin's justification for early voting as either justification for voting Zito OR setup for future justification of votes for Zito. I think this is more likely than that he was attempting to intentionally push a straw man to get Excedrin lynched.

Kast wrote: "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else."

Irrelevant? Nope, you brought this issue up yourself, and it was

me

who called

you

out on it. I was willing to put your statement above to the test.

You are misquoting and changing context here. You made a personal insult and called me a jerk in response to my response to your "experiment". Incidentally, you still, apparently, fail to understand that your experiment does not test anything relevant. The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses. To test we would need to see whether the following are true:
-There are games where scum make mistakes early
--If so, then see if any of those scum appear more pro-town/less suspicious as the game progresses.
If any cases exist, then the theory is true. The theory says nothing about whether townies do the same thing, nor does it propose using this pattern of behavior as a scumtell. Your repeated explanations that it is not a valid tell are irrelevant noise. You may as well tell us that there are townies in this game. That is true but irrelevant.

That said, you seem to be upset about this quote. This quote itself is another example of me calling you out for adopting an anti-town and demeaning attitude towards other players. This is not the same "petty and childish" attitude that you display with your "experiment". Don't assume that other players are incapable of doing things just because you are incapable of doing something.

I didn't call it stupid.

I didn't accuse you of calling

this particular

sentence stupid (you did that in an earlier post). I wondered why you had to be such a jerk

in this game

. If you want to provoke to get a reaction there are other, much better ways.

Please be more clear. It is misleading when you quote one phrase and then reply to an out of context word from a completely different post on a completely different subject. It is also a pretty common scum tactic (though this also is not necessarily a tell as it could simply be badposting by a townie).

Your new argument against Excedrin, objecting to his claim that "sarcasm" is a scum tell is reasonable

What are you talking about? That is not my "new argument". That was just what had happened in the beginning of he game, when I wrote my first post. I therefore naturally assumed that every player had seen it, so I didn't feel the need to point it out.

This is a new argument. You never mentioned this previously as a reason for attacking Excedrin. Your previous posts only attack Excedrin for setting up a trap. Excedrin did not set up a trap so it was an invalid attack. You now attack him for having a poor reason for his initial suspicion. This is a valid reason for attacking him. Your justification for why this is not a new argument is crap-logic. Simply because the action you are attacking happened early in the game does NOT mean the argument you are making is not a new argument.

And how could you possibly believe that the argument you propose would be a reasonable argument against

Excedrin?

It was

KMD

that started the bandwagon against Pipo and said that sarcasm was a scumtell (he's

still

saying it, btw). It would've been extremely scummy and completely nonsensical for a player to vote Excedrin and not KMD, if his argument was what you've just proposed.

Read more carefully. Was your new attack on Excedrin just copying other players without understanding what you were posting? You specifically state that your reason for taking offense was because his reason was not strong (it was because of "sarcasm"). Regardless of whether another player voted for the same reason that Excedrin used, you are still capable of making a case against Excedrin (which you did).

@Rosso-
I don't like your posting style. I think you could contribute a lot more to the game by sharing more. I assume you disagree. I don't really have a read on you.

@Plum-
I liked more of the earlier posts, but now Plum seems to be fizzling and looking to KMD a lot.

@Sigma-
Goodposting recently; driving conversation.

@All else-
Please post more.

@Star Control 2-
-I'm not familiar with the game. I've looked at the stuff on wikipedia. Is anyone else familiar with it?

-Are there any races that are specifically aligned with the Alliance/Hierarchy/????

-Is it public knowledge when a player is outside of a ship?

[Kast]

@Sigma/Zito-
Thanks for the info.

@Mod-
If a player is outside of a ship, is that public knowledge?

@Sigma-

That said, I'm not sure I want to start naming specific races as examples. Why exactly do you want to know? Did SpyreX not give you a safe-claim?

I don't like this, it sounds insincere. My first guesses are that either you were being too lazy to list races OR you were trying to subtly fish while disguising it as humor.

I agree that some thematic information can potentially reveal information about a player's own role or help scum in developing claims. But often sharing thematic information can help players less familiar with the source in evaluating other posts (particularly claims). In this instance, asking if any player(s) can list slightly obscure but publicly available objective information about the races in the SC2 game doesn't fall into that category.

To be fair, I don't have any immediate, publicly known reasons to request information about the different races. I think it will definitely be helpful in the long run. I see no pressing need to share any private reasons (there might not be any).

[Kast]

@Plum-
-Yes, I do get easily sidetracked in non-essential arguments. I don't think it detracts from me looking at other players.

-I'm not clear on what specifically you are looking for in my other games. I think I play fairly similarly as town or scum. It sounds like you want to see some examples of my town play to determine Kast-as-townie also engaged in the behavior that you dislike in my current play style?

I haven't actually completed many games as town here on mafiascum...you can look up an ongoing where I am already dead as another example of my play as town.

Betrayal
Open, Party!
Newbie

@Rising-

Rising maintains his position without offering evidence or explaining how Excedrin's behavior constituted a trap.[...]Rising eventually changes his argument and claims Excedrin's original reason was not strong.

Let's have a look at my post #58 - which you think is where I changed my argument.

You are apparently focusing on this sentence "But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue." This is not my case against Excedrin

at all

(and why should it be? Excedrin didn't start the wagon against Papa Zito.

KMD

did.)

I wrote the sentence above to correct Plum, and to let her know that what she said had nothing to do about my case against Excedrin. The next sentence of my post reads: "I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it)

at all.

"

There you have it. What you're calling a changed argument isn't an argument against Excedrin

at all

.

-You are wrong. Plum posted that your trap argument is fallacious and that Excedrin was simply voting on a strong scumtell. You said that nothing would be wrong with what Excedrin did if he had a strong tell. However, you call Excedrin's tells weak and dismiss Plum's post. Your post does not refer to KMD directly OR indirectly. But we can examine the actual post instead of looking at isolated snippets and trying to spin new meanings on them:

If this was a case of a really strong scumtell - an actual "mistake" - then of course I would've been fine with it. "Ouch. You did something really bad there, buddy. There's just no way for you to talk yourself out of this mess, I'm sorry. You're definitely the lynch for today." Nothing wrong with that. But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue. I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it) at all.

-You say that IF Excedrin had a strong case, then it would be okay to make post 39. However, you say his case was not strong, and conclude that Plum's argument, which assumes a strong scum tell, does not apply to this case which does not have a strong scum tell.

You clearly state that you "would've been fine with it" if it were a strong case. KMD has not posted anything that would require a strong scumtell for you to excuse, whereas Excedrin has. Plum specifically named Excedrin, and your response is directly aimed to Plum's post. This is clearly about Excedrin and not KMD.

This

is (later in that post):

"There's a huge difference between:
1. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before." - Perfectly reasonable for a pro-town scumhunter.
and
2. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before, and they always come up with a good explanation afterwards, managing to explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " - why did this person add that last part? That wasn't necessary for pointing out the scumtell. This sets off my alarm, because scum have a tendency to go ahead of themselves, like proposing chain lynches (another scumtell I believe in)."

And

that

is where I explain my original - my one and only - argument against Excedrin. The thing that I call a "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't"-trap. You claim that I've never explained my argument, but that is simply not the case.

Excedrin did not do 2. Your original - first of two - argument against Excedrin fails due to this. You have never once attempted to show that Excedrin did this, despite other players telling you repeatedly. THIS is my point. You explain repeatedly that a player who did this is scum and repeatedly state that Excedrin did this. HOWEVER, you completely avoid showing that.

-You explained that the trap, as you described it, would be scummy. Nobody disputes this. You STILL have not explained how Excedrin's post fits the bill of the trap that you described.

You made a personal insult and called me a jerk

*Slap forehead* Dude! You can

not

be serious!

You said that I was "justifying a stupid vote", "You may personally be incapable of catching scum tells without the benefit of hindsight. Please don't automatically assume that your limitations are true for everyone else." and that my attempts were "petty and childish". You are

completely

disqualified from playing the martyr card.

You are the one trying to play the martyr card. Since you have fallaciously done so, I have pointed out your error.

Your vote against Excedrin was a stupid vote. That's not a personal attack, nor does it say anything about you personally. The vote is baseless, senseless, irrational, illogical,...call it what you will.

The latter isn't an insult. You insinuated that nobody is capable of finding scum tell without the benefit of hindsight. I ask you to keep such a blanket generalization to yourself instead of assuming it of everyone else.

If it's not clear, those were not meant to offend you personally. If you were offended, my apologies. If it's not clear, I'm not going to completely change my posting style simply because you are easily offended. If you play poorly, I'll call you on it. If you get upset, that's kinda tough.

You

have

been a textbook jerk, and did a pretty good job at sucking all my enjoyment out of this game back on page two. For a while I even considered leaving the game cold to get myself modkilled.

This is playing the martyr card again. If you don't enjoy and want to get out, then do so. Please don't whine about thinking about doing something.

But ok, for what it's worth; if you

were

insulted by my post - as I've been insulted by yours, I'm sincerely sorry. Usually, when I play, I sound like you; I call people's posts stupid, naïve, childish and whatnot. I can be a real asshole. But I've come to realize that it's actually pretty mean and that it doesn't belong in a game that is supposed to be fun and exciting.

If I think your behavior is inappropriate to the game, I'll tell you. If you think the same for me, return the favor. I agree with your sentiment; the game doesn't need people to be assholes to be enjoyable. I disagree that I have been an asshole to you, and I think you are too sensitive.

So. Friends?

Sure.

The theory is that scum sometimes make mistakes initially but appear more pro-town as the game progresses [...] The theory says nothing about whether townies do the same thing

If the theory doesn't say that scum does this

more often than town players

, then it lacks merit for scumhunting. All it says, then, is that "PLAYERS sometimes make mistakes initially but blah blah", and what would be the point of that?

False. The statement is that "SCUM sometimes make one mistake initially and do not make any more mistakes" which counters the argument that "real votes should only be placed on players who make multiple mistakes".

Further, a tool, theory, approach to scum-hunting does not necessarily need to show that scum engage in a behavior more often than town players.

Your repeated explanations that it is not a valid tell are irrelevant noise. You may as well tell us that there are townies in this game.

What?
2. "There are townies in the game" (or some other nonsense)
does not follow logically from
1. "I doubt that X is a valid tell", does it?

"Is X a valid scumtell?" -

that

is an important question - it is relevant to the game.
"Is X something that scum does sometimes, and maybe townplayers too?" Isn't. As an example; a lot of scum begins the game by typing "/confirm" in their first post. This can easily be tested using your proposed experiment. But what does it imply?

(1)-Statement 1 is true.
(2)-Statement 2 is not a tell.
(3)-Player A says Statement 1.
(4)-Player B says Statement 2 is not a tell.
(5)-Player B says that Player A says Statement 2 is a tell.
(6)-Player B calls Player A scum for (5).

Player A is Excedrin.
Player B is Rising.
Statement 1 is "Scum sometimes make a mistake initially but appear pro-town for the remainder of the game (and thus do not make any more mistakes)"
Statement 2 is "Players who make a mistake initially but appear pro-town later are more likely to be scum than town"

Statement 2 is NOT equivalent to Statement 1. It is irrelevant. You could equivalently replace it with any statement that is not a tell (such as the statement "There are townies in this game"). Unless you replace it with Statement 1, then it fails because Player A did not say Statement 2. If you replace it with Statement 1, your argument still fails since Player A did not say that Statement 1 was a tell.

-I'm not familiar with the game. I've looked at the stuff on wikipedia. Is anyone else familiar with it?

I've read a lot about it, but only played it for a day or two. Pretty fun. I have only met a few other species, though.

I'll probably look into it this weekend.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
-Missed your previous post about disliking my lack of vote and claiming that Rosso's behavior is better than my own. Strongly disagree.

I've been sharing thoughts with explanations on multiple players throughout my posts. Nobody has jumped out as probably scum, so at this point I don't see any reason to place a vote yet.

Rosso has neither placed a vote nor offered any thoughts. I can't fathom how saying he would like to hammer a player for absolutely no reason can possibly be better than actually sharing thoughts and participating in the game.

-Dunno about an easy way to just see a list. You can click the player's profile and find all posts by that player, then jump around to different pages to find completed games.

-From personal experience, I find walls are indicative of personal play style and not alignment.

@Kmd-

Plum, I think Rising realized he had a bad vote out and was looking for somewhere to put it and found Dry-fit.

Somewhat agree. I think Rising is probably stubborn town who realized his vote on Excedrin was terrible but doesn't want to admit it. I think he was probably looking for anywhere else to park his vote.

However, I think the point against Dry-fit is valid (though not damning). I think Dry-fit did misrepresent sigma's post, and his attack is based on different meanings of the phrase "generate discussion" (semantics argument) instead of addressing content.

@Rising-
-It is not equivalent to your playground argument. If you were planning to drop it, I don't see the point in mentioning a false analogy. I guess we'll see if you really drop it

-Mostly agree that KMD, Porkens, and Excedrin all voted for Zito for the same reasons.
--Random vote in second post (Excedrin may not have used this one).
--Sarcasm.
-You and I, and others, agree that sarcasm is not inherently a scum tell, and in this case it was either not a tell or at best a very weak one.
-Initially, you had no objection to these two tells.
-Initially, you objected to Excedrin using a "trap"
-You claim the trap is that Excedrin claimed that if Zito explains his behavior, that would damn Zito.
--Excedrin did not say this despite your claim. You have not shown that he said this.

"that's when you take what would otherwise be a natural and helpful reaction for a townplayer and make it look like something suspicious, in advance."
This is where your argument fails. Excedrin's post does NOT take a natural and helpful reaction for a townplayer and make it look like something suspicious, in advance. You still have not shown or even attempted to show how it does this.

-I'm debating you because I enjoy arguing especially with people who are capable of rational thought but are not engaging in it. I think there is a possibility that you will admit your mistake like a good townie instead of stubbornly clinging to crap logic and developing a sub-optimal play style.

-Statement 2 is EXACTLY your statement. That is REQUIRED for your argument to make sense.

"If Papa Zito

doesn't

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he will of course remain looking like scum. But if he

does

come up with a valid and sensible explanation, he fits right into Excedrins proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour."
If Zito did come up with a valid and sensible explanation and fit into Excedrin's proposed scenario, it would not make him any more suspicious than he already was.

Your use of likely is slightly ambiguous.
-If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that is indicative of being scum, then you are repeating Statement 2.
-If by "likely scum-behavior" you mean behavior that scum would probably engage in, then the situation does not say anything about Zito's affiliation.

Would the following situation hold with your usage of the term "likely scum-behavior"?
(1)-Statement 3 "Scum are likely to post if someone votes for them".
(2)-Player C says Statement 3.
(3)-Player C votes for Player D.
If Player D

does

post, he fits right into Player C's proposed scenario of a likely scum-behaviour.

Player D is not screwed if he posts, despite fitting into the scenario. Likewise Zito is not screwed if he posts, despite fitting into Excedrin's proposed scenario.

IF Excedrin had stated Statement 2, then fitting into his scenario would be a trap. Since he did not and you agree that he did not, then there is no trap.

[Kast]

Scanned through everything again.

@Dry-fit-
-You posted an attack on Sigma. Does this imply that he is your top suspect?
-Do you think anyone else has been suspicious?
-You felt that KMD's vote on Zito was not intended to lynch, but rather to generate discussion. The wagon on Zito is still there; what do you think about each of the other players and their reasons?
-Do you believe that any action that generates discussion is pro-town?
-If KMD (or anyone else) pushed strongly for the lynch of another player early in the game with poor reasons; would you find that behavior suspicious?

@KeelieRavenWolf-
Please post something. You had a reasonable post early and nothing to follow that.
-Do you think sarcasm is a valid tell?
-Have any players stuck out so far as appearing opportunistic? (and is that good, bad or neutral?)

@Locke Lamora-
You seem to dislike the wagon on Zito.
-What do you think about Excedrin's, Plum's, or Porken's votes and reasons at the time they voted?

@Porkens-
You haven't been posting much recently and even older posts I'm not seeing much in terms of non-RVS or game irrelevant thoughts. Please post more.
-Do you think the case against Zito is/was reasonable?
-What was wrong with Plum's defense of Zito?
-Do you think it is generally (always/sometimes/never?) a scum tell and/or anti-town for one player to defend another player?

@Rosso-
Do you have any thoughts to share?
-If you are unable to hammer Kast, are you willing to vote/hammer other players to avoid a no lynch?

@Sigma-
-Your question to Porkens still was not answered. However, it seems like Porkens was just joking/messing around. If his comment that you asked about has any in game relevance, does it help to draw attention and/or press him for a response?
-Please elaborate on what you meant when you said you were coming around to KMD's argument on Zito. Do you think KMD's vote on Zito was serious? Do you think his reasons were valid?

[Kast]

And you're saying that Excedrin didn't have anything to add? That's

true

. Excedrin

didn't

have something to add -

and

Porkens

also

didn't.

Fixed.

[Kast]

@KMD-
I'm not following what you're referring to. I think Rising is probably a stubborn townie. The Excedrin case itself is terrible, but that doesn't mean he is scum. Townies are just as likely to use crap-logic as scum, that's far more about personal play style than about affiliation.

I think he's pushed a terrible case against Excedrin and a much better one against Dry-fit. I think he probably jumped for Dry-fit to put distance between himself and his crap-logic driven Excedrin case, but I think he also could genuinely think Dry-fit is suspicious. The two are not mutually exclusive and there is nothing wrong with having multiple reasons for doing something.

[Kast]

@KMD-
Straw men and a long reach are both tools in the crap logistician's toolbox. Regardless what you call it, I've seen plenty of townies use straw men and stretch things pretty far (especially on D1).

I'm not saying those things are town tells on Rising. I'm saying that despite engaging in anti-town behavior, Rising's posts read as stubborn town instead of scum trying to drive the town to confusion/mislynch.

I think Rising genuinely believed his terrible case when he initially proposed it. He has indirectly and inadvertently admitted his mistakes through the course of discussion, although I think by now that he knows he was mistaken and just doesn't want to admit it.

That he is still stubbornly clinging to it after his attempt to let it disappear quietly failed strikes me more as something stubborn town would do than scum. If he were scum, his intentions in switching to Dry-Fit would seem to be to remove attention from the bad argument. When he was called on it, Scum would be much better off admitting and dropping instead of stubbornly picking it up again.

@Sigma-
-No comment about coming around on KMD's argument for Zito?
-Porkens was probably joking. If he were seriously saying something about his role, please explain how that helps the town to be revealed. If he was being serious and reveals anything about his role, that could very easily help scum with targetting and not help town much at all.

[Kast]

@Rising-
I think it's anti-town to intentionally use bad arguments to pressure other players. I agree that there are enough players who use bad arguments when pressuring other players seeing a player who is using a bad argument is more likely null than a tell. Individual situations may be different.

No, you're right: it would not make him any "more" suspicious. But it wouldn't make him any less suspicious neither. And usually - when you come up with sensible explanations - it does.

(1)-Player F does something suspicious.
(2)-If Player F provides a plausible explanation, then all other players will be (should be) less suspicious of Player F by some amount S.

You appear to believe that Excedrin's post supports eliminating (2). At most, I could see that it would decrease amount S proportionally with how likely a given player already thinks Player F is scum. This is normal and reasonable; it would be a mistake to assume that an explanation and subsequent pro-town behavior should automatically remove suspicion that was a result of a scummy action. Excedrin's thought merely verbalizes a concept that most of us apply naturally.

Further, in our specific case, the explanation was made in response to the charge that it was too early in the day to have a strong/valid suspicion of another player. It was a counter-example from anecdotal evidence.

-Show with quotes. Explaining that a situation in which a player is screwed if they do one action or screwed if they don't does not show that EXCEDRIN set up that situation. You discuss and repeat your conclusion. Nobody is arguing about that. *IF EXCEDRIN SETUP A TRAP, THEN IT WOULD BE A SCUMMY MOVE*. What has been pointed out to you repeatedly is that Excedrin did not setup a trap. You have never once posted any evidence that he setup a trap. You jump A>B>D>E skipping C. You can repeat A, B, D, and E as many times as you want, but it does not mean you have shown C.

Your last post at least makes an attempt to explain how Excedrin's post could be interpreted. It falls short of the mark in showing that Excedrin's post does what you claim.

In a pure logical sense, it doesn't say anything about your affiliation if I were to say "You could be scum", "you're possibly scum", "I've seen scum do what you're doing" etc in every one of my posts.

False. It would say that my affiliation is not confirmed (or at least not confirmed to you).

Mafia is a logical game. Sound logic is a strong tool for town to catch scum. Unfortunately, most of us make mistakes and not all of us have the same reasoning capabilities.

@KMD-
-I don't think stubbornness itself is a town tell. I think the tone and content of Rising's posts convey that he genuinely believed the bad argument he was pushing against Excedrin. I think his overall posting content and style reveal that he is being honest for the most part, though I think he has realized the argument was bad and is being dishonest in not admitting it due to stubbornness.

I don't think any of the potentially scummy tactics that Rising has used are indicative of him being scum. I think his behavior in general makes more sense as a stubborn townie than as scum. As scum, he would be playing pretty badly and somewhat nonsensically.

[Kast]

I don't like Dry-Fit's responses. I get the impression he was looking for something to jump for. I posed some mildly leading questions and he jumped at them.

My read is he is either a townie who doesn't know how to contribute and is eager to do so but doesn't want to "mess up" again like he did with his Sigma case, OR scum trying to avoid attention and latch on to a "safe" mislynch wagon. If it goes anywhere, he could always drop responsibility back at me for suggesting it, if not, he still appears to be reasonably trying to help out the town.

This isn't extremely strong, but I think it's the clearest thing I've seen so far and is sufficient for a vote. It is less ideal since two others have expressed suspicion of Dry-Fit (although Rising also kinda jumped on leads I dropped). This also wasn't exactly a trap set for Dry-fit specifically; I think he could easily have responded with similar content but changed his tone and I would probably be fine with it. His tone makes me suspect the response that he did give.

Vote: Dry-Fit

I'm also going to be pretty busy this weekend so probably won't be around to post. I'll try to check in a few more times today.

-Addendum to this. If Dry-fit is scum, I could see Rising's vote as a distancing/bus.

@Plum's post-
Good post on the whole. I think you're doing a good job of looking at a player for personal consistency, which Rising lacks. I don't think your post gives a fair treatment to Dry-Fit; who clearly misrepresented Sigma's posts.

@Excedrin-
Rosso's posting style is anti-town. The difference between my posting and his is far more than his being directed and mine being general. Suspicions should have reasons attached. As a townie, if you have information to guide the town to make a good lynch, then share it so the town does so. Sharing your thoughts also helps you avoid mistakes in your reasoning by giving you input from others who might notice mistakes that you make.

I'm not advocating lynching Rosso for having an anti-town playstyle. However, it is ridiculous to claim his behavior is at all better than anyone who is actually playing this game.

@Rosso-
-You didn't answer my question. Please do so.

-Consider that you aren't helping the town by telling people to throw votes with no reason. Your behavior essentially asks everyone to give you a free pass to not play in this game but while actively lurking. If you are a townie, I hope your night play is much better than your day play.

If you are genuinely suspicious of me, then help the town by letting them know why they should vote for me. If you aren't, then you clearly are not doing any scumhunting. We already have one inactive/lurker, we don't need more deadweight.

[Kast]

@Rising-

But then again, a lot of the time you get one of those early scumtells from a townplayer as well, so what Excedrin said hasn't really got any meaning. So why

did

he wrote it?

-Excedrin argued against the idea that townies should not place early "real" votes by claiming that scum often make mistakes early and correct their behavior later
...
I'm guessing that Rising completely misread the second point and misunderstood Excedrin's justification for early voting as either justification for voting Zito OR setup for future justification of votes for Zito. I think this is more likely than that he was attempting to intentionally push a straw man to get Excedrin lynched.

[Wrong. It was most

definitely

a trap

according to my definition

, which I have explained thoroughly. If you're used to see that word in another context, then I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think I've explained this enough by now.

Here Rising is playing the semantics game. If he is wrong, he just changes the definition of a key word and suddenly he is not technically wrong, just misunderstood.

[Kast]

@Rosso-

The scum thrive on their information, and having even more enables them to disappear easier.

-Is this a description of what you are attempting to do?
-How is the disappearing working for you right now?

-How does your strategy prevent scum from disappearing?
--In the event you correctly identify scum, how does your strategy help the town lynch that scum?
--In the event that you incorrectly identify scum, how does your strategy help the town at all?
-Would it help the town if most (all) players follow your strategy?
--Your strategy promotes clamming up and reducing/eliminating discussion. Discussion is one of the town's tools and is pretty generally accepted as necessary for town to win.

I'm assuming you cannot and will not actually answer most of those questions. Barring a response, forgive me if I conclude that your play is anti-town. If you have a good reason to think I am scum, then you aren't doing anything at all to get the town to lynch the player you think is scum. If you're just messing around, then sucks for town if you are a townie, and good job to you if you are scum. It looks like most people just accept that you don't like playing the game and are willing to give you a free pass.

As a townie, how do I have any night play at all besides dying or not dying?

-Two comments to this.
-All players (townies included) have guaranteed night abilities as well as any abilities granted them in their role PM.

Each PM has two parts to it. The Pilot (thats YOU) and the ship you are currently on. Both parts are colored how they would investigate (if that is possible) Alliance, Hierarchy or ????
...

Every ship possesses:

P.) Energy value. Your default value, unless otherwise noted, is your max value.
A.) Jettison (N) - Destroy your own ship sending all players on it into space. This requires 0 energy.
A.) Retrieve (N) - Select a player who has been jettisoned. They will become part of your ship. This requires 0 energy.

-Fishing much? As a townie, you have the guaranteed actions that everyone else has. You may have additional abilities, which you should not comment on. This is pretty standard for most games, and should be hardly surprising in a flavor rich theme game. Probing for any private information that I may have (either directly as part of my role or indirectly derived from it) is completely unnecessary in determining affiliation.

the fact that you get all concerned about one pos post like that is reeeeeeeeeeeeally scummy.

-What is a "pos post"?
-Perhaps you can follow your own advice and include the name of the person who wrote the post you are referring to (and if you could give a post number or a link that would be even better...though perhaps that is asking too much)?
-Why are you breaking your own beliefs and providing a reason which could help scum avoid doing something scummy and help them to disappear? (Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that you're at least attempting, even if you are just trying to invent and fit reasons to your suspicion instead of the other way around)

---

Regardless, you still have not answered my initial question.

-If you are unable to hammer Kast, are you willing to vote/hammer other players to avoid a no lynch?

[Kast]

Thoughts on each player before I'm out for the weekend. Also reminder we have about a week til deadline and we NEED a majority for a lynch. If the lynch candidate is going to have enough time to claim and have the claim evaluated, people may need to compromise away from top choice to second or third choice.

Rosso Carne- Doesn't want to play the game, just wants to put hammer votes on random players. Anti-town/Neutral read.
Porkens- Low on content, a bit random at times. Seems to be playing off others a lot. Neutral/Neutral read.
Papa Zito- Haven't checked his other games but apparently not scumhunting as much as he normally does? Regardless, doesn't seem to be hunting much, OMGUS and outrage at the weak case against him. Playing very reactively. Neutral/Neutral read.
Kmd4390- I'm suspicious of his calling me obvtown as potentially buddying. Play seems consistent with meta as either town or scum. Neutral/Slightly scummy read.
Plum- Pretty rational on the whole, but a few points seem to be a bit "off". A strong reliance on KMD's opinion, which is odd and potentially buddying, but also actively promoting discussion with other players. Pro-town/Neutral read.
sigma-Fairly rational and actively looking into other players. Shares his own thoughts as well.
KeelieRavenWolf- Lurker. Anti-town/Neutral read.
Excedrin- Pretty rational/reasonable and engages in discussion. Fairly reactive style and playing off others. Doesn't seem to offer much on his own initiative. Neutral/Neutral read.
Rising- Can be reasonable but also extremely stubborn. Pushed a terrible case on Excedrin, that despite admissions of how bad it was in part, refuses to admit it in whole. Jumped for a valid case on Dry-fit, but now wants to run from that when challenged again. Anti-town/Slightly town read.
Locke Lamora- Reasonable and actively engages other players. Initially very little offered in terms of stances or personal beliefs, although that has been changing. Pro-town/Slightly town read.
Dry-fit- Misrepresented then lurked when called on it. Popped back up and jumped at a weak case when presented with slightly leading questions. Since then lurked again when challenged. Anti-town/Slightly scummy read.

Nobody is appears so strongly town that I would prefer No Lynch to them, however, I would prefer a Dry-Fit lynch the most. After a huge gap, I would be okay with Rosso, Keelie, or KMD (first two as policy lynches, KMD as weak gut), then followed be everyone with a */Neutral read, then everyone with a */Slightly town read.

[Kast]

@Keelie-
I get that you are saying the lurking is unintentional/involuntary. The point remains that you aren't present much and that you not being present is not helpful for the town. Please continue to post what you can and try to increase frequency. Your vote on Rosso is suboptimal given that we need to agree on a lynch target.

@Dry-Fit-
I agree that it would be difficult for you to drop all blame to me if you successfully pushed a mislynch. However, that does not mean you (or scum in general) would not attempt that. If I were killed, it would make it much easier as you could boldly associate your push with a dead confirmed townie and try to gain credibility. Regardless, I think this is a significant enough possibility that my vote belongs on you.

@Locke-
There is nothing inherently scummy about being wrong. Content of some wrong or incorrect posts could be scummy. Refusing to correct an incorrect belief after being shown that it is incorrect is anti-town. It can also be scummy depending on the content.

@Rising-
-Excedrin prefaced his post by making it clear that he did not know for certain what Sigma was posting, however he was providing a counter-example to one possible reason behind Sigma's statement (which did not have any reasons shared yet). At the time, Sigma's reasoning for warning against asking other players to place real votes was left ambiguous, but the clear implication was that there is not sufficient time to make a good case.

-Absence of other cases does not make a terrible case any less terrible. Also, your case was worse than an arbitrary/random vote.

-I initially posted that Dry-Fit was misrepresenting Sigma's post. Your post essentially rehashes what I said.

@Porkens-
-How does the information that you shared help the town converge on a lynch suspect? You've also just shared your planned night actions with scum and have directly shared information which you yourself admit could be beneficial to them. It looks like you are attempting to distract the town from successfully lynching today.

-If scum are actually looking for your ship as you suggest, then you've just painted a target for them. Jettisoning will also leave you outside your ship and at the mercy of whoever decides to pick you up tomorrow. If nobody takes the risk of picking up a potential ship hijacker (which I'm going to admit now that I see almost no chance of picking up someone whose claimed flavor is that he hijacked a ship), and you are a townie, then you've just killed off a townie for scum. I suppose if you are scum, you can safely get picked up by an ally if absolutely necessary.

-Unnecessary mega posting.
That's debatable. Also, you fail to say why this is scummy.
-Too many pbpa's on day one,
That's debatable. Also, you fail to say why this is scummy.
-expressing very strong reads on people.
How is this bad?
-Preferring no-lynch
This is a lie. I specifically stated I prefer lynching anyone over no lynch.
-Does not attack lurkers strongly enough.
Wtf? I guess you were too busy not reading the "unnecessary megaposts" to realize that I'm the person who called out Keelie for disappearing (and that goes for almost everyone else who had stopped posting).

Actually, let me broaden this a bit - what was the point of claiming this information?

I brought this up so people would have something concrete to talk about, and because I thought it would be best, strategically, for the town. The only downside I see is the aforementioned info to the scum.

Please elaborate on this. I don't follow how your information helps us or has any strategic benefit. Weakly, you could be referring to your guess that scum may have the ability to steal ships, but that is information you could have shared without revealing that you yourself have a scum allied ship.

Your claimed choice to destroy your ship likewise was completely unnecessary to share. If scum can steal ships but self destruction stops them, then you've given them fair warning to steal from someone else. If they can get around self destruction, then you've just revealed what you were afraid of. How does it help town at all to give us this information of your claimed night action choice?

@Zito-
Why did you assume that Porkens has role info suggesting my affiliation? What would you normally think if a player waits until right before deadline then suddenly tells people that he has role information indicating another player is scum; a player who he has not mentioned any suspicion of previously and actually completely ignored the entire game?

@Rosso-
If you actually played the game, people wouldn't need to ask you to do so.

@Mod-
-What happens to a ship when a player is killed/lynched?
-What happens to other players on the ship when the pilot is killed/lynched?
-What happens to the ship if a passenger is killed/lynched?
-When you rescue a jettisoned player, do you learn any information about that player?
-Does the rescued player learn any information about you or your ship?

[Kast]

@Mod-
Thanks.
-When an unmanned ship is destroyed, is there any public information revealed about that ship?

@Porkens-

I feel that keeping this information to myself and hoping to deal with it independently has a higher risk of failure than bringing it to light now. I also suspect that knowing scum can use this ship, knowing that I was on it night one, and possibly knowing who might end up on it later could make it harder for the scum to take and use.

-I can understand deciding to share some setup information that you feel is better for the town to know. This seems independent of your reason of providing solid information for the town to discuss. Your previous post seemed to imply that your information would be relevant to today's lynch. Was that what you meant to imply? If so, do you feel that it has done anything to achieve that purpose?
-Why did you wait until there was less than a week to go to share this information?
-Dropping game setup information that does not point to a lynch or any vote leaders right before deadline is...distracting. We need a strict majority or else we will have a no lynch. I don't see how your choice to reveal information is helping us move towards a lynch consensus.

How does it help town at all to give us this information of your claimed night action choice?

Maybe I'm lying. But that possibility should be obvious, so why are you fishing?

-You say your reason for sharing this information is to help town. How does it help town?
-How is my question rolefishing?

@Sigma-

I believe Porkens' story. Why bother with have abilities be 'racial' if everyone starts with a ship aligned to their race?

-I believe Porkens is telling the truth that he plans to destroy his ship and jettison. He would be pretty crazy to claim that then not do it.
-I think it is plausible that he is on a ship that does not match his race (I'll also caution everyone else to be careful and not reveal if your own ship matches your race; Porkens could be fishing for someone to let that slip).
-I don't think either of those says anything about his alignment.

-I think it is definitely possible that a ship could be destroyed without the player being killed, which would result in players needing to be rescued and ending up on ships that don't match their race.
-We have a known public game mechanic which allows players to go from one ship to another (with the pilot's permission) and could also result in a player's race not matching the ship.

[Kast]

@Zito-
-I am willing to lynch you to prevent a no lynch.
-You are the vote leader and, atm, the most viable lynch. If you are going to defend yourself and/or claim, consider doing it sooner than later.

[Kast]

@Locke-
I'm pretty sure that KMD's post was not saying that Rising is the only wall-o-texter. I'm pretty sure he was implying that out of all the wall-o-text posters, Rising is the one he thinks is most likely to be scum.

[Kast]

@Dry-Fit-
Here's what I see.

I pushed you a bit about your case on Sigma.
(1)-I had already called out your prior reason for pushing Sigma as weak.
I also pushed Sigma on two issues.
(2)-His pressure on Porken's "vig" comment which looks like joking but which Sigma was treating as a serious issue.
(3)-I questioned his stated position on Zito (he responded by voting Keelie).

In response, you confirmed that you are seriously pushing Sigma with three main points:
(A)-You are no longer using your old reasons.
(B)-You dislike his weak vote for Keelie (and Locke to a smaller degree).
(C)-You dislike his repeated references to Porken's "vig" comment.

(1) and (2) directly correlate with your (A) and (C). (2) and (B) loosely correlate in that I pushed him about his voting/suspicions and you likewise pushed his voting.

I suppose the symmetry may indicate you were trying to convince me to your point, but it feels a lot more like you were trying to buy complacency by agreeing with me, while giving yourself an "out" in the event that your vote turned into a mislynch.

[Kast]

@Dry-fit-
Would you move your vote to avoid a no lynch?

@Sigma-
I would assume from your previous posts that you would be okay with either a Dry-Fit OR a Zito lynch. Is this an accurate assumption?

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
Mind sharing any reasons for preference of Kast over Zito?

[Kast]

Based on recent events, I think Porkens is town, so I'm willing to switch to Kast to prevent NL.

There was 4 on Zito, with myself and Sigma both indicating preference for Zito over no lynch. That is a viable lynch. Please explain how switching to Kast prevents a NL?

[Kast]

@Mod-
Is the vote count correct?

kmd is listed twice and there are only 3 names under non-voting but the count says 4.

Mod Mistake - Someday I'll find a good way to do votes!

[Kast]

I think Kast is likely scum.

Again, do you have any reasons for thinking this? It is good that you clarify that your vote is not solely to avoid a no lynch, however, you haven't said why you think I am scum.

I had thought about it early on, but I didn't want to hijack other possible roads of conversation.

-I believe town can handle more than one line of discussion. But I grant that others don't always hold that same belief.
-If you genuinely think this information helps town achieve a lynch, then what have we discussed previously that was so important that you felt the town would suffer from having attention diverted to your claim instead? What changed this to make it okay to claim now?
-It sounds like you were fully aware that your claim could be distracting and would not necessarily bring about immediate results. Why would you choose to share so near deadline while knowing this?

Hmm, only if that person has been jettisoned, and I don't think the player who was jettisoned has a choice.

Interesting point.

@Mod-
Can a player who has been jettisoned refuse a rescue?

@Excedrin-
You like to count Rosso's "invisible" vote, yet you choose to discount Rising's actual vote and Sigma's "invisible" vote.

However, that pales against your failure to address Zito's 3 actual votes and 3 "invisible" votes plus others who are willing to vote anyone over no lynch.

Summary of "reasons" to vote for me:
-Avoiding a no lynch by dropping the vote leader to 1 less vote (Excedrin)
-Being too helpful (Rosso Carne)
-Not making weak OMGUS votes (Rosso Carne)
-"Fishing" (Porkens)
-Not calling Porkens for lurking (Porkens)
-Too early to have a "Neutral" or "Slight" read on other players (Porkens)
-Posting too much (Porkens)

Everything except for the "Fishing" and "Lurking" comments would normally be reasons to NOT vote for someone.

The "fishing" consists of Porkens saying "I'm doing X because of Y", then me asking "How does X accomplish Y?". He can't explain because it would reveal too much information?!?

The lurking comment is just weird. Btw, I DID ask Porkens to post more content and to post more, so arguably it isn't even true.

Preview Edit-Separate post to cover Excedrin's next post.

[Kast]

Why?

1. Kast seems to have dropped a lot of minor "I like your post, good job!" pats on the back to a lot of people (to me #42, Plum #53, Sigma #102, KeelieRavenWolf #137, Locke Lamora #173, and even Rising (multiple cases of "Rising is a townie-just bad at logic" #102, #120, #140, #143 etc)) looks like buddying.

-Do you disagree that any of the instances I pointed out are good posts?
-Agreeing with a point is normal, and also a regular part of my meta.

2. Kast has spent far too much time/energy/words arguing with Rising over a "who cares?" kind of point

-Has this been at expense of not participating in other capacities?
-How is this indicative of alignment?

3. Dry-fit looked like an easy target considering Rising and sigma had posted suspicion of him before Kast posted his:

#168
This isn't extremely strong, but I think it's the clearest thing I've seen so far and is sufficient for a vote. It is less ideal since two others have expressed suspicion of Dry-Fit (although Rising also kinda jumped on leads I dropped). This also wasn't exactly a trap set for Dry-fit specifically; I think he could easily have responded with similar content but changed his tone and I would probably be fine with it. His tone makes me suspect the response that he did give.

Extremely weak "well, I guess I'll vote here, maybe he's scum." Really? Tone is good enough after all the BS you've spewed about logic? Alright then.

-Not being extremely strong does not mean it is extremely weak. Tone is not contradictory to logic. Dry-Fit's behavior fits best as scum, hence my vote. Is he guaranteed scum? No. I don't think anyone has made any extremely strong tells today. That usually doesn't happen on D1.

4. It's OK to not have a clear top suspect on day 1, but that Kast has weighed in with so many "neutral/slightly scummy" kinds of reads seems like an attempt to avoid scrutiny after a mislynch.

As opposed to what? You're wielding an inconsistent standard here. Your unspoken implication is that it is better to avoid mentioning other players at all.

His lack of a vote seems very different to me from Rosso Carne's lack of a vote, as I stated in #148.

Your statement there is just as wrong now as it was then. Voting for your top suspect and having a preferential list for the next 3 candidates, with reasons for all of those, is much better than refusing to vote and insisting on only hammering a randomly selected player but refusing to do anything to get others to vote for that player or try to determine if that player is scum.

@Zito-
-Defend yourself however you can. It is unfortunate that the town as a whole is not active enough that the Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion by virtue of placing weak/reasonless votes that they undoubtedly will not be held accountable for. However, that is the state we are in, so you'll just have to deal with it as best you can.

@Deadline-
We've got three days to deadline. If anyone is claiming they should do so soon so town has time to evaluate claims.

I don't think I'm anywhere likely to be lynched, however, with 3 players maintaining votes or "intent" to vote for no real reason, and given Zito's decision to not claim, I think it is likely that:
-Zito will not feel enough pressure to claim until it is too late for a claim to do any good
-We will either end up lynching Zito without giving him adequate time to claim OR we will end up with a no lynch

If anyone is actually willing to vote for me, say so and I'll give a partial claim.

@Excedrin-
-Okay, then I'll move you from 1 bad reason to no reason at all. It is telling that instead of showing another reason, you just complain that your reason to not lynch me should be ignored.

-Why do you ignore Sigma's stated intention to vote?
-Why do you ignore my main counterpoint?

[Kast]

@Zito-
Thanks for your insights.

I feel that a vote for Locke Lamora is a wasted vote this close to deadline and with a sword over your head. Townies have to compromise on vote candidates when a strict majority is required.

I suggest Dry-Fit.
-Directly misrepresented Sigma on something that was pretty clear.
-After being called on it, he lurked until I posted some pressure on Sigma. He then immediately popped up and echoed my pressure as his new reason for voting. Since then has lurked again except when called out.

[Kast]

refusing to vote and insisting on only hammering a randomly selected player but refusing to do anything to get others to vote for that player or try to determine if that player is scum.

This is blatant misrepresentation.

Point out what is misrepresented.
He will not vote for anyone.
He will only hammer.

(he has not explicitly stated this, but it's common knowledge)

He will hammer a player who he selected for either no reason or equivalent to no reason (colloquially a "random" player).
He refuses to do anything to get others to vote for that player.
He refuses to try and determine if the player is scum.

2. Kast has spent far too much time/energy/words arguing with Rising over a "who cares?" kind of point

-Has this been at expense of not participating in other capacities?
-How is this indicative of alignment?

It is unfortunate that the town as a whole is not active enough that the Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion by virtue of placing weak/reasonless votes that they undoubtedly will not be held accountable for.

So, Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion and that's scummy. But Kast/Rising duo has posted huge pointless discussions that prevent and derail discussion and that's not scummy?

Porkens+Excedrin's votes determined Zito as a candidate to be lynched. Now you are attempting to make Kast another candidate immediately prior to deadline with no reasons. Two players determining both lynch candidates is undue control. You are blatantly misrepresenting when you claim that I labelled that as scummy. I labelled it as unfortunate; it is a bad idea for town to let that happen. It is much more a failing of the town than anything either of you did.

Kast/Rising posting walls of text that other players chose to not read derails discussion how? Despite the walls of text, remind me which players have been actively engaging others and drawing them back into the game and while raising new points to consider and analyzing the information available and the responses of other players.

You can contrast with Rosso who says players should not discuss or give reasons for anything. Rosso actually discourages discussion.

-Okay, then I'll move you from 1 bad reason to no reason at all. It is telling that instead of showing another reason, you just complain that your reason to not lynch me should be ignored.

What? Are you intentionally trying to confuse?

To be clear, does this mean you have no reasons to provide?

-Why do you ignore Sigma's stated intention to vote?

sigma has voted for a lurker. He's stated that he will continue to research Papa Zito and Dry-fit. He has not stated willingness to vote beyond that.

False. Sigma has been a supporter of Zito AND Dry-Fit as lynch candidates for most of the day. In the post you quoted, he clearly states that he agrees with kmd and will vote pick between Zito and Dry-Fit. His research is to decide which of those two is better to lynch.

-Why do you ignore my main counterpoint?

According to you, I have no reasons to vote you, so I'm not sure what your main counterpoint is.

It is not a counterpoint to a reason for voting me, so your argument is invalid. It is a counterpoint to your inaccurate representation of the game state with respect to which players are valid candidates for being lynched.

Altogether, there are 5(6 counting you but your position has been inconsistent) players willing to lynch Zito, 3 players willing to lynch Dry-Fit, and 3 players willing to lynch Kast. Everyone except for Rosso appears willing to lynch anyone rather than no lynch.

[Kast]

Please read section addressed to you. You are welcome to read other sections if you choose. Please answer the questions posed to you (elaboration is very welcome). Also please confirm if the summary your stated suspicions is accurate/up to date. If it is not, please let me know so I can correct it. Thanks.

@Dry-Fit-
-I'm assuming your FOS on Plum indicates willingness to lynch her.
-Is your comment to LL also indicative of willingness to lynch him?
-Is there anyone you would be unwilling to lynch rather than a no lynch?
-Do you expect that your vote on Sigma will have any relevance for D1?

@Excedrin-
To be clear:
-You prefer a Kast lynch, then a Sigma lynch, followed by a Zito lynch.
-You are unwilling to vote for Porkens (or yourself).
-You are willing to vote for other players if that is required to prevent a no lynch.

@KRW-
-I haven't seen your promised post(s). Hope everything is going okay and looking forward to some response. Please do not disappoint; every vote is important.
To be clear:
-You are most suspicious of RC, followed by Plum.
-You plan to vote for someone who will guarantee a lynch instead of a no lynch but currently do not know which player among the vote leaders is the scummiest.

@KMD-
-What do you think of the case on Kast?
To be clear:
-You are most suspicious of Zito and would prefer his lynch.
-Your next suspect is Rising, but you do not feel that a Rising lynch will occur anytime soon.
-You are willing to vote for others to secure a lynch rather than a no lynch.

@LL-
-Do you have any suspects other than Zito?
-You have been gathering information on other players for the majority of the game. Do you have any analysis of this information available?
-You dislike the Dry-Fit wagon. Do you dislike it more than the Kast wagon?
To be clear:
-You would like to lynch Zito.
-Are you willing to lynch others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?

@Zito-
-Your recent posts have answered my questions already. For completeness:
-You would prefer a lynch of Locke Lamora over all others.
-You prefer lynching Porkens or KMD next and equally to each other.
-You prefer a lynch of KRW, RC, Ex, or DF next and equally to each other.
-You prefer a lynch of Sigma after that.
-You prefer a lynch of the rest after that rather than a no lynch.

@Plum-
-I get that you think Rising is scummy, however, consider that you may be letting that influence you and bias you to dismiss Rising's case against Dry-Fit.
-I have the impression that you may equate agreement with towniness. Consider if that is affecting your thoughts/analysis.
To be clear:
-You prefer a lynch of Excedrin, then Zito, then Rising.
-You are willing to vote others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch.

@Pork-
-Do you think that your case/suspicion of me is strong?
-I get the impression that you don't really know or care if I am scum, but would happily lynch me just to remove a source of long/tedious posts. Is this accurate?
-Do you think Excedrin's reasons for wagonning are valid?
-I don't believe you ever answered whether you think it is generally scummy for one player to defend someone else. Do you think this?
To be clear:
-Your preference is currently Kast, then Plum, then Zito.
-Are you willing to change your vote to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?

@Rising-
-Please confirm if you plan to move your vote from Dry-Fit. Are you still unwilling to lynch Dry-Fit today?
-Have you found anyone that you prefer to lynch rather than Dry-Fit? Please share who you are moving it to and why.
-What do you think of the case against me?
-What do you think of the case on Zito?
To be clear:
-You suspect Dry-Fit, then Excedrin.
-You would like to vote for a stronger case than the one you have against Dry-Fit.
-Are you willing to change your vote to secure a lynch rather than no lynch?

@RC-
-Please confirm that you are only willing to hammer Kast and unwilling to vote in any other manner for D1.

@Sigma-
-Please confirm that you are considering Zito and Dry-Fit as lynch candidates (in particular that your post 23 states this).
-Have you made a decision yet?
-Are you adding Kast to the list of your candidates under consideration?
To be clear:
-You are willing to lynch either Dry-Fit OR Zito and cannot currently decide which you prefer.
-You are willing to vote for others to secure a lynch rather than no lynch.

Summary of who people are willing to vote for:
Compiled from above assumptions. Please correct above assumptions if anything is inaccurate.

(A) Player
(B) # 1st or 2nd pick
(C) # 3rd pick
(D) # Lynch rather than no lynch
(E) # Unknown (probably will add to previous column)
(F) # 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks

Code: Select all

(A)    (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Zito    4   2   1   3   6
DF      3   1   3   3   4
Ex      2   2   3   3   4
Kast    3   0   5   2   3
Plum    3   0   5   2   3
RC      2   1   4   4   3
Sig     2   0   5   3   2
KMD     2   0   3   4   2
LL      1   1   4   4   2
Ris     1   1   4   4   2
Pork    1   1   4   3   2
KRW     0   1   5   4   1

------------------------------
@Excedrin-
In general you are being very inconsistent and exhibiting signs of confirmation bias. Immediately following are your points of inconsistency. Below that are answers to your post. Answers have been numbered to facilitate responding.
-You claim that you will return your vote to Zito if Kast wagon is not a viable lynch. You claim that the Dry-Fit wagon, which is equal to or stronger than the Kast wagon, is not a viable lynch. You fail to return your vote to Zito.
-You claim that discouraging discussion is very scummy. You admit that Rosso's posts can be seen as directly discouraging discussion (given that he directly stated that players should NOT share or discuss reasons and should JUST vote, that seems impossible to rationally deny), but claim that is okay. You inconsistently claim that Kast's large posts could potentially discourage discussion, and claim this potential is a valid reason to think Kast is scum.
-Inconsistently you also ignore other players who posted long posts.
-You are intentionally engaging behavior that you claim discourages other players from posting and is scummy.
-You request explanations from other players, but inconsistently say it is scummy when Kast provides explanations.
-You also inconsistently excuse Rosso Carne for giving no reasons/explanations.

(1)-Technically you are correct that Rosso did not directly state this. However, you can amend my point to "He will not place a vote that is not a hammer vote AND will not place it on anyone except for Kast". Do you have any objections to this longer form? I mistakenly assumed the shorter form was clear enough. From context it should have been clear that "He will hammer a player who he selected" is distinct from the voting in the previous post. The link is an example that he is not even willing to vote for Kast, his hammer target.

(2)-False. Sometimes players try to get squirrely and claim that saying a vote is because they think a player is scum is providing a reason for voting that player. It really is not; but leaving that debate for another time (but still noting it since I assume that if I do not, you will raise it as a straw man objection), a hammer is OBVIOUSLY made because you think a player is scum. That is NOT a reason for wanting to lynch the player. That is roughly equivalent to saying your "reason" for voting is because you wanted to vote. It does NOT answer the question.

(3)-You fail at parsing that phrase. In that post he refuses to share his reason(s). This is equivalent to and indistinguishable from having no reasons.

The parenthentical refers to the entire sentence and explains that a vote with no reasons is equivalent to and indistinguishable from an arbitrary vote. Colloquially, we call these arbitrary votes "random votes" and restrict their use to the RVS. They are generally restricted to RVS because a combination of game theory plus thousands of games of mafia have proved out that use of these arbitrary votes outside of the initial RVS is extremely anti-town.

(4)-The link is one example of Rosso refusing to do anything to get others to vote for his target. It is typical of his play. If you disagree, then instead of resorting to ad hom and insulting my post, try providing a counter example. It should be simple, yet Rosso has done nothing. Suggestion: scan through Rosso's posts in isolation, and you will see that he has done nothing to convince others to vote for his target.

He also makes it clear that he is willing to withhold information from the town to get revenge on a player who was rude to him. This behavior is anti-town and very childish.

(5)-False. I assume that since he DIRECTLY STATED that he will not share his thoughts/provide an explanation and that he thinks doing so is SCUMMY that he is telling the truth and refusing to try and determine if a player is scum. Instead, he is advocating JUST voting for suspects without discussing anything with them.

He made a decision from the beginning of the game and refuses to make any attempt to determine if that decision is true or false or otherwise have any effect on the rest of the game. As I've stated before, Rosso Carne is refusing to play and instead actively lurking (unfortunately, his meta makes it clear that this is not indicative of his alignment).

(6)-False. More confirmation bias. I have maintained that Zito is the only currently viable lynch. Dry-Fit and Kast are roughly equal runners up, though Dry-Fit's wagon is stronger. You are the one who keeps presenting an inconsistent false dilemma.

However, you are correct that I shouldn't say no reasons. I

should

say negative reasons or anti-reasons or something to indicate that you and Porkens are voting and justifying the vote by providing reasons why you both should not vote for me. Wherever you see no reasons, feel free to refer to this paragraph.

(7)-This is an inaccurate representation of our game. At least one person read all my posts (and others have indicated that they read all or the majority). I also disagree that I posted anything that isn't useful.

I have posted some things that were non-essential for catching scum. How is doing that scummy? You are inconsistent in claiming that this is scummy but only attacking me for this.

(8)-To be clear, we agree that discouraging discussion is anti-town. That said, please explain how you determined that my posts have discouraged discussion.

I strongly disagree and believe that the posting record reflects that I have generated a great deal of discussion, probably more than any other player. While there may be some players who dislike reading through long posts, and some players who are discouraged to see multiple pages of posts to go through, I think it is a huge misrepresentation to claim that this effect has been greater or even anywhere near the amount of game relevant discussion that I have generated by directly engaging other players, pushing other players to share their thoughts, sharing my thoughts, and providing information and analysis of all game related points thus far.

If you would like, and if you will actually read and respond instead of simply dismissing it, I can provide an analysis by player of posts that I encouraged, total posts, and posts indicating discouragement from posting as a result of my posts. Please don't make me waste time on that if you are going to just ignore it.

-Rosso Carne has discouraged discussion. Saying he is just terse does not mean he is not discouraging discussion. You are attempting to excuse him on basis of playstyle (which makes you inconsistent). However, his direct statement that players should not share thoughts and instead should just vote is completely independent of him being terse and IS a discouragement of discussion.

(9)-To be clear, no I am not intending to confuse. It looks like your confusion results from your attempt to avoid my point. Please address it now. If you have a reason FOR thinking I am scum, please share it.

(10)-I realize a lot of players on these boards don't have English as a native language or are unfamiliar with colloquial phrases. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume one of those two refers to you instead of assuming that you are intentionally not understanding the posts you quoted.

-The phrase "come around" means to change one's mind. Zito initially disagreed with KMD's argument, but changed his mind and now agrees with them. He confirms this by agreeing that the case on Zito is legitimate.

-The phrase "any takers?" is a question asking whether anyone is willing to do something. In this case, he is asking other people are willing to join the wagon on Dry-Fit. He begins by explicitly stating that he is suspicious of Dry-Fit, providing reasons, then asking if anyone else is similarly suspicious.

-These two differ from all others; Sigma has clarified that he no longer disagrees with KMD; he has clarified that the vote on Porkens was not due to suspicion but to get Porkens to answer his question; the vote on Locke was similarly to get Locke to post an opinion instead of only posting questions; and the vote for Keelie has also been clarified as not meant to lynch but meant to get Keelie to stop lurking and to post.

The cases on Dry-Fit and Zito, combined with his post directly stating that he agrees with KMD and is deciding between Dry-Fit and Zito (which you quoted previously but failed to include this time), show a clear difference between Dry-Fit/Zito and other players.

-This aside we can hear him confirm this himself.

(11)-Your response to my response fallaciously combines two independent and separate points as though they are the same.

You claimed that you have reasons for voting for me, but actually did not have any.

Independently of that, you have also misrepresented the current state of the game by claiming that Kast is a viable lynch target and not addressing that Zito is the only currently viable lynch target.

Instead of addressing this point, you (inadequately) attacked a minor point. It is nonsensical to combine your failure in this area with your failure in another area.

(A)-Player A claims Statement 1 proves Statement 2.
(B)-Player A claims Statement 3 is true.
(C)-Player B claims Statement 1 does not prove Statement 2.
(D)-Player B claims that Statement 3 is not true because of Statement 4.
(E)-Player B claims that Statement 3 is not true because of Statement 5.
(F)-Player A claims that Statement 5 is not true.
(G)-Player B claims that Statement 5 is true, but that Statement 3 would still not be true even if Statement 5 is false because of Statement 4.
(H)-Player A claims that the existence of Statement 4 as proof that Statement 3 is not true implies that Statement 1 must prove Statement 2.

(12)-Your position has been inconsistent. After switching to me you claimed that your vote would return if the Kast wagon was not viable. It is not viable but you are not returning. That is inconsistent.

(13)-Until Rising moves his vote and/or confirms that he is unwilling to lynch Dry-Fit, his vote is still on Dry-Fit's wagon. We will get a confirmation from him, but from context, he is suspicious of Dry-Fit. From recent posts, the post you quoted, and our game state, it appears that he has not found anyone who he would prefer to lynch over Dry-Fit, and he does not have much time to change that.

refusing to vote and insisting on only hammering a randomly selected player but refusing to do anything to get others to vote for that player or try to determine if that player is scum.

This is blatant misrepresentation.

Point out what is misrepresented.
He will not vote for anyone.

(1)You interpret this as "will not" vs actual meaning of "I'm currently not voting." I can be certain of Rosso's actual meaning here because, to hammer, he has to vote, and he has stated that he will vote for you. It's in scumKast's favor to plant this misconception, I'm not sure why townKast would do this.

He will hammer a player who he selected for either no reason

(2)In that post he gave a reason.

equivalent to no reason (colloquially a "random" player).

(3)In this post he says he won't share his reason(s). That's not the same as random.

He refuses to do anything to get others to vote for that player.

(4)Question asked was "Ready to reveal yet?" and his answer was "nah." How can you go from "nah" to the BS you said?

He refuses to try and determine if the player is scum.

(5)You assume that because he hasn't responded with a HUGE POST like this one, that he's "refusing to try."

2. Kast has spent far too much time/energy/words arguing with Rising over a "who cares?" kind of point

-Has this been at expense of not participating in other capacities?
-How is this indicative of alignment?

It is unfortunate that the town as a whole is not active enough that the Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion by virtue of placing weak/reasonless votes that they undoubtedly will not be held accountable for.

So, Porkens/Excedrin duo has had undue control of discussion and that's scummy. But Kast/Rising duo has posted huge pointless discussions that prevent and derail discussion and that's not scummy?

Porkens+Excedrin's votes determined Zito as a candidate to be lynched. Now you are attempting to make Kast another candidate immediately prior to deadline with

no reasons

. Two players determining both lynch candidates is undue control. You are blatantly misrepresenting when you claim that I labelled that as scummy. I labelled it as unfortunate; it is a bad idea for town to let that happen. It is much more a failing of the town than anything either of you did.

(6)Alright, it was unfortunate. I guess it was an unfortunate-tell. Fortunately, your reaction to my vote are to support the false dilemma that I originally objected to and to repeat "no reasons" which is absurd(ly scummy).

Kast/Rising posting walls of text that other players chose to not read derails discussion how? Despite the walls of text, remind me which players have been actively engaging others and drawing them back into the game and while raising new points to consider and analyzing the information available and the responses of other players.

(7)Why would you knowingly post huge posts (that aren't useful anyway) that nobody's going to read? You definitely knew that some of your posts were "non-essential" (aka: does nothing to find scum).

Plum pointed this out in #119 and you replied:

#120
-Yes, I do get easily sidetracked in non-essential arguments. I don't think it detracts from me looking at other players.

#135
I'm debating you because I enjoy arguing...

Both posts came before #143 and #147. which each inspired huge responses from Rising.

(8)Your discussion with Rising contributed to town's unfortunate lack of posting. You knew that your sidetrack in a non-essential argument would lead nowhere despite taking effort to attempt to wade thru (nevermind replying). That is how it's indicative of alignment.

You spent a lot of words to come up with "Rising is town."

You can contrast with Rosso who says players should not discuss or give reasons for anything. Rosso actually discourages discussion.

I can see how you'd think that. But Rosso Carne is just terse. Your method of discouraging discussion is subtler and you can later point at it and say, "look at how active I've been."

-Okay, then I'll move you from 1 bad reason to

no reason

at all. It is telling that instead of showing another reason, you just complain that your reason to not lynch me should be ignored.

What? Are you intentionally trying to confuse?

To be clear, does this mean you have

no reasons

to provide?

(9)Are you admitting that you intend to confuse?
Your "no reasons" mantra is relaxing.

sigma has voted for a lurker. He's stated that he will continue to research Papa Zito and Dry-fit. He has not stated willingness to vote beyond that.

False. Sigma has been a supporter of Zito AND Dry-Fit as lynch candidates for most of the day. In the post you quoted, he clearly states that he agrees with kmd and will vote pick between Zito and Dry-Fit. His research is to decide which of those two is better to lynch.

(10)Lets have a closer look at sigma, then you can elaborate how he's supported both Zito AND Dry-fit lynches today.

sigma's votes with reasons:
#21 Dry-fit: RVS
#33 Kmd4390: found scum on page 2, too early
#91 Porkens: didn't answer question/lurking
#93 Locke Lamora: questions / no opinions
#142 KeelieRavenWolf: lurking

#130
After a few pages, I'm beginning to come around a little bit on KMD's argument on Zito.

#144
KMD has made a valid point about Zito's lack of scum-hunting which I agree with. His earlier arguments were instigating. I've already said I disagreed with that somewhat, and that's as good a reason as any to vote that early. So, 'I'm coming around' mainly refers to the lack of scumhunting pointed out by KMD.

#162
I'm a little concerned about dry-fit. Here's what he's done so far:

1. Scumhunting/attacking me.
2. Defend himself from Rising attacks.
3. Respond to Kast questioning.

I have an obvious bias because he's voting me, and I'd like to get others' reads on Dry-fit -- any takers?

I contend that sigma has also stated no strong opinions on anyone who's actually playing. I can't find any statement by sigma like, "I'm willing to lynch X" except for his statement to lynch KeelieRavenWolf for lurking.

-Why do you ignore my main counterpoint?

According to you, I have no reasons to vote you, so I'm not sure what your main counterpoint is.

It is not a counterpoint to a reason for voting me, so your argument is invalid. It is a counterpoint to your inaccurate representation of the game state with respect to which players are valid candidates for being lynched.

(11)My eyes glazed over long ago. I have no idea what you're saying here. Is anyone else reading this far?

Altogether, there are 5(6 counting you but your position has been inconsistent) players willing to lynch Zito, 3 players willing to lynch Dry-Fit, and 3 players willing to lynch Kast. Everyone except for Rosso appears willing to lynch anyone rather than no lynch.

(12)My position hasn't been inconsistent. I voted Papa Zito pretty early and when I switched to you I stated that I'm still willing to change my vote in order to lynch Papa Zito (or sigma).
(13)Since Rising isn't willing to lynch Dry-fit, who else are you counting here?

[Kast]

Btw-
I've been lazy and assumed that Rosso's meta is actually to just place hammer votes without reasons, as others have claimed his normal meta is.

I looked at his first game and it is completely absent. Rosso can and does actually engage in discussion.

Jumping forward (May 08) he still does not have this hammer policy nor does he evidence his disdain for posting reasons/suspicions. He has a terse posting style at points, but that is brief and confined to the RVS.

Okay, here's a game with KMD, Keelie, Plum, and Rosso Carne. RC uses the hammer only strategy, and picks a random player from the beginning of the game with no reason (Plum). Differing vastly from this game, he easily changes his target (though he returns to Plum) and is willing to discuss with town and share his opinions/thoughts. His random suspicion is (unsurprisingly) wrong, but he actively looks for scum, even going as far as baiting and trapping the serial killer.

@RC-
Do you have any example games where you as town showed a similar disdain for posting thoughts or reasons that you show in this game?

[Kast]

Updated with Porkens and Sigma's posts.

(A) Player
(B) # 1st or 2nd pick
(C) # 3rd pick
(D) # Lynch rather than no lynch
(E) # Unknown (probably will add to previous column)
(F) # 1st, 2nd, and 3rd picks

Code: Select all

(A)   (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)
Zito   4   1   2   5   5
DF     3   1   4   6   4
Ex     2   2   4   6   4
Kast   3   0   5   8   3
RC     2   1   5   8   3
LL     2   1   4   7   3
Plum   2   0   6   8   2
Sig    2   0   6   7   2
KMD    2   0   4   8   2
Ris    1   1   5   8   2
Pork   1   1   4   7   2
KRW    0   1   6   9   1

@Excedrin-
-Confirmation bias refers to when you only look at things from one point of view; accepting evidence that supports or can be perceived to support your already determined viewpoint and rejecting evidence that contradicts it. It is essentially fitting the facts to your preconception, instead of forming your judgments based on the evidence.

-He directly states that players should not share their thoughts and that doing so is anti-town. It doesn't get more clear and direct than that.

-So to be clear, you are not interested in seeing whether people actually posted more (overall were encouraged) as a result of my posts and don't care to defend your claim that people posted less (overall were discouraged) as a result of my posts?

Also, false generalization. Posting lots of words can generate discussion but does not necessarily do so. My posts in particular have generated a significant amount of discussion. Most of this discussion has been completely game relevant, some of it has been only tangentially relevant or irrelevant.

-Your reasons are inconsistent.
1. This is your only point that could be a valid tell. You are inconsistent in applying this to me but not to others.
2. This is false. You have failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. If you are just going to make up stuff, then obviously those inventions are not reasons.
3. Having a weak case on Day 1 is not a scum tell. The case on Dry-Fit is NOT extremely weak.
4. A "Neutral" read or a "Slight" read is not the same as a weakly held read. You may not fully understand the term "weakly held" but it means the person is not convinced about the idea and can be easily swayed to change it. This is an inaccurate description of the current situation. Even if it were the case, this is not a scum tell.
5. You appear to not understand either what a dismissive response is or when that term is valid as a scum tell. It is scummy when a player gives a dismissive response

instead of

addressing a point. I have provided an explanation with everything that I have dismissed. Simply using a dismissive response is a part of speech and does not itself indicate alignment.

(10) Sigma has clarified. He was deciding between Dry-Fit and Zito. He is willing to lynch Dry-Fit and has decided against lynching Zito. He has also added LL as his new top choice. Your post is an example of a dismissive response that is used to avoid answering the issue.

vaguely hinting that someone might be cause for "concern" is scummy.

Your response here vaguely hints that Sigma is scummy. From your PoV, you are knowingly engaging in what you define as scummy behavior. Why are you doing this?

Please be consistent

(11) Your attempt to use a dismissive response to trivialize my post is noted. Another example of you knowingly engaging in behavior that you define as scummy.

Second, you make a distinction that the player must include the vote within the same post that the vote is made in. This is irrelevant. A reason can be provided before or after the vote. Until a reason is provided, the post is indistinguishable from a post without reason.

-If a player claims to have a reason but does not have one, then from the perspective of other players, they do NOT have a reason.
-If a player claims to have a reason but refuses to share it, then from the perspective of other players, they do NOT have a reason.
-If a player claims to have a reason but does not provide it, then from the perspective of other players, they do NOT have a reason.

-If a player says they have a reason to vote and the reason is "the target is scummy", then no that is NOT a reason. (RC)
-If a player says they have a reason to vote and the reason is actually a reason to NOT vote, then that is NOT a reason. (Exc)

[Kast]

Hmm there's a mistake in column E. I'll fix it next time I update the chart.

[Kast]

@LL-
I'm putting that down as Zito first, Porkens second, Plum third.

Code: Select all

Zito   4   1   2   3   5
DF     3   1   4   2   4
Ex     2   2   4   2   4
Kast   3   0   5   3   3
RC     2   1   5   3   3
Plum   2   1   5   2   3
LL     2   1   4   3   3
Pork   2   1   3   3   3
Sig    2   0   6   2   2
KMD    2   0   4   4   2
Ris    1   1   5   3   2
KRW    0   1   6   3   1

Zito remains the most viable lynch. I agree with his assessment that his name claim looks unlikely to change anyone's mind.

Two days to deadline. I'd really like to hear from Keelie, Rising, and KMD.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
-Kast lynch was never happening. Your attempt to distract the town has failed. The throwaway comment where you copy my call for Plum, KMD, and Rising is out of place. It sounds like an attempt to draw attention away from your failed attempt to distract the town.
-Are you going to follow your leader again? Or are you going to break your 3/3 streak?
-Sigma already clearly stated that he thinks Zito has been scumhunting recently.

Does a modkill end the day?

If the player who is modkilled is town, then it ends the day. If the player is scum, then it does not end the day. However, if the modkill is a result of lurking, then it does not end the day. This was already clarified by Spyrex.

@Porkens-
-How is a claim to be a human convincing? This is similar to changing your vote when someone claims generic townie. This is scummy. Zito himself admitted that his claim isn't a good reason to stop lynching him.
-Why the vote for LL?

Suggestion:

vote for Dry-Fit if you genuinely think that Zito's claim means Zito should not be lynched.

@Zito-

Suggestion:

vote for Dry-Fit rather than leaving yourself as the vote leader.

[Kast]

Forgot to put the updated list:

Code: Select all

DF     3   1   5   1   4
Zito   3   1   3   2   4
Ex     2   2   4   2   4
Kast   3   0   6   2   3
LL     3   0   5   2   3
Pork   3   0   3   2   3
RC     2   1   7   1   3
Plum   2   1   6   1   3
Sig    2   0   6   2   2
Ris    1   1   7   1   2
KMD    1   1   6   2   2
KRW    0   1   8   1   1

By my count, DF is now the most viable lynch (close with Zito, but Porkens statement that he doesn't want Zito lynched leaves DF in the lead on votes to prevent a mislynch).

@Zito-
Okay. I'm counting explicitly named neutrals or third candidates (if neutrals are not named) in the same column so order doesn't really matter. Suspected townies or players not named are being counted as willing to lynch rather than no lynch so order doesn't really matter there either.

[Kast]

@Mod-
I don't think you answered previously, can we request prods?
If so, please prod

Keelie, Plum, KMD, Rising, RC,...

everyone.

[Kast]

@Keelie-
-Does "no-lynch strategy" mean placing a vote with the intent of avoiding a no lynch?
-Yes, I hoped for more. No comment on Dry-Fit?
-Zito has claimed. Reactions?

@People who (for whatever "reason") actually think I am scum-
-Don't let your opinion of me as scum bias you against voting Dry-Fit.

-Also, if you look at my completed games as scum and you'll see Kast-scum has no problems at all with bussing a scumbuddy, especially not on D1 when it buys a lot of town credibility.

[Kast]

@Mod-
Was this an error in the old vote count?

Locke Lamora(3): Papa Zito, sigma,

Porkens

At that point in time, Porkens had been voting Kast, then switched to Zito. The vote for LL was not placed until after this vote count.

[Kast]

@KRW-
Much less ideal than a Dry-Fit lynch, but this is preferable to a Zito lynch.

One huge problem/drawback from a KRW lynch is that everything points that KRW will not post a defense or claim. Votes on KRW are, for all intents and purposes, final votes.

If this game has limited reveals on death (ie. name+affiliation only or name+race+affiliation), we're losing information that could give scum more freedom in future.

On the plus side, KRW's inactivity isn't a result of one time circumstances (as claimed), so it is unlikely that there will be any increase in activity even later in the game.

Unvote, Vote: KRW

@KRW-
If you check the boards again, strongly consider claiming.

[Kast]

@LL-
-Yes, I think a KRW lynch is preferable to a Zito lynch.

I roughly agree with your assessment that lynching KRW is likely to provide less direct information than a lynch of Zito would. However, information gained from a lynch is not the sole factor to consider, nor do I think the decrease in information gained is going to be significant.

Ideally, we want to identify the player whose lynch grants the highest expected utility to the town. This is comprised of two main components, the probability that the player is town/scum, and the utility to the town of a given person's death. The utility function for each player would include (though this is not an exhaustive list) account for:
+Info about game setup
+Info about vote history of the lynchee
+Info about vote history against the lynchee
+Info about post record of the lynchee
-Info from the lynchee
-Info from future posts by the lynchee
-Abilities of the lynchee

It's usually not possible to quantify these criteria with hard numbers, but it is usually possible to make a qualitative judgment (especially one relative to another player under consideration).

This whole exercise is usually dominated by probability under the assumption that the utility of correctly lynching scum is the maximum benefit to town.

KRW reads very neutral in affiliation (there's just nothing there to build a good read on). KRW's posting has been anti-town in that she is lurking heavily and not voting responsibly.

Zito reads mostly neutral; not doing anything scummy. He has been overall pro-town, and as Sigma noted, has been doing more in terms of scum hunting towards the latter half of the day.

In terms of probabilities, I'd say Zito is probably more likely to be town than KRW, but both are ambiguous and it is close enough to be a wash.

Looking at the criteria in my utility function:
~There is nothing to suggest that the first point is any different between the two (and with KRW unlikely to post again or make a claim, this is likely to remain equal).
~Zito's votes have been pretty sparse but transparent. KRW's are a bit less clear. Both of them have very reactionary votes which won't tell us much.
~I think we learn a similar amount from the wagons on either; however, I agree that we probably learn a little bit more from the wagon on Zito since there has been more activity regarding Zito.
~Zito clearly has a much richer post record to mine through.
~Nothing suggests a difference in this factor; there is a marginal benefit in lynching KRW since KRW could potentially have information but never share it even if she is not lynched.
~We lose far more from Zito's death than from KRW. This is a HUGE difference.
~Nothing suggests a difference in this factor; there is a marginal benefit in lynching KRW since KRW could potentially have a night action but never use it or use it irresponsibly.

Overall, I think the benefits from lynching either of them are similar, the risks from lynching KRW are much lower than the risks of lynching Zito.


-I strongly dislike strict majority requirements as they force townies to make less than ideal votes, and allow scum to hide their bad votes behind a facade of doing the right thing for the town.

-Btw, I think the outrage against KRW placing an uninformed vote and not catching up is overzealous. If KRW is actually busy with two jobs and whatever else life is throwing at her, then it is understandable (not good, but understandable) that she would throw out a vote on the best information she had at the time (which was that Zito was the vote leader and nobody else was even close).

Somewhat wifom, but I think it more likely than not that lurking scum would just continue lurking; all indications point that nobody would have taken KRW to account for lurking through the rest of D1 (at least, not until D2).

@Excedrin-
To be clear:
You are saying that you think KRW is almost certainly town, not because she herself has been pro-town, but because the people voting her are doing so in a very anti-town manner or doing so for anti-town reasons?

[Kast]

@LL/Excedrin-
Claiming that we should not lynch KRW because we "learn little" is an invalid argument. We need to decide between a limited number of candidates. What we need to compare is not an absolute value, but something relative. We "learn little" from anyone, that is irrelevant. What matters is how much we learn from one lynch relative to (an)other(s).

This is probably a bit unfair to LL since he didn't actually state what Excedrin posted.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
That's a very squirrely post.

It's a simple request for clarification based directly on your recent statements.

Please indicate agreement or disagreement with the following:
-You believe KRW is almost certainly town.
-You do not believe KRW has been playing in a pro-town manner.
-You believe that players who vote for KRW are likely to receive less scrutiny if KRW is lynched and flips town, than they would receive if they lynched any other player and the other player flipped town.
-You believe that the previous point indicates that scum would be inclined to vote for KRW.

[Kast]

@KRW-
-The sudden increase in post frequency doesn't jive so well with previous claims. Don't get me wrong, I like it and hope it continues.

-Agreed with Zito that your flavor for purpose sounds like a survivor win con. Not scum maybe, but not town aligned either.

-I haven't taken the time to try out SC2, though I have downloaded it back home, so for now I'm reliant on whatever information others here can provide, and what I can search for and find. Your pilot name does not appear in the Star Control II Super Melee Module Extended Reference Text (which includes lists of all ships/races/captains). Mine does, as does Zito's claimed name.

Either your name was provided to you, or you are making it up. I think it is unlikely that Spyrex would provide a fake claim name which was completely made if all the real names came from actual game characters. This would be extremely unfair to scum.

@Zito

does KRW's claimed name fit with normal mmrnmhrn naming conventions?

Unique mental structure, immune to mind-influencing effects and such.

Is this flavor, or are you actually claiming an ability?

@Zito-

I was kicked from the Alliance for being reckless and insubordinate.

This sounds like you are not Alliance, although you could be third party who can win with the alliance (similar to KRW's claim).

A huge difference between your analogy and your flavor is that Kirk wasn't kicked from the Federation or Starfleet.

-I meant to ask this previously, what does slave-shielded mean?

@Excedrin-

Plum, what is there to think about regarding her claim? It kinda changes nothing.

The claim actually is kinda weak and potentially has holes in it. I'd agree that even if completely plausible, KRW hasn't said anything that should make a townie retract their vote (barring private information). However, the possibility that the holes in the claim are signs of a botched fake claim is something that could reasonably convince someone to vote and/or reinforce a weakly placed vote.

@KRW-
My vote stands where it is.

[Kast]

@Excedrin/Sigma-
In the game, was Decker kicked from the alliance? Did he ever rejoin it? Did he want to rejoin it?

[Kast]

@Mod-

does this game use limited reveals on death?

@Mod-

how would you normally handle a mistake such as making a typo in a player's role PM name (or race or ship name)?

@KRW-

My PM info was green. This, I assume, stands as town, as Porkens lead me to believe that red is the scum color.

-I would think a town win con should be more indicative than your PM color.
-Is Porkens your scumbuddy? If not, I don't see why (or how) you are taking advice from another player on what your alignment is. Scumslip?

I, on the other hand, know none of it, and my flavor is only that which is assumed, since I was given no backstory for my character, only an ability, a ship and it's abilities, and a racial name. Other than that; nothing.

-Please answer my question. You listed some racial "flavor" previously. Was that flavor or an ability claim?
-I assume you were also given a character name and are not here stating that it was made up. Did you make a typo in telling us your name? Please check with the mod.

@Zito-

Also interesting. My PM has a specific (if sketchy) backstory for my character.

Interesting. My PM has flavor, but nothing that I would call a "backstory". KRW's claimed flavor has a similarity to mine in terminating with an imperative to help end the war. It says nothing about surviving.

I don't think KRW was intending to claim survivor, but if she is a survivor and I would expect her flavor would include something about that. I can see a newbie survivor sharing flavor that reveals herself.

@Rising-
Welcome back.

"

Your post looks more like you'd prefer to lynch Zito[/KMD]" Haha, look at the complete moron. I bet he's pretty embarassed.

-I don't think an RC or Porkens lynch is at all feasible at the moment (barring some extremely scummy post from either of them and even then it's doubtful).

@All-
I suggest to everyone not on the KRW wagon, if you plan to move your vote, do not wait until the last second. Set a public, personal deadline a couple hours before the actual one, just in case you can't make it or something comes up.

[Kast]

@KRW-
If you think a full claim will save you OR if you think the town would benefit from knowing any abilities you may have (this may NOT be the case) post accordingly.

Mod seems on the ball, we may have very little twilight. Please prepare any final thoughts.

[Kast]

@All-
Also, if KRW decides to claim, PLEASE don't offer reciprocal information about your own role PM, UNLESS you actually plan to convince others to lynch elsewhere. It always sucks when dying scum outs power roles at deadline.

[Kast]

I'll be here next day round if I'm wrong, feel free to lynch me then.

I dislike this. If you think it is valid to punish you for lurking behavior that you claim is outside your control, then waiting until D2 is unnecessary.

-No comment about name.
-No comment about "flavor".

I don't get a sense that you are very interested in staying alive, which is perplexing (though perhaps you've just got a lot of stuff going on).

[Kast]

@D2-
-From end of D1 voting, Plum and Zito are night confirmed in my eyes. Plum's vote was vital in making KRW a lynch candidate (I'd argue mine was the deciding one, but obviously I'm biased).
-Porken's vote could be a bus. Sigma's less likely but also possible.
-Excedrin and Rising placed late votes that don't reliably say anything about their affiliation.
-KMD's insistent defense of KRW is suspect. RC's complete lurking is also suspect.

@Sigma's Ship & Claim-
D1 post regarding Porkens' claim is consistent with his claim (indicating he is telling the truth or was already planning that false claim). Afterburners that are equivalent to every night commuting sounds plausible.

@Zito-
I agree with Sigma's assessment. He did not claim to be Thraddash; he claimed that IF he were scum, then he would not have thrown away a ship that makes him untargettable. This is still fallacious since if he is Thraddash, then it is likely that he is lying about his ship's ability.

@Fishing-
[quote=Sigma]I also think the scum tried to kill me or porkens and failed because the jettison took place before the kill action.[/quote]
-This is pure speculation. I dislike this without an explicit reminder that people should not comment in a way that could give away if they know more about this. Without that, it is entirely possible that this is a fishing attempt. To add to this, we don't know the method of the scum kill; we don't even know if they kill pilots, ships, or both.

[quote=Sigma]Let's use some logic, people. Why would I bus my scum-partner and then jettison my ship which allows me to be untargetable? What sequence of night actions would result in porkens and me getting a ship destroyed? I don't think you can come up with a plausible scenario where I'm scum.[/quote]
If you are scum, then you are probably lying about your ship's ability. If you are scum, then you had your claim ready from D1 and probably had the plan to destroy your ship (for whatever reason) already ready.

Porkens either jettisoned OR has some ability which destroys his ship. He would be suicidal to claim that he is going to jettison and then end up with his ship still alive today.

Your ship being destroyed could come from a number of common town powers; I don't think you need anyone to come up with plausible scenarios for you, and asking for them is fishing and I don't like it.

@Excedrin-
Townies should only attempt to pick up someone who they strongly believe is town. Also, rescuing a player is an active ability. Townies who already have active abilities should probably use those rather than pick up an unknown player.

-If both Porkens and Sigma are town, that makes a strong implication that scum have some ability or incentive for getting on other player's ships. This makes me much less willing to rescue anyone.

@Excedrin, All-
-I'm going to go ahead and reveal part of what you're referring to. Thanks for the breadcrumb and your discretion in not immediately revealing me. I prefer that you keep my ability a secret for now.
-I want RC to post and explain himself.

Vote: RC

-I have a night ability that let's me insult my target. My target is told who insulted them and the effect of the insult. I targeted Excedrin last night, and basically called him a really big idiot. I believe this reveals that I am Pkunk and confirms me as a townie.

[Kast]

@Zito-
-Without revealing the effect of my ability, I don't see how you can at all reasonably claim that my ability does not fit.
-Revealing the purpose for targeting Excedrin will require revealing the effect of my ability. I see absolutely no reason to share that and have already expressed my position regarding that.

-My target receives mod confirmation of both flavor and function. The flavor alone is enough to confirm my race (and therefore my affiliation). From a mafia game mechanic PoV, it also suggests itself as a townie power since it reveals me to my target, inherently drawing attention.

This aside, I want to hear from Rosso Carne on whether he has a hierarchy ship, and if he does, then why. This is a short day; so he really needs to post quickly.

@KMD-
I'm not a confirmed name, I am a confirmed race (to Excedrin). The race is an alliance race. I think it is extremely unlikely to the point of dismissing that Spyrex would arbitrarily change the affiliation of a race to contradict the source game.

[Kast]

@Kast: I think KMD is town -- scum usually don't blatantly defend each other to the extent that he did.

Wifom. Scum defend each other when they think it will help them and they think they can get away with it. In this game, KMD clearly expects that defending KRW will not or should not reflect badly on him. It is unclear whether he thought it would actually help.

@Mod-

Can you prod RC? (also Plum/LL/Dry-Fit/Porkens)

[Kast]

@Zito-

If there was one scum left I'd agree but I'm guessing there's at least two left.

This isn't really applicable. I can use my power again tonight and again on each subsequent night. As the game progresses, I can confirm with more and more townies.

-The reason I posted is because I didn't want this information lost. If Excedrin is scum, then he knows my race and the ability I used. My ability lends itself well as something I can partially claim fairly safely.

@Rising/Zito-

I am sort of suspicious of Kast's claimed ability. There are a race of pranksters in the Hierarchy whose name I don't remember right now, but they have a tradition of broadcasting messages and pretending to be someone else. I was pretty much just waiting for someone to use an ability like this and trying to convince us that it clears him.

The Umgah. But they didn't have to aboard someone's ship to use their Caster.

I don't follow Zito's clarification.

After looking up the Umgah, it looks like my ability does not necessarily confirm my race. Regardless, the nature of my ability; informing my target of who I am and what it does; does not lend itself as a scum ability.

[Kast]

I'm not certain what Kast's ability does

This contradicts what Spyrex told me. I specifically asked if my target is told the effect(s) of my ability and he said that the target is told the effect(s).

@Zito-
The Ultronomicon wiki on the Umgah states that the Caster was stolen by the Spathi. At what point in time did this happen?

[Kast]

The lack of a nightkill bothers me. I think that the scum would be able to kill a ship and everyone on it with their night action (my podship had that ability plus doc plus the ability to do both in one night.)

I'm lead to believe that the lack of a nightkill was a strategic decision.

I strongly dislike this speculation (Porkens isn't the only one who is doing it). If there is a doctor, you are narrowing down (or implicitly doing so) that you are not the doctor. This holds for many other theoretical townie roles that could be involved with the lack of dead players last night.

[Kast]

@Porkens-
I'll take that as agreement. So how about stopping?

[Kast]

N.B. Porkens' post this follows the exact same pattern that he used D1:
-Make an anti-town post.
-Get called on it.
-Object by saying "rolefishing", even though there was no rolefishing.

[Kast]

@Porkens-

I don't quite follow this part. Your assumption is that we are town but leads to the idea that you don't want to rescue us.

There are three situations we can be in. Two of them are clearly better to leave both Porkens and Sigma to die. The third situation would be better to have both of you rescued. The three situations are indistinguishable, however, the second and third situations suggest that townies should be very careful about letting anyone board their ships.

-If you are both scum, townies should not pick you up.
-If one of you is town and one is scum, there is some incentive to picking up the one who is a townie, but townies would be better off picking up neither of you (reduces to 1-for-1 trade situation).
-If both are town, then townies shouldn't know your affiliation and should at best be hesitant to pick you up. The claimed circumstances, that scum want to board someone else's ship, inclines townies against picking up either of you.

It's really not that complicated.

I've said my peace on the subject.

By already saying your piece, do you mean you have already done your damage? You sure haven't said anything at all relevant to rolefishing (FYI- including the word "doc" in a post does not make it rolefishing).

Why did you say you wouldn't reveal your role/power and then do so anyway?

You are lying. I said I would partial claim and I did partial claim. I suppose you might be trying to fish for more details about my role?

You were the one that brought up "DOC OMFG," I was giving my thoughts on the results of the night.

False. You posted "I'm not a doc, I think we have no doc", and I posted, "Your post is anti-town and helps scum find townie power roles." So please stop helping them and don't encourage townies to engage in similar anti-town behavior.

[Kast]

@Porkens-
There are three possible situations. The first two are definite situations where it is bad to pick up either of you. The third (which is the only case where it would be reasonable to consider picking up either of you) implies a game setup in which townies do not want to pick up anyone. Your argument relies on crap logic.

The argument structure is:
IF A AND B, THEN C. IF C, THEN D.
An underlying assumption which is not stated because it is obvious is:
IF NOT A OR NOT B, THEN D.

You are fallaciously claiming that my argument is:
IFF A AND B, THEN C. IF C, THEN D.

A=Porkens is town.
B=Sigma is town.
C=It is probable that scum want to get aboard a town ship.
D=Town should not rescue

What damage? To imply that I'm not the doc? You're saying this is a scumtell?

Spelling your rolefishing out clearly: You said "oh you just said your not the doc." That opens the door for me to give a more solid stance, which I'm not going to do.

-Implying that you are not the doc IS damage. You promote others to join your speculation with agreement or disagreement. If you are town, then you have narrowed down possibilities for scum. This is anti-town. It is not a scumtell, it is a bad player tell. Your implication that not being a scumtell makes something okay is crap-logic.
-False. You already spelled out that you are not the doc. You should not have done that. It is terrible play for town. Telling you to stop talking about it is COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of telling you to comment with confirmation or denial.

You said "I'm not going to give out info about my role." Then you said "I can do X, Y, and Z and I'm Pkunk" no? Am I reading the chain of events wrong?

You are a liar. Your post is false both in letter AND in spirit. If it were a simple mistake, then you should have checked after I called you on this and posted evidence if you thought I was mistaken. Your failure to do so is very anti-town.

-

I'm going to go ahead and reveal part of what you're referring to

. Thanks for the breadcrumb and your discretion in not immediately revealing me.

I prefer that you keep my ability a secret for now

.

I revealed part of my claim:
-I am Pkunk
-I can insult someone at night
--My target learns the player name of person who insulted them
--My target learns the effect of the insult
--My target learns the flavor of the insult
I have not revealed the effect of my ability. I have not revealed additional powers or even if I have any. Your attempts to draw more comments about this are fishing.

Now you are lying. I never said I wasn't the doc, nor did I say I didn't think we had a doc. I didn't encourage anyone to do anything of the kind. You are just straight making shit up now.

I never wrote "DOC OMFG". But I'm not going to pretend you are stupid (I'd appreciate if you extended that courtesy to everyone else here) and make a crap logic argument against that.

It is obviously a paraphrase. You directly stated that you think the mafia chose to not kill. This is equivalent to stating that the lack of a night kill is NOT because of any action that you took AND that you do not believe it was a result of any action that any other player took. If you are a townie, then it is possible that you are intentionally trying to mislead scum, however, scum are in a far better position than townies to determine this AND your post itself encourages other townies to comment on your speculation. Any further comments also help scum.

And to forestall your probable attempt to evade my point, I am explicitly asking that you DO NOT CONFIRM OR DENY THAT YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR. DO NOT CONFIRM OR DENY THAT YOU ARE ANY OTHER ROLE, UNLESS YOU INTEND TO CLAIM AND FEEL THAT THE CLAIM HELPS TOWN MORE THAN IT HURTS. ALSO DON'T CONFIRM OR DENY WHETHER YOU INTENDED TO TRICK SCUM. You've already done damage, so STOP before making things worse.

Your very post implies that you don't realize your speculation is anti-town, which is EXACTLY why I explained it and warned against others making the same anti-town mistakes. This is not inherently scummy, but is very anti-town.

Your objection to stopping players from helping scum narrow down power townies is BOTH anti-town AND scummy. Your misrepresentation to defend your anti-town actions likewise scummy.

@Sigma-

It was interesting because I genuinely was at a loss as to explanations for hypothetical sigma-scum's ship getting blown up, and that was the first plausible thing I'd heard.

-It is hard to believe this is true. If it is, then I suggest you look at the wiki for standard roles.
-Bodyguard is only tangentially an explanation for hypothetical Sigma-scum's ship getting blown up. Hypothetical Sigma-scum would not bodyguard against his own scum team kill, so unless you were referring to hypothetical Sigma-scum bodyguard-protecting a hypothetical scumbuddy from a hypothetical vig, the explanation doesn't seem that interesting (or rather, only seems interesting as an exercise in convoluted hypothetical explanations).

It could be an explanation for hypothetical Sigma-town's ship getting blown up unintentionally (however that suffers from the problem that Sigma-town should not lie to us AND that your ship does not seem to fit flavorwise with bodyguard ability).

@Dry-fit-
Does your race match your ship?

[Kast]

@Porkens-
If you are scum, then go ahead and ignore what I posted. It'll make things much easier if scum-Porkens continues with the crap logic and anti-town behavior.

[Kast]

@Dry-Fit-
Was your claim of ship color prompted by Excedrin's claim of knowing RC's ship color?

[Kast]

@Porkens-

How is that not "IFF Porkens is town AND Sigma is town, THEN It is probable that scum want to get aboard a town ship. IF It is probable that scum want to get aboard a town ship, THEN Town should not rescue .?"

I assumed this was clear, looks like that was a mistaken assumption on my part.

"IFF A AND B, THEN C" is different from "IF A AND B, THEN C". IFF would mean that "IF NOT A OR NOT B, THEN NOT C" which is false. C can be true without both A and B being true. From a townie PoV, each player who makes a claim suggesting that C is true makes it more probable that C is in fact true.

A townie should not know what situation we are in. {A&B, !A&B, A&!B, !A&!B} However, all situations argue for D or suggest that we are in C, which reduces to D due to uncertainty.

IF a player strongly believes A, THEN it is better to rescue A. Same for B. This is and has been what I posted from the beginning, despite Porkens trying to twist things out of context and remove that part.

I didn't spell out that I'm not the doc. You are inventing that in your own head. Opening up the subject of "doc" is an invitation to talk about the subject. Case in point: if you'd never brought up the doc here, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Don't make implications like that. YOU made the implication without realizing how much of a terrible play it was. The ONLY reason it was brought up is because YOU decided to make such a terrible play. Please stop. If you continue, I will continue to tell you to stop.

This isn't an

interpretation

, it is a direct implication of your post. Don't make a post like that. When someone points out the problem with it, don't defend that terrible play by throwing around an inapplicable term.

I honestly thought this was a full-claim of your ability. If it isn't, fine. Keep the rest to yourself, I honestly don't care. The fact that you targeted someone and that they confirm this are meaningless, anyway.

This is inconsistent with your previous objection.

You said "I'm not going to give out info about my role." Then you said "I can do X, Y, and Z and I'm Pkunk" no?

Your previous objection was that Kast claimed he would not give information but then gave information. Regardless of whether you thought I gave a full claim or you realized I gave a partial claim, your insistence that I said I would not give out role information was false.

-Suggestion: Instead of feeling bad, fix your behavior.

@KMD-

(I'd do this even as doc just to confuse scum)

By posting this, you are admitting that Porkens post

IS

claiming that he is not doc. He may have been intending to confuse scum. Again, I asked him to STOP COMMENTING on it. Instead he keeps bringing it up and claiming there is nothing wrong.

It is possible to comment on a night kill or lack of night kill without claiming that you yourself are not responsible. Porken's CHOSE to do so which is EXTREMELY anti-town.

@Rising/Sigma/Why townies claiming they have ships that scum would like to get on implies that scum would like to get on those ships-
Again, I thought this was obvious, but looks like I was mistaken. And to be clear, Porkens claimed that scum would want to board his ship and that he was destroying the ship because he did not want to let that happen.

If a townie genuinely has a powerful scum ship that isn't a normal part of SC2 game mechanics and/or flavor, that implies that the mod has a reason for including that, either as an in game mechanic or as a red herring.

For a game as complex as this one, with an already known mechanic for transferring players between ships, game setup information that implies scum want to get on board a townie ship makes it more probable that scum want to get on board a townie ship.

@Dry-fit/Zito/Red Ship-
-Is it plausible that Dry-fit's claim would be a townie?
-I agree that it is unlikely that Dry-Fit or RC don't have red ships. I think it is very probable that lynching a player out of the known red ship group is more likely to hit scum than picking a random player.
-Based on the timing of Dry-Fit's claim, I'd guess that he is claiming miller to forestall a suspected investigation tonight.
-I am surprised that Dry-Fit answered my question directly. Could be a slip or honesty.

I am fine with lynching either Dry-Fit or RC today.

Unvote, Vote: Dry-Fit

[Kast]

@Porkens-
If you think it is just noise to distract the town, then why do you have to respond? If there is something worth responding to, then it obviously is not just noise. You have also claimed that there were scum tells, so that also could not be just noise.

Your comments in that regards are just avoiding the question by attacking my playstyle instead of addressing the points.

@KMD/Porkens-
-Is it good/bad/neutral to narrow down power townies?
-Is it good/bad/neutral to encourage other players to narrow down power townies?
-Does telling someone to stop talking about something mean that the person asking is trying to get the person being asked to talk about it?
-If a player is being extremely anti-town, should a townie ignore it?

[Kast]

@KMD-

How many red ships do you think exist? Do you think they all belong to scum? Do you think scum would claim their own red ship the way Porkens and Dry-Fit have? If anything, Rosso and Sigma's ships are more likely to make them scum. Sigma's claim makes too much sense according to Zito and Rosso could be modkilled. We are better off lynching Rising or Locke I think. Of course the second Rosso posts though, I could support his lynch.

-There are probably at least 5 red ships. I have no idea if there are more than that. There are likely 3 mafia, and I would guess each of the mafia has a red ship.
-I think it unlikely that there is a 5 person mafia; I'd guess 2 of the 5 claimed red ships are probably not mafia.
-If Porkens' role requires or strongly inclines him to destroy his ship, then he would have incentive to claim before doing it so that he can minimize suspicion of why he had a red ship. As scum, the timing of his claim was ideal; dropping unrelated information that is personally useful but overall useless and distracting for the town right before deadline. So yes, I could see Porkens-scum claiming like he did.
Dry-fit claimed immediately after Excedrin revealed that he knew another player's ship color. I can easily see Dry-fit-scum deciding to claim prior to being potentially investigated and caught as hierarchy.
-Agreed that RC's ship makes him more likely to be scum than players in general. Also agreed that the probability of RC getting modkilled with no factional penalty makes him an undesirable lynch if he continues to lurk through the day. However, I think it is overall better for the town if he stops lurking and posts some kind of defense for himself and/or claim.
-Agree that Sigma's ship being red makes him more likely to be scum than players in general. The same is true for Porkens and Dry-fit. Sigma being a claimed cop makes it a bad idea to lynch him instead of letting him prove himself. He is the least desirable lynch of the 4 red ship owners, and generally an undesirable lynch candidate for today.
-What is the case against Rising?
-What is the case against LL?

@Dry-Fit as miller-
Given that we have a claimed extremely restricted cop and a claimed person who found out the ship affiliation of another player, I find it unlikely that we would also have a miller.

The existence of 5 "confirmed" red ships AND a player who can determine the color of another player's ship already implies some number of ship millers.

Our claimed cop is extremely limited in who he can investigate; adding in millers to throw off an already extremely limited investigation would be unbalanced.

[Kast]

@KMD-

^Pointing things out like that are even more anti-town, especially if you truly believe it.

This makes it clear (as does your previous post), that you do see that Porkens post narrows down townie power roles. Maybe you want to give him a free pass since, as you said, you think it is part of his meta to do incomprehensible things. I don't share that attitude.

This would have been just a warning and nothing more, but Porkens decided to try and cover up his anti-town play by pushing an irrational, senseless attack.

But this wasn't happening until you called out Porkens. Luckily, he's been smart enough not to help scum out.

That doesn't even make any sense. You admit that power roles were narrowed down, and specifically that Porkens is unlikely to be a power role responsible for the lack of deaths last night. But you claim that the narrowing down only happened after I pointed out that Porkens post contains an implicit claim to not have such a role. Prior to my post, the information about Porkens was already contained within his post. You and I were both astute enough to see that information (and it's probable that most if not everyone else also could see it).

If Porkens is town, he had already helped out scum. That is not lucky for town. It would only be lucky for scum.

You are essentially making a fairly common but fallacious argument that drawing attention to a misplay is itself a misplay. You are adding the equally fallacious corollary that the second action being a misplay makes the first action not a misplay.

Your fallaciously assume that scum are too stupid to notice when a townie reveals something, and therefore the act of pointing out those reveals helps scum and is thus a misplay. The actual misplay is the revelation of that information in the first place. Scum aren't stupid, and playing as if they are is reckless. Scum are generally in a much better position to notice and evaluate potential reveals.

In our specific case, Porkens didn't just narrow potential power townies by removing himself; he also invited others to further narrow it down.

[Kast]

However, I think it is overall better for the town if he stops lurking and posts some kind of defense for himself and/or claim.

It would also be better for RC himself. If he gets modkilled, then he gets banned from future BaM games.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-

Kast says it's possibly a bad idea to pick them up, I follow his reasoning but I'm undecided. If sigma isn't lying about his claim, then he can confirm anyone who picks him up. If he is lying, he probably takes over their ship and/or kills them, but won't that be obvious?

Again, to be clear, if anyone strongly suspects that either Porkens OR Sigma is town, then by all means pick them up and keep your suspected townie alive. This will vary on a person by person basis since each person may have different night options available.

Sigma's claim does provide extra incentive for townies to rescue him; and obviously disincentives for scum to rescue him. Sigma also didn't claim beforehand, so it is possible that his ship's destruction was unintentional and he is lying to cover himself and potentially draw out someone who could be responsible.

If either Sigma or Porkens is lying, then the liar started out with a hierarchy ship and it is unlikely that the purpose of jettisoning is simply to get a different hierarchy ship, or really to do anything that would obviously reveal them. Immediate reasons based on "standard" roles are recruitment or paying a cost for a power-up.

[Kast]

I DO NOT think that Porkens has given any info about what role he may or may not have.

And yet, you believe that after I pointed out that Porkens post implicitly claims that he does not have certain roles, there pool of players who could have those roles is narrowed down. Inconsistent. I suppose you could be hoping that your posts are a sort of damage control and that by insisting that Porkens post doesn't say anything, you might trick scum into not using Porkens information. I suggest that you don't assume scum are stupid.

If Porkens is town, scum had that information as soon as Porkens made his post. There is a possibility that Porkens was intentionally being deceptive to confuse scum, however, scum have more information than town and are thus better able to determine if he was being honest. The fact that he made his claim implicitly also argues against this. Ultimately, the post doesn't help town, and helps scum if Porkens is town. This isn't necessarily scummy, but it is behavior that needs to be stopped.

The emotional and irrationally, vindictive reaction is also typical of people who are called out on a mistake and don't want to admit it. As a veteran player, Porkens should know better than to react in this way. His decision to abandon something that he previously claimed as significant and scummy is typical of a player who made a mistake and needs to back off but is trying to do so without losing face. He should have skipped the first part, but if he actually is doing the second part, then good for him.

The nature of the post (a challenge to another player's claim) invites others to comment in a way that would further help scum narrow down targets. This is inherently scummy. Fortunately, I was able to warn the town before anyone fell into Porkens' trap and helped scum narrow things down more.

It's amusing that KMD and Porkens both have repeated that they'll drop this, but then raise it up again. Less amusing, and more worrisome, is that they both apparently continue to maintain that it is okay to narrow down townie power roles as long as it isn't done so explicitly. If I see any more of this behavior, I will continue to point it out.

[Kast]

@Rising-
I think this illustrates my position pretty clearly. Below I include a response that I wrote up earlier today but was interrupted mid post and did not finish. Feel free to read and respond to that, but my main point is contained directly below.

He says that if a person does something to protect himself from a certain action, you should suspect that person of wanting to commit that exact same action to you.

Your analogy oversimplifies and does not include critical issues:
--Action L harms the target.
--When a player, P_i, does Action M to another player, P_j, P_i allows P_j to do Action L.
--When a player, P_k, does Action N, P_k is protected against Action L and allows Action M to be done to P_k.
-Player A suspects that some unknown Player B is trying to do Action L.
-Player C asks Player A to do Action M, and claims he has reason to believe some unknown Player B is trying to do Action L.
-Player D also asks Player A to do Action M, and claims he has reason to believe some unknown Player B is trying to do Action L.

The existence of multiple players warning that someone is trying to do Action L makes it more likely that someone is trying to do Action L.

The fact that Player C (or D) provided a warning has no bearing on the likelihood that Player C (or D) is Player B (neither a reason to suspect nor a reason to not suspect). HOWEVER, the increase in likelihood that there is a Player B makes doing Action M less desirable (when done with any player who is not confirmed as NOT Player B).

Also, the point under discussion is not the sole factor to consider when deciding to rescue someone. It is a factor which disinclines townies in general from rescuing another player. Other factors include but are not limited to:
-Likelihood that the player is a townie
-Other night actions that can be taken
-Private information (and it's repercussions)
-Sigma's claimed cop ability

@LL-

If people think there are going to be 5 red ships, as seems to be the case,

In general, I don't see why any townie has any reason to expect 5 red ships (or really any number of red ships beyond 3). The existence of 3 confirmed red ships plus two plausibly claimed red ships makes it reasonable to believe there are at least 5 red ships.

The existence of a ship-affiliation-cop (or equivalent) argues either a small number of townie ship-millers, or some powerful pro-town game mechanic to balance out mod-provided disinformation. Barring public revelation of such a mechanic, I am inclined to believe that there are probably a small number (ie 2) ship-millers.

@Rising/Excedrin/Porkens-
Please chime in thoughts on Dry-Fit and refresh why you are voting for RC. If the object is to lynch RC, why choose to lynch RC instead of let him be modkilled?

@Mod-

If RC waits until deadline then posts something like "I am here", does he still get mod-killed? Or to be more specific, is the mod-kill for lurking enforced to the letter or to the spirit?

It would be unfortunate if RC waited until deadline then posted content-less fluff to avoid both defending himself and getting modkilled. Also unfortunately, such behavior would be entirely in line with what everyone was willing to excuse on D1.

@Dry-Fit-
Please post something. The lurking isn't helping town.

----------------------------
@Rising's first post-
Good post overall. First point is valid, second point is nonsense.

Agreed that if a townie knows that Sigma is town they should rescue Sigma. If they know that Porkens is town, then they should rescue Porkens. In that sense, then agreed that:
IF A AND B, THEN NOT D.

I stated this in my explanations of the arguments. However, technically you are correct that the conditional itself should include the clarifications that I added as explanations. I should have been more rigorous in my definitions.

As a correction, substitute A and B with E and F, which are actually relevant and incorporate my explanations. D should not need to be expanded upon, but for sake of completeness, you can change D to G.
E = Porkens claims to be town with a scum ship
F = Sigma claims to be town with a scum ship
G = Town should be less inclined to rescue jettisoned players whose affiliation is unknown

The existence of a player claiming he has a ship scum would want to get on increases the likelihood of (C). The existence of multiple players claiming the same makes (C) even more probable. E and F are not required for C to be true.

Your second point is nonsense. IF it is probable that scum want to get aboard town ships, THEN Town should not rescue. This is true regardless of your addendum. Also, your hypothetical situation is more likely than a similar hypothetical where the scum player begins on a non-scum ship. Beginning on a scum ship provides the scum player with an excuse for jettisoning.

I agree that scum only being able to rely on jettisoning and being rescued by the correct town player is an unlikely game mechanism. If scum have a pro-scum game mechanic that requires getting aboard another player's ship, I think it is more likely to be something that works regardless of who picks them up. If they have to give up a red ship in order to achieve this mechanism, it would have to be very powerful to balance the information that town gains from seeing the mod confirmed red ship.

Given the existence of a player who knew the color of another player's ship, the existence of claimed townies on scum ships seems more likely a miller mechanic than a hidden power-up (although it could certainly be both).

@Rising's second post-
False analogy. Your "claimed circumstances" are wrong and you also make a couple flawed assumptions.
-Two players want to get on other players ships.
-Both of those players had confirmed scum ships.
-One of those players explicitly feared scum getting aboard his ship.
-The other player implied a similar reason, but soon after claimed a game mechanic that requires getting on another player's ship (and one that would disincline scum).

You assume that A and B are required in order for C to be true. As Excedrin mentioned, the existence of both jettison and rescue game mechanics suggests interactions between players on the same ship. This alone is reason to consider C.

[Kast]

@Zito-
-In an attempt to make it more readable and salvage Rising's analogy:

There are vampires trying to harm us. We suspect that the vampires want to get into our houses in order to harm us. We know the vampires can get into our house if they leave their houses and we invite them into our houses. Porkens claims that he has evidence suggesting that the vampires would like to get into other people's houses, and specifically that they would like to get into his house. Sigma claims similarly. They each left their houses and would like us to let them into our houses.

The fact that there are two distinct players with partially confirmed evidence suggesting that vampires would like to get into other people's houses makes it more likely that the vampires would indeed like to get into other people's houses.

The fact that Porkens and Sigma provided this information has no bearing on whether they are likely to be vampires.

The fact that Porkens and Sigma left their houses in an effort to stop the vampires from getting into their houses with them has no significant bearing on whether they are likely to be vampires.

The fact that Porkens and Sigma are trying to get into other peoples' houses likewise has no significant bearing on whether they are likely to be vampires.

The fact that it is more likely that vampires would like to get into other people's houses is a factor that should disinclines us from letting ANYONE into our houses (including Porkens and Sigma).

-Not exactly simpler, but maybe easier to follow? Next attempt simplifies, but I can imagine it can be taken out of context.

We should be careful about letting unconfirmed players on our ships. If unconfirmed players warn us against letting players on our ships, that does not mean we should be more or less suspicious of those players individually. It does mean we should be more careful about rescuing all unconfirmed players (or any other action that lets players on our ships).

[Kast]

@Zito-
-Sigma's claim is demonstrable. As such, it greatly increases it's likelihood. Of the 4 red ship players, he is the one I trust the most. Of the two jettisoned players, he is far and away the better choice to save (again from my PoV).

I think it marginally makes him less likely to be a vampire, but it significantly makes him more desirable to let into the house (rescue).

-Another factor I left out previously is, if you are a townie who does not match the race of your own ship, it may be more desirable to rescue Sigma or Porkens (depending if Sigma's claim is compatible with your role PM, or if you suspect Porkens could be compatible).

-Btw, I disagree with Rising's claim that Porkens claim on D1 and decision to jettison on N1 is the logical thing for a townie in his claimed situation to do. Definitely not the claim. The decision to jettison obviously will be slanted by whatever private information his role PM provided him with. From the publicly available information, there doesn't seem to be any necessity for doing it. It sounds more like an excuse to jettison, than a reason for jettisoning.

[Kast]

@RC-
If you are following along while lurking and wondering whether you should post, I strongly suggest posting something prior to any mod clarification. Waiting to see that you would be modkilled, then suddenly jumping in to prevent that isn't very considerate.

[Kast]

@Rising-

Yes. That's obvious. I took that for granted directly from the start. I assumed everybody did. Sigma's claim didn't change anything in that regard.

-It's perplexing that you went from a good well thought out post to this. Your comment here is irrelevant. You aren't addressing Excedrin's point that there is valid reason for townies (even those who do not have red ships) to fear scum trying to get aboard their ships. You use a dismissive tone without actually posting anything that warrants one.

And it's completely nonsensical for Kast to spin what sigma and Porkens have said into a reason for us not to pick them up.

False. Please address my actual position instead of attacking your straw man analogy or attacking my simplified argument out of context of the explanations that accompanied it.

Your previous explanation, which was valid despite being out of context, argued only against the simplified argument. It really only said that it is nonsensical to be less willing to pick up Sigma or Porkens IF YOU KNOW THEY ARE TOWNIES. That wasn't the message I was trying to send, but looking at the simplified argument in isolation, it is possible to draw that conclusion from it. In that sense, yes you had a valid point, and it was a mistake for me to post a simplified argument instead of something more rigorous.

-You have ignored the possibility that scum want to get on town ships, and you have dismissed the possibility that scum getting on town ships by being rescued could be harmful to town. Both points are not part of your argument or explanation.

@Quicklynching-
-I don't think this is a good idea right away. I think Dry-Fit should full claim prior to being lynched.
-I agree that it is probably better for town that we lynch soon enough for RC to be modkilled, and RC's play thus far in the game is certainly deserving of a modkill; but I think it is kinda unsportsmanlike generally jerky behavior to intentionally get him modkilled (particularly given that it would ban him from future BaM games).
-I would like to hear clarification from Spyrex on whether a lynch right now would result in RC being modkilled. His previous clarification seems to indicate that yes, RC would be modkilled.

A "full deadline game-day" is just saying that if you chuckleheads powerlynch everyone who didn't post that day wont be killed - if a day goes the full week without a post then they will get killed (at my discretion - if I know of a V/LA, etc then don't count on it).

Even if we decide to quicklynch Dry-Fit right now, it wouldn't be a power lynch. Based on the notes after the recent votecounts, RC hasn't informed Spyrex of any V/LA, so he would be modkillable.

Confirmation would be nice.
-I think it would help if we vote Dry-Fit to L-2 or L-1 and then give him a deadline to claim or die. If his previous posts are a good indication of how he is playing, then he is likely following along and just waiting for someone to post something he can latch on to.

[Kast]

-You have ignored the possibility that scum want to get on town ships

This is inaccurate. You have not ignored it, you have actively DENIED this possibility. You have illogically claimed that scum would want to get on board Porkens and Spyrex ships ONLY. The point behind this still stands, but I figured you would appreciate that being more technically correct.

[Kast]

@Mod-
Thanks for clarification.

@Quicklynch-
I suggest we wait until Friday and then lynch Dry-Fit. This gives RC 2 days to start playing the game.

@Dry-Fit-
-Why did you wait so long to claim?

-Your reason for taking no actions is weak but plausible for not using a kill. It does not hold for choosing to not roleblock.

-How does a roleblocking ability negate the possibility that you claimed to avoid/forestall being investigated?
If you are scum, then there is no reason to believe your claimed ability.

If you are a townie, then you would obviously not roleblock a potential cop. Claiming would be desirable to prevent the cop from wasting an investigation on you and to minimize suspicion if you were found out in future.

-Convenient that your role prevents you from rescuing the claimed cop (and thus having your identity confirmed). What is the flavor for this ability?

It doesn't seem very synergistic to have a miller who cannot be investigated by our claimed cop. Sounds more like a botched fake claim. Having a miller+extremely limited cop was already implausible; having a miller who kills the extremely limited cop in the event that the cop tries to investigate him is even less plausible.

-You previously jumped at my question about race as a justification for keeping your ship. I suspect that you didn't realize that claiming your race matches your ship was equivalent to claiming scum, and instead just saw it as a townie provided excuse to validate your decision to keep your ship.

Regardless, what is the flavor for your vig, roleblock, and kill jettisoned player abilities. Does your previous claim refer to these abilities ie. are you implicitly stating that they are racial abilities?

-Does your statement that you are both a vig AND a roleblocker mean that you can perform two night actions?

@Porkens-
He could have claimed almost immediately after Excedrin revealed that RC was on a red ship.
-It is very plausible that he claimed to forestall a hierarchy ship investigation result.
-By posting to defend Sigma (who players had already indicated they weren't very suspicious of), he also laid grounds for a similar defense of RC. It is plausible that he wanted to defend RC without drawing attention to him, hence posting and explicitly naming Sigma as the reason but completely avoiding mention of RC who was actually the player under scrutiny at that moment.

@Dry-Fit-
-Why did you mention Sigma, but did not say anything about RC?

[Kast]

@Dry-Fit-
-To emphasize the last point, RC had 4 votes at the time AND you answered a direct question whether RC being on a red ship prompted your response. You felt Sigma needed to be defended but didn't have anything to say about RC. Why?

-Btw, if you are scum with RC and KRW as your buddies, I am truly sorry for your misfortune and I suggest you just chalk it up to bad luck and hope for better next time. Also, if you get a similar situation, I suggest bussing heavily.

[Kast]

This is pure speculation from your side. Nothing has been said in this game to support this.

Correct that this is speculation. Incorrect that nothing in game supports this. You admit that the existence of rescue as a universal game mechanic obviously suggests interactions between shipmates. It would be completely reckless to assume that these probable interactions are only town positive. Also it is misleading to imply that we should ignore a potential source of danger to town simply because it is speculation.

Actually, what has been said contradicts it. Porkens knew he was on a hierarch ship with a nasty racial ability, so what are the odds that he would pick up an unconfirmed floating pilot? Nil.

Porkens was on a red ship and claimed that it had a nasty racial ability that scum would want to get aboard. Regardless of whether Porkens would let scum aboard, the claim that Spyrex included an incentive for scum to get aboard a townie ship IS reason to suspect that scum might attempt to get aboard a town ship.

Porkens decided not to tell us which race his ship belonged to because he naturally suspected that scum mainly had other ways of exchanging ships between pilots than simply hoping to be picked up by the right player after their own ships had been destroyed. That makes sense.

Not relevant to your point.

You appear to be arguing against the idea that scum only want to get aboard Porkens and/or Sigma's ship. This is a straw man.

We don't know yet if SpyreX is gonna tell us which player gets to pick up which floating pilot, but if he will, then that will further contradict your homebrew theory.

Spyrex telling us which player picked up which floating pilot is completely unnecessary for your proposed situation and completely irrelevant to my "homebrew theory".

Also, regardless of whether Spyrex publicly announces who a player was picked up by, individual players are presumably informed if they successfully picked someone up.

Imagine that SpyreX tells us that I got to pick up Porkens, and that I was killed later during the night, and that Porkens is now piloting my ship. That would set off alarms everywhere. How hard would it be to hunt scum with circumstances like that?

This is a straw man. You argue against one unlikely implementation of of Action L and assume this makes it impossible for Action L to exist.

You also use unnecessarily ambiguous language to describe your situation. You don't specify when your theoretical announcement by Spyrex happens. Presumably, this would happen at the beginning of the day following the night when you picked up Porkens. Your death on the following night would suggest that townies should be suspicious of Porkens, but be indistinguishable from a scum kill that targets a pilot without targeting the ship. This would by no means be a confirmation of Porkens as scum.

If you actually meant the same night, then it would be more probable that Porkens is responsible for your death; particularly given that scum should not know that you were going to rescue Porkens.

Your theory presumes that:
1. SpyreX won't tell us who picks up who.
or
2. Scum's ability to hurt other players on the same ship is very subtle. Even something as simple as energy draining could easily be detected.

or
3. Extremely powerful as to be worth the risk of not being rescued AND drawing attention to/potentially outing a scumplayer.

I have already stated that the action L has to be either 2 or 3. Neither of those points contradicts my "homebrew" theory.

If not, then worst-case-scenario is that it will be a one-for-one: Floating scum kills friendly pilot, and then we lynch said scum. I could live with that, but I'm pretty sure that's not how things work, because it would make for a pretty boring game.

If you seriously cannot conceive of a worst-case-scenario that is not worse than one-for-one, then let me know and I'll help you out.

as soon as you start to make sense I'm gonna decide whether or not you're the lynch for today.

This makes no sense. A player making sense is not a requirement for considering them as a lynch candidate. Further, your "threat" is completely inviable today and inconsistent with your previously (and concurrently) stated suspicions.

In my opinion, he should jettison his ship tonight, because town don't have much use for a vig/roleblocker, but they are pretty dangerous abilities in the hands of a potential scum Vux (unlikely) or other scumplayer with the ability to use every hierarchial ship's racial ability (I expect something like this).

Agreed that if Dry-Fit does not get lynched, I would prefer if he jettisons his ship. Disagree with the reason. I think the claim that town don't have much use for a vig/roleblocker is baseless and irrational. However, it would confirm Dry-Fit as a VUX.

It is incomprehensible that you expect a scum who can use every

hierarchial

ship's racial ability but cannot conceive of a scum who can harm town by getting aboard a townie ship.

(Translated from Stupid:)
When a townplayer picks up another player, that player could hurt the townplayer.

Usually, when I play, I sound like you; I call people's posts stupid, naïve, childish and whatnot. I can be a real asshole. But I've come to realize that it's actually pretty mean and that it doesn't belong in a game that is supposed to be fun and exciting.

To be clear, does your use of the word "stupid" fall into the category of behavior that you think is inappropriate?
If so, does this indicate an abandonment of your previous position?
If not, do you admit that the word stupid can be used without being a personal insult?
Does this indicate agreement that your objections on D1 were simply AtE objections instead of valid responses?

[Kast]

Spyrex telling us which player picked up which floating pilot is completely unnecessary for your proposed situation

To clarify this, Spyrex has said if the pilot dies, then the unmanned ship will die with him. In your situation, we would see a pilot die, but his ship would not have died. Each player could tell us whether they rescued the pilot or not (and from the pilot's side he could name the player who rescued him). A contradiction would result in the one-for-one you describe.

[Kast]

Every ship has a limited amount of energy to use for the whole game. I didn't want to waste it on what was pretty much a shot in the dark.

How do you reconcile this with your D1 vote for Sigma? From what I understood, your vote on a player who was unlikely to be lynched was supposed to indicate strong suspicion of him.

@Porkens-
He could have claimed almost immediately after Excedrin revealed that RC was on a red ship.

So I should have magically been able to get online and post while I was sick and busy with schoolwork at any given instant?

Apologies. This was a typo. It should read, "He claimed almost immediately after Excedrin revealed that RC was on a red ship."

To answer your hypothetical, personal circumstances aren't directly relevant to whether you "should" post in game. If personal circumstances make you unable to play, then post V/LA. Given your claimed position, I suppose it

should

be surprising did magically get online and post while you were sick and busy with schoolwork.

-Your first post of D2 is a direct response to a vote on Sigma that argues against the reason for voting him. That looks like a defense to me.

-I dislike that you still have not made any mention of RC. Please answer clearly what you think about RC.

@Porkens-
To be clear, are you intending to express genuine suspicion of a Sigma/Dry-Fit scum team? I cannot tell if your last two posts are intended to be serious or not.

[Kast]

I think it's very possible that scum doesn't have a direct kill in this game and more players in space/ships destroyed probably only helps them.

Again, I strongly dislike this sort of speculation. It is less bad since you have already claimed, but it invites comments from other players that can help scum determine if each of the responders is more or less likely to have some sort of kill negating power. If you really are a townie with the role that you have claimed, then you should have no idea whether scum have a direct kill.

Imagine a more standard themed game in which D2 opens with no night deaths. The simplest and most plausible explanation in this case is that a doctor protected the kill target. A townie JoaT with Vig/RB powers has no additional reason to suspect that scum are unable to kill (nor that scum chose to not kill). Granted, it is not wrong to consider that possibility, but to arbitrarily choose to believe a lower probability event that tends to underestimate scum is just generally poor strategy for town.

-Please reconcile these two views:

That plus a red ship he is still on makes me think it's likely he is scum.

Vote Sigma

.

Unclaimed red ship pretty much means he has to be scum.

Not really.

-Also, if you think it is likely that RC is scum, why haven't you voted him?

@Excedrin-
To be clear, once Friday rolls around, and, assuming RC is still MIA, Spyrex posts that RC is modkillable, do you intend to hammer Dry-Fit?

[Kast]

(why wouldn't he kill if he was scum? WIFOM, but I still don't know why)

If Dry-Fit is scum, it is probable that he is lying about his ship abilities AND about not using any actions last night (or if he chose not to use an action, then it is probable that someone else on his team did so instead).

This is another problem with townies speculating that scum cannot or chose not to kill as though it is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Other players see it and involuntarily accept it as perfectly reasonable; sometimes at the expense of much more reasonable and probable explanations.

-I actually got several confirmations now from Spyrex and I think I know exactly what a player would be informed of under different circumstances. It can vary. I meant to post this previously but forgot. I don't think it is a major concern.

[Kast]

-I'm assuming FIFOM is a typo.

@Excedrin-
-I did see your question asking for my third suspect. I don't think I will answer it at the moment. I hope you can understand why.

At the moment, I trust you, but this is conditional on your information about RC proving true.

I plan to full claim my insult ability tomorrow; if I don't live until tomorrow, then you are welcome to share it with the town (although town should note that if Excedrin is lying about RC's ship, and he reveals my ability after I am dead, then take anything he says about me with a big grain of salt).

@All-
Looks like RC is not posting or planning to post. Spyrex said he would post the change in RC's status sometime on Friday. Day end is approaching. If anyone has any final thoughts, please share them.

@Final thoughts-
I won't be around this weekend. These are probably my final thoughts for D2. I'll be sending in my conditional night actions after this post.

These aren't ordered suspicions, just some thoughts on each player.
-If Dry-Fit flips scum, Plum and Zito are as close to confirmed townies as is possible in my books.
-If RC flips scum, Excedrin is confirmed in my eyes. If he flips red ship but town, then Excedrin isn't fully confirmed in my eyes.
-I don't agree with everyone's suspicion of LL from D1. I don't like his lurking today. If either Dry-Fit OR RC is scum, I could easily see LL's behavior as scum who has mostly given up since his partners were completely lame.
-Rising reads more neutral to me today. I think it's mostly that he hasn't been posting much. He tried to get into some arguments with me, and had at least one solid post, but didn't seemed extremely tunneled.
-Sigma reads more neutral to me than he did D1. I think his cop claim is very plausible, and we will probably learn a lot if he is picked up.
-Porkens remains difficult to read. There's a lot of swings in behavior and a lot of stuff I feel is pretty much nonsense. But D1 he did help with lynching scum, and now his vote is pretty reasonably placed.
-KMD is also difficult to read. I dislike his reluctance to lynch KRW, but if they're friends in real life, then that could be part of it. His current vote on Dry-Fit was placed late, so even if Dry Fit flips scum, it's not very convincing.
-That said, RC's behavior is really unacceptable. D1 he didn't contribute anything game relevant, D2 he's lurking outrageously.

[Kast]

@All-
Hope you all had good weekends.

I left Spyrex with instructions on how I would like to use my night ability depending on whether RC was modkilled and depending on how Dry-Fit flipped. He sent me a PM requesting confirmation that he understood my choice correctly, but I wasn't around to confirm. I'm waiting confirmation that he went ahead and did the action (if he didn't it probably doesn't matter because I targeted LL).

Thoughts first then my claim with further thoughts:
-To be clear, Rising and Zito sound like they are claiming masons or something to that effect. This implies that they are either telling the truth OR they are scum together.
-Excedrin and KMD are contradicting each other. At least one of them is lying.
-Excedrin claimed Umgah (Hierarchy).

From this alone, I'm guessing it's a KMD/Excedrin scum team. They're probably trying to bus each other since they probably expect one of them to be lynched today and are hoping to gain town cred.

I'm also a bit confused by Excedrin's claim. He says the Hyperwave Broadcaster lets him send an anonymous message to anyone and nullify, but then he says he has an ability to scan and nullify.
-Is the scanning supposed to be equivalent to the communicating?
-I don't see anything in the claim explaining why Excedrin can use 2 active abilities in 1 night. Why is this possible?
-It also sounds like he is claiming to think that my ability let him use his two abilities with only 1 energy cost. Is this what you are trying to say?
-Why did you pick your claimed night targets?
-Why do you claim to know what KMD's ship is, but you only told us that RC's ship was red?

My full claim:
I am Brakky, a Pkunk captain on a Pkunk Fury.
I have two abilities, one Active, one Passive Racial.

-Insult/Roleblock-
This ability only roleblocks Racial Abilities. Spyrex initially told me that my target would be informed of this as well as the insult. On second clarification, the target would be told that I roleblocked them ONLY if I actually block an ability (ie. if they don't use a racial ability, they will not be told that I blocked them). I targeted Excedrin N1 and LL N2 (waiting confirmation that the insult to LL went through)

-Ressurrection/Reincarnation-
There is a chance that I come back to life if I am killed. It's actually a little bit more specific, and I can share the specifics if requested. I am NOT informed if this happens.

---Thoughts---
D2, the lack of night kills could have been a result of either of my powers (it could be a result of something else).

If it was my reincarnation, then scum would not know why I was still alive, but would likely be searching for a doctor.

If it was my roleblocking, then scum would know that I could roleblock them. It would also mean that Excedrin was scum. However, Excedrin's implied ship investigation ability made it preferable to give him a chance to prove his implicit cop claim. Also, I thought that Excedrin scum would potentially want to kill me which could trigger my reincarnation and potentially waste a second scum night.

-Dry-Fit claiming roleblocking AND that he did not use it made me doubt him and believe Excedrin more. I think it was a mistake on his part to intentionally not use his power.

-I don't see how Excedrin could possibly think my ability prevented him from using energy. It sounds like some botched claim.

-End of D2 I was a bit suspicious of Excedrin asking who my third suspect was. I considered that he was fishing for my roleblock target to help his scum team decide. Unfortunately, I was deciding between LL and KMD, and left conditionals that if Dry-Fit flipped scum, roleblock KMD, if Dry-Fit flipped any other affiliation, roleblock LL. (First condition was to roleblock RC if he did not get modkilled and second condition was to roleblock Excedrin if RC's ship was not red).

-With 4 confirmed townies starting in red ships, and a confirmed affiliation cop, a ship color cop would be a huge townie liability. I suspect Excedrin may be scum with a ship color cop ability (or one of his buddies has that ability and he just used the info to implicate RC).

I'm fine with lynching either KMD or Excedrin. Excedrin preferred.

[Kast]

@EBWOP-
Spyrex confirmed that he went ahead and used my ability on LL.

[Kast]

@KMD-
Are you claiming that you nullify the effects of players who target you?

[Kast]

@KMD-
How can you not think Excedrin is not scum when he says he investigated you and that you are on a ship you claim to not be on?

[Kast]

@Dead players-
Btw-everyone was incinerated, I assume this is different from Asphyxiated, and implies that Porkens and Sigma were each rescued.

From Zito's claim, it makes sense that Plum tried to rescue Sigma, and by elimination that would leave LL as a rescuer for Porkens.

I'm not sure how plausible it is that scum could potentially kill two ships in a night, but I suppose with a townie vig + two roleblockers, that is more feasible than a more standard game.

@Zito-
Is your QT an ability you have or just something resulting from having a player on your ship?

[Kast]

Okay.

Vote: Excedrin

In case my post was not clear:
-What do you think the effect of my insult is?
-Explain the discrepancy between your claimed ability of anonymous communication and your claimed night action of scanning ships.

[Kast]

oops ninja's let me read your post...

[Kast]

UNVOTE

Actually hold on gonna re-read your post. I don't think I saw that scan ability...

Also, Zito explain this?

This is interesting. I've started thinking that too.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
Okay, my mistake. I misread your claim. So you are claiming 1 Active Pilot Ability and 2 Active Ship Abilities. You claim you used 2 abilities per night. How is this possible?

On night 1, I got a scan result and a nullify result (I assume that, because I lost energy, nullify worked).

This is why I was confused about your roleblock ability, because I expected no results. Flavor for the reason why I was not blocked was due to the simplicity of my ship.

After night one I had 1 unit of energy left.
On night 2, I got a scan result only, pm says I went to nullify and noticed no energy.

-Thanks, I am very glad for the clarifications.

-If you really didn't use a racial ability (hyperwave broadcaster), then you would not have been informed that I have a roleblocking ability. You would also not be informed any flavor on why my blocking did not affect you.

Apparently you didn't realize that my roleblock only works on Racial Abilities (perhaps N1 you only used a racial ability?)

[Kast]

Vote: Excedrin

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
You can only use 1 Active Ability per night.

@Zito-
My insults are actually a pilot ability.

@KMD-
I blocked Excedrin on N1. If he tried to use a Racial Ability, then he would have been directly informed that I blocked him. If he did not use any Racial Abilities, he would not have been informed of the roleblock.

He claims to have used two abilities, both which are non-racial. His claim to have been told flavor that he got mad but that getting mad has no effect since he has a simple ship does not agree with Spyrex's clarification. He should have been told the insult and nothing else.

Recap

Papa Zito

- has claimed Earthling. The Earthling has no claimed

pilot

ability.
- has claimed a Precursor ship. The claimed Precursor ship can swap people between ships (

Active, Night, Ship, Non-Racial?

).
- says he swapped Rising and Plum N1, then Plum and Rising N2. Rising has confirmed.

Excedrin

- has claimed Zoq-Fot-Pik. The ZFP can scan ships and get blueprints

(Active, Night, Pilot)

.
- has claimed an Umgah Drone. The claimed Umgah Drone can use its Caster to send messages

(Active, Night, Ship, Racial)

and RB targets

(Active, Night, Ship, Non-Racial)

.
- scanned and RB'd Rosso N1
- scanned Kmd and nullified Locke, but Locke RB failed

Kmd

- has claimed Utwig. The Utwig has no claimed

Pilot

ability.
- has claimed Utwig Jugger. The claimed Jugger can absorb energy directed at it

(Active, Night?, Ship, Racial)

.
- 0 energy was absorbed N1, 3 energy was absorbed N2.

Rising

- has claimed Melnorme. The Melnorme's claimed

Pilot

ability is to regenerate a ship's energy. (Zito can confirm the ability though not the race)
- has claimed he started without a ship.
- said he joined Papa Zito on Day 1. Zito has confirmed this.

Kast

- has claimed Pkunk. The Pkunk's racial ability is to possibly come back to life if killed

(Passive, Night, Ship, Racial)

.
- has claimed a Pkunk Fury. The Pilot's claimed ability is to insult/roleblock a target's racial ability. Target is aware of a successful roleblock.

(Active, Night, Pilot)

- Insulted/RBed Excedrin N1, and Locke N2. Excedrin confirmed the N1 action.

@Shofixti Suicide-
LoL this game is confusing. I think Excedrin makes sense in saying a Shofixti suicide thing sounds like a Racial Active ability and so should not have been possible because I blocked him.

[Kast]

@Zito-
I think you're misunderstanding what a Racial Ability is. It is not a pilot ability.

@KMD-
It seems odd that your claimed energy shield is an Active ability. I would guess from description that it is a Passive Ability.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
I don't follow why you would assume roleblockers are immune to each other. Spyrex has confirmed specifically to me that roleblockers in this game would block each other. If you actually have a roleblocking ability, I would think you should have asked him a question about how roleblockers would interact with each other; given that you say you guessed I was a roleblocker and we have a confirmed roleblocker in Dry-Fit.

[Kast]

@KMD-
Not if both he and I are telling the truth.

He claims his ability is a Pilot Ability (not a Racial Ability). My power has no effect on Pilot Abilities, only Racial Abilities.

He should have been insulted and told nothing else.

[Kast]

Anything with R. Is a Racial Ability.

R.A. and R.P. are two types of Racial Abilities. R.A. is an Active, Racial Ability. R.P. is a Passive, Racial Ability.

My insult will block all R abilities of the target player (both Active AND Passive). It has no effect on non R abilities.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
Awaiting confirmation from Spyrex. That is not how the rules read. They specifically state you may choose ONE active ability. If you choose a Ship Active ability, then you also must have enough energy.

[Kast]

@KMD-
You are correct. It is still a contradiction. To the best of my knowledge, Excedrin should not have been told anything. He claims to have been told flavor that he claims to have successfully used to guess that I am a role blocker. He should not have been told the flavor.

@LL-
I am not informed if my ability successfully worked. I see no reason why it would not have worked; unless someone is lying and actually blocked me or LL has some ability that stops role blockers.

[Kast]

Okay, Spyrex confirmed that you can use one Pilot Active Ability AND one Ship Active Ability.

[Kast]

UNVOTE

Okay...Spyrex sent me another clarification that he might or might not add flavor even if there was no roleblock. He just meant with his previous clarification that a block would definitely result in a notification, and not being blocked would not be a definite notification but might have flavor along with this insult. This kinda contradicts the previous clarification I was given.

This minorly bugs me and I can't help second guessing whether he sent me the PM because he feels bad about possibly misleading me (to be fair, he said the PM is not meant to affect anything in game, but also to be fair, I don't know how I can not let it have any effect on my thoughts).

I'm still suspicious of Excedrin's claimed investigation result contradiction with KMD's claimed ship.

[Kast]

Waiting for one more clarification...

[Kast]

Okay, Spyrex didn't want to clarify this one, but I'm comfortable going with what I understand of his clarification and it implies Excedrin is lying.

If he tried doing an action that requires more energy than he has, he should have been informed of that and been able to pick a different action.

This implies to me that he is lying about the roleblock.

[Kast]

Vote: Excedrin

[Kast]

@Zito-
I want to hear your thoughts.

@Rising-

(Plums ship, the Syreen Penetrator, had the ability to hold any number of players on her vessel, and her ship could pick up any number of players immediately during the day, by PMing the mod. Plums ship also had a R.A-ability to force pilots to abandon their vessel)

To be clear, you are saying the Syreen Penetrator had 3 "unique" Abilities.
P.) You can hold any number of players
A.) Pickup any number of players by PMing mod (D)
R.A.) Force target Pilot to abandon current vessel (N?)
-Is this correct?
-On D2 you were aboard and in control of Plum's vessel. Did you still have a QT with Zito?

[Kast]

UNVOTE

[Kast]

I want to hear those answers before any lynch happens.

[Kast]

@Rising-
Then to be clear:

P.) You may immediately rescue any number of players by PMing the mod.
R.A.) Force target Pilot to abandon current vessel (N)

-What is the timing on the first ability? Specifically, when can it be used (D), (N), (A)?

-I was unaware of any limits to the number of players on a ship. I have asked for mod confirmation on that.

[Kast]

@Rising-
-You mentioned being able to use the (Passive?) rescue "immediately during the day", why didn't you use the ability during the day on D2?

[Kast]

@Case on Excedrin-
Actually, I think the most direct contradiction is this:

Kmd4390 is on an Ur-Quan Dreadnought.

My role is Lololo, Utwig and my ship is Utwig Jugger.

One of them is lying. I'm fine with lynching one and role-blocking the other.

My suspicions about Excedrin's claims about my N1 role block incline me towards lynching him as the more probable scum of the two (could be both scum, could be just one of them).

Zito's info that flavor doesn't support a Zoq-Fot-Pik scanner ability also inclines me to vote Excedrin.

(Interestingly, the wiki on Zoq-Fot-Pik mentions that they provide the alliance with blueprints for their own ship; if Excedrin is false claiming, I'm guessing he used this as the basis for his claim).

Vote: Excedrin

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
Yes, it could work that Spyrex based a power on a wiki point. To be fair, on reading the wiki in isolation, I could believe that the ZFP provided blueprints on other ships and could find that plausible.

However, I'm taking Zito's word on the flavor. I'm mostly discounting the possibility that Zito is scum. Given that you readily admitted ZFP with a scanner does not make flavor sense, I'm inclined to think it is a flavor mistake that Spyrex would not have made (similar to how KRW's flavor claim was a mistake that Spyrex would not have made).

I agree that KMD's role sounds bogus. Potentially gaining tons of energy but no way to use it doesn't sound that plausible. As claimed, he is equivalent to being vanilla. Actually, the biggest point I see in favor of lynching him instead of lynching you is that the lack of kills on N1 could indicate that I can successfully stop you from killing, whereas KMD might kill as a non-racial ship ability.

@Zito-
It may be worthwhile to swap either Rising or Myself with KMD tonight. If he is the final mafia and if he kills by a ship ability, that would presumably stop the kill or potentially prevent him from killing both yourself and Rising in one go. Another possibility, if you can send people to another ship, you could send Rising to my ship where any kill attempts would have to count on not triggering my reincarnation.

Obviously, do not confirm your intentions in thread. You may already be considering something similar, but if not, then do consider something along those lines.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-

But, regardless of where he got the idea to give the ZFP pilot the ability to scan ships, your statement had one possibility and not the other when they both seem equally likely.

This is not correct. I do not find them equally likely and have not said anything to indicate that. I find it much more likely that it is part of a botched false claim.

-I missed the part where KMD claimed immunity to ship based abilities. Please highlight where he claimed that. If he actually claimed that, it would likely contradict this:

I don't nullify anything. Just absorb the energy.

Zito is confirmed town unless there's only one scum left.

I'm assuming you are implying that Excedrin is a townie? If your point is to convince me to vote KMD instead of yourself, I don't think that is a valid assumption.

[Kast]

@Rising-
-As a passenger on Zito's ship, were you told all of his ship's abilities?

-They could easily have been working on a fake claim together but never hammered out the details.

However, I was also unclear on KMD's initial claim, hence the request for clarification.

[Kast]

@Rising-
-Given that Zito requested time to sort things out, I'd advise not hammering until he is ready. We have plenty of time so no need to rush things (this advisory probably unnecessary given that you two should be discussing things in a QT).

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
The targets I was considering for roleblock were:
-RC if he was not modkilled.
-Excedrin if RC was not in a red ship.
-KMD if Dry-Fit was scum.
-LL for remaining cases.

Sigma and Porkens were not in ships, so there was no point in targeting either of them.

I suspected that Zito, Plum, and Rising were probable town, so they weren't under consideration.

RC was my top suspect after Dry-Fit. I wasn't about to let him coast through the game without posting anything and just submitting night actions.
If RC wasn't in a red ship, then Excedrin was lying about his investigation.
If Dry-Fit was scum, KMD's opposition to lynch KRW and reluctance to lynch Dry-Fit would be too strong to ignore or risk not blocking him.
I didn't like LL's D2 behavior; that he said he would like to vote Dry-Fit but avoided doing so could have indicated scum unwilling to hammer a known townie. A similar motive could be applied to KMD, with the different that LL seemed to want to avoid attention, whereas KMD didn't seem to care about hiding himself.

@Rising-
I am fine with lynching either KMD or Excedrin as I think they are the most probable remaining scum. However, I would prefer lynching the more probable scum of the two, which seems to be Excedrin. There were a lot of claims and contradictory (and potentially contradictory) information flying around. I unvoted and revoted several times in response to new information and/or to give myself time to process that information.

I'm assuming you are specifically referring to this unvote and revote. I think I posted pretty clearly that I unvoted because I wanted to hear the answers to my questions (and let Zito share his thoughts) before any lynch happened.

I also disagree that it was clear that you did not intend to hammer. I did not strongly suspect you, but it was possible that you were trying to decide whether or not to hammer your buddy. You answered questions that fleshed out your claim and that all held together consistently with your and Zito's previous information as well as the mod's clarifications.

Even if you had somehow made it certain that you would not hammer, the possibility of a scum self hammer to prematurely end the day still existed. It still exists now, however, Zito has had a chance to share his thoughts and I don't think any scum self hammer at this point would significantly harm the town.

[Kast]

@Zito-

That said, Rising, could Plum have used her ability to cause people to jump ship on Locke Lamora and then picked him up?

-Was this part of your plan as discussed with Plum?
-When you switch players, are they able to use Active Abilities after the switch?

@Lots of Deaths-
It is also possible that LL used a suicide attack which was not a Racial Ability.

[Kast]

Yea, more focus on behavior and less on finding "mistakes" in flavor would be good.

How about more focus on definitive scumtells instead of BS?

Kast's unvote was scummy,

-Explain.
-This eagerness to jump on and agree with something Rising posted without explanation sounds like desperate scum.

his behavior today seems different than his behavior earlier (more passive),

?Calling for someone's lynch is passive how?

He also says that since there's proof that he can block me based on lack of kill

This is false. Seriously reaching and twisting what I said. It is possible that I can block you. The lack of kill is not proof of that.

and that I got flavor from SpyreX when I shouldn't have,

This part is also not proof, but it is stronger indication that you are lying and is a more accurate portrayal of what I have posted.

that lynching Kmd4390 first makes sense, then he leaves his vote on me.

I clearly posted that I find you more likely to be scum. Having reasons to lynch both you and KMD does not mean it is contradictory to vote for one of you.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
-I gave my reasons for preferring you over KMD already.
-My guess is that Plum would be unable to use any Active Abilities after being switched. If she was not able to, then I think it is more likely that LL suicide bombed Plum than that scum have 2 night kills. All 4 players being incinerated also suggests that the same mechanic is responsible for all 4 deaths.

If LL did suicide bomb, it could potentially have targeted Sigma or Porkens instead of Plum. Depending on how Zito's switching works, it could potentially have targeted Rising. Given that LL was suspicious of Plum, I think the simplest explanation is that he would have bombed her if he could.

-I don't know why you keep pointing out that KMD's claimed 3 energy units is significant proof of anything. If you are trying to show that someone is not scum, assuming that the person is not scum is not valid.

However, if KMD is telling the truth, then absorbing 3 units of energy could not have been from a suicide bomb aimed at him since he would be dead. This does not in any way suggest that LL targeted KMD.

I agree with you that KMD's claim sounds implausible. This balances against your own claim which is equally implausible. Fortunately, the two implausible roleclaims coincide with two players who are most likely to be scum (objectively due to direct contradiction).

It's typical "oh, look I'm being a cautious town player, I don't want scum to hammer... Oh nevermind, I'm sure this guy is scum" kind of play.

This does not explain how it is scummy. You offer no discernment between this and a townie doing the same thing. Again, provide explanation of how this is scummy.

This is the second time you've posted something that could apply to either align, and instead of saying "this could be desperate town" you say it's "desperate scum"; that's scummy. If it's lylo, I don't want the game to end with my lynch.

False. This does not sound like desperate town. Desperate town is not concerned with keeping self alive at all costs. Desperate town is concerned with lynching suspected scum at all costs. You have claimed to believe KMD is scum; desperate town would push this. As a claimed cop, it is almost incomprehensible how unwilling you were to initially vote for a player who your own claimed investigation incriminated. Another sign that you are probably bussing your buddy.
-I have obviously done more than just ask for clarifications from other players. If you still insist on your blatant lie, I can do a breakdown of my posts so far today.

Did I really twist this?

Yes. You conflated the two ideas when they are clearly distinct. The former is a very weak argument for lynching KMD today instead of lynching you. The latter is a reason I suspect you more than KMD.

Your reference to the former as though it were a hard scumtell that I was deliberately ignoring is an extreme twist.

And despite that, you're still listing it as a reason to lynch Excedrin.

This kinda contradicts the previous clarification I was given.

Context is important. The previous clarification that I was given made it explicitly clear that you were lying. Spyrex does not want to directly influence the game. Unfortunately, sometimes players lie and his clarifications will influence the game by catching those lies.

From the wording of his clarification and the fact that he provided it without a request, I believe he feels bad that you may have been definitively caught simply because you did not know how he implemented my role block power in this game. To be fair, I am not using that as the major factor in determining who is scum, but also to be fair, it is not something I can ignore.

Fortunately, your contradiction with KMD is a hard tell that is in line with my understanding of the situation.

I'd expect townKast to figure out what happens if Excedrin is telling the truth and compare that to what happens if I'm not. That there's no huge matrix of possible outcomes seems out of character.

This is pretty straightforward. If you are town, scum endgame us. If for some reason the game continues, KMD is obv-scum and I roleblock him.

This is no worse than lynching anyone else as town. This is much less probable than Rising or Zito being town.

This is similar in probability to KMD being town; both are low.

@Rising-

And it's only reasonable to unvote if one has reason to believe one's currently voting for town.

This is untrue. Allowing for extra discussion and ensuring that no mistakes are being made is a huge reason to unvote even confirmed scum.

As I said, Excedrin-scum could have decided to self-hammer to end the day without letting Zito post thoughts and/or figure out what he wants to do. This is hardly a rare or unusual scum tactic.

Also, as I posted, I want to lynch the more probable scum out of Excedrin and KMD. Even if they are both scum, it may be better to lynch KMD today instead of Excedrin (particularly if Excedrin's claim was more plausible than KMD's).

-LL thought Plum was scum. Using a suicide attack to try and kill someone who he suspected as scum would benefit the town by killing a player he thought was scum. I don't follow where your confusion comes from.

@Zito-

3. Plum uses her ships other ability (the ability to snatch a player off of his ship) on someone else. She said she'd probably take Locke.

Players can't use active abilities, no. Plum had an active racial ability that she couldn't use. Her flavor said she "disoriented." Rising's passive ability doesn't seem affected.

To be clear, Plum did intend to use her Active Racial Ability to eject a player (probably LL) from his ship after being switched back. However, a player is unable to use Active abilities after you switch them. Does this mean that Plum would try but would probably be unable to actually eject a player after being switched?

[Kast]

@Rising-

That rules out so many possible scumpairings that it is quite understandable that Kast could panic if he was scum.

To be clear, you think that my decision to unvote is incomprehensible behavior. What you see as scummy is incomprehensible behavior at a time when scum could potentially be panicked.

The thing that makes the most sense to you is that I realized your posting without hammering confirmed you as not scum if Excedrin is town, and, in a moment of thoughtless panic, unvoted despite unvoting not actually doing anything that could benefit scum-Kast. Then I re-voted after calming down. Is that accurate?

[Kast]

@Rising-

The vote was of course thoughtless to begin with; because a townplayer in his right mind would never have pushed someone to L-1 without a good reason. Therefore, neither would a scumplayer. So we've already established that you're bonkers, either way.

You're not really making sense and relying on craplogic.
-I have good reason for lynching Excedrin. Direct contradictions are very strong and very clear scumtells.
-I put Excedrin at L-2.
-KMD put Excedrin at L-1.
-You posted something indicating confusion.
-Excedrin posted stuff.
-I unvoted and asked for you to clarify and for Zito to post.

This is untrue. Allowing for extra discussion and ensuring that no mistakes are being made is a huge reason to unvote even confirmed scum.

No, that is reason for not putting someone at -1 in the first place.

Already addressed. I didn't put him at L-1. Please pay attention to the game.

For completeness, you also use a false dilemma. The two are not mutually exclusive and it's pretty obvious intuitively that a reason to not put someone at L-1 would also be a reason to unvote them so they are not at L-1.

That's yet another reason for not putting someone at -1 in the first place.

This is addressed already; I didn't put him at L-1, and the two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

The idea of a "Suicide Vig" is one of the worst role ideas I've ever heard of.

It's a standard role. It's usually called a terrorist or a suicide bomber, but it's really not as unlikely as you are acting. I'll expand on my advice from D1, don't assume that things are impossible just because you personally haven't seen them before.

If you're town you should apologize to Spyrex, because that is downright insulting.

This is a lame attitude. Scum should not be excused from apologizing for insulting behavior. They can be excused from conducting anti-town behavior since they are anti-town, but if someone insulted the moderator, they should apologize regardless of affiliation.
Your point itself is ridiculous. There is no reason to apologize for believing it is plausible that the mod implemented a standard role which is supported by flavor, supported by public evidence, and which a majority of players in the game have agreed is a plausible role. Again, pay attention to the game.

That's like the antithesis of fun (="in the unlikely event that you've played so well that you would want to use this ability, it would then be game over for you and you would not get to play anymore").

It's a pretty balanced role. A limited vig who has to be very careful. It has good synergy with a vig/roleblocker/ship miller (who also kills people on his ship).

But even worse; in a setup like this; where players are expected to get aboard eachothers ships, it would just be awful for a townie to have the ability to Vig+"kill everyone else on the same ship as your target".

? I'm not seeing it. You'll have to be a lot more clear on why this makes it less likely.

And if he did have this horribly unfun and antitown ability, and if he were stupid (yes, I'm gonna use that word in this case) enough to use it, wouldn't he tell us about it beforehand, knowing that he would not be here to explain things afterwards?

Killing yourself to kill scum is hardly stupid. Announcing a planned kill target prior to doing would be stupid, especially if the kill required a heavy price. If LL had that ability and thought Plum was scum, then he should have thought it unlikely that Plum would rescue a townie (much less two townies).

Even if LL thought it would help to share his ability prior to using it, he lurked the whole day and admitted that he was not paying attention to the game. He went V/LA before the day was over, saying he would not return until after deadline. This probably doesn't matter since he almost certainly would not have shared his target even if he was around.

Seriously, Kast. You've been sloppy this whole day: Misreading and misunderstanding pretty much everything that anyone writes, and suggesting these kind of things... Come on.

Now you're just making things up.

Try. Because I'm gonna hammer you if you don't.

Again, there is no need to rush. I'm assuming you are in communication with Zito, but if not, check with him before hammering.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
-You must be scum. Showing that KMD is probably your scumbuddy doesn't change that you are scum and should be lynched.
-Your quote of Rising saying KMD is not paying attention was already addressed. Rising realized he made a mistake and it was actually his own sloppy play.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
-You must be scum.

To expand on this. If you want to share your real role and KMD's real role, and those roles strongly suggest that we should lynch KMD before lynching you, then please do that. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to move my vote.

[Kast]

Otherwise, I don't see any reason to move my vote.

Also, to be honest, I probably still wouldn't move my vote.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
There is the chance that you might realize you've lost the game and just surrender instead of dragging things out. It's worth asking and doesn't hurt. Probably not going to work, but also not useless.

How do you feel when you tell useless lies? You are going to be lynched. Is it a mark of honor for you as scum to go down insisting that you are a townie?

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
To be clear, my cards are on the table. I plan to lynch you, roleblock your buddy (KMD), then tomorrow we lynch him.

To the best of my knowledge, Rising and Zito are backing the same plan.

[Kast]

If you don't have any answers to that, you might as well surrender...

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
There is the chance that you might realize you've lost the game and just surrender instead of dragging things out. It's worth asking and doesn't hurt. Probably not going to work, but also not useless.

My respect for your skill at this game didn't start out extremely high, but wow... This is like typical noob scumhunting attempts where someone says, "Are you scum with X?" It's amusing to me that you believe that a useless crap post like your previous one actually has some merit.

Ad hom. I'll take that as a, "no, I don't want to surrender and I'm going to take out my frustrations by trying to be a jerk."

How do you feel when you tell useless lies?

I don't know. What's the point of this question? Why do you persist in posting useless crap?

This is more relevant than your question about "useless crap" despite knowing that it is not useless.

You are going to be lynched.

If you're town, you should see this as a potentially negative thing since it would result in instant town loss, when did you become so certain that I'm scum?

You're being sloppy. I'll let you think this one over a bit more. Let me know if you still can't figure it out.

Is it a mark of honor for you as scum to go down insisting that you are a townie?

No, when I'm scum, I'd consider it a mark of honor to be considered a clear town player, beyond suspicion.

Your explanation is not relevant to your answer. It is possible for a player to consider both as marks of honor. Since you already failed the first, you could be aiming at the second.

To be more clear though, do you have any examples where you were caught as scum and reacted in a different manner?

This is the third time in this game day that you've presented something that's equally likely for town or scum (insisting that I'm town) then ignored the possibility that I'm town.

False. I have never presented anything that is equally indicative of you being town or scum as something indicating that you are scum. Your previous two "claims" of this were both false and you did not even attempt to dispute them after being shown that they were false.

To be clear, my cards are on the table. I plan to lynch you, roleblock your buddy (KMD), then tomorrow we lynch him.

This is such a seductive plan. I'd really like to believe that Kast could roleblock Kmd4390, but I suspect that game will simply end.

Unless this is a claim that you are the last scum in a 2 man scum team, it is more lies. I doubt it is such a claim.

If you don't have any answers to that, you might as well surrender...

You post a lot of pointless crap.

So no surrender?

I kinda liked wading thru the longer logic related crap posts though, these short crap posts just don't have enough meat.

There are tons of things you have never bothered addressing. If you'd prefer, have at them. If you're hoping to create something to distract the town from lynching you, I doubt you'll be successful.

[Kast]

@Excedrin-
-Are you the type of scum player who gets angry/aggressive when he is caught?
-Are you the type of scum player who insists he is town even through twilight after his lynch?

[Kast]

@Zito-
1/4-1/3 scum is usually pretty balanced, depending on town roles. 1/3 scum usually does not equal 1/3 mafia, rather mafia + some number of independents, or multiple small mafia.

If Rising is a survivor, then we should be fine since he should be able to win with us.

@Roles and interactions-
Collected and paraphrased. Most flavor removed to just reflect mechanics.

The Living:

Papa Zito

-Commander Decker, Earthling
?) No Pilot Abilities
Precursor Ship
A) You may swap two players (N)

Kmd4390

-Lololo, Utwig
?) No Pilot Abilities
Utwig Jugger
P) You can hold any amount of energy
RA) Gain energy equal to the amount spent on actions that target you (N) (energy 1)

Excedrin

-FipPat, Zoq-Fot-Pik
A) Learn target player's ship name and color (N)
Umgah Drone
P) Energy 2
A) Roleblock target player (N) (energy 1)
RA) Send an anonymous message to target player (N)

Rising

-Magenta, Melnorme
P) Every night (?), add 1 energy to his current ship.
No Ship
P?) Choose a player. You will board that player's ship.

Kast

-Captain Brakky, Pkunk
A) Insult target player. If the player uses any Racial Abilities, those abilities are role blocked and the player will be informed that they were role blocked (N)
Pkunk Fury
RP) If killed, there is a chance that the ship and all crew may come back to life. You are not informed if this happens.

The Dead:

KeelieRavenWolf:

(Rogash, Ilwrath, Hierarchy)

?) ?

Ilwrath Avenger

?) ?

Dry-fit: (

Admiral ZEX, VUX

,

Alliance

)

?) None?

Admiral ZEX's VUX Intruder

P?) Any player who gets on his ship is killed by the animals
P?) You can use two (Ship?) Active Abilities in one night.
R?A) Kill target player (N)
R?A) Roleblock target player (N)

Rosso Carne: (

Warlord Veep-eep of the Zeep-Zeep Clan, Yehat,

Alliance

)

?) ?

Yehat Terminator

?) ?

Porkens: (

Kzzakk, Chenjesu, Alliance

)

?) ?

Mycon Podship

P?) You can use two (Ship?) Active Abilities in one night
RA) Kill target player (N)
RA) Protect target player (N)

Sigma: (

Bezabu, Ariloulaleelay, Alliance

)

P) You know the Affiliation and Race of everyone on a ship with you.

Thraddash Torch

P) Energy X
RA) You become untargettable for one night (N) (energy X/2)

Llocke Lamora: (

Genjiro, Shofixti, Alliance

)

?) ?

Shofixti Scout

?) ?

Plum: (

Commander Aelita, Syreen, Alliance

)

?) ?

Syreen Penetrator

P) You may immediately rescue any number of jettisoned players by PMing the mod
RA) You may force target player to exit his ship (N)

-Plum's role acts as a ship-cop+ (investigation results are public), role-blocker+ (permanent block), and poison doctor+. @Rising- did Plum's power prevent the target from taking night actions on the same night used?
-Zito also acts as a sort of ship cop and potentially long term role-blocker. @Zito- can your targets perform Active Abilities prior to being swapped?
-Sigma claimed both affiliation cop and race cop as separate items. It is possible that he was assuming the color of the race name indicates affiliation, but it is also possible that he would learn the true affiliation. It is unclear whether Dry-Fit and RC were actual millers.
-KMD is the only player who has essentially claimed vanilla. Even if he were a townie, the sheer number of claimed and confirmed power roles implies powerful scum, numerous scum, or a combination of those.

[Kast]

@Zito-
Interesting. Is there a reason you prefer a KMD lynch over Excedrin?

[Kast]

If you don't want to admit to it, it's probably for the best if I just dropped it.

To the best of my knowledge, I have only misunderstood another player's post once today. This was when I misread Excedrin's claim, missing the line where he claimed pilot and pilot ability. When the error was pointed out, I checked and readily corrected the mistake.

Agreed that many people have made many mistakes and been pretty sloppy today.

[Kast]

I've noted this as well.

I'm not seeing it. Initially I thought that Rising as survivor might want to hammer anyone who hit L-1, however, that only wins him the game if he hammers town. If he hammers scum, then the remaining scum may kill him (or Zito and he might die as a result).

Rising as scum would not know for certain who is town or scum.

@Zito-
Does your swapping stop players from using ship abilities of the ship they have prior to being swapped?

If it does block them, we could lynch either KMD or Excedrin and you could swap me with the remaining one of the two. My guess is that your swap should not prevent me from using my pilot ability, so I could insult either you or Rising to confirm my power.

If it does not stop those abilities, then I am fine with lynching either KMD or Excedrin. At this point, Excedrin has to be scum, but I am confidant enough that KMD is his partner that I am willing to lynch KMD first.

To be fair, Excedrin has a point that KMD's shield probably is just a false claim (as is Excedrin's claim). Either one of them *could* have something to stop a roleblock (or could simply have a non-racial killing ability).

[Kast]

Okay, so now that we are potentially in endgame, does anyone feel like surrendering/celebrating/sharing what's what?

Also, Zito should not share his plans for any swapping/bussing.