Mini 904 - Narnia: LWW Mafia (Game Over)

[evilsnail]

Hello. Read most of the thread yesterday, but still need to read a few pages and write up my notes. Should be able to finish this tomorrow morning.

[evilsnail]

My major suspect at the moment is Narninian. The way he handled the Starbuck lynch reeked of scumminess.

First, he doesn't want to lynch Starbuck:

I don't see the claim of rumblebuffin to be a lynch worthy claim at this point. Vanilla townie is a bit of an 'easy' claim, and the name certainly is doubtful to have a counterclaim - but book just doesnt have a lot of better known' characters. There is Aslan, the 4 kids, tumnus, Father Christmas, Mr and Mrs Beaver, Professor Kirke. Personally, I wouldn't see any of those characters as 'vanilla' and if they were limited to those - a mass claim would make the game trivial. For vanilla characters tertiary characters seem most likely.

Then, after manho claims, he

does

want to lynch Starbuck. The wording here also is terribly non-committal. "It seems a vanilla townie might be our best choice."

Well, That is quite the claim. I definitely expected to see her in the game, and her allegiance is solid. At this point I don't see pushing another bandwagon to be useful for town, if there is no counterclaim, it seems vanilla townie might be our best choice.

BUT: despite this, he doesn't vote Starbuck yet. That is definitely a scum move, IMO. He ensures that he's pushing the lynch without committing to it and he's testing the waters a little bit to see if he can get away with a Starbuck vote.

Waiting for a counterclaim for Susan of course, not rumblebuffin. I actually agree with you on bv310 and that is why I had a vote on him, but forcing a third claim today might help scum more than it would help town. Choosing between a Vanilla townie tertiary character, and an uncontested Susan claim (power role to boot) seems like we have little choice.

"Seems like we have little choice" = scummy as hell. That is so scum trying to escape accountability.

Finally, J.R., who Narninian replaced, also set off my scumdar. J.R. was opportunistic as heck, placing a third vote on Starbuck for little reason.

Vote: Narninian

Also think this post by wolframnhart was very off:

I don't see the vig coming out even if we ask him/her to, and there is no guarantee there even is a vig, dybeck was a very powerful player, mafia could have just wanted to take him out, bv310 was just a bonus for lack of a better term.

FOS: wolframnhart

[evilsnail]

Meh, I'm not seeing the RBT case. He's been opportunistic with his vote, sure, and he hasn't contributed too much, but there are plenty of people who play like that when town.

[evilsnail]

Narninian - I don't have a problem with your Starbuck vote. Starbuck's claim was pretty weak and it was the best move, considering the circumstances. What I find scummy is the way in which you did it, as should be pretty clear from my post.

[evilsnail]

Sorry for needing to be prodded. Was V/LA for a few days because of travelling.

I have played with RBT and I don't think it is kosher to write his behavior off as probable town. It is null tell at best. I gave him a pass on day 1 because in previous experience(and two games I've read) his play doesn't change on day 1 even if pressured. Snail writing his play off reads like scum/scum or scum buddying town. In both cases Snail is the part of scum.

I never wrote off RBT's behaviour as "probable town" or "town." So, your reasoning here is flawed, because it is based on that assumption. What I said was that I have seen plenty of players play like that even as town. It's a null tell without anything substantial (and this you concede also!). So, you're voting for me for something I never said.

In any case, I stand by my original assessment.

Btw, would you or Papa Zito care to contribute anything more substantial than "don't like snail's post" or "I realize how poor it is" (if any of this pertains to my Narninian case, anyway)?

[evilsnail]

Btw, would you or Papa Zito care to contribute anything more substantial than "don't like snail's post" or "I realize how poor it is" (if any of this pertains to my Narninian case, anyway)?

Read the post right above yours?

Read the post you are replying to? As I say in parentheses, if any of this refers to anything concrete I've said, like my Narninian case, I'd like to hear it so I can address it. I can't do anything with "not impressed with snail's post" or anything related to my predecessor.

I never said RBT was oppurtunistic. His only quality I am aware of which goes with his meta is low day 1 contribution. "Oppurtunistic" should be explained more. How is he oppurtunistic, and why is it not likely scummy?

Nice strawman, snail. The above question is the one you failed to address. Also, you have implied that I am not contributing much today. Did you mean to imply that? I have been active and have come up with some thought provoking questions. My stance was RBT, null-tell, day 1. Yours is day 2. You also heaped on the "oppurtunistic" voting. Please address the above question.

WTF? I missed this the first time around. First off, I wasn't replying to you. I was talking to HackerHuck. So this has nothing to do with anything you said. In addition, how can this be a strawman? How is at all relevant whether I describe his behaviour as "opportunistic" when I proceed to then call it a null tell? I just used it in a general sense to describe lurkish behaviour coupled with voting without really contributing. I didn't mean anything more than that (and why would I? Why would I be secretly making RBT out to be scummier than he really is before calling his behaviour a null tell? I thought I was supposed to be buddying up to him anyway).

I definitely didn't mean to imply that you weren't contributing. I just thought both Papa Zito and you were implying that my Narninian vote was unimpressive. If so, I would like to hear why. That was all.

So, now I have a question for you. Your vote for me, as far as I can tell, has been based on:
- me mispresenting you by saying you called RBT "opportunistic"
- me saying RBT is "probable town" over a null tell

Now, both of these points are obviously untrue. They don't even approach the realm of what could be true. So, do you stand by your vote?

[evilsnail]

This is the strawman. I did not vote you for any misrep.

A strawman is a kind of misrepresentation and it is not what I did. Strawmanning is deliberately portraying someone's point of view or argument inaccurately to make it sound weaker. Calling RBT's behaviour "opportunistic" is not that, because it's not weaker than HH's or your descriptions.

I called his behaviour opportunistic merely to describe the behaviour of voting without contributing. That is opportunistic, because it means taking advantage of the scumhunting other people have been doing to find justification for your vote.

No. The vote for you is because my iso read of Narninian reveals a much more clear and concise pattern of thought than your "case" presents. The fact that you seemed to give RBT a "pass" was just icing on the cake.

Okay, that was not clear to me. I thought you were just voting me because of my comment about RBT. Then please point out where exactly you think I'm wrong about Narninian.

Note that I did not give RBT a "pass." If something substantial turns up or someone points why it would be advantageous to RBT-scum to be lurkish, then his behaviour takes on a new significance. On its own, however, I don't think it merits a vote.

Do you have any other suspects?

You. On my first read, you were one of my top suspects, actually (mainly for your interaction with Starbuck), but then I thought your behaviour Day 2 was pretty townish so I let it go. But your "case" against me here feels a lot like someone trying to create suspicion where there is none, so I'm starting to reevaluate.

Other than that, I had a case on wolframnhart, but I can't remember why. It's in my notes on my laptop, but I left that at my parents.

[evilsnail]

Well, a strawmanning is usually defined as I defined it. And what you're defining it as is still a form of misrepresentation. But anyway.

The real point at issue is the stolen car. By focusing on the "race" part of the statement, one is strawmanning. I called your argument a "strawman" because you seem to be placing more importance on the RBT comment and less on the fact that Narninian's iso is not as bad as you make it look imo.

It was not clear to me that you were voting me for my Narninian vote, as I've said. I'll address that part of your case, but you haven't said anything substantial about it.

I don't like this answer. your initial post implied two characteristics regarding RBT's play. Now you are using one to define the other.

It's just a word. I didn't give it that much thought. I still don't see how this is at all scummy. On your interpretation of my post, it just undermines what I then proceed to say.

So, you don't think on a day 1 when town is deciding between three town targets(two confirmed) that "lurkish" behavior is scummy? We have three flips and an uncounterclaimed power role. What benefit did scum have to be involved at all? Also, what was scummy about my behavior?

It could be scummy if you could show me that RBT is normally very active. Otherwise, there are plenty of people who lurk as town.

[evilsnail]

You're not supposed to do anything with "not impressed with snail's post." That's why I said it.

I realise that. I was just asking whether there was anything substantial I can respond to.

Are you suggesting we ignore your predecessor completely?

Where have I suggested this?

Please try and just answer my questions. At this point I get the feeling you are simply dancing around my inquiries without offering an opinion. I will produce my pbpa on why I changed my mind about your Narn vote, but you seem to be avoiding my questions.

I'm in no way avoiding your questions. To me, it seems like you keep creating new questions for me to answer and then claim that I'm avoiding them. But I will try again.

Now, your questions:
1) Only if it was deliberate lurking. So much of lurking is caused by RL business and/or an inability or unwillingness to deal with large blocks of text. Plus, RBT was perfectly willing to hammer Starbuck. That suggests to me he wasn't deliberately avoiding the thread. Sure, that may be safer in a way, but it also attracts attention.
2) To get a lynch to happen? Consistency of play? To stay involved and seem pro-town? To not be seen avoiding certain issues? A well-reasoned vote always gives off a pro-town impression and that impression can stay with other players longer than the retrospective realisation that the vote was for a pro-town player.
3) What I found scummy about your Day 1 play:
- You voted Starbuck for "avoiding the thread" after dismissing the initial case against her - seemed like a cheap way of getting back onto a bandwagon
- You basically tunnelled on Starbuck afterwards, almost every single post is about the Starbuck wagon, no real scumhunting outside of that

Other questions you asked:
- Why not give it much thought? Why did you undermine what you said?
I give the content of my posts a lot of thought, but not necessarily the wording. I thought that what I meant would be clear enough. I wasn't trying to undermine my own conclusion. That's only true on your interpretation of the post and your interpretation of what I meant with the word "opportunistic."
- Why am I giving RBT a pass?
Because I haven't seen a substantial case on him. Because you for one have said that his day 1 behaviour is what you expect from him. Because his behaviour today is the same, suggesting that he's just a lurkish player. Because opportunistic, lurkish play is not a reliable indicator of scum.

[evilsnail]

Wow, this is the quickest I've ever been wagonned on the basis of so little. Some of these votes, wolframnhart's and Narninian's in particular, feel very lazy, as if they're a way of avoiding actual scumhunting.

Are you suggesting we ignore your predecessor completely?

Where have I suggested this?

When you say you "can't answer for your predecessor's actions" that means you want us to wipe the slate clean. No bueno.

How does it mean that? I can't answer for my predecessor's actions because I'm not him. My guess is as good as yours, modulo some role-specific behavior. In no way does that mean or imply that you're not allowed to use his behavior against me.

right now I think that if evilsnail flips scum i have a nagging gut suspicion that HackerHuck and Narnian are his partners, only because they really haven't said much about one another, but attack others (HH the exception I don't see him doing much).

I am willing to test this theory out.

vote evilsnail

This is a terrible vote. I don't see how you can seriously vote someone on the basis of some flimsy scum-group theory you just came up with. Do you even have any evidence backing this claim up?

FOS: wolframnhart

Because opportunistic, lurkish play is not a reliable indicator of scum.

Really?

Yes, as I've said a number of times now, this is my experience. I don't see what's so radical about this. I'm sure I could even find instances of me saying this in other games.

honestly I just put that vote on wolf because he hadn't posted since monday. I'd do the same for whoever else was lurking but it seems we are 1 vote away from lynching Evilsnail - as his first action of the game was to vote for me, with a weak case I'd like to see what he has to say. Do you have a claim Evilsnail?

Do you have any reason to vote for me other than that you didn't like my case? This and your subsequent vote of me feels a lot like you're just going along with the wagon because it's easy. The lurker-hunt vote was also oddly misplaced. I'm definitely happy with my vote.

Btw, I'm getting tired of people calling it a "weak case" without any criticism of the content. I don't think anyone has actually explained what they think is wrong with my case. I still think the observations I made are sound.

I will claim when the time comes. I think there is more discussion to be had before that. I'm definitely not claiming until I get a detailed critique of my Narninian case, for one thing, and I would also like answers to the questions I asked here.

[evilsnail]

Okay, kiku, I had a look at the Starbuck votes. To be honest, not many of them are backed up that well.

But here's my list, with my notes:
dybeck - misrepresentation/overreaction
bv310 - follows Dybeck
RBT - twisting words to avoid lynch
kikuchiyo - avoiding the thread
Narninian - being a vanilla townie?
wolframnhart - wording? I didn't really understand it, tbh
manho - Starbuck is prob town, but let's lynch her anyway?

[evilsnail]

554: The request was to put the voters in order from best reasoned to least well reasoned. If you don't mind adjusting the list to reflect the order I would appreciate it. I've been caught with rl issues this weekend, but I intend to post my pbpa of the original Narn case asap. Evilsnail is correct in that his wagon has progressed with very little in the way of a tangible "case" as of yet.

The list is ordered. My notes are just there as a reminder. I wasn't entirely sure where to put bv310, because he essentially says "I trust dybeck." On the basis of this, I put him on the same level as dybeck, on the assumption that he was convinced by the same evidence, but you could also interpret it in a different way (he's voting Starbuck only because he trusts dybeck's judgement), which would probably put him just below you on the list.

[evilsnail]

Interestin gpoint her. Trouble is, that the rest of this post which was snipped actually contained some scumhunting. In fact, Narn actually points to a link between bv310 and dybeck. Granted they are masons, but masons make up an informed minority which is similar to a scum team. Picking out the connection is actually good scumhunting. He also points out bv310's "hypocrisy" in finding Star suspicious for behavior he exhibited himself. If you just read the quote and comment by Snail, then it seems as though Snail's comment is accurate, but Narn didn't just "not want to lynch Starbuck". He had another suspect and concrete reasoning behind it.

I didn't mean to imply with that quote that he didn't have another suspect. I pulled out the ISO to establish his baseline opinion on Starbuck at that point.

I find this to be a mischaracterization. Narn is "committing" to the vanilla townie lynch. Makes much more sense than pushing for further information from manho. Also, Narn clearly stated that he preferred the bv310 lynch and even committed his vote there. The bv lynch was not happening. His iso 10 is pto town. Not pushing for more info in the absence of a counterclaim helps town more than scum.

I don't have a problem with the switch in itself. Starbuck made sense as a lynch. What I found scummy was the non-committal way in which the switch was done. The way it is worded suggests a Starbuck lynch is inevitable and I felt like it was a way of escaping responsibility.

Starbuck actually didn't need any votes. Her lynch was pretty solid for most of the second half of the day. There was less than 24 hours between his unvote of bv and his vote of Starbuck. When he voted Star he also said, nobody hammer in case we get a counterclaim. Granted, L-1 votes are always going to be suspicious, but I don't see this(upon reread) as "testing the waters". Narn was on bv. Its not like he was fencesitting.

He's testing the waters in the sense that that post was like a soft switch onto the Starbuck wagon. It provides justification for a later Starbuck vote without being seen as pushing for the lynch explicitly.

It was day 1. I have mentioned it before, but vanilla claims should never "stop" a lynch. I think the approach here was pro town. Narn repeatedly stated he wanted the bv310 lynch. It could be clever scum, but with bv flipping town, I don't see the motivation to choose one over the other. Hackerhuck was pushing for more Susan info which is way scummier imo. Its a reach at best.

I never said the vanilla claim should stop the lynch. I don't have a problem with Narninian switching to the Starbuck wagon at that point. It's the way in which he does it, the wording and the timing of his vote. There is an inevitability in it, a lack of responsibility. It felt like he knew Starbuck was going to turn up town and didn't want to be attacked for it later.

Taken together, Narninian was quite wishy-washy about Starbuck, saying her claim wasn't lynch-worthy at first and then pretending as if the lynch was inevitable. I find both attitudes strange (Rumblebuffin isn't a particularly strong claim and no lynch is inevitable).

I believe it was an RVS vote. Some players think bandwagons are a good way out of the RVS. This is a debatable subject, but I personally don't think RVS interactions are scummy until you can associate them to a flipped scum(which we can't).

Fair enough. This was largely a gut feeling about J.R.

Overall, The way the initial case was framed made it appear to have merit. But reading Narn in iso leads me to see much more protown behavior than is presented. There are far scummier interactions going on yesterday. Granted, I am thoroughly unimpressed with Narn today, but I think this case is no good, possibly fabricated.

I think this is a bit unfair, even if you do disagree with my conclusions. But perhaps I should have been clearer about the fact that it was the way in which he made the switch that I found scummy and not the switch in principle.

[evilsnail]

I have two issues at this point. One more important than the other.

First the lesser:

In your list of "most" to "least" reasonable Starbuck votes you have Narn above Wolf. Yet you vote Narn and FoS Wolf. Any particular reason there?

I didn't really understand Wolf's initial Starbuck vote. It was something about Starbuck saying Sibelius was lurking that I didn't quite get. But anyway, I'm voting Narn for the way in which he voted, not the purported reasons.

Second, and of greater importance:

You have RBT's reasoning as the third(effectively second, minus bv310) most well reasoned Starbuck vote. I would like you to iso read RBT and reevaluate his play. Please include his play today in your analysis. Do you still stand by the implication that his vote on Star was "well-reasoned"? Do you still stand by the implication that his play is "null tell"?

Hmm, well I could go with putting him below you as well, because he's mostly going by other people's cases. That said, there's nothing in principle wrong with that. I mostly put your vote below his because I don't think avoiding the thread is at all a scum tell. I've done it myself as townie, mostly in situations in which I feel like my defense is falling on deaf ears or when discussions with the players attacking me aren't particularly constructive (because of stubbornness, abrasiveness or whatever). It's actually sometimes easier to answer attacks as scum, because at least you don't have the frustration of being falsely accused.

Anyway, RBT's play: he was one of the first to go after manho, then hopped onto the Starbuck wagon citing the cases developed on her, went back to manho after Starbuck claimed and the wagon lost a little bit of momentum and then hammered Starbuck. Except for the lurking in between, which makes this play a little opportunistic, this is essentially similar to what other players did Day 1. I can see what is grating about this play, because contribution is quite scarce and it's difficult to read him, but I don't think it's a scum tell.

Looking back, his first vote today was a bit off. It's a bit weird that he said he didn't expect Starbuck to turn up scum and his vote for you wasn't that inspiring (the fact that Starbuck was town doesn't mean she was right about who is scum). But yeah, I stand by my original assessment of his lurkish play.

[evilsnail]

VOTE:EvilSnail

I like the thought of keeping this pressure up. It's yielding good results.

Like what?

[evilsnail]

More of an explanation, please.

[evilsnail]

That's it? That's what this questioning has been building up to? If you interrogate anyone about their assumptions you can long enough, you can find things to twist and turn into a case.

This whole case is only based on the fact that I disagree about RBT. You're acting as if a pro-town player cannot call something a null tell.

I simply disagree that RBT's Day 1 play was that scummy. It is largely consistent, if you look at it. He initially votes for manho (on the basis of an observation he himself makes, btw), then he switches to Starbuck because he agrees with the case. Except for the fact that there is not much contribution in between, I really don't see what the big deal is. Ergo, null tell.

It's not like I've been defending RBT at length. This is all based on one off-hand comment I made that you've spent a great deal of time and effort blowing way out of proportion.

Also, I'm not ignoring RBT today. I'm waiting for him to justify his vote for me, because I can't possibly see how you can think "good results" have come out of this discussion. It's not like other players have paid more attention to him.

Btw, how is "keeping pressure on the wagon" a pro-town move on the part of RBT? He's not adding any content, he's basically just following you. The same thing you accuse him of doing Day 1 and are voting me for thinking a null tell.

[evilsnail]

Fine. I'm effing Aslan. So well done!

Can we get to the real scumhunting now?

I suggest we look at the people who you gave an easy wagon to latch on to. I have a feeling you're just misguided town, but I'm pretty sure there's scum in there.

[evilsnail]

Papa Zito, there won't be a counterclaim and I will only reveal info about my role if necessary. You're not going to get anything out of me that easily.

Btw, could you link me to a completed game in which you were town?

Kiku, my breakdown of my wagon:
Papa Zito - has basically tunnelled on my wagon, contributing mostly fluff about wanting me dead. He's been using the pressure you put on me as an excuse not to contribute.
RBT - voted me because of "good results" that he has failed to outline
Narninian - voted me because he didn't like my case on him, then unvoted when pressured.
wolf - voted me on the basis of a flimsy scum group theory, then unvoted when pressured.
HackerHuck - seems to have some okay reasons at least, though he has not contributed much since voting me.
Kiku - I have a feeling you're more likely misguided town because of the amount of effort you've put into this. Scum would know that that would come back to bite them. Of all the votes, yours is probably the most reasoned one and I believe at least that you're genuinely suspicious of me, even if I disagree that you should be.

Anyway, I believe there's scum on my wagon, because you're basically the only one actively contributing anything, because two of the votes were so weak that mild pressure was enough to get an unvote and because some of the votes are so lazy. This should worry you too.

[evilsnail]

Except if my role is such that a full claim is a bad idea.

Aside from this, I actually like the above post.

[evilsnail]

Normally, I would totally be opposed to a massclaim, for the reasons HH and Papa Zito noted, but, given how far we've got, I don't see what we stand to lose.

Unvote

in anticipation of the claims.

[evilsnail]

PZ did post on the site yesterday (he's modding one of my other games).

[evilsnail]

We definitely shouldn't lynch RBT. A rolecop can be really useful and, if the claim is fake, there'll be some other investigative role.

Wolf and HH have the weakest claims, I think, though I'm not sure we can rule out one of the stronger claims being a safe claim.

I like a wolf vote atm. He was already one of my scum candidates and his claim is definitely the weakest.

Vote: wolframnhart

[evilsnail]

I'm fine with being rolecopped, though I don't see how you can think Aslan a safe claim. I mean, I guess it'd be cool to do that, since Aslan is the most innocent figure in the story, but it doesn't really make sense.

Anyway, I agree with PZ and pwnman on RBT. RBT's role seems a pretty normal one.

[evilsnail]

Wolf, Professor Kirke went to Narnia as a young boy, as RBT explicitly noted was part of his role flavour.

As far as I'm concerned, someone can hammer wolf. Don't see us getting much more discussion out of this day.

I'm getting the feeling from Kikuchiyo that she wants to see Wolframhart lynched, but she's opposed to being tied closely to the wagon and the people on it. There's a lot about her behaviour that rubs me the wrong way and it's pretty much her claim that's keeping my vote off of her.

This feels off to me. It's a bit of a stretch and there is a kind of implicit assumption that the wolf lynch is a bad one. Feels like scum trying to set up the next lynch. Kiku's being a bit too cautious, but there's nothing wrong with giving wolf more of a chance to defend himself.

[evilsnail]

Here. Agree that a massclaim is probably the best option now. How are we going to pick who claims when?

[evilsnail]

Sorry, having a busy few days. I'm a Reviver. I'm basically a vanilla townie, but I have a passive ability that brings me back to life if I'm lynched.

I'd like Narninian to claim next.

[evilsnail]

I'm not really convinced by HH's claim.

The tie in to my flavour should be pretty obvious.

MOD:

Could we get a prod on Narninian?.

He has already been prodded.

[evilsnail]

I'm Aslan. I come back to life in the books.

[evilsnail]

I'm not really convinced by HH's claim.

Which part do you doubt?

Well, the role is an obscure one and the character is a minor one at best.

[evilsnail]

Well, the role is an obscure one and the character is a minor one at best.

I agree, although Rumblebuffin was highly minor as well.

Well true, but the commuter role is still strange. It's a role I've encountered only rarely and it seems way too similar to the Jailkeeper role.

[evilsnail]

Hmm, my current thinking is that HackerHuck and Narninian are scum. Dunno who our third scum is.

HackerHuck I think is likely scum because his role is too close to the Jailkeeper one and I can imagine a scum RB claiming a role along these lines (and a scum PR seems likely given our wealth of investigative roles).

Narninian I've just been suspicious of all game and his role doesn't change that.

[evilsnail]

Both block actions. The Commuter does it by means of the target and the Jailkeeper by means of the actor. Sure, the commuter is a bit more restricted, because it's self-targetted, but it's still similar.

[evilsnail]

What kind of role

would

counter a Reviving ability? And it makes sense for Aslan to have a powerful role of some sort. He's basically Narnia's God.

[evilsnail]

Narninian, does your role flavour say the other Pevensies are pro-town or that they are PRs?

[evilsnail]

Meh, I don't think so. It's hard to co-ordinate three votes. I wouldn't try to quickhammer as scum.

[evilsnail]

Point taken.

I just want some clarification from Narninian before I think about voting him.

[evilsnail]

Vote: Narninian

It doesn't make any sense for a VT to be told that three players are pro-town. With the masons, that could have given us five, maybe six, confirmed innocents Day 1. I don't buy it.

[evilsnail]

manho made sure RBT claimed results before he did yesterday, which means he was probably looking for something to follow in the claims. By his claiming that he was blocked as well, that would mean that the scum had a Global roleblocker, something which would heavily swing the Night balance in favor of the scum. The reason that he's likely lying is that the scum kill that Night still got through, which wouldn't happen with a global block, because the scum NK is still an action, so a global block would cause it to fail just like all other actions.

Heh. manho essentially confirmed himself scum, and his faked result on me makes it even more obvious. Die scum die. I love it when I can confirm scum through action analysis.

Or kiku jailkept PZ, preventing manho from getting any results night 2. Not an unlikely scenario.

This seems fairly open and shut. I'll wait for RBT, but I'll be voting Kairyuu today. HackerHuck is prob the mafia RB then, considering his commuter claim.

[evilsnail]

From the wiki:

A common variant of the Jailkeeper both roleblocks the target and blocks all Night Actions targeting the target - on IRC this is called an Alien.

That totally jibes with my experience of the role.

[evilsnail]

I do not intend to rush this decision, though I haven't changed my mind on who to vote.

There are three possible scum pairs, as I see it. I assume both that manho-RBT can't both be scum (the town would have no investigative roles) and that manho-Kairyuu are not scum together.

manho-HH
RBT-Kairyuu
HH-Kairyuu

Atm, HH-Kairyuu seems most likely, as I've said, but I'm going to look at all these possible pairs in detail.

[evilsnail]

I'm not 100% convinced that you're scum, but I do think it's the most likely scenario. I'm looking at the plausibility of all the relevant pairs first. If you want to stop posting because of that, that's your call, not mine.

[evilsnail]

There's at least one pro-town investigative role. RBT is a rolecop, because he knew PZ was a doc. If he's scum, he's a Mafia Cop. If there's a scum investigative role, there has to be a town investigative role.

That means manho-RBT is impossible. Now, actually, manho-HH is also impossible, because HH would have just hammered you for the victory. Instead, HH is talking to the wall, voting RBT, ignoring the issue.

So that leaves three pairs that are in any way possible (of which the last one is unlikely):

HH-Kairyuu
RBT-Kairyuu
manho-Kairyuu

Ergo:

Vote: Kairyuu

die scum die

[evilsnail]

Hmm, well I expected to be in this situation.

RBT, why manho? He seems like the obvious NK from a scum perspective. Did you think a manho-Kairyuu scum team was likely?

[evilsnail]

So, HH, you haven't used your Commuter power at all this game?

[evilsnail]

Bleh.

Vote: HackerHuck

[evilsnail]

Did an extensive ISO read and I just couldn't see myself leaving HH alive. I really hope I'm right about this one.

[evilsnail]

Argh.