Cowboy Bebop Remix [Endgame]

[Kdub]

I have role information regarding the flavor and who the scum are. I'm not saying anymore.

Um, scum probably have safeclaims?

Seraphim's posts seem off to me. Call it a gut feeling or whatever, but his behavior so far with the setup speculation and flavor questions (particularly posts 19 and 27) seem uncharacteristic for a player with his experience level.

UK also backed off a bit too easily for my liking in her last post.

VOTE: Seraphim

[Kdub]

@Kdub: So, um...we agree that Seraphim isn't silly enough to flavor spec without reason. And...when he provides an acceptable one I can't back off?

I was in agreement with you that nameclaiming is a bad idea, but the way you backed off of Seraphim after his softclaim struck me as not genuine. If you had just said, "Oh, OK", I think I wouldn't have thought much of it, but the "apology" for forcing him to reveal info seems a bit much. I mean, what other acceptable response from him would have satisfied you there?

Agreed. The whole Bounty concept should just be ignored for now because it requires mis-lynches.

How would you know that the bounty is necessarily on town?

Edit: Ninja'd by LL, but the question stands.

[Kdub]

Plus, since the bounties will, for the most part, be townies, lynching one is still a mislynch of sorts.

Agreed. The whole Bounty concept should just be ignored for now because it requires mis-lynches.

Requires wasn't the best word to use. When I say it 'requires' miss-lynches, I mean that it encourages us to look for someone other than scum. Isn't that exactly what scum would want? It diverts attention away from them and will possibly get them a power too.

I don't think this was a slip because you've been consistent in this opinion, but I don't understand how it encourages us to not look for scum. First of all, how do you propose that we would "look" for this random player unless they either claim or there is some sort of action that reveals them? Also, why is does that exclude looking for scum?

@Kdub: I'd know it when I see it. The apology was a sort of redirection of my irritation at *that* being the response to my line of questioning as opposed to something lamer that would be more pursueable.

"I'd know it when I see it" is a bit of a non-answer.

[Kdub]

UK:
Fine, but I still got a bad feeling from your post, which isn't going to go away if that's the extent of your explanation.

Nice clear posting:

I feel comfortable with my vote.

What you did = someone not all that comfortable with what they're saying.

Deciding to take my comment as a serious accusation rather than an offhand comment about the sentence?

Overdefensive.

Jahudo = good wagon.

Wait, what? The original comment was made by Seraphim. Why are you attacking Jahudo for defensiveness when he's not even defending himself?

[Kdub]

GreyICE, just to clarify, what was going on in post 105? You were calling Jahudo scummy for being defensive (over a post made by Seraphim?), but later put him on your town list. I initially thought you might have gotten Jahudo and Seraphim mixed up, but the discussion surrounding that post went on for longer than I expected without any comment from you correcting yourself.

LL's vote on Seraphim: While I understand (and agree with) her reasoning behind it, the timing and nature of this vote (jumping on Seraphim after previously saying nothing about him all game and when she is the next leading wagon) look bad. Had I seen it right after this occurred, I probably would have said something, but then Seraphim turns around and does the same thing. Go figure.

Nacho: WTF? Where did that LL vote come from all of a sudden? You were pushing a case on Vi, then switch to LL with no reasoning. The fact that nobody other than UK commented on your lack of reasoning also bugs me, in fact Seraphim is using it to continue to push the LL case without questioning the vote itself.

Seraphim, you realize that any perceived "rolefishing" has come about specifically because of your softclaiming (e.g. post 167 is the latest example)?

LL claiming to not have noticed Nacho's vote is a bit strange, but the only scum motivation I could see there is if LL and Nacho were buddies, and I don't think Nacho would have put a scumbuddy at L-1 unprovoked when there was another viable wagon at the time.

My vote on Seraphim stands for now. Bad vibes early on, plus I'm not liking his reaction to LL's vote on him and the fallout from all of that.

[Kdub]

GreyICE:
Fair enough, I just find it strange that you didn't mention that you had gotten them mixed up when Toasty pointed out your suspicion of Jahudo in 113.

[Kdub]

Nacho's vote wasn't reasonless.

Perhaps not. If there was a reason, he did not post it. Better?

[Kdub]

@UK: regarding the claim request, it was precisely the routineness of it that seemed wrong. "Claim because you're at L-1 and thats what happens when you're at L-1", rather than "Claim because I and everyone else voting for you thinks your scum and want to lynch you now unless you have a good claim".

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I'm going to comment here. I agree in principle that claiming

should

happen when there is clear intent to lynch, and not just because someone happens to be at L-1. However, I think the "claim at L-1" mentality is pervasive enough that I don't think it's necessarily a scum tell to ask for one in that scenario. That is, I have seen players vote someone to L-1 and immediately ask for a claim and later turn out to be town.

[Kdub]

The fact that her previous "suspicion" of me amounts to depreciating comments concerning a post made mostly in jest. The fact that she wants a claim despite the lack of lynching intent on the wagon on me is clearly a slip on her concerns to my role rather than my alignment, a scum motivation.

I mentioned this earlier, but I don't actually think this indicates scum motivation. I don't have statistics offhand, but the number of times I have seen town players put someone at L-1 and immediately ask for a claim (I remember having done it myself when I was a newer player) just because it's conventional to claim at L-1 makes me believe that this is not a valid scum tell.

Toast is either mentally sluggish or scum BTW. His 292 may be the most useless post anyone has made all game and Lady Lambdadelta has a fucking novel for an ISO.

I'm actually getting a townish feel from Toasty in 292. I think his questions are legitimate, and he's actively challenging his suspects (you, GreyICE). At the very least, it's far from a useless post.

[Kdub]

Hmm...I didn't really expect Nacho's explanation of his LL vote to be what it was. The "I was fishing for reactions" routine seems legitimate here based on his explanation in 310. I had Nacho leaning slightly scum, but I feel better about him now.

Hey Kdub, is there anyone you actually want to see lynched right now?

Are you suggesting that my vote lacks conviction or that it is somehow not genuine? Otherwise I don't see the point of this question.

Seraphim's flip-flop on LL strikes me as him trying to bail out of a stalled wagon and onto the next viable one other than himself. Hmm...why does that sound familiar?

I'll probably have more tomorrow, need to sleep now though.

[Kdub]

Mod: Is the vote count correct? Rhinox is listed twice.

Toasty:
Can you explain clearly why you suspect ICE? As far as I can tell, your case on him is mainly that he was wagon-hopping with little reasoning. However, at the point where you actually voted him, his only votes were an RVS vote on Rhinox, a vote on you, and a vote on Seraphim, whom you were suspicious of as well. Is that the extent of your suspicion?

I'm not feeling ICE as scum right now, partly because I think Seraphim is more likely to be scum, and partly because I'm not comfortable with the reasoning (or lack thereof) by the people on his wagon outside of Vi and maybe Rhinox.

[Kdub]

I removed my vote because ToastyToast is fucking acting scummy as shit right now, and I'm surprised more people haven't commented on it. Seriously, look at that post. That is such a fucking scum post. It feels like scum celebrating about the day 1 bandwagons. "Oh if one's town I'll lynch the other!"

It's the first fucking thing in this game that makes me think Seraphim is town, because that post screams SCUM in mile high letters.

Why can't Toasty be town who legitimately sees one of you as scum and one as town? The fact that you immediately came to the conclusion that Toasty was doing this from a scum motivation even though you thought Seraphim was scum seems strange.

Actually, before I say anything else...

Seraphim:
Since you think GreyICE and Toasty are both scum, what is your take on GreyICE's attack on Toasty? Is it still bussing?

[Kdub]

I think speculating about it is sorta pointless at this juncture until one of them flips.

This seems inconsistent with your attack on LL for not giving her conditional scum reads based on your hypothetical flip. If she had answered you, wouldn't that have just been the same type of speculation?

Anyway, after thinking about it more, I'm feeling more sure that GreyICE is town based on his attack on Toasty. I have a hard time seeing scum-ICE, as the vote leader, pulling his vote off of the leading counter-wagon (Seraphim) and onto an unviable one with no support (Toasty). His actions tell me that self-preservation is not his primary concern and that whether his case on Toasty has merit or not (and I don't really agree with it myself, see my last post addressed to him), he really believes in it. The only possibility I could see where scum-ICE reacts in that way is if he and Seraphim are scum together, and ICE is trying to extricate themselves from having to bus each other today while still distancing. Seraphim's response to my question about ICE and Toasty was a bit of a neutral answer (leaving the possibility open), but he doesn't show a strong indication of wanting to switch to Toasty, which makes me think an ICE-Seraphim scum pairing is unlikely, which I had already been feeling based on their interactions to this point.

[Kdub]

Vi:
At the moment, not really. I've gotten bad vibes from UK, and she's not helping herself with her fencesitting on GreyICE, but I don't have anything more solid than that. I've been a bit put off by Nacho's play, but I've felt better about him as the game has gone on.

GreyICE:
Again, why can't "chaining" lynches come from a townie that thinks only one out of a pair of players is likely to be scum? You've never had that opinion about two players in a game? I agree that if both you and Seraphim turn out to be town, then it looks very bad, but it seems like a mistake to assume that up front and conclude that Toasty is scum before you know Seraphim's alignment.

[Kdub]

Grey and toasty, you're making this game unreadable. Grey, can you give me why (in a couple sentences) we should lynch Toasty? Toasty, can you do the same?

Have you read the last few pages? How is it not completely obvious why they are voting each other? I would like to hear your opinion on GreyICE/Toasty/Seraphim, because you haven't said much about them so far, and I got the sense from this post that you are either trying to avoid the issue or take a neutral stance.

I am uncomfortable with the number of players starting to lean toward GreyICE-scum in the last few posts (I'm especially looking at you, UK). It is clear that the Toasty wagon is going nowhere, yet ICE is still pushing it with full conviction. I just can't see a scum player in danger of being lynched behaving that way. I think he's wrong about Toasty, but his actions look like misguided town to me.

[Kdub]

UK:

Should get to the GI issue today or tomorrow.

I know a couple of his later posts have NOT been filling me with glee.

I would like to know specifically what you don't like about GreyICE's recent posts that made you say this.

[Kdub]

Search Nacho's posts onsite and tell me if you still think better.

Hmm...he does seem to be more active elsewhere than here. I see why this could be suspicious, but didn't someone (it might have been you?) mention that he's played this way as town before?

@Kdub: I told you already. That whole "lining up lynches" "tell" is silly.

Fine, but do you think that makes GreyICE scummy? When you said you weren't liking his recent posts, that's the impression I got.

[Kdub]

Vi:
Not trying to pass it off as a null tell, but I've only played with Nacho once before (and it was a while ago so I don't remember his play very much) and was trying to find out how typical his playstyle is compared to what he has shown so far.

UT, what's your take on GreyICE? He's the leading wagon and much of the discussion is centered on him, but I noticed you didn't say much about GreyICE except to call his argument with Toasty/Seraphim painful, which doesn't actually say anything about him.

Not much else to comment on at this point until UK gets her promised analysis done.

[Kdub]

Well, I was all ready to declare UK scum after her GreyICE vote, but then she immediately turns around after his claim and votes Seraphim, who I suspect as well. I'm not quite sure what to think about her anymore. I already thought GreyICE was probably town, and I guess I can accept UK/Nacho's explanation for now, pending further information.

If Nacho, UK, and Grey are all town, then Vi is either scum or extremely stubborn. I don't particularly like his reaction to Grey's claim and the subsequent fallout. Toasty's immediate reaction didn't give me very good vibes either.

Lots of things to speculate on at the moment, but having a couple flips will probably clear things up.

[Kdub]

Are you talking about Vi or Toasty?

[Kdub]

UK:
I wouldn't call it a complete non-reaction. He at least seems to acknowledge that Grey is town. I just felt the way he said it seemed forced.

Vi:
While it's possible that some combination of those three are scum trying to "confirm" each other, I think that would be very risky. I'm willing to accept their explanation until more information surfaces, either through flips or night results.

[Kdub]

Toasty:
So if GreyICE came back with a guilty tomorrow, you would want to lynch that person to test his claim? What if he claimed a guilty on someone who you had a town read on? I'm just trying to understand your stance here.

Seraphim's claim is interesting in that it goes against what people would expect flavor-wise, but again, scum probably have safeclaims. I don't think it should affect our decisions one way or the other.

GreyICE:
It's possible that your ability doesn't directly find scum, but is a flavor cop role that is meant to catch fakeclaiming scum (e.g. scum has a character that is in the Red Dragon clan but claims someone who is not). If that's the case, scum already knew this from your claim.

Nacho, now that Toasty claimed to not be the bounty, do you still think he is null?

[Kdub]

Are you absolutely sure that you aren't reading into the flavor too much? Because if it is 100% sure that Red Dragon is scum, then Seraphim is 100% scum. Which makes his claim WTF????

[Kdub]

I've thought a bit more about the miller thing. GreyICE is saying he is 100% sure that RDC is scum and that he is not just reading too much into the flavor. There are three possibilities:

1. Seraphim is scum and tried to gambit by claiming his actual role, but didn't know that GreyICE had 100% confirmation about the RDC=scum thing.
2. GreyICE is lying.
3. Fate made a mistake in the role PM.

Any possibilities that I missed?

I think we can ignore #3, both because I think it's unlikely, and there would be no way to deduce this anyway except by lynching someone.

As for #1, I agree that it's a strange claim for scum to make, but after the Grey/UK/Nacho thing went down, Seraphim was the next largest wagon, and UK's vote started to shift momentum to him, so I could see him pulling an unusual gambit to try to save himself.

As for #2, I've already said why I think GreyICE is town, but that's up to people's opinions.

greyICE - if seraph were a miller, I would think that would be something that would be explicitly clear in a role PM. Being a miller without being told is something I would consider bastard modding above and beyond a theme game.

I don't think I would consider it particularly bastardly. Weren't millers who aren't told they are millers at least considered for inclusion in the normal game guidelines (I don't think it made the cut though)?

I think an interesting question to ask people aside from the RDC thing would be, "is anybody else in the game a miller (and was told specifically that they were a miller)?"

[Kdub]

I am in favor as well.

[Kdub]

Looks like lots of stuff happened today. I'll read it all again more carefully tomorrow, but for now, I have a comment on this:

I have a one-shot vengeful kill that can be used if I'm NK'd or lynched. If anyone decides to prematurely lynch me, they are biting the bullet. That is a promise, not a threat. Scum who want to kill me also get the off-chance of a bullet through their brain.

Do you win if you use your vengeful kill on Vicious? Just a yes or no will be fine.

[Kdub]

Seraphim is most likely Vicious-Lyncher. He does NOT have the 1-shot vengeful kill, that's a load of bollocks if I ever fucking heard one, but he's a third party, so lets not fucking lynch the third party without a killing role when we have confirmed scum in our targeting scope.

I was hoping he would answer my question before anyone else brought it up...

The problem is, I see the motivation for fakeclaiming a vengeful kill as a lyncher being the same as the motivation for fakeclaiming a vengeful kill as mafia. Namely, self-preservation by trying to threaten negative consequences for people on their wagon.

I'd still like Seraphim to answer my question though, and I will have follow-up comments depending on his answer.

[Kdub]

Seraphim, do you still think Vi is Vicious? Because the way I'm seeing it, if you are telling the truth, we lynch you and have you shoot at Vi, and we take out two suspects in one day. I think that works out best for you and for the town.

[Kdub]

But see, you are in no position to bargain with us. If the town thinks somebody is scum, then the smart play is to lynch you because there is a chance that you are lying scum yourself. If you are telling the truth, then you have no choice but to shoot at the scummy player and hope to hit Vicious. If you are lying, then we will have lynched scum (you).

[Kdub]

I don't think a player like you would play against your win condition out of spite. Actually, there are very few players who I think would do so.

If you have other information to share with us that could possibly help you achieve your claimed win condition, you wouldn't have withheld it in the first place.

A lyncher that stays in the game with all of his abilities once he wins? That would be pretty bad setup design if true. Sounds like you need an excuse for still being in the game if somebody dies and flips as Vicious.

3) Math begins to add up. Lyncher on scum is not an anti-town role per se. Just one bad for the town in the same way as Beautiful princess (we randomly lose a vote and a player when we lynch Vincent or Vig him).

Grey, in light of Seraphim's new claim (that he stays in the game when he "wins"), do you still think it's a good idea to leave him alive today? I think that pretty much seals it for me.

[Kdub]

I'm fairly sure that Seraphim is mafia. His claim of staying in the game after he "wins" makes no sense for a lyncher to claim. In fact, even if it were somehow true, I think he would not reveal that just because it doesn't help his argument at all. On the other hand, that claim makes perfect sense for scum who needs to explain why he is still in the game if somebody flips as Vicious.

As crazy as it sounds, I'm actually feeling a Seraphim-Vi scum gambit as a possibility here. The interactions between them just don't feel right. It's hard to explain at the moment.

[Kdub]

You're going to have to explain that one, Rhinox. UK claimed to have info that Grey is town. UK flipped town as a character that has obvious connections to Grey's claimed character. How is he scum?

Vi or Jahudo should be the lynch. I'm willing to follow along with Grey today.

VOTE: Vi

[Kdub]

UNVOTE:

No reason to rush this. I'm interested to hear what Rhinox has to say. It's at least clear that whatever he thinks he has on GreyICE, nobody else seems to be picking up on it.

[Kdub]

Eh, Rhinox doesn't have a bad point, but Grey is already confirmed town via UK, so I can see him misreading his role. It's not out of the realm of reasonable possibilities, so I'll trust UK's assertion that Grey is 100% town over that.

Anything else that needs to be discussed today? If not, I'll put my vote back on Vi.

[Kdub]

So there are way too many contradictions here. What I am missing? why is greyICE NOT scum?

Because he is confirmed town. If you continue to insist that he is scum, can you at least address the UK quotes where she is claiming role info that proves Grey as town?

VOTE: Vi
I think this is the right play for today.

[Kdub]

With Vi's scum flip, I do not think Jahudo is likely to be scum. I'm just not seeing the miller-counterclaim as a likely gambit given how it went down. Had Vi flipped town, I'd probably agree with you Grey, but I feel Jahudo is more likely to be telling the truth.

I've been feeling worse about Toasty. I should have realized it yesterday, but after Seraphim flipped non-mafia, Grey's thing on D1 about Toasty trying to set up mislynches (Seraphim + Grey) is actually a very good point. I just didn't think about that yesterday because Seraphim flipped third party, which I generally associate with scum. I also don't like how he was quick to jump on Grey yesterday after Rhinox started a push against him, then backed off once it was clear nobody was buying it.

LL:
Not sure what the problem with that is. I unvoted (to prevent quickhammers) to see what Rhinox had on Grey, I wasn't convinced by what he had to say, so I put my vote back. I even made a post saying this in between the posts you chose to quote.

VOTE: Toasty

[Kdub]

Grey, I guess I'm just not seeing it. Seraphim looked to be well on the way to being lynched after Vi's counterclaim. I thought Jahudo's miller claim after that started turning the tide toward Vi again, but it was Seraphim's botched claim (that he stayed in the game after winning) that sealed his fate. I just can't fathom Jahudo making that type of gambit there to try to get his buddy lynched over someone else. Yeah, I suppose Vi getting lynched there would have made Jahudo look town, but is that really worth sacrificing a buddy D1 when a "mislynch" (at least from the scum team's point of view) looked likely? I will say that the timing of his hammers have not exactly given me great vibes, nor have his posts today.

Toasty:
I don't have a problem with your logic, but facts are facts. Grey is basically confirmed town, and Seraphim was third party, and you tried to frame it as "lynch one today, lynch the other tomorrow if they flip town". That line of thinking itself isn't necessarily scummy (I believe I defended you on this earlier), but when both of those players turn out to be confirmed as non-mafia, it definitely raises the question of your motivations there.

[Kdub]

The only problem with my idea is if some of the bounties are fake-claims, but I still think its worth a shot.

"This plan doesn't work if Fate made this game non-breakable like any competent mod would do, but let's claim anyway and see what happens."

This is the most blatant role fishing I've seen in a while.

Toasty's claim seems neutral since it can't be proven until he's gotten his bounty reward. Doesn't change my opinion of him.

[Kdub]

Kdub is a good player.

Heh, thanks for the compliment, but I think of myself as fairly average. Must be the VIs on the site dragging down your opinion of the average MS player

Grey is confirmed town by this UK post (#524):

If it's not clear,

I am 100% sure GI is town, from his claim

UK flipped town as a role that has obvious flavor connections to Grey's claimed role.

As for other stuff, read over Jahudo and Toasty since they are the main suspects at the moment.

I am not in favor of the name/bounty claim. It informs scum of who the main threats are, and I question how likely it is that we will find out what the town is capable of when we don't know which claims are real and which ones are fake (something only scum will be able to work out). Maybe if we lynch another scum and we get the game down to where there is likely only one scum left, I could see it being useful since the possibilities will be narrowed down significantly.

[Kdub]

Damn, I'm waffling a bit on Jahudo now that I've done some thinking about Vi and Seraphim's flips. If he and Vi knew that Seraphim was telling the truth about being a lyncher, and they knew that Vi was Vicious, then they probably figured he would leave the game if Vi got lynched. In that case, lynching Vi means both of them "die" (for scum's purposes, Seraphim leaving the game is like a town death, numbers-wise). That's not nearly as bad as losing one of their members D1 in a normal game. A Seraphim lynch was still preferable for the scum because we had to spend D2 lynching Vi, but I could maybe see that trade off being worth having Jahudo be "confirmed".

Independent of all that, Jahudo's behavior hasn't struck me as being particularly suspicious.

...yeah, I dunno. My gut feeling is that Jahudo is still probably town.

[Kdub]

Seraphim claimed lyncher before you claimed miller. In the scenario where you and Vi are scum, you would have made the decision to claim miller shortly after this.

But looking at your iso, you were pushing against Vi even before the lyncher claim, so your actions do seem consistent with you telling the truth. Yeah, maybe I am off base with this speculation.

[Kdub]

Rhinox, in post 1090, you indicate suspicion of Toasty and UT as the remaining scum team, but it's not clear to me why you are pushing UT/Reck over Toasty. In fact, looking over your iso, you have been wavering back and forth between suspecting Toasty and not suspecting him, but you never actually vote him or take a firm position on him. Your reasoning for suspecting both of them in 1090 suggests to me that Toasty should be higher on your suspect list, but for some reason, UT, who you claimed to have a town read on, suddenly becomes your top scum pick based on a single post that you refer to as just "kinda scummy". I want you to explain your opinion on both of them please.

[Kdub]

Our holy selves have declared Rhinox to be town, only slightly beneath us in stature, for reasons we may or may not deign to explain to the uninitiated.

Why you gotta be messing with my reads like this?

Maybe I should just sheep you for the rest of the game.

[Kdub]

Also, why bring this up now when it happened D1? You should have pointed your suspicions out when it was part of my logic against Grey-ICE. But, no, who makes it to L-1? Grey, not me.

Because at the time, we did not know Seraphim or Grey's alignments. Now that we know Seraphim was non-mafia and Grey is basically confirmed town, we can use that information to evaluate stuff that happened on D1 differently.

Continued rolefishing in 1143 is noted.

Not much else to say at this point. I was getting a bit suspicious of Rhinox when reading his iso, but Grey has reason to think he is town. Barring any new revelations, I think I'm satisfied with my Toasty vote today.

[Kdub]

Mod: I am going to be travelling for the next week or so. I should have occasional access, but there may be periods of over 24 hours where I won't be able to get online.

I agree with having Toasty claim.

[Kdub]

Opinions, everyone? Mine is that motivators are a weak town power, unbelievably godly scum power. I'm leaning towards toast-town honestly.

Like I said earlier, it's neutral to me. If our attitude toward people claiming bounty (read: currently unprovable) powers that would be stronger for scum than town is going to be a positive one (i.e. that it makes them more likely to be town in our view), then that gives scum the freedom to claim powerful bounty rewards, knowing that it can get them out of trouble and that they may never have to prove their abilities. Since the bounties are random, it's fairly unlikely that someone who the scum want to try to mislynch is going to be the bounty on a given day.

[Kdub]

We are not lynching Jahudo today. You are way too tunnelled on him, CES.

You also haven't commented on the Toasty wagon at all. Do you agree/disagree with it? You also didn't comment on Vi during D2. Basically, you're making it difficult to look at potential connections between you and flipped players because you parked your vote on an unviable wagon (Jahudo) on D1, and you have avoided any mention of the only viable wagons other than Jahudo yesterday (Vi) and today (Toasty).

[Kdub]

CES:
OPINION ON TOASTY NAO PLZ.

I erase 60% of my town read I had on Rhinox, effective naoh.

OK, now you're just messing with me

Last 4 votes on the wagon
Vi, Toasty, Rhinox, Jahudo

I can assure you two of those are scum, at least.

Toasty-Rhinox was looking like a decent possibility to me before you declared Rhinox to be town. I'm still not seeing Jahudo-scum based on the risk/reward of the miller counterclaim/gambit thing with Vi.

Deadline is soon, why are people pulling their votes off Toasty and trying to start new wagons?

[Kdub]

I'm back, will catch up and post tonight.

[Kdub]

Pages 53-55 are a disaster. Scum absolutely love last-minute deadline mislynches on people who weren't already the leading wagon. It lets them push a mislynch through with built-in justification (we were out of time, we needed to avoid a no lynch!) so they don't have to answer for it, plus it gains the town little information from wagon analysis for the same reason. Relative scumminess aside, staying with a Toasty lynch would have been better from an information standpoint. I also don't agree that him thinking Jahudo was town makes him more likely to be town himself. Toasty had already said he believed Jahudo's claim earlier (before the wagon formed on Toasty), so turning around and calling Jahudo scum to try to save himself would have just made him look worse in my opinion.

LL's thing about Grey still being alive is weak. If UK had simply said that she had flavor reasons to think Grey was town, then I could see her argument. However, UK said she was "100% sure", which pretty strongly implies that she KNOWS that he is town. I can't think of any flavor-type argument in her role PM that would make her incorrectly think that he was 100% confirmed when in fact he wasn't. Yes, it's a bit odd that Grey is alive, but there are plenty of reasons: scum might be afraid of a doc or watcher; they might want to hunt down other PRs since he claimed no primary ability; WIFOM; etc.

LL as scum? Possible. I was feeling OK about her on D1, partly because she shared my opinion on Seraphim, but she hasn't really done anything to change my opinion of her one way or the other since then. However, if she is scum and is trying to push this case on Grey, who is her buddy? She has to know that her "case" is going to get minimal support from town, and it has been pretty much universally shot down. What does pushing a Grey-scum case accomplish if she is scum? That's the main thing I am having trouble with.

@LLD: another thing to consider... If greyICE is scum, why does he kill AT and not you? At the end of D3 you did ask, "Why are you confirmed town again?" And as you yourself point out, AT has been pretty much a non-entity all game. But everyone has been calling you and him pretty much the same amount of town, so in this situation of the 2, greyscum would rather NK the one more likely to turn on him I think.

So why AT? Look who he had a case for... Reck/AGM. ICE was loving him some AGM yesterday. LLD was mostly out of the picture for 90% of the day. If anyone had motive to kill AT over ICE, it was AGM. Get rid of the immediate threat, ICE was not looking in his direction, so could be spared another day.

Vote:AGM

nk analysis FTW

Anti seems to me like a "safe" kill for scum to have made. He wasn't really suspected by anyone, so he wasn't a likely candidate to push a mislynch on. It was unlikely that he was going to draw watch/protective abilities with Grey around. He didn't post much and didn't really have a strong opinion on anyone other than AGM's slot, and even then it was a weakish case, so there aren't many solid connections to be made.

I might have more to say after the claims.

[Kdub]

I am Faye Valentine - Townie [One-shot Sensor]

My bounty reward is called Woman's Intuition. I can use it at night to determine how many non-town players were on the previous day's lynch.

Rhinox is next.

[Kdub]

CES, some questions:

Do you need to activate your ability at night some time after you receive the reward, or does the neighborhood form automatically when you receive it?
What would happen if I were dead and then you got the reward?

[Kdub]

Well, there are several mechanical issues with CES's claim, one of which Grey has pointed out. It seems like a very contrived ability to me. You are a neighborizer...but you have no choice who to neighborize? You have to activate it, even though you have no choice who your target is? Why not just skip all the unnecessary mechanics and just say "your bounty reward is to become neighbors with the player who is character X"?

I'm willing to hammer, anyone have any objections?

[Kdub]

OK then.

[Kdub]

But you really need to give us more input into this game.
"Ok then" wasn't it.

Sorry, I thought you were referring to waiting for people giving input on CES's claim who haven't commented on it yet.

Unfortunately, I have this sneaking suspicion the bounty mechanic will never come in to play. Which would be kinda lulzy.

Well, since we know which players are eligible to be a future bounty, we can still use the presence of the mechanic to analyze various events, even if the bounties themselves don't get activated. I'll elaborate tomorrow when we have more info, but hopefully you catch my drift.

[Kdub]

Does your role PM say explicitly that you will neighborize Faye, or does the wording leave open the possibility that it may be someone posing as Faye? Because from your original claim, it seemed like you said you would neighborize Faye, and that's that.

[Kdub]

As far as I see it, there are 2 possibilities:
1) Vicious is scum with 2 unlikelies, e.g. Vicious, Faye Valentine, Victoria Terpsichore. A bit weird that Vicious would be an exception, but possible. In this case we'd get a bunch of guaranteed non-Viciouses theoretically, but we wouldn't have the knowledge to take advantage of it, so this could work.
2) Full fake claim transparency, i.e. Fate treats each scum role as its fake claim for all purposes. A bit clunky, but it works.

#1 is possible given that Spike was non-town, but if true, it's a bit of a coincidence that the only scum death so far has been obv-scum Vicious. Also, there are at least strong flavor reasons for Spike being a lyncher, whereas there aren't really good flavor reasons for any of the claimed characters to be scum, with your claim (Whitney) being the possible exception.

#2 seems like it has the potential to be bastardly. He's telling you straight up that you can be in a neighborhood with Faye, but that player has a possibility of not being Faye?

You get run to L-1, and SUDDENLY remember something that I told you yesterday and was null when you were pushing Jahudo.

Pretty much this. Your sudden push on Grey reeks of desperation, and you completely ignored this discussion when Rhinox brought it up earlier.

Rhinox, any opinion on CES's claim?

[Kdub]

I actually voted for GreyICE at some point due to that discussion.

It appears you did vote for him, but you gave no input or a reason for your vote, so it wasn't clear at all that you were doing it because you agreed with Rhinox's case.

If it was watered down to "your bounty reward is to become neighbors with the player who is character X", then Faye would have to have the same reward, or have a hidden reward (bastard modding?)

Since the player needs to be on the lynch wagon to get their reward, it wouldn't quite be a "hidden reward" the way you are putting it.

As for grey's objections, unless there is a specific mod-notice against it, then breaking annonymity can be a feature, not a bug - That is, faye/whitney having the option to reveal their mafiascum.net usernames, or not.

We already pretty much established scum have an actual role name and a fake claim name thanks to Vi. It is my guess that bounties use the fake name when the target is scum, given that we haven't seen an obvscum name bounty target. Otherwise, scum bounty target comes up, every previous bounty target is confirmed town. It only makes sense that whitney or faye could be a scum safe claim.

I had forgotten that Vi had fakeclaimed Julia, but this again raises the problem that CES says that his ability is unambiguous in saying that he will specifically neighborize Faye. Either the possibility exists that the player in question (me, in this case) is not Faye, which would be a direct lie from the mod to the player, or the ability confirms my role, which either defeats the whole purpose of "neighborizer" instead of "masonizer", or suggests that Faye is scum in this game, which is not supported by either flavor or the flips we have seen so far.

My basic objection with it is that there are too many little issues with the claim that each individually require an ad hoc justification, and it adds up either to a role that mechanically is extremely contrived (in contrast to everybody else's relatively straightforward claims so far), or scum making a bad fakeclaim. Remember, we ended up lynching Seraphim because he claimed a mechanic that would have indicated poor setup design if true. He wasn't mafia, but he was certainly lying about his ability. I'm feeling the same thing here with CES. His sudden push on Grey just cements my opinion.

I think we've heard from everybody on the claim. CES's turn against Grey is crap, and I'm not seeing any reason that would make me vote someone other than CES. This is the play for today.
VOTE: CES

[Kdub]

It's just the only possible explanation but let's just ignore that, shall we?

Considering the level of justification you have provided for your other votes this game, we were supposed to conclude that someone made a argument against someone who was already confirmed town and you suddenly agreed with it?

What would you expect if his role said he could neighborize Julia? Hint: It is my understanding he would neighborize with Vi, because that is Vi's fake claim, who she would claim to be, and that is not lying or bastard modding. Its fairly straightforeward, actually. Or perhaps Whitney is CES's fake claim, and faye really is town? Either way, its neither bastard modding nor masonizing.

If his role PM clearly said he would neighborize Julia and was absolutely unambiguous about it, I would think he was either lying, or that the mod lied to him (i.e. bastard modding). Whitney being CES's fake claim is exactly what I have been saying.

P.S. Tell me whats straightforward about these roles and their mechanics: Ex-Lover Bodyguard, Red Dragon Clan Enforcer, Shaman Astrologer, Lucky Bounty Hunter

That's a separate issue, but I guess I didn't explain it well. When someone has claimed "hider" or "jailkeeper" or "sensor", their described abilities work the same way you would expect them to. When CES claims "neighborizer" with all of these convoluted restrictions, there is an inconsistency.

By the bye, Kdub quicklynching me is terrible. AGM and Toasty haven't even gotten a chance to respond to me.

Yes they did, in fact they are both voting you specifically because of your claim.

Grey, AGM claimed to have blocked me last night.

[Kdub]

Well, this looks like a fun day.

Rhinox is right that No Lynch today is bad. You don't NL when there's a 1v1.

More in a bit once I've thought about it.

[Kdub]

OK, here are my initial thoughts:

If AGM is scum, LL makes some sense as someone to fake a roleblock on. There was reasonable suspicion on her, she suspected AGM of being scum, and her role, if revealed to be true, implies a scum roleblocker. It seems unlikely that AGM would have been able to convince town-LL to side with him in a 1v1 against anybody else. These are points in LL's favor. In addition, my opinion has been that LL's posts today have seemed more genuine and coming from town strongly fighting against her lynch, whereas AGM's "LOL U R SCUM" feels more like cocky scum pushing a lynch.

On the other hand, AGM's roleblocker claim came before LL's enabler claim, so if anything, it would make more sense for LL to have claimed that to cast doubt on AGM. Also, this sort of no-kill gambit seems unnecessarily risky for scum to pull at this stage. If they killed last night and reduced it down to a 3:2, they get two chances in lylo to win. By not killing and trying to frame LL, scum would be going all-in today because if the gambit fails, LL is confirmed town. It's also harder to get a mislynch in 4:2 rather than 3:2, and there was the possibility, as has occurred, that AGM would have been today's bounty, which would thrown even more wrenches into their plans. It just doesn't seem like a smart play to me.

[Kdub]

They're both scum.

This is almost impossible IMO.

[Kdub]

Kdub, a 4:2 is better for mafia than a 3:2.

There are more mislynch options for the scum.

I'm not sure I agree with that. In a lylo or mylo situation, they need to convince 1/3 of town to vote incorrectly in a 3:2, whereas they need to convince 2/4 of the town in a 4:2. Also, scum generally would kill off the least-suspected players (i.e. the ones who would be an unlikely mislynch possibility anyway).

Finally, if you lynch AGM, and he flips scum (which he will), I do become confirmed town.

But then the remaining scum member just kills me that night, and enters mylo again.

That's true. The bounty is an issue though. Scum had to know that AGM was a possibility for the bounty, and if scum-AGM got lynched and we all got our bounties, it would almost certainly be a town win. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just find it extremely risky when the "safe" play of killing and getting two opportunities in lylo was sitting there.

GI is saying that I am scum, and you are my buddy.

At this point, it is obvious that if AGM is scum, then GI is his buddy.

You can connect the dots, right?

I will need to think on this in the event that we do lynch AGM and he turns out to be scum. I'm still struggling with UK's "100% confirmed town" statement. I'm having a hard time imagining what could have made her believe that and be wrong.

[Kdub]

I'LL TAKE YOUR SURRENDER NOW, LLD.

Yeah, it's stuff like this that's making me uneasy. My brain is telling me that AGM is more likely to be town, but his attitude is giving me a bad vibe compared to LL. There is no sense of urgency, even though getting this wrong probably means losing the game.

[Kdub]

2) Kdub is waffling his way at LLD in the most scum-like manner possible.

Well yeah, I'm waffling. This is a critical decision, and it's not immediately obvious what the right play is. I've tried to lay out my reasoning on both sides. I'm not sure why you are calling me out specifically, as nobody (yourself included) has taken a firm stance or put down a quick vote, and rightfully so.

I'm not going to make excuses for hammering CES, his claim was dubious as hell, even if it ended up being true, and it was pretty clear that there was nothing he was going to say that was going to convince me otherwise.

2) Its highly plausible that UK only had a fake claim revealed to her

Well, take a look at how it went down. UK made the "100% town" statement after Grey claimed Alisa. She was suspicious of Grey for a while, but seemed to know right away that he was telling the truth after he claimed. What type of info could her role PM have contained that would have both confirmed an Alisa claim as town and not been a lie from the mod? The only thing I can think of is something along the lines of "you know that Alisa is in the game and is aligned with the town." She couldn't even have had info like "

if

Alisa is in the game..." because that left open the possibility that Grey was lying, yet she was 100% sure about him immediately after his claim. I'm not seeing very many possibilities here.

I knew AGM would pull this gambit. I saw it coming a mile away. The second that they mislynches CES, I knew it was their plan.

What made you "know" that scum-AGM would do this instead of making the safer play of killing and trying to get someone lynched normally? Have you seen him do something similar before as scum?

[Kdub]

I knew AGM would pull this gambit. I saw it coming a mile away. The second that they mislynches CES, I knew it was their plan.

What made you "know" that scum-AGM would do this instead of making the safer play of killing and trying to get someone lynched normally? Have you seen him do something similar before as scum?

LL, please answer this^

SO, it reads perfectly that if AGM pulls this gambit, he targets me because:

1) I'm already a vote against him, so it doesn't hurt him to FURTHER confirm himself as scum to me
and
2) Because I am easily the most lynchable player in the game right now, due to my GreyICE suspicion yesterday.

#1 is true, but Rhinox raises a fair point that he suspected AGM yesterday as well. I don't think #2 is true though. Who was calling you scum yesterday aside from Grey at one point? I got the sense that Rhinox was even starting to side with you in your "GI is scum" push, so why would your suspicion of him yesterday make you more lynchable today? If anything, CES flipping town should have made you look better.

It's taken a while, but when she's stressed I can read her. And she'd never lie in Red.

The goal was pretty much like I said, and what I figured would happen - you submitted a Roleblock on Toasty or Rhinox.

And then no one dies. So it becomes a 1v1 that consumes the town until it's fixed.

Only you happened to hit scum ANYWAY.

I don't see any evidence why this would be more likely than just AGM having blocked LL submitting the kill. I guess the end result is the same though.

[Kdub]

Kdub, here is my thought process.

I was 95% sure AGM and GI were scum yesterday.

I figured that thanks to AGM being RB, that if there was no kill today, it would be because AGM faked an RB and accused someone of being scum due to the RB.

Had there been a kill today, I would have been less sure than I am.

But I was almost certain that AGM would fake the RB and use a no kill.

Because if I was a scum RBer,

I would have done the same.

And AGM isn't a fool. AGM is every bit as intelligent as I am. Honestly, he is probably leaps and bounds smarter than me.

But I know that this move is the most viable option for him as a scum RB, because it's what I would have done.

I was hoping for something a bit more...objective.

Let's get this straight. You are saying that AGM planned this gambit

in advance

(before the CES lynch) by faking weak reasons for a town read on you, with the intention of mislynching CES, then faking a roleblock on you that night. Is that correct? I may have a follow-up comment here depending on your answer.

@Kdub: I'm going to have to agree with LLD that her lynch, based on yesterday, would be easy. I was against her, and, with CES being town, we don't have many suspect characters left.

Looking at your posts, you are right. I had thought you suspected AGM yesterday, but you actually suspected both of them. Hmm...

1) CES.

This guy is the scumbag here. First, because of all the analysis I did yesterday about how the scum were going to work together. CES has done exactly that.

But second,

because of another theory that I have brewing

. I'm going to wait until this massclaim is finished to pop it, but when it hits, it'll be a doozy. I think.

^AGM, what was this all about?

[Kdub]

LL:
OK, that clears up your opinion to me.

There's also the open question of what the fuck an "enforcer" is.

A wiki search shows that a role called "enforcer" has been used in the past to refer to either a vig or an investigative role. Vig obviously doesn't make sense for a scum power since they get a factional kill anyway. That doesn't necessarily mean that enforcer=investigative role in this game, but that would be my best guess. Incidentally, "astrologer" (Nacho's role) has been used both as a protective role and a role cop in the past.

More random thoughts I'm having on the flips/claims now that I'm looking more closely at them:
- The miller appears to have been a red herring unless Nacho was a straight-up cop.
- If he had been alive during massclaim, Anti's bounty power would have stuck out like a sore thumb for its non-standard name.

LL, what would happen if you were to enable someone with a protective role, but their target was also targeted by Vi's one-shot assassin kill? Which one would get priority?

Toasty and LL, can you comment on my thoughts on Grey in post 1611?

[Kdub]

LL:
I thought assassin was another name for strongman? That's why I asked about it.

Can you comment on what I said about Grey/UK in 1611?

I'm going to try to reread both players a bit this weekend. We should probably try to come to a decision early next week.

I had been leaning toward LL-scum (and I guess I still am overall), but something in her recent post is giving me a town read. Yeah, I know that's vague and weird, but I can't elaborate (so please don't ask). Just assume it's meta reasons for now.

[Kdub]

Toasty:
If we're in mylo, then the fact that AGM is the bounty should be irrelevant to our decision. Lynching correctly is the only thing that matters right now. If we decide, independent of the bounty, to lynch AGM, then we can figure out who gets on the wagon.

AGM:
I read over your iso a bit and I have a few questions.
It looked like you suspected CES yesterday, and based on what you've said about your actions, I assume you had LL as your second suspect (even if you weren't declaring it at the time). So then why did you block me the previous night instead of one of them?
What was the "theory" you were referring to in 1427?
At what point in the game did you make the decision that you were going to call LLD town with the intention of roleblocking her?

[Kdub]

AGM, can you answer my questions?

[Kdub]

That's an interesting catch, Rhinox, but if it really is a slip, doesn't the context imply a Toasty-Grey scumteam? Not seeing that as a particularly likely scenario.

[Kdub]

I'm still waiting to hear from AGM before I make my decision. His vanishing act is not making my gut feel any better about him, that's for sure.

Well that convinced me.

vote: AGM

GI tomorrow.

What exactly about Grey's post convinced you? He pointed out an apparent contradiction, said it made you look like scum, and... well that's really about it. How does that tell you whether AGM is scum?

[Kdub]

Dammit, I keep thinking about it and I keep getting hung up on why scum-AGM would push this gambit. WIFOM or not, it's an objectively poor decision to force a 1v1 that he's not even guaranteed to win here instead of getting two shots at lylo where scum just need to convince ONE townie to vote incorrectly. It's a stupid play however I look at it.

The thing is, AGM was pushing this earlier today, but now that the deadline is looming and there are outstanding questions for him, he is nowhere to be found. This would be a pretty big fail if he is scum and gets away with that.

Toasty:
I will point out that I hammered CES when I did because I thought everyone had weighed in on it and that there was nothing else to say regarding his claim. You didn't indicate in either the post you voted for him or the previous post where you said you were OK with lynching him that you had more questions for him. You didn't say anything about him or the lynch at the start of today either.

[Kdub]

AGM's answers appear to be consistent with his D3/D4 play. His D4 post (1417) after LLD first went after Grey for still being alive is when he first mentions LLD making bad arguments, which he follows up with the "too dumb to be scum" argument (1427). This is exactly in line with his explanation for suspecting her at this point and giving a weak town read on her with the plan of roleblocking her that night. If he was scum, he would have to be setting up the fake LLD roleblock at least at this point in the game, and he had no strong reason to know at that moment that CES was going to make a claim that would get him mislynched.

I'll give LLD a chance to respond, but barring any new arguments, I'm feeling reasonably more confident about AGM telling the truth.

Mod: exactly when is the deadline?

[Kdub]

Well, there are two possible motivations I can see for killing Toasty:

1. If AGM is scum, obviously he killed off Toasty because he supported LL. It gets rid of someone whose vote was likely to go against him, and lowe

rs the lynch threshold. Pretty straightforward. The only question is, does the kill make sense in the context of him having faked a roleblock on LL yesterday night? Why not kill off Toasty the night before? This just gets back to the original problem I had with scum-AGM, why not make the obvious safe play in the first place?

2. If LL is scum, killing Toasty would be for WIFOM reasons, and would be a somewhat desperate move. It looked like Grey, Rhinox, and I were all leaning toward believing AGM yesterday, so maybe instead of making an "obvious" move like killing one of us, she decides to shake things up by killing Toasty and hoping the WIFOM gets her out of being lynched.

I'm going to think about the Toasty death and likely implications before voting.

[Kdub]

Well, I just spent about 10 minutes typing up a post, hit preview edit, then realized I wasted my time.

tl;dr version:
VOTE: LLD

[Kdub]

The fake roleblock was all AGM's idea BTW. I think it was actually kinda dumb in retrospect

Guess it worked out though.

[Kdub]

Bussing AGM for my bounty reward would not have worked because I wouldn't have been able to kill + vote steal on the same night (which is why I asked in the scum QT). So if I did a vote-steal on N5 to get a quicklynch the next day, it would only get me to a 3-player endgame on D7, right? Also, Toasty could have screwed me by giving a double vote to a townie.

I'll read through the setup and associated QTs tomorrow. I'm fine with posting the scum QT if AGM and Vi are OK with it.

[Kdub]

Thanks for modding, Fate. I thought it was an interesting setup, and by chance, I had just re-watched Cowboy Bebop a few weeks before this game started (I had seen it once before about 8 years ago). I think it was somewhat scum-favored when the bounty powers were taken into account, but that never became an issue. One thing that I think would have been cool is for scum and/or town to have some way to manipulate who the bounty was on. I'm not sure how you would have done that without having to re-balance the bounty powers, but it would have been an interesting wrinkle.

Keeping Grey alive was by design because we thought he would push mislynches, but in retrospect, I probably would have killed him on N3. I think he changed his mind often enough that it kinda became unpredictable whether he would be on the right track or not, so we were fortunate that leaving him alive that long didn't come back to bite us.

Yeah, I started lurking the last couple days when I needed to fence-sit and wait to see whether AGM's roleblock gambit was going to work or not. The rest of the game, I think I was playing normally. I have a tendency to post at a frequency inversely proportional to the activity level of the game as a whole, regardless of alignment, and this was definitely a high-volume game for its size.

The Jahudo lynch was a really good break for the scum because it was entirely town-pushed and made me and AGM look good for not being on it. I think I would have gone for the Seraphim and CES lynches as town just because their claims were sketchy.

AGM/Vi, any objections to sharing our QT?

[Kdub]

Since I haven't heard any objections: http://www.quicktopic.com/46/H/VqVEqsvjXTn2A