Mini 536: Heroes Smalltown. Game Over!

[Adele]

Dude, nice cast list! I'll enjoy playing with several of you a great deal!

I found this a

really

tough choice, but I'd like to go for... Peter Petrelli.

I'd be grateful if as many folk as possible target me tonight .

[Adele]

Wait, can I change my mind?

J/k

[Adele]

I'm here. Sorry for my absence over the weekend, but I'll make a substantive post later today.

[Adele]

fyi, this is an "as I go" post.

Until I see something particularly scummy, it seems sensible to figure out which of the roles are significantly more harmful if they are in the hands of scum than they are beneficial if they're in the hands of pro-town players.

Marginally better than arbitrary voting; assuming both ways give us the same chance of leading to a scumwagon, this gives a greater chance of eventually lynching

particularly dangerous

scum. While I'm not in 100% agreement with this plan (the same role may be particularly useful to scum, but also to town; should be working from a weighted net perspective of "cool scum" minus "cool town"?), the attacks on mathcam following this seem context-blind, as if they're intentionally ignoring the qualifier.
My suspicion of curiouskarmadog just went up a notch.
Looking back, jdodge, tsq and zoneace obviously disagreed but decided against contributing anything useful. Annoying=yes, scummy=no.
And, really, karma's young enough I could half-believe it was a genuine error. I wish Jdodge, Tsq or zoneace had been more communicative, so that we had karma's response to that. Not that I can complain, really; it's my own darn fault for not taking a couple hours out of studying and going to a cybercafe .

It saddens me that people think I'm dangerous. OK, yes, I blew up and killed millions of people in at least one timeline, but that was just the once! I have no intentions of exploding on any of you guys, which is more than I can say for some...
Seriously, though, my power level is 90+% dependent on the decisions that other people make, plus I'm useless N1. I also think I could be an extremely useful player later in the game.

Seol

, could Lindy and I hypothetically become a Circle Of Awesome Protectedness? (To whom it may concern: if I don't get a reply in the next 5 mins I might just phone and ask him, so don't be surprised if I know the answer before he posts it ).

If so, then that could be played very strongly to the town's advantage, especially when certain other abilities are brought into the mix. If there's any chance of reaching a scenario where a chain's made up and any death fingers the killer, that'd be quite nice, really (though potentially self-defeating

FOS Zindaras

for acting like you want the game to start and then not posting when it does-
Even if you are pro-town you will no doubt come accross scum so I hope your not easily manipulated.

Nah, he's pretty cool.

Is their any role that people would definitely not like me to protect tonight?

Obviously a lot of people will be hesitant to target me tonight (:() but I don't think you need to be. If you

were

to protect me, aside from being safer, I'd also gain a skill that's very useful to the town. But of course, since you want the scum not to know who you're targeting, you shouldn't

pick

someone (too guessable) but pick 3ish different people and randomise the selection (diceroll or if you're a pedant, random.org). Scum can't outplay you if it's not your decision .

I'm treating Eden as a standard busdriver that doesn't effect mafia kills or SK kills. Its considerably underpowered for a busdriver, but I still like the role.

I'd like to ask people, please work off the assumption that I'm town here (as I'm looking for advice). Do you feel that my usage of my power tonight would be a benefit or a detriment to the town?

I'll clarify the above: say I could make Linderman (Doc) protect myself?

I don't like either post.

Unvote, vote: Oman

I do.

Vote: JDodge

Yeah, god forbid she understands how her role works, or thinks the town might have useful advice

[Adele]

If so, then that could be played very strongly to the town's advantage, especially when certain other abilities are brought into the mix. If there's any chance of reaching a scenario where a chain's made up and any death fingers the killer, that'd be quite nice, really (though potentially self-defeating

)

bah! Ew! No closing bracket! (I've shown where it was meant to go). I

never

do that!

I meant to go back and post a link to a newbie game that I played where we had 4 players, 1 scum left and 2 claimed docs and I figured how to make it so if the scum ever killed again we'd win, but obviously the scum therefore didn't and then a townie self-destructed. As in, even if you find a gamebreak, it might just force a stalemate.

But instead I just left a hanging bracket .

Seol

, any chance of a pity-edit?

[Adele]

Seol

, could Lindy and I hypothetically become a Circle Of Awesome Protectedness? (To whom it may concern: if I don't get a reply in the next 5 mins I might just phone and ask him, so don't be surprised if I know the answer before he posts it ).

Be more specific please.

If Linderman protected me one night, could he and I thereafter protect each other?

[Adele]

Yeah, god forbid she understands how her role works,

Ouch. I know the moogle looks girly, but lets make an effort.

v.v
Sorry. I did wonder for a half-a-second, and you didn't have a gender-specific name, and I was already on the preview screen.

Adele is a key person to dicover the alignment of.

/agree in theory, but there's no such thing as confirmation here, only accusation. I mean, there's no cop that can investigate me and say "Yup, she's clean". So it reads to me just like you want me to be subject to higher-than-average suspicion and scrutiny.

[Adele]

Adele, if you're town I want to target you ASAP. If you're scum, my role in your hands could be very not good.

Yep, that makes sense - for you. A lot of people, though, have nonharmful powers. If I could watch and track and protect, then I

think

that could only be a good thing (though those powers also arguably have less potential for good; I've not done an in-depth analysis). It's a safety-power tradeoff. It's not a decision I can make for you since, as I say, I don't think it'll ever be possible to 100% confirm me.
And, according to Nozick, the capabilities of your body belong to you .

[Adele]

I'm the one who's

actually

a girl.

No offence, rb.

shaft.ed's right, I don't think Oman should target me - power's fun and all, but not if it means the town has less useful information, and it would.

Just to be

completely

self obsessed and go through everyone whether my power makes me a good or bad target:
Zindaras: Mohinder Suresh, Networker -

Neutral

; I can't absorb this ability
mathcam: Ted Sprague, Walking Bomb -

Bad

, obv
Oman: Eden McCain, Subliminal Influencer -

Bad

, as it devalues other roles
curiouskarmadog: The man with the horn-rimmed glasses, Jailkeeper -

Neutral

(obviously I'd prefer not, but it doesn't have knock-on effects in terms of my ability)
JDodge: the Haitian, Dampener - Damps my ability to learn.

Bad

, if only town-positive powers are targeting me.
shaft.ed: Nathan Petrelli, Motivator - Potentially really good... I'm gonna say

good

Thestatusquo: Ando Masahashi, Vanilla -

Neutral

ZONEACE: Matt Parkman, Tracker -

Good

.
Gorgon: DL Hawkins, Hider -

Good

YvonneSeer: Claude Rains, Watcher -

Good

davidangelsummers: Daniel Linderman, Doctor -

Good

That's my instinct. Any arguments?
And, yeah, of course the above should only be one factor in their decision. If DAS is worried that someone he thinks is pro-town's in danger of NK, for example, etc etc.

of course, we still have to decide who to lynch...

[Adele]

True, but it'd be a dangerous game to play. The potential contradiction between my results, Claudes, and Matt's, mean it's beneficial for town to have a third party. If Claude or Matt is scum, they'd have to be a

lot

more careful in the scenario where I can copy either of them. It could come down to, for example, "either Adele or zoneace is lying", but that's quite a useful situation for town. In fact, since there's no lepton here, the semicop powers have only the power of contradiction - and knowing that one of two people is lying is beneficial to town.

If you're dumb enough to follow any cop unthinkingly, then that's bad, though - if you include me in the calcs, then with 3 semicops, we'd "expect" exactly 1 scum.

[Adele]

I'm using the mathematical "expect"; on average over a course of games, 1 scum among the three of us would be the average. (I may have gotten the maths wrong, but that's a different story).

My point was not that there's most likely to be exactly one scum, but that there's a better-than-even chance that at least one of us is scum.

Thanks for the heads-up, zoneace. If we can get everyone to commit like that, the game's in the bag

[Adele]

actually, I think TSQ's being a bit over-aggressive here. His questions to zoneace comes down to a barked order to post more and post better, yet his most recent post implies to the casual observer (ie me, before I ran TSQ's post record) that Zoneace was asked specific questions about his behaviour and asked to make account for them.

Really? So you dont think Mathcams system is worth discussing? Why not? Also, I wonder what you could have possibly noticed that you do not feel like sharing. Isn't it generally in the towns best interests to share all information that they have? I mean, in general the only thing I don't like to bring up are breadcrumbing and stuff like that, but thats not exactly RELEVANT in this game, is it?

This seems more like a rant than a list of questions that TSQ burningly wants to hear the answer to.

If you want Zoneace to contribute more - and that might be justified - then make it clear that it's

that

that you're asking for. But his posts, while short and not hugely contributory, have been reasonably regular, and seem adequate for this stage of the game. I think you seem overly hyper, tsq, and overly pissed-off at others who are merely moderate.

[Adele]

whoa. I think you're a smidge OTT, not "unacceptable".

I'm all about the love, here.

To answer your point, I don't think your questions necessarily needed an answer. They're exactly the sort I'd pose as an IC to newbies who "don't know what to say". They start on matters that weren't all that contentious, and move on to nonspecific policy matters (you say "general" twice, for example).

At this point, I don't think it scummy of Zoneace to have declined to reply. For example, the question "What have you noticed that you don't want to tell me" comes off as downright rhetorical - why on earth would he tell you, if he doesn't want you to know?

Eh, my points are small and my posts are big so I'll stop now.

[Adele]

Adele: I would want to know exactly which powers she is getting and why. I think it would be helpful for judging her and her targeters alignments.

If you're looking to catch me out, remember that I'm a self-watcher, so I'd know that Claude was watching me, and know not to lie.
If you're looking to catch my targeters out, remember I'm a self-watcher, so I'd be able to perform that function.
If you're looking to force me to tell the truth, that makes sense - but remember that if I lied my targeters could reveal me.

Doesn't really make sense.

Mathcam: His role is dangerous in mafia hands the longer we go on the more dangerous it becomes. Even if he is town then I would like to know who was visiting him. If he is not their when you get their, we could have our SK

Why do you want to know who's visiting him? I don't get that.
Also, I

think

trackers and watchers can't catch the sk out. Leastways, that's how I've always run it.

Why does it matter who omen's targeted by? Surely if anyone were to target potentially dangerous people it should be matt, not claude (apologies for the character names).

Btw, I saw the last episode of series 1 last night! Does that mean that no-one here's behind, and Mr Bennet's first name may be safely spoken?
(that was a dumb secret anyway. I didn't even notice until they hung a lampshade on it and it was always unlikely to be of significance to the plot. Like, who cares?)

[Adele]

The thing is...Directing is only bad in a closed setup

Not necessarily true. If the scum knows the plan, they can plan around it - the most egregious example I can think of is the doc (who I support randomising their choice), but cops too - say the tracker says who he's going to track, and that person's a member of the mafia. He's unlikely to be the guy to perform the kill then, isn't he?

[Adele]

Sorry for absence - will post in about half an hour.

[Adele]

OK. Sorry for my absence. To some extent, I've had little time on PCs at all (in the run up to exams I was at college, at home or at my parents, but mostly just studying).

Also, there's little to discuss here that I can see. Most of it's gameplans and going round in circles over whether we can trust people based on their roles (here's a hint: no)

I agree. While nothing jumps out about the plan as being particularly dangerous, the more choreographed the plan is, the easier it is for the mafia to know how to circumvent it -- especially since this plan takes at least a couple of game days before we see any results out of it.

QFT

Shaft.ed - It is a bad idea to give scum investigative powers. Why? because we'll TRUST her. And trusting scum is not a good move.

Hands up everyone who plans to blindly trust me because of an ability I absorb from someone? Seriously. Slippery slope argument.

[Adele]

In my opinion...No lynching is just silly.

QFT. Nolynch FTL.

I notice you have a problem with people "answering questions for you." I tend to do this all the time because I am on the board too much and enjoy being involved in conversation. I admit I did it on one occasion in this game with a question directed to you and clearly stated while I was posting that I did not intend to speak for you. I now realize that it is a bad play and you have demonstrated to me that certain players are very paranoid about it. So I will not be answering anyone else's questions in any of my games from now on. Thank you for the advice on this topic.

eh, they'll live. If a question's out there, why not throw in your twopennorth? They can't exactly claim it's a "private conversation" - you're giving your opinion, which is your

job

, and the fact that there happened to be a question dealing with the same issue that triggered your ideas, well, who cares?. Me, I'll answer any question I want to, as a rule - though I might stick a disclaimer in ("Well,

I

reckon...")

And, I buy shaft.ed's cross-post claim. If it were a deliberate follow I think it would've come through quicker, and there have certainly been plenty of times when I've gone half an hour constructing a post without updating the page.

What's the votecount at?

[Adele]

Additionally, he seems to be testing the waters here, in his last post. To me, the last post almost screams

Am I going to be able to misslynch this guy, or should I move on to someone else.

I'll admit that a lot of this is influenced by the fact that I don't think the case against oman is very strong. But I think the case against shaft.ed is there regardless of it you think Oman is scum or not. (could be aggressive bussing)

I agree with TSQ, in that the post referred to here (#299) does seem a bit "Oman is wrong, Oman is wrong, Oman is wrong, let's kill Oman".

shaft.ed is voting me based on my role, mostly, which is interesting, as I chose it before i got my alignment.

And therefore independent of your alignment. He might be voting for you because your role with a 2/3 chance of town, 1/3 chance of evil, works out as being damaging to the town on average - this may be valid, there may be roles that the town'd be better off not having in the mix but is of value if you're assured the role is on your team (which you, when you picked the role, were assured). People are therefore likely to have a different view on the benignity of their roles than others will.

Besides:

shaft.ed isn't voting you solely on your role. Read his most recent post.

QFT,ETIJ

CKD, what you're also missing is that we have two scum groups here who are interested in destroying the other. Thus even scum aligned investigative roles may serve the town's interest if they can nail down the other scum group.

PLUS a person with investigations may have to present investigative results and face the choice between giving the town useful (reliable) information or (this is the really sweet part) false information, running the (very real) risk of getting found out (it's almost like they're presenting an investigation result on themself).

Speaking of, can I make a LAL request? I've been in games where scum have gambited again and again, lying over and over and the town takes them at their word still. I'd like as many players as possible - especially investigative players - to make a commitment to

not lie

, and a corollary commitment from as many as possible to enforce this by agreeing that if someone is caught in a lie

they are the priority lynch

. In this setup, it'd be too easy to have conspiracy-within-conspiracy and "oh I said that to draw him out now you know he's scum" bullcrap. Will people please, even if you'll let people off lying usually (Me=sad panda) not do the same here?

[Adele]

Adele:

Not posting a whole lot and seems very reluctant to take a side on issues. Most posts seem to be "I see both sides of this." While not a scum tell, the lack of any meaningful attacks seems troubling.

Oh, no. I'm not that person, am I?

Tell you what, give me a couple of issues, and I'll pick a side for each.

I'm not happy about the responses (and lack therof) to my "no lying" suggestion. If people are clear from the start that lying = dying, then there shouldn't be any badness of the sort brought up by Gorgon. At the end of the day, there's no "true" cops here - the greatest use of these roles is in catching people in lies. I just

really

want to avoid a scenario I've seen before - of a person giving BS after BS after BS and people taking his most recent lie as the truth. More to the point, I'm concerned about good-player-scum contradicting bad-player-town safe in the knowledge that, given a pick between the two of them, people will side with the clever one even though he's the one who lied.

The scum might

have

to lie to save their asses at some point. The town don't.

And finally, if people won't sign up to the lynch-all-liars meta, then I'm not willing to bind myself any further. It's so pissing me off that this, the ultimate scumtell, is ignored by so many. Call this game the rubicon. Hey, if no-one considers lying scummy, then I'm done with the truth.

[Adele]

What? No, i'm saying if no-one else on this site feels bound by the LAL meta, then my studious avoidance of

ever

lying as town is harmful for the town side at times and I'm not going to hold myself to it any longer.

I'm not gonna lie left right and centre - I'm saying I'd want to be judged on the same scale as everyone else.

[Adele]

But, y'know, feel free to put the worst possible spin on what I said.

[Adele]

As long as you're still playing to your win condition I have no problem with you lying. The way you worded it made me think that you were so fed up with us not adopting LAL that you were going to just lie to punish us, and that is something I can not allow in this game. If this is all a huge misunderstanding, then I apologize. Just, please reassure me you plan on playing towards your win condition in this game, and I will unvote.

I will indeed play towards my WC. I am upset that you have "no problem" with me lying, but if that's the attitude of a significant minority of players - or even a majority - then I'm going to need to adjust my play.

TSQ(do you prefer Shea btw?) I see your point, but if we agree as a town ahead of tiem that we will lynch anyone who lies, this makes it quite obvious that lying is clearly not a pro-town play as it will get you lynched if you are a lying townie. You're arguing whether or not lying can be a pro-town play in and of itself, we're arguing that it's in the town's best interest to set up a LAL policy. They are not the same. By setting up LAL we will cut back on a lot of confusion and we will also make it clear that scum caught fabricating Night Actions cannot talk their way out of it. I think in this set up the town has less to lose by forgoing lying then they have to gain by making it a viable town strategy. Therefore I think adopting LAL is in our best interest.

Making a certain tactic that a scum may well

have

to resort to and a town may well

want

to resort to unambiguously user-harming and thus radically reducing the chances of a town using that tactic, but the chances of scum using it about the same; I entirely agree.

Seol's told me about DWA before; I believe TSQ laid the trap deliberately and his response was sincere; I

also

believe it's a useful tell (though TSQ may be overegging it a bit), and it's a factor against Zoneace.

ugh, shea, you are so pointless, im not even gonna waste my vote on you. you have nothing to add to the game, you're just an annoyance is best ignored i see. You still havent explained how you would have anything protown to lie about. Why do you keep setting up a defense for your future lies? Honestly, your presence in this game is without anything point. We don't need you. but its not even worth it to lynch you.

That's awful.

Vote: zoneace

. Ad hominems will only take you so far. TSQ raised a substantive point and deserved an equitable answer.

I 100% disagree with Zoneace over a nolynch - no lynching today would, in my view, be helpful more to the scum than the town, for the usual reason (in spite of my no-info stupor in this game). However, the person who appears to me to be most deserving of lynching is Zoneace himself, and while I think he's likely scum and the game's better off without him, there's a part of me that wants him to survive the day just to pass his ability on.

To clarify:
/disagree with TSQ over LAL
/agree with TSQ over lynching zoney

/agree with zoney over LAL
/disagree with zoney over nolynching

/agree with zoney over lynching zoney today.

[Adele]

1. I didn't vote for you because shea told me to - his point convinced me. If you're town, everyone on your wagon is equally responsible, not just shea.

2. I don't see how his powerlessness is relevant to his scum-hunting skills, especially prior to N1

3. Hasn't it been explained that a town tracker is useful to the town

as is

a scum tracker? If only in the hopes of catching me in a lie, I would've hoped you'd've supported me having this ability.

4. You don't agree3 with my reasoning? I have an idea, why not demonstrate how bad it is by being a shining beacon of reasoning. You've been mr strawman, mr ad hominem, mr "that's bullshit" over and over. Why don't you

show

us what a reasoned argument should look like?

[Adele]

I am pretty sure our scum (in this game) are quietly sitting back

What makes you so sure?

gut

I don’t think that ZA is our scum. His bandwagon is picking up steam (slowly) and I am just not buying it. I don’t think shea is scum either at this point. I dont agree with a no lynch and don’t know why ZA is pushing it. I have only been in one game with ZA that I knew his alignment (scum) and I had that pegged from Day 1. This doesn’t have that feel to it. Of course, people change styles and this is a different set up, but I am not getting the scum vibe off ZA.

If the slowness of the wagon is a factor, consider the holidays - lots of threads, including this one, have slowed over christmas. If it's just gut then... I personally don't see it, and con only trust it to the extent of other peoples' testimonies - are you guys sure enough to tie your innocence to ZAs, or would you prefer me (personally) to judge on less qualitative matters? This is a weird matter - I normally wouldn't consider accepting testimony, but this strength of consensus is unusual.

[Adele]

Well, I'd normally discount statements such as the one you made above, as not being information that I can use, but I was struck by the chorus of "/agree"s; I'm just trying to work out what I can do with it. I guess on one level I'm asking you guys if,

given that

the other two agree with you, you

want

other players to take your word for ZA's probable innocence. Then, leading on from there (IF you do) I was asking if you were willing to put any kind of deposit down on it - never thinking it'd be as bald as "if he's innocent you are if he's guilty you are", but still.

If you're just stating your own opinion for the record and aren't looking to convince others, then feel to ignore all the above, and I'll continue judging ZA on my usual terms.

[Adele]

Adele, thats a really bad idea where you assume innocence or guilt in a one to one like "if he's innocent you are if he's guilty you are". I know you were intending to do something less "bald" but anything more than "If CKD is scum/town I'll eat my hat" is a stupid "bet" to make.

See, what I find remarkable is, after someone asks me to explain, and I do, and you acknowledge it - you still yell at me for asking for something I wasn't asking for!

no one-to-one ties. Nothing

nearly

so extreme and quite possibly nothing at all. This was never specifically about CKD (and herein lies the answer to your question, ckd) but the ckd-mathcam-shafted

trio

over whether they think their consensus is in itself evidence in favour of ZA's innocence.

My error was simply this: thinking that there might be value in making the defense of ones' co-players explicit. We all know that if I vehemently defend someone, or even opt not to join in a bandwagon, I'm not only making a statement of my opinion but making a wager on it - if he then turns up guilty, I'll climb up some scumdars. If it happens a few times, I'll likely die. Anything you say in this game effects you in this way - including statements intended only to explain ones' own position, not to convince others.
Try to take it to the explicit level, of course, and you lose those subtleties, the natural progression of the game, and leave yourself open to attacks such as oman's as well (which frankly seemed disingenuous to me - as I say, you acknowledge that I'm not saying such-and-such while yelling at me for saying such-and-such).

We live in a pre-barter economy of trust; contracts and such are as of yet unformulable. But have I seen players say "that person's not scum; I can't prove it, but just trust me" when they had no out-of-thread information? Yes. There's certainly value in finding out if that's where ckd

or

mathcam

or

shafted was at.

[Adele]

could we get a votecount?

Pending the VC, I just want to say that I've got a

FOS for Oman

that could happily turn into a vote - assuming he's not in danger of a quicklynch at this time, which I doubt. Too much from him has been counterlogical, dogmatic, and survival-oriented ("I need to find out if you're good or bad asap" in a game with no outright condemnations or confirmations wasn't good, and then leading on to declaring he'd be not only willing but

happy

to lie, among others).

[Adele]

Adele this information in regards to Oman is all pretty old news. How come it becomes interesting once Fonz brings it up?

I've had an ish with Oman since, like, for yonks. It reached the tipping point due to his intractability.

I've developed a plan for tonight that will give us a large ammount of information (actually its more tomorrow morning).

Care to describe this plan?

Vote: Oman

Putting him at L-2, FYI

[Adele]

For me, the "I'll lie if I fancy it", on top of everything else, makes it an easy call.

IIRC, though, you've defended that position in the past, so what am I gonna do?

[Adele]

Adele is a key person to dicover the alignment of.

/agree in theory, but there's no such thing as confirmation here, only accusation. I mean, there's no cop that can investigate me and say "Yup, she's clean". So it reads to me just like you want me to be subject to higher-than-average suspicion and scrutiny.

Shaft.ed - It is a bad idea to give scum investigative powers. Why? because we'll TRUST her. And trusting scum is not a good move.

Hands up everyone who plans to blindly trust me because of an ability I absorb from someone? Seriously. Slippery slope argument.

I don't like this:

I am pretty sure our scum (in this game) are quietly sitting back

What makes you so sure?

Adele, thats a really bad idea where you assume innocence or guilt in a one to one like "if he's innocent you are if he's guilty you are". I know you were intending to do something less "bald" but anything more than "If CKD is scum/town I'll eat my hat" is a stupid "bet" to make.

See, what I find remarkable is, after someone asks me to explain, and I do, and you acknowledge it - you still yell at me for asking for something I wasn't asking for!

[Adele]

Care to describe this plan?

I'd love to, Unfortunatly, it relies on nobody knowing it.

Wait... you have a master plan, but we don't get to know it? What, any of it? How do you know people won't do the wrong thing?
More to the point, why should I believe you? If this master plan is a reason for you not to be lynched today, then how do I know that you're not scum lying in desperate hope you can make something plausible up tomorrow (doesn't actually have to work if you're not submitting it to public scrutiny, you can just say "whoops! didn't notice that flaw in the plan") or at least assist your co-scum with your skill tonight?

Oh and on the innocence wager. I thought it was a bad idea from the start.

. Then, leading on from there (IF you do) I was asking if you were willing to put any kind of deposit down on it

This part sucks. Forget the second part:

never thinking it'd be as bald as "if he's innocent you are if he's guilty you are",

The first part alone is enough to make me fume. Townies (in this context, including powerroles) shouldn't vote/not vote because it makes them look scummy or not. They should do what they want based on what alignment they think the person is. AND TOWN MAKE MISTAKES, all the time! So the only person who gains from your "innoncence deposit" is scum.

Oh joy, let's go there again. I assume you're willing to acknowledge that, if a scum can get away with it, he'd like to support wagons on townies to the hilt and derail wagons on co-scum? That, whether right or wrong, it's a simple fact that someone who's pushed all the wrong wagons is suspected as a result? That, therefore, any significant statement on any wagon might (or, more often than not, does) affect your position on peoples' scumdars? And that, as a result, attacking or supporting someone causes a relationship picture between the two of you in other peoples' minds - attacking or supporting someone

is

, to some extent, and among other things, a gamble on the innocence or guilt of that person?

Your constant attempts to make me seem scummy for even acknowledging that fact, let alone

considering

using it (

pardon me

for hoping to get some useful information from the testimony of others - including, if you're right and this little wager benefits scum, useful information on who'd want to take advantage), is one of the reasons I feel comfortable voting you.

[Adele]

TSQ, you've put JDodge on L-1

[Adele]

No, wait, you haven't, that's another game, sorry.

[Adele]

If this master plan is a reason for you not to be lynched today

I never said that, stop putting words into my mouth.

Sorry for the ambiguity:
If this master plan is a reason for *no-one*, including you, to be lynched today, then how do I know you're not scum making this up to survive overnight?

[Adele]

I think he's referring to the fact that directly after TSQ says he suspects you for not contibuting sufficiently and not committing yourself to anything, you come in and appear to be deflecting straight onto me.

Going by instinct however, I've a generally bad feeling about Adele. Can't really explain it, it's been like this since early D1.

I have the same sometimes. However, while I can't explain it, I'm usually able to patch together a few quotes from that player that illustrate it. So, even if you can't justify exactly

why

my posts make you uncomfortable, could you give some examples that do?

[Adele]

Thats a good point, one that I had not thought of. I suppose it all depends on how scummy the players are (i.e. how likely they are to be tracked).

Dude, I, like,

totally

saw that coming.

Care to describe this plan?

I'd love to, Unfortunatly, it relies on nobody knowing it.

Wait... you have a master plan, but we don't get to know it? What, any of it? How do you know people won't do the wrong thing?
More to the point, why should I believe you? If this master plan is a reason for you not to be lynched today, then how do I know that you're not scum lying in desperate hope you can make something plausible up tomorrow (

doesn't actually have to work if you're not submitting it to public scrutiny, you can just say "whoops! didn't notice that flaw in the plan"

) or at least assist your co-scum with your skill tonight?

Confirm vote: Oman

.

His plan

did

raise one useful point, though; Mohinder should be checked up on to ensure he's networking every night. Come morning, whoever he targeted should say so, and if no-one does then we should start there.

[Adele]

thus have no cover if they are caught by a tracker/watcher thus they're only making NK's if they're Sylar who can't be seen by a tracker.

I think you're assuming too much, that the scum wouldn't want to use their powers and feel safe that certain people wouldn't use their powers.

Oh, and Adele, your cockiness annoys me, just letting you know whilst I die.

Completely understandable.

However, yeah. I predicted there'd be a significant flaw in your plan, and I was right. That prediction was part of my reason for voting you, so it seemed worth mentioning.

[Adele]

Do we claim nightchoices now? I didn't make a choice, obv, but I know who targeted me - so maybe I should go towards the end?

[Adele]

/suggest that we come up with an order for nightinfo claims - I think Yvonne, as a watcher (and I, as a self-watcher) should go last, for example.

[Adele]

Did he pick up the pm but just not reply to it? (Had / has the pm moved from your outbox to your sentbox?)

[Adele]

Also, discuss whether Gorgon should or should not reveal whether he phased out on nights.

NOT.

So we get rid of ZA and then have to deal with DGB? Ugh...I hate this game so much.

Tell me about it.

Uh... I mean, hey, TSQ! Don't be nasty about the... person... who replaced into this game in its time of need. Yeah.

Although, hang on: You "got rid of ZA"? You're saying you're glad that ZA died, or that you actually had a

hand

in it? *Paging Dr Freud*.

FOS: TSQ

[Adele]

boo broken tags

[Adele]

Mod, since Gorgon and I both go at the same time....whose power worked first?

There's no effective difference between the results of your powers, so that question's metaphysical (metaflavourful) in nature.

[Adele]

because... hers is the only ability that can catch Sylar in the act so she'd be a natural choice? But that doesn't explain why

no-one

got ripped apart last night...

[Adele]

I suggest that from now on, until at least the SK performs a kill, ckd jails Gorgon every night.

Who's next?

[Adele]

I joined this game during night, forgot about it. I only joined to push Adele over the edge of insanity, but I never played a "smalltown" game before, I hardly even play open games.

reason enough for me to stay sane, I guess.

OK. DGB, listen carefully. Roles and alignments are distributed

seperately

- otherwise Seol telling us who has what role would totally break the game. Any role can be scum or the sk, and stands an exactly equal chance of getting it - we chose our own "open" role, then Seol handed out alignments randomly.

Oh, and I invented the setup, so your joining is, like, a tribute to me. Just FYI.

Yvonne, you ready to claim, or are you still waiting on anyone?

[Adele]

I can confirm that Yvonne targeted me.

Which makes this statement:

Nobody targetted Adele.

A

lie

!!!

[Adele]

I got motivated. My watch targets were Adele and shaft.ed.

Nobody targetted Adele.

And cicero did indeed target shaft.ed.

I'm finding this bit about me VERY out of place. There's very little reason for a scum group to kill me. Sylar would get nothing form the motivation, and scum would likely keep me around after pushing a mislynch so hard.

It's also very handy that cicero already admitted to targeting me

. I'm finding this choice very suspicious.

FoS Yvonne

(bolding added) - no, that's a result of her waiting towards the end; she could have faked any number of results, but since she's statistically more likely to be town than scum it made sense for her to be in a position of the Sword or Truth; if anyone had lied that they had or hadn't targeted me or shaft.ed, that'd be a good lynch for the day right there. She's useful in that she makes lying hard/dangerous for scum about nightchoices - as, now, am I.

Sylar might want you dead, too, if there's any other role he's scared of. Maybe the tracker or watcher could catch him using an acquired power (that's how I'd run it; I'd have to check with Seol for specifics) and you double that danger, while being relatively unlikely to be protected.

Could Goof be Sylar? A Goof-sylar could dampen Gorgon's ability to hide, and kill him the same night.

Hiding comes before dampening.

It's likely she'd've known that if she'd developed a rudimentary understanding of the game and the roles prior to making her choice. As it is, she was (as usual) playing the Goofball.
Whether that's scummy or not, I'm past even trying to tell. Give me a day or two and she'll likely incense me and I'll be unable to see her as anything other than definate scum til the end of time.
The fact that the above pattern is predictable does not make it solveable.

[Adele]

I came in today too late to make this argument in time, but it's not clear to me that Adele should reveal what powers she has. If she's town and doesn't get any, than all the better for us when the mafia, fearing she has super powers, goes and kills her instead of one of our power roles. If she's town and gets powers, why not leave it to the mafia's imagination which ones, at least until she can reveal them simultaneously with some incriminating information?

Cam

How is it avoidable? If everyone reveals their nightchoices, then it can be easily figured out; either my information matches what they say or it doesn't - in which case I think I ought to say so.

[Adele]

Those we can prove used their abilities:

cicero
Yvonne
shaft.ed
CKD

He who cannot have committed the mafia kill:

Gorgon

That means the mafia killer is amongst this group:

(me)
DGB
mathcam
Adele
TSQ

cicero could be in cahoots with shafted (ie. both scum together, agreed that cicero would claim he targeted shafted and Shafted would confirm this; I'm not saying it's probable, merely that we don't "know" theat cicero didn't perform the kill)
ckd could be in cahoots with Gorgon (plan gone awry due to lack of SK-kill)

So I think you need to add cicero, CKD and Gorgon to the list - leaving just two people who definately didn't perform the kill, but could still be scum.
Could have performed it (I think):
Fonz
DGB
mathcam
Adele
TSQ
Cicero
Gorgon
CKD

[Adele]

Those we can prove used their abilities:

cicero
Yvonne
shaft.ed
CKD

He who cannot have committed the mafia kill:

Gorgon

That means the mafia killer is amongst this group:

(me)
DGB
mathcam
Adele
TSQ

cicero could be in cahoots with shafted (ie. both scum together, agreed that cicero would claim he targeted shafted and Shafted would confirm this; I'm not saying it's probable, merely that we don't "know" theat cicero didn't perform the kill)
ckd could be in cahoots with Gorgon (plan gone awry due to lack of SK-kill)

So I think you need to add cicero, CKD and Gorgon to the list - leaving just two people who definately didn't perform the kill, but could still be scum.
Could have performed it (I think):
Fonz
DGB
mathcam
Adele
TSQ
Cicero
Gorgon
CKD

Adele, I watched shaft.ed, remember? So I can confirm cicero targetted shaft.ed. Though there is the possibility that one might think cicero, shaft.ed and I are all scum together.

Unlikely, though. OK, so probably not Cicero.
Is there any reason why Gorgon or CKD couldn't've if they were working together though? In any case, that's not really enough information; we can't narrow the list down over several nights as the killer this night coming could be one of the people cleared of killing last night, and stuff. So out of ten living players containing 3 scum we have a list of seven containing at least 1. So, we've discovered that Yvonne, cicero and shaft.ed can't

all

be scum (working from the assumption that Yvonne, cicero and shaft.ed aren't all scum).

Is that what we've learned?

[Adele]

dgb, why include arguements for who is scum based on roles, what purpose does it serve?

Well, it annoys me.

[Adele]

To others. I'm gonna go ahead and guess that Adele is probably scum based on the simple principle that Adele is still alive.

Discuss.

Fascinating. I love this. Adele, Fritzler, Quagmire, MoS will kill me on Night 0 if they can - they can't help themselves. You can take it to the bank. Maybe I should add TSQ to the list.

That's not actually true. In fact, I don't recall

ever

nightkilling you.

Can you provide evidence of this claim, or do you just enjoy making up bad premises to bad arguments?

[Adele]

See, the problem with DGB is she's so committed and earnest. She'll put hours and hours into research, then use an irrelevant item of information to determine her obvscum and extrapolate an elaborate theorum from the obvscum premise.

3 pages later, she'll repeat, with a high chance of ruling out her prior obvscum as now obvtown.

Lather, rinse, repeat. I suggest we try to ignore her until she makes a substantive and useful point (which she'll do every once in a while, just to force you to read all of her immense posts).

[Adele]

I don't have a huge amount of time, but I could get down with the Gorgon lynch (since I don't see a flaw in Mathcam's stats) and might, after doublechecking it through in a music-free environment (can't really concentrate here) be onboard with an Yvonne lynch.

[Adele]

Because the things that people have said in the last couple of pages seem to make sense - but I can't think entirely straight with loud R&B music blaring, so I need to come back to it in a quieter internet cafe.

[Adele]

Once I'm actually able to think, I'll be sure to giving you that.

[Adele]

...

Someone want to run by me why Gorgon is 50/50 the SK again? Or rather, for the first time because I don't think I've seen it done.

Sure. A rough argument is the following. Consider all possible pairs of the form (Player A, Player B) where Player A is Sylar and Player B is whoever Sylar tried to kill last night. As of last night, with no extra information, there were 11 possible choices (anyone but Oman) for Player A and for each choice, 10 different choices for Player B (assuming Sylar would not target himself). A total of 110 different possibilities.

Now, assuming that Sylar tried to kill last night, the fact that no one died means that Gorgon was either Player A or Player B. He is player A in exactly 10 of the 110 possibilities (e.g., (Gorgon, Adele), (Gorgon, cicero), ..., (Gorgon, The Fonz)) and is Player B also in exactly 10 of the 110 possibilities (same pairs, just flipped). Thus out of the 20 possible scenarios, he was scum in 10 of them. This makes for 50/50...

Obviously there are some erroneous assumptions in this model...

[Adele]

so I read that as a one-in-two chance, irrelevant of other factors, that Gorgon is the SK. Which is a pretty good D2 lynch.

[Adele]

I must apologise for my absence these last several days. My life took an unexpected turn and I lost my usual source of internet access.

I am, of course, on board for the Gorgon lynch as it is improbable that he is pro-town.

vote: Gorgon

[Adele]

I remember that!

"Just Say No"
-"No, that would be terribly rude. Instead, I'd recommend 'Thanks, but no thanks - I like drugs, but they don't like me, if you know what I mean - I find that drugs aren't very good for my system (they give me a dicky tummy), so I can't accept your kind offer'"

OK. I'm really sorry for my absence. I've caught up now. At the start of the day, TSQ voted me - why was that, TSQ?

I'm... disappointed to have been jailed last night. Not only do my results lose any use or validity, but I've missed out on at least one useful pro-town power, and I don't see the reason for it (with an infopower I think I'm a bad choice for the killer in most scumgroups from the list). Aside from that, if I'd targeted mathcam last night I would know who the killer was.

Now, watching powers are useful for catching folk in lies, right? Except a watcher can, in fact,

be

scum. So a suggestion: as early as possible in the day, someone does a dicetags post with (say) 9 sides; if it's 1-4 Yvonne and I both wait to the end to claim, if 5 or 6 I claim first/early, if 7 or 8 she does, if 9 we both do. By doing this in the morning if couldn't affect the nightchoices; if either she or I is scum then we're either crippled or high-risk, while if we're not the other scum still has the chance of being in significant danger.

However, I can't help thinking, from yesterday's play and today's, that Yvonne's looking scummy. She's hunting hard for the free passes rather than the best plays for the town. Resisting claiming is... borderline. I understand it, since she's more of a follower tactically and so wants to make sure that it's being critically evaluated by the tactical leaders in the town. But I think it went past that and the way she conducted herself is less indicative of wanting to ensure her results are of maximum benefit and more indicative of just not wanting to claim.

Oh, does anyone want me to claim, or would you prefer to keep me as unpredicatble as possible so the scum doesn't know who not to target?

[Adele]

Who my target was, who I didn't get results on because of poo-head CKD of course.

[Adele]

I'd like to apologise for and withdraw the above "of course".

I don't know what's up with me today.

[Adele]

Of course, if I didnt use my ability, I am sure the mafia spin doctors would be saying I am obviously the one who submitted the kill.

you understand it is a lose lose here.

False dilemma much? Your ability has 3 sides. You stop people using their abilities, or killing if scum. You stop people being targeted. You stop people getting killed.

so, if you'd targeted Ando, the only possible effects would've been protecting him against nasty murderers or protecting others from him if scum. woot and suchlike.

If there had been no kill last night, it's possible that we'd've gotten info from nightchoices that meant that once again your target was 50-50 the killer. But it did, so the town knows for certain that I didn't perform a kill last night. Great and all, but if a watcher watches the NK victim then that's one scum down.

It's possible for any player to be scum. There are a good few reasons to suspect that Yvonne is scum. That should, of course, be

a factor

in your choices. However, I am not

just

a watcher, I am also a role absorber. If you'd not targeted me last night, I would be able to motivate Yvonne (if people trusted her much more than me) or linderman, or (???) shafted, who might then be able to motivate Yvonne and Linderman (I'm not sure about this, but anyway). Working together, shafted and I could've boosted Linderman to 3 protects a night. I've got a power build-up. And that should be a factor too. And, yes, the lost results should be too. Town-me had a one in eight chance of catching scum.

You're not being persecuted, you're not damned if you do damned if you don't, and this isn't illogical. The reasons you've given behind your decision don't appear to sufficiently support it in light of the downsides.

It's possible I rambled here.

[Adele]

if there had not been a kill last night...you would not be saying the samething.

Yes, opinions change depending on events.

I told you I did what I thought was best for the town.

What else would you say? But if your supporting reasons seem inadequate to the choice you made, then you look insincere

For the beginning of this game, I didnt like people telling me to do things based on my role. I dont like being directed...which is what people are doing by suggesting I am scummy for who I target or will target. I will use (or not use) my ability as I see fit.

Those are not the same; if a vig targeted a doc or mason then he'd be under suspicion for it; that's not direction, it's voting people when they behave in a way that appears to best benefit scum. People here are suggesting your targeting of me was a lesser corollary of that.

Maybe some of you are not interested in actually scum hunting, but I am. If you have a probelm with this lynch me.

pity play; no argumentation, not relevant except as a small scumtell.

But I want to hear a clear case, and I want people to take repsonsiblity for my lynch the following day.

The same way you're taking responsibility for crippling my pro-town abilities?

Adele, it remains to be seen if I am being persecuted for my actions.

I didn't say you weren't being persecuted for your actions. I said you weren't being persecuted. If you behave scummily, sure, expect the consequences of that. And you could call that persecution which I guess it literally speaking is. But you're not the underdog being mistreated just for existing here. You're being called to account for your town-damaging behaviour and you need to answer for that, not sling out wild accusations and present craplogic for why you couldn't help but be put in this position.

---------------------------------

Also, adele, you did not answer cicero's questions about Yvonne.

I didn't read them as being specifically to me, but general topics for the town to think about. In case you're right:

1. Is CKD a poo head or is CKD a scummo?

-No reason he's not both. His explanation for his behaviour incline me towards thinking he is the latter

2. Why is Yvonne scummier than CKD?

-Besides the reasons DGB raised:

She' linked to:
mathcam: early defense scumtell.
Gorgon: protects a lot in indirect ways scumtell.
Adele: thinks Adele is scum for no real reason, distancing scumtell.
shafted: strange night choice scumtell.

The manner in which she links herself to a short player list with either defense or baseless distancing screams scum to me

Though bearing in mind that DGB's obsessed with the idea that I'm scum and I'd characterise Yvonne's attacks on me as speculative wagon-building.

Going by instinct however, I've a generally bad feeling about Adele. Can't really explain it, it's been like this since early D1.

I have the same sometimes. However, while I can't explain it, I'm usually able to patch together a few quotes from that player that illustrate it. So, even if you can't justify exactly why my posts make you uncomfortable, could you give some examples that do?

That's quite a lot of help to give someone, but she doesn't ever get around to even providing this.

Nobody, except Adele, but she must go before me today since something's happened which involves her.

Also, all the players have to tell the truth if they go before me because they don't know my result. If I go first, the scum can escape easily and there is essentially no use to my role.

Looking hard to being the suspector/ checker-upper rather than suspected/ checked-up

3.Could they both be scum together?

-Sure, why not?

[Adele]

Does this make sense to anyone? Adele, CKD and cicero are the scum. They all have an alibi based solely on CKD's action. Cic was free to make the NK while one of the watcher's is locked up. Now they can bus the hell out of one another just in case one of them is lynched. How crazy is this idea?

OK back to work, just had one of those "just maybe" moments and wanted to share.

I don't understand whether this comes from any events or whether it's "this would be a really bad situation for the town, therefore we respond to it as worst case scenario" - could you clarify? Because these sort of speculations confuse the Heck outta me.

CES, ETIJ may have been "even though in jest" - was I agreeing with a sentiment espoused as a joke? I'm not sure though. Note to self: if making words up, try at least to remember them.

mod: could we have a VC please.

(Also, I saw Juno, it was

excellent

, talk to you soon)

There is a

real

danger that we're in LyLo (btw, substantially higher risk than if I'd not been locked up last night, as I'd've been able to motivate linderman, but whatever). Personally at this point I think it's extremely likely that both Yvonne and CKD are scum; I currently think that each of them is

probably

scum. As such, I'm up for a lynch on either on of them, but recent exchanges make me happier with a lynch on CKD. I await the VC before voting, though - don't want to hammer just yet, when we've got cogito weighing in.

[Adele]

Personally at this point I think it's extremely likely that both Yvonne and CKD are scum; I currently think that each of them is probably scum. As such, I'm up for a lynch on either on of them, but recent exchanges make me happier with a lynch on CKD.

Adele your logic fails here. If you think that Yvonne and CKD are both scum you should always lynch Yvonne. Why? Because if you are wrong having CKD alive is the only scenario by which the town has any chance to live another day.

What, we don't have a doc and a motivator on team, giving us potentially 2 protects tonight? Besides, you don't leave a scummy nightkiller alive because he might be vig, not sk - you lynch the scummiest people rather than count on them to save the town.

Then you try the mathematical 'probabilities' argument, pointing out how if you're town and die, it's game over. I dislike this because a mislynch is likely game over anyway.

QFT

No Lynch is an interesting idea - personally I'm all for plans that just add a night to the mix (as my usefulness increases each night if I'm not jailed). It occurs that a nokill tonight following a nolynch would be ambiguous in cause - does it demonstrate the efficacy of one of the docs and thus give us information, or just indicate the scum chose to nokill?

[Adele]

Adele's response to being jailed by CKD is underwhelming and her hesitance to post a lot concerns me. I know she has a busy life and some computer monitor issues, however. How are those things going Adele?

CKD's move doesn't seem a plausible move for town to make to me. I'm immediately suspicious of this move and am pretty well prepared to vote accordingly, unless No Lynch is the better plan (right now my concern with No Lynch is it improves the town's odds of lynching scum nest but long-term decreases town's chance of winning and need to think about it.)

Now, the personal matter. I've not been "hesitant" to post. I

think

that I've posted every time I've gone online recently. But while, a month ago, I was going online every day at my job, I'm now only going online about three times a week. About three weeks ago I was fired, and I'm struggling with a number of issues - not least of which is general motivation/optimism/whatever - to get my arse in gear every day and jobhunt. Making a detour to an internet cafe on top of that is something I'm failing at more than succeeding at right now.
I didn't want to bring this matter onto the site, and I

certainly

didn't want to admit that I'm finding things tough going in a thread that I know my big brother will read (and I apologise for both), but if people are leery of my reasons for underposting and think I may be lurking as scum then... well, when personal stuff gets in the way, it seems to me it's time to make account for the personal stuff.

The drawback is, if Adele is scum, she can spend her time protecting her scumbuddies and insisting, like Fonz is, on a policy of non-revelation. (A policy I'm still not very comfortable with, by the way).

I have no interest in keeping my night choices a secret. While I can see the upside to Fonz not disclosing his choices if he's town, overall I think it's best if he spills.
I support a chainclaim tomorrow (including Fonz). Chaimclaims (popcorn?) my fave, and I've always supported their use in claims such as this. I'm okay with dice though.

Now, watching powers are useful for catching folk in lies, right? Except a watcher can, in fact, be scum. So a suggestion: as early as possible in the day, someone does a dicetags post with (say) 9 sides; if it's 1-4 Yvonne and I both wait to the end to claim, if 5 or 6 I claim first/early, if 7 or 8 she does, if 9 we both do. By doing this in the morning if couldn't affect the nightchoices; if either she or I is scum then we're either crippled or high-risk, while if we're not the other scum still has the chance of being in significant danger.

Would like to note that Adele did propose a randomized claiming strategy but it greatly favored either her or Yvonne claiming at the end of the cycle.

Yes, since each of us is

probably

town, our powers should be favoured towards the "potentially catching out targeters" rather than "potentially being caught out". Please note that the alternative to going last was going

first

(or as near as is convenient), rejecting only the chances of us being in the middle. I gave each of us a one-in-three chance of going at the start rather than the end, and odds that at least one of us would probably have to go early. I stand by the strategy itself, and find your mathematical characterisation of it to be suspect; the chance that both Yvonne and I are scum (10.7%), very close to the odds I proposed that we both go early (one-in-nine = 11.1%), while if both of us are town (36%) then us both going towards the end and optimising the odds of catching the scum in a lie is the best course and 4/9 (44%) seems pretty close to optimal to me.
Given all that, it's worth noting exactly how useful Yvonne and I are; not only could we, if targeting the person who died, know who the killer is, but we could catch other lies going (say cicero's scum, and he performed the kill but claimed to target one of his scumbuddies - if Yvonne or I targeted that scumbuddy then we'd know that wasn't true, that cicero's lying

and

that that scumbuddy was; two scum caught). Wanting us two to go as soon as possible to try to catch us in a lie when we'd probably use our ability as scum anyway because it has more of a trail seems scummy to me. If I blathered and misexplained myself here, though, please say so. It's clear in my head but when I try to type it out it just seems... verbose.

------------

Lynch Versus No Lynch

Let me see. We're at 5:3. If we lynch wrong today and the scum NK successfully it's 3:3 game over.
If we nolynch today and the scum successfully NK tonight then it's 4:3 tomorrow with potential information. A higher concentration of the game is scum, making it apparently easier to hit scum but actually giving scum 3/7ths of the power, so I think it'd actually be slightly harder.

There seem to me 6 possibilities:
Lynch wrong, NK = 3:3 (game over)
Lynch wrong, no NK = 4:3
Lynch right, NK = 4:2
Lynch right, no NK = 5:2

Nolynch, NK = 4:3
Nolynch, no NK = 5:3 (status quo)

For simplicity, let's assume that there will be an NK tonight, and that our best pick to lynch today has a fifty-fifty chance of being scum.
Lynch = 50% game over, 50% 4:2 + 1 known scum + more useful information
NoLynch = 4:3; IMO still 50% of wrong lynch.

I think that the town, right now, has just over 50% odds if we lynch according to the best information that we have. And I think our odds fall if we nolynch tonight. Take it to the endgame; would you rather have 3:1 or 2:1 in endgame? Would you rather keep the possibility of No Lynch to then?

Can anyone demonstrate to me that NoLynch today isn't guaranteeing town survival overnight but paying with a reduced chance of ultimately winning?

[Adele]

OK. I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I'm here now and it just begs to be picked apart...

I've become disinclined to support a No Lynch once again.

Unvote. Vote Curiouskarmadog

I see this as blackjack. I'm sitting on 16. Hit me dealer.

Cicero, why does your vote echo what appears to be a couple people's opinion atm?

Because the explanation they gave for these opinions convinced him?

Why doesnt the fact that Yvonne has not answered shafted's questions bother you?

Well, it doesn't bother

me

. I don't think it was a very good question. But where did cicero say it didn't bother him? Or is it just that you think that when anything else is even slightly unresolved, no-one should vote for you?

If you lynch me, and the NK is not protected against, this town loses.

Unless, of course, you are scum. In which case the town's a lot better off than if we

don't

lynch you.

[Adele]

you are right they werent address to you...any reason you felt compelled to not let cicero answer the questions first?

Because craplogic isn't person-specific.

[/quote]Adele, your stance on Yvonne at the moment?[/quote]I trust her as far as I can throw her. But, see, I also trust

you

as far as I can throw you, and since you're male and she's female you probably weigh more so I couldn't throw you quite as far... so I trust you less. (warning: this paragraph may contain craplogic)

[Adele]

Been waiting a fair while for a votecount, so I decided to go ahead and make one. Having discovered in putting it together that CKD's at -3 I feel comfortable placing my vote on him now.

Vote: CuriousKarmaDog

Votecount (please correct me if there are any errors):

CKD: 3 (cicero, cogito ergo sum, Adele)
Yvonne: 2 (DGB, Fonz)
DGB: 1 (Yvonne)
Cicero: 1 (CKD)

not voting: shafted

[Adele]

you're miles from a lynch.

Oh joy.

That didnt actually answer my question. It's because you think it's obvious. You, I think, are pointing out that with one less townie the percentage of the town that is scum goes from 37.5% to 42.8% of town.

You think wrong. I do not expect scum to kill someone we would otherwise lynch, so that's not a particularly important effect. I think we can do 10% better simply by virtue of the extra information. As is, I feel lots of leads and clues, but no coherent case. I think there's a real chance an extra night might get us over the "hump" and give us a solid lynch.

But this fails to take into account the fact that with one less townie it becomes that much easier for scum to lead the lynch. Townies essentially need to be unanimously correct to lynch scum. Scum just need to figure out the one townie that will be easy to trick into joining their chosen mislynch wagon.

Scum can't really afford to band together though, so I would consider this an insignificant effect too.

I disagree with both of these claims. When 3/7ths of the players are scum, they can influence the wagons much more effectively - perhaps by banding together, but potentially by playing the politics. Can you tell one from the other? Cicero's convinced me, and I'm against a no-lynch today. While I still believe that CKD is the pick for today, I'd support a lynch on DGB or Yvonne over a no-lynch.

[Adele]

I'd support a lynch on DGB

Forgive me if I missed it, but have you mentioned suspicions of DGB prior to this?

I'd support a lynch on DGB over no-lynching, as an act of relative desperation. I don't think it's likely that she's scum, but I consider the town odds being better with a 30% lynch on DGB today than a more scum-lead lynch tomorrow following a no-lynch, since if DGB is scum we'll have that data to work from.

right now I'm CKD>Yvonne>DGB, with everyone else just looking vanishingly unlikely.

[Adele]

Can you tell one from the other?

Yes.

Also: this is an useless argument.

My point is, you can't point tomorrow to 3 people saying "X is scum" to those 3 being scum, as they may be the few townies pushing for actual scum or the last townie, or could be part-town part-politicking-scum, or could in fact be the three scum pushing a wagon on a townie. So I find the claim that "scum can't really afford to band together though" to not be true, as there's camouflage aplenty for them to potentially do just that.

[Adele]

Not necessarily

anyone's

; I've been suspicious of you and Yvonne for a while and have always found DGB unreadable (rather, she always looks scummy as Hell to me, and I tend to avoid playing with her for that reason - so you can imagine how chuffed I was when she replaced into a game I'd already committed to), so I could live with that better than a no-lynch too. I'm not on board for a cicero-lynch, though; nor shafted. I'd take some convincing on CES or Fonz, though my opinions on both are relatively unformed at this time.

Hmm I find it interesting that Adele's list contains the two popular bandwagons with the third most recent movement towards a lynch, and that DGB has been the next closest thing to a bandwagon we have had today. Will reread Adele to see if she was purposefully avoiding my question or if she has in fact cast suspicion on DGB prior.

Apologies. No, I have not "cast suspicion" on her. I certainly

could

, if you wanted me to. However, I could just as easily in any of her games you could point me to, including those where she is town. To my eyes, she

is

sheer undiluted scummyness, and she thusly maketh my scumdar impotent with rage. In this game, I've been trying to not let her draw me in too much; where she's illogical, I sit back, roll my eyes, mutter "DGB", and get on with my life.

And, yeah, shocker, I find the two scummiest players scummy. I don't know offhand if I was a leader on these wagons or not, but I don't see their position as vote-leaders as being causational on my suspicion of them; rather, I credit the absurd behaviours they've been showing yesterday and today (well, last night and today for CKD).

Is Adele generally this obvious as scum? Anyone got a meta?

I...
Wait, that doesn't even make sense. If I weren't usually scummy-looking when scum, and you think I'm scummy-looking now, would you therefore assume I'm not scum because when I'm scum I don't look so scummy? Because that's wifom.

/sigh... see, that's why I don't want to engage DGB. Because when what makes sense damages me, I still want to say it.

[Adele]

Sorry Adele that is not going to cut it. You haven't said a single word about DGB all day. Yet you claim that you always think she is scummy. WHy on earth would you want to lynch someone for which your scumdar doesn't work when you must lynch correctly? This makes no sense. Add in you flipping back and forth between Yvonne and CKD at the whim of the town today, your stating that since CKD is only at L-3 it's "safe" to vote for him, and your unexplained Gorgon hammer. I think you warrant a vote.

vote: Adele

que?

OK, in reverse order:

Gorgon had a 50-50 chance of being the SK, so he was the right pick for D1. Hence the hammer, and hence his actually being the SK. Yay mathcam and so forth.

It

is

"safe" to vote someone at L-3, in that they are not in imminent danger of quicklynch.

I have not been flipping back and forth at the whim of the town. There are fairly solid arguments against both and I've said for a long time that I do think they are both scum. I've tended to vote the one that's been acting slightly scummier in recent posts, the one that I think is more likely scum, but since I think they're both scum anyway (and have been perfectly upfront about this) I am willing at this point to go with either over a no-lynch that'll likely put us in a slightly worse position tomorrow morning than we're in today.

If our next lynch victim is town we're likely done for

no matter what

. We're in a tough spot. We have to do what we can to maximise our chances, and that might involve lynching someone you find it difficult to read, because what's the alternative, giving them a free card? Yes, she seems scummy

to me

. But, since I have an imperfect scumdar on her (for example, pursuing people after her arguments against them have been refuted is something she'll happily do as town), I'm disregarding my scumdar to some extent, and not getting into the argument.

I've been there

. I've spent weeks of my life arguing back and forth with her, tearing my hair out and not helping the town at all. If it's between lynching her and no-lynching, yeah, I choose lynching her. That's where I think the best odds lie.
And if you don't believe that I always find her scummy... I'm sure there are several players here, including DGB, who can back me up on that. I think I called her my "nemesis" at one point in GD.

I think each of the points that you raise is significantly flawed.

[Adele]

Wow, I'm controverisal today . I'm about to see a movie, but I'll post when I get out, and try to explain what I mean more clearly. However, I'd like it noted that I

have

been finding DGB hella scummy; I've been suppressing my response to her as much as possible, but if we're in a dilemma and we need to make a pick, then one thing that I would do is to suppress it

less

.

And, right now I don't think she's the

ideal

lynch - but she's

better than a no-lynch

.

[Adele]

OK. "Unreadability" has, if anything, given DGB a

free pass

from me so far, which I am stating a willingness to revoke.

DGB, I'm sure you agree you shouldn't have a free pass just because you're a bad player, right?
So if I reread your posts now and find them unutterably scummy, you'll have no objection to me preferring your lynch to a no-lynch?
Great, thanks

[Adele]

/witty remark

lol! :goodposting:, CES.

We'll increase our %chance of hitting scum with all these being equal, but things won't be all that equal cuz of all the superpowered information we'll get in the night.

Except we

won't

increase our %chance of hitting scum, because the scum will be a more powerful proportion of the living players.

Assuming the scum kill overnight, we drop a pro-town suspect, reducing the field - which is good - but we also lose that pro-town player's thoughts and ideas and suspicions, and their vote. Which is bad.

[Adele]

I hope we will be doing the dice rolling popcorn claims tomorrow...if anyone has a problem with that, I would like to know why and today.

Yeah, I do.

First off, because I have no idea what "popcorn"

is

Second because I think a decision should be made on how the watchers should claim tomorrow,

today

. I think that the watchers should go either first or last - I see merits to the argument that it's (apparently) best in game theory for us both to go last, but I also hear concerns that we're scum so see benefit to us going first or last dependent on a dice roll.

Aside from that, I don't see the argument against the chainclaim or for a "popcorn" claim, whatever that is - and I don't like methodologies that not everyone understands being employed, as there seems a danger of undue influence.

[Adele]

Why not just let each claimant choose the next claimer? That way the scummier people go sooner.

I'm okay with the diceroll thing on watchers, but think that now is the time to decide parameters, rather than squabble about it in the morning when time will be of the essence. I also think that watchers are most effective if claiming first or last - letting them go in the middle mitigates the risk placed both on the watchers-if-scum and observed-people-if-scum.

[Adele]

What?? You mean, the scum can predict who the first claimant will be, who he'l select, who they'll select, who

they'll

select... for 7-8 rounds???

By allowing people to choose who to claim next, you increase odds that scummier-looking people have to go sooner, increasing odds that the scum will go sooner, increasing odds that scum will get caught in a lie. This isn't a game-specific opinion; I support chainclaims always and can dig up games where I was town to prove it, so it's nothing to do with my alignment; chainclaims are just

better

.

In either case, I intend to use dice-tags first thing for myself. If it's one or two (six-sided die) then I'll claim immediately; if it's 3-6 then I'll claim at the end. Unless you can convince me that your plan improves the town's odds.

Right now, the plan reeks of desperate trusting to chance, rather than playing a tight game. "Oh, we'd be shooting in the dark, so let's no-lynch to give the mafia that many more choices!" Well, I don't trust all of the proponents of the plan, I don't trust the plan itself, and I'm

not

gonna blindly sheep into a town lose.

[Adele]

CES: I'm asking you for the examples about Adele. Show me how it's consistent. Back up your assertion.

I don't remember specific examples of Adele supporting chainclaims, but I have seen her do it, certainly. I'll defer this one to Adele, as she's probably aware of at least one game in which she did.

Ugh. This, I find difficult, since I

tend

to forget details of games as soon as they end, so mostly only remember games that I can't point to as they are ongoing. However:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=298
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=201
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=165

Whenever people push a massclaim of any sort, I

always

press for chainclaiming; if more than 50% of the claimers are town, it seems better than chance to me. Just the same as if we

had

to lynch today, we'd be better off voting than picking the victim from a diceroll because "that way the scum can't influence it" - with more town than scum here, it seems obvious to me that the balance of influence is on the town side.

However, the bulk of opinion seems against me. I'll abide by that, in terms of not going on about chainclaiming any more - but can anyone present reasoning why it's better for watchers to ever go in the middle than at one or other end? I think earlier CES proved with game theory that the optimal behaviour is for the watchers to always go last, and I don't want sub-optimal play to rule

now

of all times because we're following what the majority feels most comfortable with rather than what hard logic shows to benefit the town the most.

To clarify - yes, I'd rather take a risk of having to present my findings

first

, than probably go in the middle and so have them potentially useless both to check other peoples' claims

and

to check

mine

.
If you follow.

[Adele]

Adele - [...]

More importantly,

I don't really want to be the mafia's alibi when they accuse me of shooting you dead.

If you thought that Adele is mafia, then you would know that she wouldn't be nightkilled by her buddies, right?

The underlying assumption behind that sentence is that you KNOW that Adele is town, and that if she is nightkilled, which you might be thinking about doing, you don't want it to look bad on YOU.

Is there any other interpretation, other that you KNOW Adele is town, for you to write the above sentence the way you did?

Oh my God, DGB. If he were

certain

I was scum, he'd be voting me. As it is, he merely thinks it

somewhat probable

, and is therefore worried

both

about me hiding my scummy night actions,

and

about me being the target of the NK tonight. These are

not

mutually exclusive concerns to have, simply because they can't both come to pass, just as I can (in RL) both be worried about dying of cancer and abouth dying in a car crash. They can't

both

happen, but I should take precautions about them both.

Adele - if you are town it is BEST for you to go last. If you are scum, you going last is the WORST option for town. Especially because you are possibly going to be able to watch twice. It is, essentially, a high risk-high reward strategy. The inverse is true about going first.

If your play had been so good and so aggressive and so inquisitve and generally obv-townie I might be persuaded to go for it. But that simply hasn't been the case. I haven't played with you before so my meta isnt very good, but I see you as fairly suspicious.

CES is correct in saying that it is optimal for watchers to go last over a large number of possible games, but we aren't playing a large number of games. We're playing one. And we are in the unfortunate position of having both our watchers be players who have a rather low post, tentative posting style (for whatever reason) that certainly reads as scum playing defensively.

Now that, certainly, has something to do with your schedule and Yvonne's style of play. But there is enough evidence against you both that we simply cannot just let you go last. And your very useful powers are at their weakest if we let you go first.

So the least best option is to let the dice decide when you both go. As far as I'm concerned the middle is a FINE place for you to go. Because it leaves you AND someone else capable of being caught in a lie. Just not as many people.

OK. I'm not convinced it's optimal - but it doesn't make me totally toothless, I see that now. You win.

[Adele]

thinking back..

Adele, at the start of the day when we were all claiming, you were about to claim who you targetted, of course you couldnt have targetted anyone because I jailed you. But you did submit that you were going to target someone last night. I assume it was a watcher ability...at what point were you told that that action had failed?

I didn't

successfully

target anyone, but I

did

submit a target. When I got my result back, it said I didn't get a result - I didn't initially know why that was. So if I'd been pressed to claim, I'd've said the truth - who I targeted and what I got back on it.

[Adele]

About five minutes before the morning scene was posted - presumably the same time everyone else got their results.

[Adele]

I targeted Yvonne.

I assume I'm supposed to claim results now - Shaft.ed and CKD both targeted her.

For breakfast, I had doc powers and coffee.

1: DGB

Original Roll String: 1d1

1 1-Sided Dice: (1) = 1

[Adele]

DGB goes next (startlingly).

[Adele]

hmmm.

Okay. There's three things that immediately worry me. First, that three people were at Yvonne's last night. Second, that one of them

lied

about it. Third, that he did so before he knew that anyone'd be able to finger him or that anyone else had visited her.

By contrast, shafted claimed honestly, even though he knew that that might mean he'd be the only person to claim to have visited the dead girl.

Boy, it's a toughie...

Vote: CuriousKarmaDog

[Adele]

I've said all I think I need to against CKD, so I'll just say something in defence of myself - I claimed last, pretty much. I could've easily picked someone else and support the claims already made, like that Fonz was indeed networked. It's like we said about the watcher - if she goes first, she's in danger of being caught in a lie; if she goes last, everyone else is in danger of being caught in a lie.

If I were scum, I could've safely fakeclaimed, rather than drawing attention to myself and raising my profile so dramatically.

CKD, though, was utterly screwed when he decided the same person I targeted. Difficulty of watchers in the game - every time you kill there's people who might catch you at it, and we were talking last night like one of the two of us might get motivated (and one did), raising the number of watchings in a night to three, which is a 50-50 chance of getting caught.
It's why he jailed me night 2.
It's why he killed Yvonne night 3.

If on the other hand she'd been protected, he could've said he jailed DGB and therefore DGB must have attempted to kill.

Really, it was the safest play for him last night. Sucks to be him that the second watcher was watching the first. She was probably watching me too...

[Adele]

Sorry about that.

How about it's this simple:

Adele is scum and it's win-win for scum. They target and kill one watcher. The other, going last, accuses CKD who a lot of people already think is scum from yesterday's push. Yvonne coming up town further makes him look bad. Scum don't much care which way today's lynch goes because they're more than happy getting rid of Peter Petrelli even if s/he's on their team. There will be no more investigative roles in the game. Adele wont have to operate against her own interest and accidentally get caught in a lie. The other two can continue to play a more normal game of mafia.

Thoughts?

There's not much I can

disprove

there. It's a valid theory. Hell, when I think about it,

whoever

the scum are they're probably incresingly nervous about watchers (as the proportion of watches to people has increased).

Working off the theory that I'm scum, the question becomes "who could've performed the kill if not CKD?" and I'd need to run an analysis on that (tomorrow - no time right now).
Again, though, there are 3 scum left among 7 players. We're in LyLo. Wouldn't make more sense for me-as-scum to try to lay low?

[Adele]

Theory 1: CKD is scum
Theory 2: Adele is scum
I imagine everyone agrees that one of these two must be true, right?

Adele, you did fake claim. I did not target Yvonne in any way...it was a lucky break for you that you got to go last.

That's the Shawshank argument. Since I am innocent of this crime, sir, I find it decidedly *inconvenient* that I was called upon so late.

You did fake claim. You saw that I said targetted CES and you know (since you are in the only "watcher" now) that you could safely claim that I targetted Yvonne without be countered. If I was scum (those words, I think will be the arguement for both of us today) why would I submit the kill, You are suggesting that DGB is my scum partner, why wouldnt DGB submit the kill if no one could watch her?

I don't recall suggesting that DGB was your scumbuddy.

And Cicero you are cleared for night action for Night 1 and/or 3 (unless shafted and/or fonz are part of your team)...I am pretty sure Adele must have made the kill. Adele kills the watcher, cant be countered or watched, and leaves herself open to almost claim anything today.

Except I didn't know I was claiming last - according to you, I didn't watch last night so if I'd gone early I'd've had to make up results on someone. For example, I'd've left myself open to saying that just you targeted Yvonne - and shaft.ed would call me a liar. And since the majority of us have targeting powers, the risk of something

like

that happening are very slim. I have a high-risk power for scum; why would I take that risk?

She also knows the Doc targeted her so Yvonne is undefended.

No, I learn whose powers I've taken in as I learn my watching results; in the morning after all choices have gone through.

Adele is scum and it's win-win for scum. They target and kill one watcher. The other, going last, accuses CKD who a lot of people already think is scum from yesterday's push. Yvonne coming up town further makes him look bad. Scum don't much care which way today's lynch goes because they're more than happy getting rid of Peter Petrelli even if s/he's on their team. There will be no more investigative roles in the game. Adele wont have to operate against her own interest and accidentally get caught in a lie. The other two can continue to play a more normal game of mafia.

I don't, however, think it's "win-win" for scum, upon reaching LyLo, to sacrifice one of their men. Seems to me that whoever the scum are, what they probably care most about is surviving the day; aggressive play seems non-optimal. And, again, what if I had been called upon first?

[Adele]

Cicero (replacing Zindaras): Mohinder Suresh, Networker
curiouskarmadog: The man with the horn-rimmed glasses, Jailkeeper
DrippingGoofball (replacing JDodge): the Haitian, Dampener
shaft.ed: Nathan Petrelli, Motivator
Cogito Ergo Sum (replacing Thestatusquo): Ando Masahashi, Vanilla
The Fonz (replacing davidangelsummers): Daniel Linderman, Doctor

cicero, shafted, and Fonz all had their choices validated by someone else - they might've forced you to submit the kill so they could do so and stay safe. Maybe even DGB. After all, with the real danger being that the killer's watched, it makes most sense for the person who the town trusts the least to do the NK, as that'd be the smallest loss.

[Adele]

DGB can't be watched. That's not the point exactly. If DGB dampens someone, that person can't be watched. But if she

kills

someone, and that person was watched, the watcher would see DGB because she wasn't suppressing powers, she was killing.

[Adele]

Adele, I can role block, why would I send the kill if I was scum...if fonz was my scum partner, he could say he targetted anyone (like you for instance) and no one would be none the wiser

Not true. It made most sense for Fonz to target me last night, so that I could gain that power. And had he

not

targeted me, but claimed this morning that he

had

, I'd know he was lying because I find out with my watching results whether I've gained any powers overnight.

if shafted was my scum partner, he could just say he targetted whoever was killed and no one would be able to confirm it..

Exactly. He'd have to put himself at the scene of the crime and put himself in the frame for the killing. If he was the only one who couldn't prove he was elsewhere, plus was the only one that had to

claim

to have been there, he'd be a very likely lynch for today.

how does it make sense that I would submit the kill?

1. The unpredictability that means so much to you
2. because if you claim to have targeted CES - like you did - the only proof for or against is if I watched either CES or your true target. Making you a lower risk to perform the kill than several others

...you know this is a weak arguement...you screwed up by lying and saying I made the kill it doesnt make sense...if I was part of the scum team yesterday why didnt we take out Yvonne while I blocked you?....

1. Because the Bomb was a higher danger to you as scum.
2. Because, blocking me, you didn't know if she was being protected by a (potentially) motivated doc.
3. It would've made you look even more suspicious as I'd made it somewhat clear that I consider Yvonne a high-value player for me to watch.
Mostly, I'm guessing, 1 – the bomb couldn't be lynched without giving the town a one-shot doublelynch, and could potentially be a seriously dangerous wildcard in LyLo.

But Adele, how easy it was it for you to submit the kill...lets say for instance you went first, you could have easily said, I watched Yvonne, and Fonz targetted her...or DGB targetted her...no way we could have known if you were lying....

If I didn't watch Yvonne, I wouldn't know who targeted her. I'd have to make them up.

So say I did what you suggest above; I said that Fonz alone targeted her. Well then Fonz would say in his next post, "Uh, no I didn't". Then shafted would say "I did, though". Then the town would know that either shafted AND Fonz were scum, or I was (or all three of us). It's too high-risk a strategy for the scum to reasonably have gone for last night; it's implausible.

In other words, yeah, plenty of people might know I was lying - everyone I said was in place X but wasn't

plus

everyone I said wasn't in place X but was. That's what makes faking results so hard for the watcher.

[Adele]

It isn't an end game conversation. It's a why should I trust CKD conversation. Everyone in here should be doing what they can to give themselves an alibi or a reason to view them as town. You have not. You targetted Gorgon. That was good and netted us a big result. Well done. But at that point in the game everyone had an incentive to find and kill Sylar. Scum and town alike. Since that time your insistence on doing the unexpected has been an impediment to town. You arent really seeing the big picture.

Unless you are absolutely sure DGB is town, how can you possibly justify letting her roam free as a member of the town? Two nights in a row you've articulated watcher impeding choices. You jail one watcher. Then you refuse to target the watcher proof (or maybe watcher proof, apparently you are no clearer on the mechanism than I am) player, which is quite obviously the perfect use for your power. So it leaves me asking why I should believe CKD is town and the only reason I can come up with is that he sounds insulted when I call him scum, and I dont know you well enough to know how well you feign indignation. Yet I'm supposed to follow your WIFOM and lynch the watcher on the word of you who has given me no good reason to trust your word.

Do you see my problem? If I vote for you and town loses it's a reasonable decision. If I vote for Adele and I'm wrong, I look like a fucking idiot. So THAT is the power you've given to scum, if you aren't scum.

so if I am scum are you saying that DGB must be scum too?

I... I don't see where you got that from his post.

[Adele]

My guess is that if you were scum and you were going last you would have watched a town player and given the honest results. But since you got to go last you got an opportunity to say that CKD was at the scene of the crime.

You're ignoring the fact that I found out where I was going in the claim order quite a bit

after

I gave in my nightchoices.
This theory's like the village fete poster "we will hold the fete in the garden next weekend if the weather is fine, otherwise in the rectory

this

weekend"

But it's true that shafted, if my co-scum, could've given me a heads-up (or more likely chosen someone else to motivate so he'd be under no suspicion if others could prove their alibis). Also, of course, even if I'd claimed first I'd've known Fonz didn't target Yvonne because I knew he targeted

me

.

CKD, if Adele is scum, why shouldnt she just say that she saw Shaft.ed target Yvonne? I assume we must assume that if Adele is scum, Shaft.ed must be scum as well? Yes? Why not just pin it on Shaft.ed?

But, again, if he were co-scum, he'd be better having an alibi elsewhere. Once more, the Adele=scum theory seems implausible to me (though I must acknowledge I'm somewhat biased )

[Adele]

scum only needs to convince town that I am scum and vote me..and we are done.

Flip it and reverse it. Far as I'm concerned, if we don't lynch you (or, apparently, DGB) then the town's almost certain to lose. If I'm the lynch, actually certain. The only reason to bring that argument is to convince folk to pay attention - and I think they already are. However, since you're scum, I'm sure this hella-confusing logic will resolve eventually to the result that you as scum is the only plausible cause of this situation - and you're done for. So I can only assume that what you're going for is a pity-play.

In which case I want one too

The both of them are being out-of-charateristically cool about it. Adele isn't jumping out of her chair, she's all relaxed, CKD isn't pulling his hair out in fits of anxiety, he's just cruisin' the thread.

It makes you look more relaxed than you are if you leave the thread for 24 hours - to take a train home from a weekend away, to sleep, to attend work, and to get a haircut - and when you get back to the thread there's 47 additional pages (disclaimer: estimate). I did the numbered lists and I'm not a fan of the "big fonts, varying fonts, different colours" look beloved of internet scams like this: http://www.docsmoney.com/

It's Adele's calmnes that worries me

I'm very worried indeed (now - yesterday I thought that since I'd fingered the scum the town was 80-90% likely to lynch right today), but I don't have infinite time - heck, it took me 20 minutes to catch up to here.

Also, I really don't know what to say. CKD's

so

scummy,

so

town-damaging. I think I've played, in contrast, a reasonably tight, town-benefiting game.

If someone besides CKD presents any arguments against me, I'm happy to try to refute them (heck, CKD too, if he promises not to give me 500 essay-length ones; like I say, I have limited time, and I'm really sorry about that, but the firewall at my current job doesn't let me access MS so I can't log on at lunchtime like I always used to).

OK. Seriously, guys; this "if-X-then-Y" is not my strong point and I can't contribute to it. Ask me

anything

(but bear in mind I won't be on again for another 24 hours). Ask me when I did anything, why I did anything, how I did anything. But I

can't

justify myself against peoples' guts, and that's the most frustrating thing - if I turn into a player who loses the game for town for playing tight and being fundamental in LyLo and being trusted less than someone who spits in the town's face.

Just tell me what to do - I'm confident the facts bear me out, even if I don't fully understand how.

[Adele]

So your argument then is really that DGB has to be scum with somebody because she's alive? The answer to that seems clear doesnt it?

Vote DGB

Wait, is that true?

But... surely, for scum, it's not just about safety of an NK, but also value-payoff?

[Adele]

I'm still waiting for the discussion as to why Adele scum would finger CKD. I've got nothing.

um...

Because I...

'Cos of...

...Yeah, I got nothing

[Adele]

You're correct. Although then you get into the wifom of why an Adele scumgroup would make a kill that reflects specifically on her.

Does it? I see very valid reasons for CKDscum killing Yvonne last night as well.

Fonz was talking about Adelescum's group, not CKDscum's.

[Adele]

Writing as I read...

No. If you are scum and CKD is town, your move there was to hammer, because you win the game.

But you did not hammer.

So that means if CKD is scum, you ARE scum.

It is NECESSARY to fonz being scum that CKD is scum.
It is NOT NECESSARY to CKD being scum that Fonz is scum, because Fonz-town wouldn't know either way.

IF CKD is scum Fonz is also scum. Not the inverse. I havent turned my mind to the inverse because we arent (currently) lynching Fonz.

Wrong. I beg of you, go to your nearest uni campus and speak to a professor that teaches critical thinking or logic. You've got it backwards. The possibilities are:

1. CKD scum Fonz scum - this makes sense; he'd not necessarily hammer his buddy
2. CKD scum Fonz town - this makes sense; Fonz as town would be cautious
3. CKD town Fonz town - this makes sense; Fonz as town would be cautious
4. CKD town Fonz scum -

this

doesn't make sense; Fonz as scum would've won the game here
Therefore, you've shown that:
If CKD is town, Fonz must be town
If Fonz is scum, CKD must be scum

And not vice versa.

The Fonz can only be scum with Adele.

What?? Where did that come from?

EBWOP: Looks like a lot of us have a case of the whoopsies today. Above should obviously read Fonz CANNOT be scum with Adele.

Oh, ok. heh

And how have I been damaging adele? By jailing you? I didnt jail you last night and no one targetted you, how am I damaging? How is jailing DGB damaging?

I think you've confused yourself; your fakeclaim this morning was that you jailed CES, not DGB.

If someone besides CKD presents any arguments against me, I'm happy to try to refute them (heck, CKD too, if he promises not to give me 500 essay-length ones; like I say, I have limited time, and I'm really sorry about that,

hey a reason to lurk, you do however have plenty of time to post junk in the GD.

Well, duh. The thing about posting junk is it takes minimal analysis, thought or time, so i can intersperse it with my other online responsibilities.

WHY ISNT ANYONE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ADELE’S POSSIBLE SCUM PARTNERS?! ANYONE CURIOUS WHY NO ONE IS BRINGING THAT UP?

Well, we're making discoveries. Like that Fonz surely

isn't

scum with me (unless... does CKD, Fonz and me make sense? Big gambit, and not true, incidentally, but is it hypothetically possible?)

Adele/Shafted/Cicero…Fonz confirms Cicero N3, so Cicero did not submit the kill last night. Adele watched to see if anyone else targeted Yvonne, shafted submitted the kill. Adele covers shafted by saying he targeted Yvonne...this could work, especially Night one, Cicero could have submitted the kill and claimed to have networked shafted. Cicero could have submitted the kill Night 2, and claimed to have targeted Adele, Adele who had watched (

but failed because I jailed her, could have told Cicero before the day started in a PM that her watched failed

). Also shafted could have submitted the kill N2 but I doubt it. This pairing could really work.

Regarding the bold: No, I couldn't. When I get the information PM from the mod, the night is over. I have

never

deliberately broken any site rules, and would

never

communicate with scumbuddies during a no-contact period. This theory fails because it assumes me to have cheated - and I really hope everyone here knows that I wouldn't do that, as town, or scum, or SK, or flying pumpkin. If the implication you were making here was lost on you, CKD, I apologise, but there are a many things I'd do to win a game of mafia, and cheating is not one of them. And the suggestion otherwise offends me.

To me the only pairing that really could work (ie makes sense) is Adele/Shafted/Cicero, followed by Adele/DGB/Shafted....and then MAYBE Adele/Shafted/CES

Interesting. I look forward to someone doing this sort of analysis on CKD... but seriously, i'm not the one to do it; you would experience the same sort of pain from my attempting that as we got from the above "If Fonz then CKD" fiasco.

And, no, CKD, it's not appropriate to try to get people to vote a certain way by promising them something after the game ends - regardless of whether that something is money, chocolates, or another stupid thread to clutter the GD up with. knowing how people generally post, though, and trying to read them, is part of the game.

[Adele]

ouch. apologies for the wall-o-text

[Adele]

lols!

First off, bad luck town. CKD's jailing of me may have been the wrong call for town theoretically... however, it meant I missed out on collecting doc abilities from Fonz and a free card out of giving watching results. Overall, though, I still think it hurt town more than scum

Second, You'll notice I went back on my claim promise. I really wish that I'd been up to claim first today - I'd claim I saw shafted alone target Yvonne, and his confusion - as I must've watched her to get that reult - would make it clear to the town that I'd watched and so clear me for the killing and imply his guilt.
But he claimed first (in fact, I claimed pretty much last). I felt bad about going back on the plan, but still debated a dozen different scenarios with myself. I came bloody close to saying I targeted

Fonz

, and not got him as being targeted by cicero in the hopes that town would see one of three ways that might've been caused by a CKDscum. But that inextricably linked me-as-scum to fonz-as-scum, so in the end, this seemed best.

Third, I wasn't "lurking". I spent as much time here as I could really justify to myself (40 minutes of reading up, 10 of posting - it's a lot, really) and then due to inertia staying in the internet cafe but really not having the energy to post in

any

games. And one really rather big post per 24 hours is respectable (though I missed yesterday)

Fourth: I recruited DGB to the game. In the usual manner, of course: whenever I'm recruiting for a game I'm in (with mod's consent), I check who's listed as being online and pm the ones I recognise. However, back when the "animosity between DGB and I" was part of the plan, I was fully prepared to

go off

at DGB for replacing into

two

games I'm in when she

knows

I don't like playing with her ("What a cow!"). The mod wouldn't have corrected this error on my part

Fifth: I

genuinely

believe in chainclaims and think the town made the wrong call here. I also think it's possible, though, that had I been town I'd've folded quicker and easier...

[Adele]

Finally: this was one of those slow-starting games, but I for one found it heated up dramatically and excitingly.

Good Game!

(Thanks Seol )