Webcomic Wars Mafia: D7- Be Thankful I'm Not The Author

[SerialClergyman]

consider yourselves /confirmicided.

[SerialClergyman]

vote populartajo

because noone likes the popular kids

[SerialClergyman]

vote populartajo

because noone likes the popular kids

LAL!!!

Vote SerialC

Let me get this straight - you're a Danish girl who's into obscure anime and internet forum games and you DON'T want to wagon on the popular kid?

[SerialClergyman]

I just assumed...

No, I thought I read it in one of your games.. I thought it was an odd mix at the time ><

Apologies...

[SerialClergyman]

Dammit Zazie - you're Dutch! I knew I wasn't imagining it...

Don't you understand that when you come from Australia, all those little countries just sort of meld together!? We're all by ourselves in this massive fat country with noone around so you need to expect us to assume that two nationalities like Dutch and Danish from sort of the same part of the world that sort of sound the same are essentially interchangable?

In seriousness - my apologies, I should (as ever) pay more attention .

In other, game-related news, is solid the new in word? Or did two people independently and spontaeneously use it to describe a fresh-from-the-RVS wagon?

[SerialClergyman]

You're giving us Australians a bad name, guy! The Netherlands is awesome.
Might I convince you to walk to Perth while you're at it?

Even worse - I'm a soccer fan and so I've heard the word 'Dutch about 20,000 times since Guus Hiddink and was actually in the Netherlands for a brief time when I went ot Germany for the world cup. Yet for some reason I still went with Danish. Perhaps it's a shout out to Princess Mary

And walk to Perth? Don't you guys have transport infrastructure yet?

In serious news, without wanting to end the RVS too quickly for those who enjoy chatting and joking, I will

unvote populartajo, vote Lamont.

The stench of over the top enthusiasm and wishy-washy appeasement seeps from him.

[SerialClergyman]

You got that conclusion from 'makes a solid case'?

Mod please note my sig. Thanks.

[SerialClergyman]

Yes, lets pressure the guy who isn't here. I'm sure he will magically feel our votes on him and come rushing back. I mean the concept of wagoning a lurker to force him to talk seems... contradictory in and of itself. Although I admit I sometimes want to do it myself XD

I hate statements like this. You just berated him with sarcasm then completely undermined your own point. Scummy.

Sirigonius - you just turned up, said that they are all policy lynches then went away again. a) I don't think they are policy lynches/wagons, could you explain how they are and b) would you like to contribute anything of a scumhunting nature if you aren't getting involved in current discussions?

[SerialClergyman]

^^ This post almost earned my vote. It's scummy to dress pro-town theory as pro-town play, but that isn't even theory, that's a general whinge about how people take your posts. It's over-defensive and an over-reaction and I don't like it. Officially 2nd on my scumlist, Vino.

[SerialClergyman]

Vino - that reaction is exactly what I'm talking about. Take some responsibility for how you play. That sort of attitude is scummy because you are trying to dismiss any criticism of you without looking at it on it's merits, and claiming any scumminess you display is in the eye of the beholder. The entire narrative does nothing to further a pro-town play and could further a pro-scum play.

What question would you like me to answer?

[SerialClergyman]

Simulpost.

No worries.

[SerialClergyman]

Hi, nice to meet you, I'm Korlash. Obviously you're going to grow to hate me in the coming game and I'm looking forward to it. I guess I should share a little about myself seeing a how you so graciously did so first. I hate people who make worthless statements like this but refuse to actually give their opinions on the point raised. Now if you are somehow suggesting sarcasm and admittance of being a hypocrite at certain times are in any way evidence of being scum then I have a few words of rebuttle for you. if you're only fluffing up the thread talking about how you dislike my style and think i should have gone with a prettier font then I'd have to question why you even bothered to post.

Hi Korlash - perhaps you took what I said about your statement personally and I didn't mean it like that. I certainly don't hate you or meant to imply anything about you personally or your style.

I hate statements like that one you gave because you are being wishy washy like anything. Any time you try to comment on an issue and can't tell me which side you're on, you are leaving yourself wiggle room so that if it later becomes an issue, you're able to fall back on whatever position is convinient. Either you're in favour of wagoning lurkers or your not - but if you bother to post about the issue, take a side so you can be held to it.

As for me - I'm looking for statements I find scummy. I found nothing wrong with the original suggestion, that we should pressure lurkers, but I found a lot wrong with your wishy-washy response to it, so I called you on it.

[SerialClergyman]

I take a 1-2 mislynch to mean that the scum agree with a wagon on a townie, get him lynched then on D2 immediately turn on whoever suggested the first wagon and get them lynched too. So it's possible that they in one pretty fluid motion could get two townies lynched.

If that's not what you were suggesting then please correct me.

[SerialClergyman]

Arg, got back yesterday night. Will re-read and try to post, might not be for a little while.

[SerialClergyman]

OK, so I'm back. Here's my take on the last couple of days.

LC - Man with Hat just sounds totally unlike a cop character. I love XKCD and he's one of the last characters I would hafve thought would be a cop. Knowing the comic, the flavour fits (it's a comic that involves a lot about 'science' and 'maths', so I could see that flavour being used) and I suspect that Man with Hat is probably his role, but cop I'm extremely skeptical of. Roleblocker yes, vig yes, cop no. Suspect claim.

Having said that, in response to SensFan, why would we vote a claimed cop in a large game? Of course it's still possible he's scum but we've got time to sort that out. Wiat and see what investigations he comes up with.

On my re-read, I noticed the following people specifically. Head Honcho has had only a bare touch with the game and whenever he has posted he's been far from useful. He's dismissed a promising line of questioning on Santos based on a meta as a poor player (something I'm already suspicious of given Santos' own talk of his experience and his canny if unethical fake vote). He pushed the LC case without voting it, which I always find scummy, particularly on day 1. He didn't say he wouldn't vote LC, he didn't provide another target, but neither did he vote. He just said it was inevitable and dropped it. No desire to scumhunt and no desire to get the lynch right on D1.

Santos also stands out ot me. People who post saying 'I really don't have much to say' immediately trigger my scumdar, because that's a clear difference in win conditions. Townies have to actively hunt out scum, mafia do not. Those who don't have much to say and are content to let the game bubble along are usually those who benefit by it, and that's what Santos sounds like to me.

Yes, there is tons of reading and very little I have to contribute.

Yeah, I really don't have much to say.

Well, hasdgfas always mentions that I have not done anything. I'm not sure what else I can do.

Then there's a bizarre softclaim scenario where he can confirm or deny a claim. Without going into whatever his role is, the fact he gave this information is odd in and of itself, given the situation, and given the shakiness of LC's claim (Man with Hat = Cop at L-1) I think this is highly suspicious.
Not to mention his argument that mafia don't like claiming.. It just so obviously makes no sense I'm not sure what to make of him. Would you be in favour of a mass claim in every game then, Santos?
I am very suspicious of Santos, but it is possible he is pro-town and just very much against the MS paradigm. But I've been unimpressed with his postings and find his posts uninterested in catching scum.

Finally, the scummiest of them all is the silent speaker. I can only assume his view are being mostly ignored because LC was a bigger target, but his posts seem to be constantly constructed to push suspicion on people for no legitimate reason that I can see.

He arbitrarily decides that one of the wagons in the RVS is on a townie and is started by a townie, but the 3 or so people who joined that wagon are scum.

When Korlash challenges this, TSS attacks the semantics of the post to try to claim that Korlash knew that it was a town wagon on a town target. This not only is terrible reasoning, given Korlash was pointing out what you had to assume for the theory to work, but it also failed to address the concern that Krolash raised.

So certain, are we? We know this wagon was started by town and jumped on by town, do we? FOS: Korlash

Not to mention this quote, which was written after Sens voted LC for defending Vino

SensFan's entire post is a lie. FOS: SensFan

Post 235 he engages in textbook manipulation. He has still not explained at this stage why HE HIMSELF believes both the initiator of the wagon and the target of the wagon is town, but continues to push the line that Korlahs knew it by bolding the times Korlash used the word 'town'. Never mind Korlash was pointing out what TSS had to himself believe to make his theory true - it's still Korlash who is apparantly scummy.

And that inference is bolstered by his will-o'-the-wisp reasoning

Hypocrasy, thy name is TSS. He again rips into Sens for voting LC, saying that his vote coupled with a small amount of reasoning could have pushed against LC. Again, no mention of any reasoning of his own.

I wish I could point out more, but that's about all his contribution to the game has been. He turned up, came up with a very elaborate theory for essentially no reason, pointed fingers at others for voting without much reason and left it there.

Here's what I saw going on. Early miniwagons can easily snowball into bigger wagons that dominate day 1 -- heck, look at Lamont -- and th scum didn't want rofl to be today's sacrificial lamb. Before things had achance to get out of hand, they started a counterwagon on the person who turned rofl into a bandwagon, and when Fishy posted a vote on the other roflvoter, they seized on it like a godsend. That took eyes away from rofl in the short term with Lamont and in the medium term with Vino. What is more, the extremely fishy way -- double pun intended -- Korlash and rofl latched onto that Vino vote suggests they hoped to be able to get Vino lynched and then turn on Fishy for proposing it. If they could get away with that, they could pull off a twofer.

Once the Vino wagon stalled and I posted suspicion of it, a twofer wouldn't be able to take off -- even if Vino got lynched, people would notice if they tried to foist the blame onto Fishy now. Probably any danger to rofl had been well and truly derailed, but SensFan posted to revive the earlier Lamont bandagon to spark a regulat mislynch and keep the game on a simple wrong track.

And those couple of paragraphs are why he has my vote. I can't see anyone town being naturally suspicious of this and only this course of events. It's so specific and so completely without evidence, yet it's what he's pushed constantly. When questioned on it, he attacked his attackers rather than explain his views. He's attacked Tar, Korlash and Sens all on either hypocritical, manipulative or just plain poor reasoning.

unvote L_C, vote: the silent speaker

[SerialClergyman]

I was reading TSS's post and building my objections in my mind but then they were all pretty much covered by the posters above. To summarise -

a) Why do you think there are two scum factions?
b) Your cop-fishing theory makes no sense because there hasn't been a night action yet, and that's already been established in thread.
c) Your circular reasoning for believing the wagon was started by a townie and targetting a townie. (scum are on the wagon because the wagon has been started by and on a townie. It was started on and by a townie because scum are on the wagon and are driving it.)
d) Apart from the cop-fishing point above, which already has a huge hole in it, what other reason do you have to be so confident about who is town and who is scum based on those early posts?

[SerialClergyman]

Wow, whoops, I got to the end of page 13 and assumed that was it - rereading the top of the page. Ignore my post if it's been answered.

[SerialClergyman]

Triple post for the loving. Look at the cute dinosaur - it has ANOTHER cute dinosaur riding it! Yay pleasant avatar, now you get to see it three times, don't complain about my triple post.

I think the list above stands, really. As fishy points out, even assuming there was a cop with a verdict - why would that lead the scum to do what they did? They started possibly cop fishing then pushed a wagon.... but if the initiator was a cop and it was against a town, the cop would have an innocent verdict so presumably the wagon would never get going?

The whole theory, justification and posting style stinks to me.

[SerialClergyman]

a) As I said, I think there could be two scum factions. Game size makes it plausible, and nothing rules it out. Nothing rules it in, either, but what of it?

Ok - so we have two options here.
Either you are a townie who postulated a second scum group out of nowhere (no flavour or extra kills or any in-game reason other than size) to make your elborate theory sound like there's less of an assumption in it's construction. (you originally mention this to try to soften the assumption you made that fishy is town)
OR you're scum who would know whether there are two scum groups. I would suggest the latter.

b) I have already renounced the cop-fishing idea. It was a notion based on their apparent willingness to follow a definite statement that was nonetheless not backed up by reasoning in a way thatseemed reminiscent of people following someone they thought was a cop; that notion is wrong, but that's what it was (half-)baked out of. As to why the scum would follow a presumed cop's verdict (if this had been night start) when that verdict would have presumably been innocent and thus not mentioned in-thread, well, maybe they thought there might be two scum groups. Or maybe they didn't think it was a cop verdict at all but hoped to convince people that it had been presented as a hinted one? Idunno. I frankly didn't get much farther down the cop-fishing line of thought than "Hey, that looks like they're fishing!!!1!" and the notion of cop-fishing fit my theory so well that I ra with it without thinking through why scum would cop-fish with no results or with a presumed innocent (or at least not-theirs). The cop fish notion was, I repeat, a mistake on my part.

So again we're presented with two choices. Either you're a townie who came up with a self-admitted half-baked theory about possible cop fishing before there had even been a cop result, and even if there had been a verdict, the wagon would presumably be on someone with INNOCENT verdict if the scum were on the wagon
OR You're a scum who put up a bs reason when questioned about your scummy theory and now has to backtrack because it was proved ridiculous.
Once again, I find myself on the side of the latter.

c) I don't think I was arguing "scum are on the wagon because the wagon has been started by and on a townie". I thought I was arguing scum on the wagons because of an apparenly collusive set of interests -- the same people boosting each other to the same people's gain and the detriment of the set adverse to the same people.
That's a mouthful and I hope it makes grammatical sense -- I think it does -- but what I'm driving at is: a rofl wagon derailed; and the derailment was coincident with the rofl wagoners both being themselves wagoned; and the same people supported both wagons; and the reasoning on one of them especially was bad reasoning presented as good reasoning; and rofl himself was one of the people on the two bandwagons. I might add that SensFan used thee two bndwagons to bolster each other.

Here you are ignoring the point. To argue that the wagon is scummy because it is to some people's gain and some people's detriment, you NEED TO KNOW THE ALIGNMENT OF WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE. You are immediately assuming that the people who are detrimented are townie. You immediately assume that Fish is town (remember you suggesting a 1-2 mislynch was being set up?) If Fish is scum, your theory makes no sense. What reason did you have for thinking he's not scum? Because you think the others are scummy. It's all circular.
Either you're a townie who provided an elaborate case, declaring some people town and some people scum on page 2 or 3 using circular logic
OR you are pushing an agenda as scum with bs reasoning.

d) The cop fishing point is deceased as far as I'm concerned. My reason for suspecting the people I named is collusive effect with regard primarily to rofl's benefit (and Lamont's detriment, but I don't think they have anything against Lamont specially). In Tar's case there is a side quote suggesting guilty knowledge.

So your one content-based reason for suspecting that particular group was ill-thought out and shot down after some brief analysis. So now you're pushing this line about it being to some people's benefit and not others. I think I essentially addressed this point above, but to be clear - any wagon situation will have people who gain and poeple who lose. YOU chose one group of people, seemingly at random, who YOU decide are scummy because they benefit or are townie because they lose out. Neverm ind the other wagons are the time, which you could use exactly the same reasoning for, never mind all of the buddying or switching wagons that's happenede since - this is your theory and you're sticking to it - then making up a cop-fishing reason to make it sound more reasonable then abandoning said reason a few posts later when you see how poor it is.

The more I argue this point with you, the more i can't see your approach being legitimate. I smell scum.

[SerialClergyman]

unvote, vote: Lamont

[SerialClergyman]

Oh I see it now. The death ray was at Tajo's feet. Okay that's reasonable.

To me, Vino's recent posts have looked bad, but probably noobtown rather than scum. Any competent scum knows about the 'this sucks' scumtell and can transverse it pretty easily, and I don't think scum would push a NK theory they know to be false that hard.

I think Santos definitely has the edge in scumminess for me.

vote: Santos

[SerialClergyman]

Wow, maybe point to someone you find scummy, or give us an idea of your thought processes in your previous posts, or do anything other than dick about voting yourself?

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry - you had 4 votes on you INCLUDING YOUR OWN with 11 to lynch and you decide now is the time to roleclaim? Where on earth did that come from?

[SerialClergyman]

I figured I'd give them a show and see how they respond.

That's exactly what I'm worried about.

I'm heading off to work but I'm re-reading you tonight.

[SerialClergyman]

rofl - you can't just take one action from D1 where someone tries to push the envelope and declare someone to be town in full force. There was hardly even a wagon on him, he had 4 votes, 25% of which were his own! You can't just dismiss everything that happened today as irrelevent.

Besides - Santos has a history of thinking outside the box and playing with exact letter wording of the rules (see fake vote to call out scum in lylo). Why couldn't he be trying to pull a fast one with that incident?

Percy's reaction was a little over the top and it stands out for being overreactive (what's with the suddent flying exclaimation marks and accusations? He's claimed, just assess the claim zz) but I odn't see how that shoots your town read all to hell.

[SerialClergyman]

This is irrelevant. It is clear that Vino, town or scum, does not know the "this sucks" scumtell. Therefore, it applies to him.

QFT. I take back my point.

Reading this, I took it to mean that he had a guilty investigation on Lamont. Otherwise, why claim his role? Why be so definitive?

This looks like after the fact backtracking to me. I certainly didn't think that qwints' claim had anything to do with a guilty investigation, and given this was a night start, there's no way he could have. He was just trying to counter claim.

That looks like a complete lie to me, Percy.

[SerialClergyman]

I'll tell for him then - I went to have a look to recheck it. It starts here

But it gets even more interesting a few posts later.

If you're vanilla, Santos, what were you talking about by 'clearing' Lamont?

[SerialClergyman]

OK, well that was my mistake. I assumed it was a day investigation, rather than a simple counterclaim. That certainly makes sense as to why the scum would want to kill him, and why the doctors (if we have any) should have protected him. I misread the situation, so I apologise and retract my earlier statements based on that misreading.

This is from your hammer post.

I'll drop the hammer. Unvote, Vote: Lamont_Cranston. Whilst I was willing to let his lynch wait in light of his claim, the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing today.

You specifically say counter-claim, you say nothing about a verdict looking at your posts at that time.

So either you genuinely thought that there was a day investigation by qwints, but only developed this thought AFTER the post above, or you're just continuing to lie.

What exactly did you misread? And when did the misreading happen, becausei t sure didn'th appen when you dropped the hammer. You knew you were hammering on the back of a coutner-claim, not a verdict. This whole thing has been a lie ot push the case on Santos, and your covering up of it (and the cap in hand choirboy apology) has just nailed you as scum.

unvote, vote: Percy

[SerialClergyman]

In this particular example though, no I doubt it's a scum move. I think it's a misunderstanding on the part of the people pushing the vote on you combined with your utter lack of being able to correctly explain it. So while you try and figure out how to word it I'm just going to jump ahead.

Vote: SC

This is a total untruth. There's no misunderstanding, it's something deliberately designed to try to make his case on Santos look better. Look at the original lie:

I'm actually just irritated that our doctors are full of fail and didn't protect Quints.

Why would the doctors protect someone who claimed a guilty on someone, which turned out to be false? This is ridiculous.

He lied to make people who aren't really paying attention dismiss Santos' point. It was part of his big case on Santos. There is no question that was scummy behaviour.

Fast forward a few posts and now Percy has been cornered into continuing to say that he thought it was a day investigation. He can't say that a day investigation is extremely rare and that wasn't what he was thinking at all because he'd be changing his story yet again. He got painted into a corner and came out with a ridiculous explanation of it. I know that Percy is an experienced player, and I'm sure that a day investigation would have been the last thing on his mind. Not to mention the fact that in his hammer post and the posts after he NEVER MENTIONS AN INVESTIGATION but obvious DOES mention the counter-claim.

There's absolutely a reason why lying in this case benefits scum and there's absolutely no chance it's just a misunderstanding that he's worded poorly. He

continues to say that he thought there was a day investigation

, despite never mentioning it before being caught in the lie and being experienced enough to know how rare they are.

I'm completely confident in my vote, and that was a very sympathetic reading there Korlash (not to mention a possible chainsaw defence.) If Percy get lynched and flips scum, I know where my sights will be next.

[SerialClergyman]

Since you're appealing to my experience, how fucking retarded do you think I am?

Well - you've either fudged the truth to make a case stronger and then lied when questioned about it OR you didn't read a claim post properly, assumed it was a day investigation, mentioned absolutely nothing about the day investigation when talking about the counter-claim until specifically questioned about it the next day.

One of the two has to be the truth, so either way you've made a mistake. I tend to think the former is a lot more plausible.

I honestly thought that qwints' certainty about L_C's role was due to a day investigation, as well as a counterclaim. That's why I thought he claimed, to be honest - if you'll check, I warned against counterclaiming earlier, saying it was a bad idea.

Ok - so let's say this is the case.

Why didn't you mention the dayclaim??

If you felt even CLAIMING was a bad idea, why when he claimed AND wasted a dayclaim on a poor investigation, why didn't you ask him about it, comment on it, say that it was a waste, ask if he can make another one etc etc. You didn't mention a single word of any of that, you just said the counter-claim had to be dealt with.

In fact, a day-investigating cop is probably a different role to a normal cop, so the counter-claim part of it isn't even as important as the guilty verdict would have been. If you honestly thought he said something like 'I am a day-investigating cop and I have a guilty on you' then the counter-claim isn't too damning, because it's possible we have two different cops, the guilty verdict is the obvious issue. Yet when hammering you say that the counter-claim is the issue.

Still not buying it.

[SerialClergyman]

Korlash - thanks for the clarifying point, you're correct, I meant to write 'day-investigation' above.

I'm frustrated by arguments such as 'you need to look at it in another light' and 'nothing is absolute'.

I agree there is a chance I could be wrong. But this is a game of limited information, and there's always a chance I could be wrong. In this case, however, I'm pretty sure I'm right, and I've considered the alternative.

I'm going to quote the hammer post again because it's important.

I'll drop the hammer. Unvote, Vote: Lamont_Cranston. Whilst I was willing to let his lynch wait in light of his claim, the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing today.

He says the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing right away AS PART of the sentence where he hammers Lamont. It's a counter-point ot the very sentence where he says he was willing ot let his lynch wait in light of the claim but now he won't. So it is aboslutely the direct reason why he hammered - 'I was willing to let it wait but now I won't because of the counter-claim.'

While it's always possible I am mistaken, I'm about as sure as I can be about that point.

And even if there is some other way to interpret it, and I can't see any that come close to as reasonable as the interpretation above, it still never explains why he didn't mention the investigation he thought he saw. That surely a more powerful reason than a counter-claim from an apparantly different form of cop.

And as I said earlier, if he was already against a claim, a claim PLUS a fairly useless day investigation would surely have warranted a mention, if only to say qwints claiming and wasting a powerful ability was a poor move. It certainly deserved one before he was called out on a suspicious comment the next day.

In fact - that brings up another point. Percy, why didn't you say anything when you read that qwints had been killed and found not to be a day-investigating cop? You thought he was a day-investigating cop, he dies and flips with 'town cop', the same role thaat Lamont was. That doesn't deserve a mention? A re-read? Oh, I thought he was a day-investigating cop.. why did he flip normal? How did he have a guilty verdict? None of that stuff occured to you?

Finally Korlash - points like nothing is absolute and you need to look at it from his perspective can be applied ot any argument against anyone ever. Why didn't you defend Lamont by the same sort of reasoning? Why not any of the other wagoned people? Anyone who appeals to uncertainty like that to try to derail scumhunting is automatically suspicious to me.

[SerialClergyman]

Korlash - if you ever did genuinely agree with me, you need to take a deep breath and analyse the post for yourself. The problem with waiting for Percy to explain his post is that he's unlikely ot come in and say 'The obvious interpretation of the post is correct, I'm scummy as all hell'.

So you have to look at it and make a judgement as to what is there.

Two possible interpretations:

Look at the statement in question. The phrase "Whilst I was willing to let his lynch wait in light of his claim," Means that he originally wanted to let the lynch wait but now no longer does. The phrase "the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing today. " shows that he thinks this point needs to be talked about that day. They are in and of themselves conflicting statements. One calls for more action that day and the other calls for the end of the day. Because of that point, logically the part about the counterclaim can't be his reason for a hammer as it calls for a longer day.

Percy hammers then makes a statement that conflicts with itself. I don't even quite know what you're driving at here. What was the purpose of the sentence? If he meant that we should talk about the counter-claim, why did he hammer? If they are different ideas, why are they in the same sentence? How does that explain the hammer at all? Did he hammer and then completely not mention the reason despite talking about things related to the reason?

So you can either interpret it in this way (which still doens't explain why he never mentions a guilty verdict, or tells qwints off for wasting a day-investigate or reacts to qwints not flipping day-investigating cop) OR you could interpret it in the obvious and simple way:

I was willing to not vote him because of the claim until qwints counterclaimed.

Which puts his made-up retroactive explanations look as bad as they should.

Your argument about whether you can be sure or not is a red herring. If you are attacking me for using language that's too strong, meh. I acknowledge I can never be sure, but given the limited evidence in the game I'm pretty convinced.

[SerialClergyman]

Thanks Gorrad. I posted another game's post into this thread, which is why it has been deleted. Actual content coming very soon.

[SerialClergyman]

Percy -

The second is correct, except for the part where I don't mention it until I was specifically questioned about it. I brought it up.

You mention nothing about a day-investigating cop until I specifically point out that a normal cop wouldn't have had an investigation, and you were forced to come up with a reason why you thought an investigation mighth ave been possible.

He flipped cop. Why would "Day-investigating cop" be part of his role reveal?

Obviously so. Do you expect us to believe when you see town cop flip in most games you would expect them to have the ability to day-investigate? Not to mention that was what Lamont flipped, so why weren't you looking for his day-investigate, if you thought town cop = day-investigating cop? More bs. You knew Lamont didn'th ave a day-investigate result because you knew qwints dind't have one either.

Another Sidenote: I thought that the degree of conviction that people had was in response to a guilty investigation, especially after Empking asked whether qwints was sane. That may have prompted my misunderstanding.

You think a group of people bandwagoning after a counter claim was what caused you to imagine in a guilty verdict and giving the cop day-investigate status? Yeah, right.

Korlash - your point about his hammer post has now been definiteively ruled out, Percy has explained that his hammer post was indeed explaining his hammer of Lamont, not bringing up two conflicting points about wanting to hammer lamont but wanting to talk more about qwints. Does this change your viewpoint?

Things you have to assume to believe Percy

1.

When he saw qwints' claim:

Lamont is scum.

unvote, vote: Lamont_Cranston

Retarded bread crumb.
Also, I'm the town cop.

he imagined that qwints was saying he had the ability to day-investigate and that he day-investigated Lamont and found him guilty.

1a)

You have to assume the above despite the fact he never makes reference to it until using it to attack Santos the next day. He never criticises qwints for wasting his day-investigate, (despite being against the claim alone, let alone both) never is confused that noone else mentions this investigation result, never states it as a reason for his actions.

2)

You have to assume that the following hammer post:

I'll drop the hammer. Unvote, Vote: Lamont_Cranston. Whilst I was willing to let his lynch wait in light of his claim, the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing today.

is giving the reason for his vote, but despite the fact his head was saying 'qwints counter-claimed day-investigating cop and has a guilty verdict on you' he wrote 'the counter-claim from qwints.'

2a)

You have to assume this despite the fact a guilty verdict is surely more compelling a reason to vote Lamont and therefore more important to write down

2b)

You have to assume this despite the fact that if Percy was thinking qwints had claimed day-investigating cop, the counter-claim aspect of it is FURTHER LESSENED because they aren't the same role, making the possibility of them both being different types of cops more likely.

2c)

You cannot assume Percy intended his hammer post to be read as Korlash did, two unrelated conflicting thoughts, because percy above explains that the hammer post contains his reason for hammering.

3)

You have to assume that when Percy saw qwints flip Town Cop, he didn't think it was worth remarking that there was nothing about the rare and non-standard ability to day-investigate in there.

3a)

You have to assume this despite Lamont ALREADY FLIPPING Town Cop, and Percy showing no signs that Lamont might have had his OWN day-investigate and breadcrumbed it or the like.

And if you're prepared to believe all that, send me an email, the prince of Nigeria would like to give you your rightful inheretence.

Here's a much more plausible account of what happened:

1. Percy is scum and hammers Lamont due to the counter claim provding a great and easy reason.
2. Percy attacks his next target and tries to make his target look worse and himself look better by adding in a part about qwints having a guilty verdict.
3. Percy gets called on this comment and, under pressure, lies about what caused him to say that.

Simple as that. You don't even have to believe he did number 2. above on purpose - he could have just slipped as scum trying to push a case too hard. But the key thing is, his lying to cover it is unmistakable, and there's no town reason to lie like he has. All of the assumptions above are born from Percy stretching his story to try to cover all of the holes that are popping up. It isn't as simple as saying you thought he was a day investigating cop - that only opens up more holes, like why not mention the result, why not be surprised by noone else mentioning it, why not be surprised when he didn't flip Day-investigating Cop etc etc. You can come up with a story for everything, but the more you're pushed, the more the stories aren't believeable.

In my opinion, which is always limited by the lack of information in this game (thank you Korlash), Percy is lying scum.

[SerialClergyman]

Due to lack of access to the site, my posts will be much more limited than they have been, so sorry about that. Not that we'll notice in the sea of apathy that is this game.

The only thing that has been ruled out was that it was grammatically incorrect. As far as his reasoning behind his hammer, it hasn't changed. While I can barely distinguish it among his other stuff, I do see where he says he hammered LC because he felt he had a guilty investigation, not simply because of a counterclaim. Which means via his explanation there is no lie. Whether or not you believe this is up to you, whether I believe it or not is up to me. My view point on Percy has changed may times today I'm sure it will change many more. But that's irrelevant as I care only about my viewpoint on you atm.

If Percy flips scum, Korlash is scum. You've tossed in so many red herrings to try to derail this argument it's ridiculous. The attack on me for being too confident in my case was always pitiful. I thought you could just be a paranoid townie when you came up with that ridiculous read of his hammer post, but after that snippet above I can't see how you're playing as a townie at all.

This is how you twisted his hammer post to provide some excuse for his lie:

Look at the statement in question. The phrase "Whilst I was willing to let his lynch wait in light of his claim," Means that he originally wanted to let the lynch wait but now no longer does.

The phrase "the counterclaim from Qwints needs addressing today. " shows that he thinks this point needs to be talked about that day.

They are in and of themselves conflicting statements. One calls for more action that day and the other calls for the end of the day. Because of that point,

logically the part about the counterclaim can't be his reason for a hammer as it calls for a longer day.

Now yes, I can also see it as saying "We need to talk abotu this now before the day is over." however, that still doesn't make it his reason. As it stands in this scenario he doesn't give a reason. He just trails off.

(My bolding to show the parts that are later denied by the source)
It was always a stretch to say that he was talking about Qwints' claim in some completely off-topic point about discussion, even though that's completely at odds with the hammer he had just delivered. So it was always going to be very unlikely.

But then Percy says this:

It was a case of poor phrasing. I was fairly certain that L_C was scum, but thought that we could deal with it later (based off his survival of the night, investigate results etc.). Once qwints claimed cop, in my head he had said "I am a cop and I investigated L_C and he's scum". This presented to me as something that needed to be dealt with today - L_C had to go.

Thus I voted, and I voted because of what qwints said.

(My bolding of the part that directly addresses Korlash's 'theory')
Which completely rules out your theory quoted above about them being two different thoughts, and us not knowing the reason for the hammer.

And yet do you acknowledge that now indeed he does have a problem? Do you say 'fair enough, my read of his hammer was wrong, yours was right, Percy really does have a case to answer?' Nope,you just stroll on by as if the whole part about your read of the hammer post didn't happen.

And what's most laughable of all, is that you've repeatedly said how much you agree with the case on Percy! You agree with most of it, he has questions to answer, I'd like ot hear more about it etc etc - yet your ACTIONS right from the start have been vote the person who is the most vocal supporter of Percy, defend Percy at every turn with mind-bogglingly kind readings and refuse to put any pressure on him whatsoever. Yeah - those remarks about how much you agree with the case on Percy are totally going to save you when Percy flips scum.

@Percy -

Firstly, I am not asking you to believe that "When Percy sees a town cop flip, he expects them to have a day investigate!", because that's both untrue and retarded. Stop with the strawmanning. Secondly, why would I have to assume that L_C had a day investigate role?

I assumed that the nature of their investigations was not revealed.

Are you expecting us to believe you thought that two people who both flipped 'Town Cop' might have DIFFERENT investigation styles - one day investigate and one night investigate?

It's not further lessened, it's strengthened.
Percy's brain wrote:
A cop got a guilty on him. He was my number one scum suspect, whom I wanted to give just enough rope. Now that the guilty verdict is here, it's hammertime.

My point wasn't that the

case

against LC was lessened, my point was that the counter-claim itself was specifically lessened. If a different form of cop counter-claims, well, no big deal. But if a different form of cop counterclaims AND has a guilty verdict - massive deal. So when hammering, you had LESS reason to mention the ocunter-claim and MORE reason to mention the verdict.

2. As I have already explained, this is a dumb fucking plan. I said "HEY GUYS QWINTS GOT A GUILTY ON L_C", and why? Just so I could get mad at Santos for saying "I'm annoyed at the doctors for not protecting him". Yes, a masterstroke! This is, far and above, the weakest part of your "case".

Unfortunately - you have to have made a mistake somewhere. Either we belive your stories about imagining a guilty investigation and never mentioning it, assuming a day-cop for no reason etc etc or we believe that in trying ot put pressure on Santos you embellished. You didn't even have to MEAN to embellish it - even if it was a pure mistake and there was no reason for it at all, your covering up of it has been nothing short of a ludicrous story from go to woe.

This point applies to anyone who is worried aobut the motivation - assume absolutely zero motivation, assume a total and complete mistake and his answers under pressure have been scummy as anything, he's still lied about his motivations for hammering, he's lied about what he felt he saw and why. He thought there was a guilty investigation, but there couldn't have been - "oh yes, of course, I thought it was a guilty DAY-investigation. That I didn't mention. Even when hammering due to said investigation."

So it's scummy enough, even if you assume zero motivation, but of course there was motivation, because he did it while pushing a case on someone else, it made them look worse. So happily, you CAN assume motivation, and that just makes obvious scum definite scum.

With the low amount of posts and general interest, and my ability to remain on his case when I have limited connection over the next period of time, I'm going to offer the following -

Lynch Percy.
If he flips town, lynch me next, I'll self-vote.
If he flips scum - lynch Korlash.

[SerialClergyman]

EBWOP:
have been vote the person who is the most vocal supporter of Percy

should of course be most vocal CRITIC of Percy, not supporter.

[SerialClergyman]

Due to lack of access to the site, my posts will be much more limited than they have been, so sorry about that.

No worries Korlash, but as I said a while ago my time on the site is getting very low.

1) I completely object to you saying that I lied in the same way Percy did. I think this is the point you're referring to.

I have not lied, and certainly not like Percy has. I have pushed the case on Percy as hard as I can because I'm pretty sure we have scum. Where Percy's lies start with a lie or a mistake about a guilty verdict that didn't exist, they then get worse and worse when questioned about it. If he's said 'Oh, my bad, it was just a counter-claim' that'd be one thing. He didn't, he said (obvious paraphrase) 'Oh there must have been a day-investigating cop. I think it's not rare to envisage a day-investigate, I don't know why I didn't mention it ever maybe because a lot of other people joined the wagon and oh, Lamont flipped the same role, but he was a night-investigate and qwints was a day-investigate.

The worst you can say about me is that I said I was more sure than I could be, which is not a lie (not to mention the fact that has been done regularly through every game on the site - every time someone says you're obvscum (or obvtown) aren't they also lying?)

2) For those worried about whether or not Percy as scum would do what he did - let me put it this way. I think Korlash's point is that the link to the Santos wagon is tenuous. If it's unlikely he'd make the point about a guilty investigation as scum, it's even more unlikely he'd do it as town. It looks to me like he was using it to boost a weak case on Santos after his claim - maybe on purpose or maybe not. Now - even if you don't accept that, look at the reaction afterwards - the tall stories about day-investiagting and not mentioning any of it before being questioned etc etc. I would argue a scum player is more likely to make the original slip, but I think the lying under pressure about it is

undoubtedly

a scum move, not a town move.

3)

Because you're fucking trying to tie his lie to the santos wagon. His 'lie' has nothing to do with the santos wagon, it has nothing to do with his vote on Santos, and it barely has anything to do with Santos. Either you've been trying to quell the Santos wagon with this or you've been trying to gain false support on this Percy wagon right from the start. All I've wanted since my first post of the day was for you to explain this and you've avoided it every damn post.

Santos wrote:
I'm actually just irritated that our doctors are full of fail and didn't protect Quints.

Why would the doctors protect someone who claimed a guilty on someone, which turned out to be false? This is ridiculous.

He's using it to attack Santos. It's right there. It was part of his big case against Santos in the post where he pushes Santos. I can't be more clear than that. AND I've explained how even if you think the above isn't a direct lie, and is in fact a mistake, his covering of that mistake with more and more unbelieveable lies points to scum, not town.

Low access means I can't keep going around in circles like this - this entire point is covered in 470. Go through the things you have ot believe to believe Percy.

It's also worth saying I count 15 unique posts since D2, which means that there are 6 people who haven't posted yet at all today, not to mention those who only have 1 or 2 posts. If we're going to apply any sort of pressure ot Percy whatsoever we need people paying attention and voting.

[SerialClergyman]

If Percy turns out to be innocent - I fully expect to be lynched. I've pushed his case very hard and if he's innocent then I look really bad - I understand and accept that.

I offered the deal to show just how sure I am about Percy being scum. I am very confident Percy will flip scum and I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is.

Your summary of the motivation as town doesn't include a townie who is close to sure he's found scum and is doing literally almost everything he can think of to try to get people to see it how he sees it. I've been frustrated by what I feel is an apathetic town.

Your summary (and also that of a few others, I think Sajin was one) fails to describe how my action makes sense as scum. If Percy is town, I die, which is a lot worse as scum than it is as town. If he's scum, I'm going ridiculously out of my way to bus him or there's multiple scumgroups and he's from another group and there's some ridiculous play being made where I hunt scum in a completely over the top manner. I think all of those plays are far less worthwhile than the one I'm making as town.

As much as you find the risk that we get 2 innocent lynches not optimal play,
a) I'm confident enough in my read to risk it (knowing I'd likely be the lynch anyway if he flips town) and
b) I think coming at it assuming I'm scum makes even less sense.

[SerialClergyman]

I would argue that you're the one introducing WIFOM if that's your argument, not me. Your argument is essentially 'ah, but your pro-town actions could be you as scum PRETENDING to be pro-town'

Because I've pushed extremely hard, admittedly to the point of tunneling against him. I think the more you push and push against one individual the more your actions are likely to come back to you if you're wrong. If that wasn't the case, forceful scum could pick a different person to tunnel each day until there was noone left.

[SerialClergyman]

EBWOP I'm also going to bed as it's 4:30am, so you'll have to wait for a reply ot any future posts till the morning

[SerialClergyman]

But I need Gorrad to read his inbox pronto thanks.

people were concerned our prs were doing crap work.
^ just lets them know they are working.

They look like different motivations to me. Was the softclaim to stand up for yourself about people who were concerned or because you had a genuine worry about what your claimed role did or didn't do?

[SerialClergyman]

*facepalm*

Mufasa, are you seriously saying that you specifically challenged the night kill going through to the mod and softclaimed some form of protective role, but that if you don't actually say the flavour of the role the scum won't notice?

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry, as I said earlier my access has been bad.

This last couple of pages has been a grind. I still havne't seen anyone come up with a case that even comes close to mine on Percy, in my opinion. I appreciate the comments I got from a lot of people that I went over the top, and I'm tunnelling and whatever, but after my activity waned I think the scumhunting ground to a halt.

Also of note is that Korlash appears to have entered a private hibernation after attacks on Percy died down, his last post being another defence of Percy over 1 week ago after a period of a couple of posts a day.

I'm in favour of a flavour claim. It might kick start something. And roles will not be that easy to discern - would anyone have thought Elan or Hat Man would make good cops without listening ot the explanations for their role? Anything that cuts down on scum fakeclaim possibilities is ok with me.

[SerialClergyman]

Actually, re-r-eading that, the case on Vino has enough to be somewhat interesting, but that's about the only other person aside from Kor/Perc that I'd be willing to vote, and even then the attacks look half hearted at best.

[SerialClergyman]

Percy, there aren't many major points that I can think of which require more talking. I think some people have disagreed with my case, and I have been made to see that perhaps I've tunneled, but even in looking around now I can't see anyone I'd prefer to vote. If you think there's some glaring hole in my case that I haven't answered, I'd be happy to. AFAIK, apart from a couple of points addressing some minor aspects of my case, post 470 pretty much stands, and it comes down to whether you bleieve these assumptions or not. I still don't.

[SerialClergyman]

I am Tom from Theatre Hopper

[SerialClergyman]

Percy's claim surely has to seal the deal.

A hider usually dies from targetting scum - that's what makes the role important, because you need to choose wisely to stay alive and you also can confirm town because if you're alive the next day, you have a confirmed innocent. Percy's version has neither the detriment of the benefit of this mechanic. In fact, I struggle to see what good it actually does, aside from generally keeping him alive.

Percy's claimed 'version' of the hider gives him a perfect excuse if he was scum every single night. What if someone Percy claimed to have hid with was scum? Oh, never mind, his version of the hider allows that to happen. Why hasn't he died yet? Oh, because he keeps picking non-innocent or non-dying people to hide with.

So he can't confirm innocence or guilt, he can always have a reason for why he's alive, he, in fact, gets a BONUS for hiding with scum (he becomes untouchable) for utterly no reason, other than it makes his claim even more convineient if he was scum.

And all of this hugely convienient role for scum to claim coincidentally falls on the guy who's made the most obvious scumslip all game.

It's utter rubbish, lynch now please.

[SerialClergyman]

After your farcical claim, which you don't even bother defending, I'd sell my house if you're town.

Your threats are tired.

And even worse - your play has hardly reflected someone who doesn't care at all aobut being NKed, has it? You're hider, you have essentially full impunity to say what you like and scumhunt as hard as possible.

I'd find anyone who made a custom claim which means you never have to make a disprovable comment about anyone else and which explains why you never die at night highly scummy. The fact that it comes from you absolutely and completely seals the issue.

Your play doesn't ring true, your claim doesn't ring true - you're scum.

[SerialClergyman]

Speaking of which, we NEED votes on him. It's nothing like guranteed and all it takes is for one of the other scum to say something like 'I think blah is scummiest of all' and vote them and suddenly the lynch switches.

Percy absolutely should be the lynch after that claim. Time to vote.

[SerialClergyman]

Furthermore, the "NKimmune and no disprovable comments" idea would apply fully to a claim of Hider, without the extra rule that I don't die if I target scum. Please enlighten me as to why scumPercy would make up that detail.

This is actually a key point, your feigned ignoreance notwithstanding. If you die when you target scum, you can confirm innocence. Each night you'd have to explain who you hid with and each night you'd be therefore able to confirm an innocent if you were alive the next day, or possibly even confirm scum (if for example we arranged you to hide with player x and you died that night, we'd know player x was scum.)

Now if you're scum, this poses a problem - if anyone you ever confirm innocent flips scum, you're outed and an auto-lynch. So you adjusted the claim to suit. Now you will never have to claim anything that later might be disproved. It makes the claim a) much more convinient as a scum fakeclaim and b) less useful to town, because you can no longer give us information via your hides.

You're honestly proposing that I should have been talking about how invincible I am from the beginning of the game?

Nope, I'm saying someone who has no fear of being knocked off at night should be running the joint. You have every reason to be the most loud, obnoxious leader of a scumhunter and that's the opposite of your playstyle so far. You've picked on mediocre players and relatively low-active players and your pressure has been far from strong. You and your playstle do not feel like someone who is essentially NK immune.

@all

Voting Kise is essentially voting a lurker. Kise hasn't claimed and I assume that's because he's not online.He may or may not be scum, but I can't see how Kise's claim could possibly put him in a worse position than Percy at the moment, unless he too claims a tailor-made custom role that's perfect for scum.

[SerialClergyman]

Percy - I didn't mean to summarise the case against Kise as a lurker case - I meant to say that voting for him over you because he hadn't claimed was tantamount to voting a lurker - he can't claim if he isn't around.

I'd still prefer to lynch Percy, but I think you clearly specifying who you are hiding with would be an acceptable alternative. If you die and flip hider I'll post the photo of my house for sale.

[SerialClergyman]

This post by rbt illustrates my point about kise nicely. I have no problem with his lynch, but don't turn his absense into a scum tell. The guy has an average of 14 posts a day on site and hasn't posted anywhere since he announced his vacation. So to suggest his absense is a sign of him being scum in this specific game is to ignore the far greater liklihood that he just hasn't come back from his vacation yet. If you'd prefer to see the Percy night action and don't want to lynch him, that's fine, by all means vote kise, but anyone citing his lack of a post or claim as scummy is either not doing their homework or just making up a reason for the vote.

[SerialClergyman]

Vote Percy

For those who don't remember, this post neatly sums up my position on Korlash and Percy as well as reinforces the sort of posts he was making all game. Ever since I started attacking Percy, Korlash constantly defended Percy, sometimes by attacking me. His flip is yet more evidence that

Percy is scum

.

Empking wasn't killed, and if Percy was scum, why would the scum oblige in outing one of their members? Korlash flipped scum as expected, Percy will flip scum too.

In other news, who did you recruit, Vino?

I think Korlash's fakeclaim is odd.. doesn't he run the risk of someone else having that comic/role? Should we be looking for obscure roles in the flavour claims, given they're less likely to be 'counter-flavour-claimed'? Why didn't Korlash just claim his actual flavour? Is there something specific about the flavour that tells us he's scum?

Delathi's kill was almost certainly mafia, the other two I'm not sure about. Mufasa is a lurker kill, so could be just about any faction. Korlash looked scummy as anything to me, so could be a vig, could be rival scum group, could be any other killing factions.

It seems to me that if the mafia have a hitman, then there could be multiple mafia kills each night as well.

[SerialClergyman]

Vino, it may matter later. I'd like you to say, please.

Sotty, I've had it up to here with this alternate reasoning thing. People said the same thing yesterday, but when push comes to shove, Korlash was scum. Look at the way he defends - if you read in iso you'll notice he often says things like 'I agree with the case on Percy, but I think SC is scummy too for the way he's attacking him'. He was very lamely using that kind of line to distance while persuing the real agenda, a chainsaw defence of Percy.

Too obvious sounds like too townie/scummy, arguments I despise. He had motive, means and opportunity. He had every reason to try to derail the wagon, he thought he could do it subtly and with a focus on attacking me but it got pulled back into what was obviously a strong and biased defence of Percy because he kept getting questioned on it.

And the person I'm most convinced is scum has just had their innocence test provide no result and their most ardent defender flip scum.

No more chances, lynch please.

[SerialClergyman]

..

Why wouldn't you say if you were town? There's a specific reason I think the town should know that may or may not come up later, and by the time it comes up it may be too late. I cannot see how it could possibly affect or disadvantage you if your claim is true to let us know which one you targetted.

[SerialClergyman]

Sajin, can you explain what events caused you to do a 180 and decide Percy is scummy after all?

[SerialClergyman]

Percy - your point about scum buddying up to townies and defending them would be more valid if Korlahs didn't take every second breath saying something along the lines of 'although I agree with most of the case on Percy' and 'the funny thing is I also think Percy needs to answer this' etc etc.

Those phrases make sense as scum defending their partner, those phrases do not make sense as scum trying to buddy to someone they know is innocent and then force a mislynch on the townie that tries to lynch them, because the obvious objection is that they also believed the case to some extent.

[SerialClergyman]

Either roflcopter has superhuman powers of perception to guess that 'killed by each other' meant 'killed right next to each other' or he had something to do with one of the kills. You'd have earned my vote if I wasn't still chugging along on the Percy wagon.

For now, I thought I'd post up some highlight's of Korlash's love/hate relationship of Percy to give something concrete to what I asserted and most people didn't immediately respond to in 799.

In his hammer post he doesn't specifically say the "counter claim" is the reason he is voting, he says it "needs addressing today." His explanation was that he felt the counterclaim was unneeded, thus his statement that it needed addressing makes sense. i'm trying hard not to answer this stuff for him but its hard to argue my points without addressing yours...

I do agree with you him not including his reasoning about the day investigation at the time of the hammer means that he could be lying here now, but it doesn't prove it. It doesn't even suggest it really, unless you're saying it's impossible for a townie to hammer someone without giving a reason.

In all fairness it means very little coming from me and not him, but if I have to answer for him in order to address your BS accusations then I gotta do what I gotta do...

Oh yeah, that's very good. Automatically pair the guy your voting and the guy pointing out your BS attacks. How original.

Sarcasm aside, it's not sympathetic. I was all ready to join the wagon on Percy until he posted his explanation, causing me to reread and edit my post the otherway. I actually read the entire thing with the added perspective that I was open to him telling the truth, and you know what, it actually made sense. Why don't you try it and instead of reading it with your biased "i'm right and nothing can change it" attitude and maybe you can make something of this discussion.

The sad part about all of this is I originally agreed with you. But that aside...

Which means via his explanation there is no lie. Whether or not you believe this is up to you, whether I believe it or not is up to me. My view point on Percy has changed may times today I'm sure it will change many more. But that's irrelevant as I care only about my viewpoint on you atm.

This is my biggest issue with you and I would like it clarified before i press on with Percy.

Yes, it's indicative of me thinking SC's is pushing the Percy wagon for means other then good old fashioned scum hunting. The fact I had to resort to defending Percy to push my own point is regrettable, but luckily it hasn't seemed to do any damage to the case on him or his own defense.

As far as my own defense of Percy goes, Devil's Advocate is a pretty good way to describe it. To make my own point clear I don't disagree with *most* of the attacks on Percy, but the ones I do I need to push against. And I can't do that without in some way shape or form defending Percy in the process. My first and foremost thought has not been to defend Percy but to push my vote on SC, something that has yet to be cleared up mind you. I will say once it has been cleared up I'll have some words for Percy as well, so no fear there eh?

And just to ease your troubled mind, when I said "I don't care about... (insert three things I said here)" I didn't mean I don't care about them, just that I don't care about talking about them with SC at that time. I don't want SC to talk about whether or not I should believe percy. I don't want him to talk about percy's lie and what makes it a lie. I almost entirely don't want him talking about Percy at all. (Minus the stuff he has to explain in order to back up his statement I have concerns about.)

I don't see how the comments above make sense in a scum-buddying-town narrative. I don't know why he's so keen to put himself at arm's length from the person he's trying to buddy. It is a textbook chainsaw case - his continued insistence that he is not defending Percy, and that he agrees about much of the case, or he's not even interested in discussing the case about Percy - all he cares about is his case on SC. It's just.. classic. He worked hard to derail the wagon and was a big factor is moving the wagon off Percy (which in and of itself doesn't make much sense from a scum standpoint). Then the continued distancing coupled with the continued defending is a clear scum signal, no matter what WIFOM is spouted (It's just a CLEVER way of buddying )

Press on, fellow townians! Percy is the lynch, get it done.

[SerialClergyman]

I'm sorry my activity has been down, I'm finalising the buying of an apartment so I've been incredibly busy. Normal posting to resume shortly.

[SerialClergyman]

Why wouldn't we ask for a full claim? If he's genuine, scum already know he's a pr. If he's not genuine, it'll define him into a corner.

Full claim please.

[SerialClergyman]

It's late and I've got to go to bed, but I really don't see any reason to not vote Percy. The 'Percy claimed a power role' reason is so lame, especially because his power role has been carefully constructed to give the town zero information. Can't confirm anyone innocent, can't do much except keep him alive.

I can't help noticing that Tar seems to always have Percy as his 2nd or 3rd favourite scum to lynch, or he'll vote Percy then vote someone else come deadline.

Lets please lynch him and move on.

[SerialClergyman]

Zzz

Fishy, get back on the wagon or be more convincing.

Percy - I would love to play with you when you're town. I've actually really enjoyed playing with you so far but I can't see you as town, despite these appeals to emotion.

1) I'll absolutely post the pics of the sale of my place, but on a more game-related note, you'd like to see the self-vote? After declaring me the town read you're most sure of? I'll happily say I'll do it because I'm not expecting to have to go through with it. You on the other hand should be 100% expecting me to have to do it if you're town, so why would you encourage someone you thoroughly believe to be town to self-vote?
Doesn't makes sense. You're scum, that was a threat to me and a not-so-subtle reminder to everyone about the incident that a lot of people found scummy. I'm scared of neither.

2) You're being lynched because of your epic activity. What crap. There are plenty of people in plenty of games that post as prolifically if not more so than you. Tar is one of those in this game, yet it's your head on the chopping block not his, and that's because you slipped and your scumbuddy made a hash of defending you. Activity =/= Lynched, Scummy Activity = Lynched.

3) An AtE is still an AtE, even if it's a well-written one.

GET IT DONE LADS. Re-read the wall of Korlash, his defending Percy while agreeing he's scummy. Look at all the things you have to believe to write off Percy's slip. No more deadline speeches, no more switching to inactive scummyish players like Kise and now Sajin. Percy is scum, get it done.

[SerialClergyman]

Said reasoning was the "Percy thought qwints had a guilty" point. I find it surprising that this point would make anyone feel SC was scum, whether or not they liked the reasoning. To me, it felt extremely genuine at that point, post 489.

I find SC’s “if he flips town, lynch me” act deeply insincere. As far as I’m concerned, that’s merely a parody of tunnelled town.

It's not even vague - both Fishys are talking about EXACTLY THE SAME POST, 489.

First we lynch Percyscum, then we lynch whichever persona Fishy is inhabiting tomorrow.

[SerialClergyman]

I honestly can't remember what I thought about your attack itself 37 days ago

Except that you write it felt extremely genuine at that point, post 489! So happily your problem is solved. But then you just said that it felt like an act.. that didn't have any bearing on whether I was scum or town.

I'm going to use colours to try to work this out. Red for post way back, green for 926 and blue for 928. Here we gooo!

It's a

deeply insincere

extremely genuine

'if I'm wrong lynch me act'

that you

didn't and don't believe whether I'm town or scum

despite it being

merely a parody of tunnelled town

that would be

very surprising to feel I was scum!

The only way you come out of this looking good is if you're doing an imitation of Sarah Palin.

[SerialClergyman]

Mod: Sorry for using mod colour above

[SerialClergyman]

Moreover you misunderstand why I'm voting you. It's not because I think you're scummy. It's because I want you to stop directing the town behavior. It's not helpful. It's harmful. We lost a lot of ground because of it.

Then it's a bad vote. If you don't think he's scummy, tell him that you don't want him directing town behaviour and tell others not to go with his ideas. But your vote is your chance to catch and kill scum and it's wasted on someone you think isn't scummy and then presumably wouldn't want to lynch.

May I cordially invite you to the actually scummy Percy wagon?

[SerialClergyman]

I'm anti massclaim for today.

We have a grand candidate for scum sitting right in front of us, close to a lynch. We should lynch today, massclaim tomorrow to give any remaining power roles the chance to survive and do their thing for one more night. The main benefit of a massclaim is to find some cadidates for a lynch, but when we've already got a pearler that is lessened greatly, but the detriment stays just the same.

[SerialClergyman]

Arg.. so frustrated.

A massclaim would be a good idea IF we didn't have a solid lead on scum. As it is, it just looks like a chance to out PRs before the lynch, and stupid WIFOM arguments like 'scum would be opposed to appear townie' are epically frustrating as well.

I can't believe Percy hasn't been lynched. I'll try and show the timeline and my reasons to highlight why it's so crazy to be unvoting him and talking about a massclaim.

I persue a lead on a player and his explanation gets more and more bizarre. It's not just that Percy claims he thought qwints had a guilty - it's the way he handled the questioning about it. Remember it's a day start, so it's already unlikely he would have assumed an investigation. But no matter, Percy also claims to have thought qwints was a day-investigating cop (despite him not flipping day-investigating). He thought that at the start of D2, apparantly, when LC flipped the SAME ROLE as qwints, and yet didn't look for a day-investigation from LC sometime in D1, or wonder why LC didn't make more of a song and dance about it. And yes, he did have a post where he described his reasons for hammering and the whole 'day-investigating cop with a guilty verdict' was never mentioned (although he did give a different reason, the counter-claim).

So, dammit, it wasn't just a small slip, it was how deep the hole he dug for himself got. If he'd said 'Oh, he couldn't have had a guilty, it was a day start, I'm a douche hahaha' - that I wouldn't have found nearly as scummy. But instead he's felt he's had to explain everything, come up for a reason for everything, and it's all, in my eyes, transparently false.

*** So RIGHT THERE I'm more prepared to lynch than ever. That's the most concrete reason I've seen for a D2 lynch and I'm really thinking this guy is scum.

Then he claims, and he claims a non-standard role. His role, apparantly, is an adjusted hider, which gives him a reason to never be NKed yet takes all of the value out of it for town by removing the information gathering facility. A normal hider dies when he hides with scum, so he confirms innocence by breadcrumbing his hide and if he lives, his target is innocent. If he dies, his target is scum. That is a role that has quite a lot of use to the town while providing some danger to the hider. Percy's claimed role, on the other hand, has very little danger (inexplicably, zero danger if he hides on scum, even if that scum is killed! Anyone think of ANY convievable reason for that feature in a real role?) and is useless for telling us anything.

I just finished a game where CKD as scum used hider as a role claim, and he came unstuck because he claimed to have hidden behind an opposition scum member. There is a real danger for a scum fakeclaim of hider to keep having to confirm people without knowing their alignment, but happily Percy just wrote that entire issue completely off, giving us a useless role who's sole designed purpose, it seems, is to explain why he hasn't died yet.

*** So RIGHT THERE it's painfully, frustratingly so. Percy is scum.

But alas, for some reason people all jump on the Kise wagon because he hadn't claimed yet (never mind he was V/LA) and we end up with a vanilla lynch. But what should happen the next day, except that Korlash, the main defender of Percy throughout the day, should turn up dead and FLIP SCUM. Well, this surely must seal it. But there is some objection that it's possible he was scum buddying to town. I  therefore point out, in the dubbed 'wall of Korlash' that there is an overwhelmging number of times where he makes statements that try to distance himself from Percy while nonetheless defending him and trying to make it about attacking me, not defending Percy (ie DEFINITIONAL chainsawing). He regularly says things like 'The sad thing is, I agree with most of the case on Percy but I'm goign to vote SC' and 'I don't want to defend Percy, I'm playing devil's advocate, but I really think SC is scummy'. I have about 10 quotes that I posted before of these sorts of comments. If he was scum buddying Percytown, there's zero reason to do this. He just needs to defend Percy, call me scummy or whatever and away he goes. The fact that he continues to say that he agrees with the case agaisnt Percy but nonetheless his ACTIONS show that he constantly defended percy and tries to disguise his posts as being concerned about finding me scummy is

damning

.

 Additionally, if there are multiple scum groups, his motivation for buddying to Percytown is less sound, because Percy could be town OR opposing scum, so he'd have every reason to not want to buddy. This assumes two scumgroups, of course.

*** I started off being convinced solely by Percy's explanation of his slip. Since then, both his claim and the Korlash flip has fit 100% perfectly into the scenario that Percy is scum.

I'm absolutely bereft of ideas. Fishy says that if the reasons are good enough people will vote, but with the scumbuddies Percy has, the V/LA people and the people like Fishy himself who say things like 'My head agrees with all your reasons but my gut says town', we can't get a wagon up.

Percy is scum. From the moment he flipped, everything has just unfolded exactly as it would if he was scum. His slip, His role, Korlash - they all don't make sense for Percytown. His lynch should absolutely be the town's priority.

[SerialClergyman]

Fishy, can you give me a rough % chance on each of the three major issues?

So what's the % liklihood that Percy's claim is true?
What's the % liklihood that Korlash was buddying, not chainsawing?
What's the % liklihood that Percy's slip is a genuine townie mistake?

[SerialClergyman]

As I said, I've become more convinced by your failed explanations rather than the slip itself. Regardless of your motivation, I'm convinced by the fact you create a story about a day investigating cop rather than say you made a mistake. THEN you claim an obviously scum-tailored role, THEN your obvious chainsawer that I specifically pointed to pre-flip as probably scum with you flips scum.

SC is so tilted it's amazing - encouraging others to abuse mathematics to help push his misdirected, distracting wagon. Urgh.

Charming. If you'll look at the post you'll notice I asked him what he thought the percentage chance was for each tell. The fact that in answering that question he's challenged his gut read on you (although hasn't made the step of voting you) has little to do with me.

Although I'd say if it was an intentional act of persuasion I'd wear it proudly because it would mean I'd convinced someone to vote for someone I think is scum, something I'm having obvious trouble doing now. I want people to vote for you, I want you to be the lynch, no apologies.

[SerialClergyman]

Because the purpose of a mass claim is to investigate to try to find someone who has a good chance of being scum. It comes at the significant cost of outing protown roles. If we already have a very scummy suspect, we should lynch that person today, giving our roles one more night of annonyminity.

My question to you, given you've apparantly considered Percy scummy for two days now, is what is the advantage of massclaiming today compared to tomorrow?

I don't think the Percy lynch is inevitable, rather I'm beginning to think it's positively impossible to achieve.

My only concern with you tar is your penchant for talking a lot about Percy but always finding a reason to unvote or redirct at the business end of the wagon, first kise on day two, now this massclaim.

[SerialClergyman]

[quote]Serial Clergyman: Why should having a strong scum candidate have any merit on when we massclaim?[\quote]

this was the question you askEd that I was responding to with that paragraph. I think we should do the massclaim tomorrow straight after day breaks. My reasons to do it are the same as yours. My reasons to delay to tomorrow is what you quoted above.

I think if you are planning to lynch Percy anyway, there's no reason to do it before the upcoming nightkill. We can't lynch more than one person and at least one vig is dead, so any leads you find would have to wait until tomorow anyway.

[SerialClergyman]

I want your lynch, my vote on you should convey that. How do you mean it will be hard to tell? Either you will be lynched or you won't be.

I think his point was that it's going to be hard foryou to determine at what point today is it now clear that he will not be lynched and we should massclaim. If you waited to see if he was either lynched or not then essentially you're saying there's no way you'd suport a massclaim today.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that, Percy.

[SerialClergyman]

Finally, @SC, I'd like to share with you a little piece of wisdom that ABR once posted. I can't think of anything more relevant for you and your uselessness.

Are you seriously appealing to ABR? If there was ever a player to push 100% towards a lynch on little more than a gut read, ABR is surely it. The only difference between how ABR would have played this game compared to how I've played it is ABR would have had you lynched weeks ago.

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry, I'm moving house so my only access is via phone, will try to post when I can.

[SerialClergyman]

New place is great, still no net. Vla for another couple of days, sorry.

[SerialClergyman]

This game needed a deadline 2 months ago.

I thought Percy had self-hammered, and I hung my head in sadness. I was really challenged. Had I been wrong about everything? Had all those signs added up to the wrong conclusion? etc etc

Then I saw he hadn't, and it was l-1, and he quickly unvoted (and fair enough too, either way. Self-voting sucks.)

So we're back at this impasse where we can't quite get enough to vote Percy. I think Empking looks scummy, primarily because he's Empking. I think Sajin always was suspicious in his vote for Percy, but a) I still hold that there's more concrete links and evidence against Percy than any other player and b) his alignment is critical. If he is discontinued mafia and there is another faction, then there are bound to be scum on his wagon, probably yesterday as well. If he's town, I'm less sure, but it's possible. I think Empking and Sajin are certainly possible to be another mafia faction, but it's vital that we know Percy's alignment, know whether he is discontinued is he is mafia etc etc.

This game desperately needs a kick and that's where it'll be, in my opinion.

Percy - I have to say that your play has been so impressive over the past month or two. Whether you're town or scum, you haven't stooped to insults or OMGUS or given up (apart from the self-vote, which I think was a gambit anyway) or lashed out, in fact you've had a number of solid attempts to change the town's focus off you and on to other people or a mass claim or another event. I think if the town had been more active you'd have either been successful or lynched a lot earlier and you'd be spared this irritating impasse. And I know that I've been obstinant in my suspicions of you, so my opinion is unlikely to be reciprocated, but I felt it had to be said that whatever your alignment is, I've personally had nothing but admiration for the way you've kept at it.

[SerialClergyman]

BY the way, that PM was just about the hardest thing I've done on this site

Can we have a deadline Gorrad? A week or something?

[SerialClergyman]

HH - Every new exclaimation mark fills me with joy.

Tuesday is good Gorrad, thanks for that.

Sajin's last post in this game was about a month ago but he had time to make a snappy one-liner? Seriously?

[SerialClergyman]

EBWOP - that comment looked sarcastic, HH, but I meant it, I'm actually seriously chuckling at every post since your style change

[SerialClergyman]

Happy to massclaim. Mind still blown about Percy. I owe korlash an apology too for some
damn scummy buddying. Pics of my sold house
coming.

[SerialClergyman]

Also, with me pushing that hard, there is almost certainly scum in the shadows of that lynch. The three wagons should give a decent amount of info now that one scum group is effectively outed.

[SerialClergyman]

To be perfectly honest, it seems like you still haven't gotten the massclaim point. The idea is that we all claim and we can look at the town as a whole and weed out fakeclaims. Your resistance looks like stalling. Why would you wait one day anyway? Is something going to change, tomorrow?

[SerialClergyman]

On one hand, the breadcrumbs are great.

On the other hand, having no investigation N1 or N3 is worrying, and there was nothing about lamont or qwints' role that suggested they were a factional cop at all.

I'm leaning towards dicey, but I think it's work keeping Siri around to have either more investigates or more times where he has to fake an investigate and perhaps give himself away for some reason.

Who's next to claim?

[SerialClergyman]

I don't agree, I think tar is genuine. I wasn't sure how his theory was going to run after Percy flipped town, and I totally accept htat I lead the lynch on him and pushed for it for days and days. So fair enough, I deserve criticism and scrutiny for that. But looking at Tar's play, unless he is scum and is faking these 'eureka' moments one by one, he seems to me like he's just going through genuinely trying to break the setup.

It doesn't lend his current theory any credit, and to be honest before today I've thought there was a lot of bluster without much serious knowledge gain, but maybe after all the chips are down that'll change.

We should definitely finish the massclaim and see if Tar's theory works.

Also, if he's an SK, why is he so prominent? It seems he's setting himself up to be night killed if his theory cuts too close to a scum team, and his leaderish role almost always means he gets blamed if things don't work out.

I think possibly the weakest part of the case is the kill flavours. Correct me if I'm wrong, Tar, but it seems you're suggesting that there was a no kill night one, for whatever reason, then a kill on Korlash, then a different flavour kill on RBT. I just don't think that's particularly likely. We know rofl killed Korlash, he made that clear yesterday, and he didn't have to, unless he was planning to fakeclaim when he didn't have to. Just about the only moment I looked away from Percy yesterday is when I nailed rofl as being the killer of korlash due to his understanding of the mod's flavour, and I don't think that was particularly obvious, it just doesn't strike me as a scum gambit to use the mod's ambiguous flavour to set up your fake claim.

So we know rofl killed korlash, and then we have a kill that doesn't exist that might, and then another kill with different flavour that you're linking. It's just.. a bit iffy.

So for me, before we go further down this path, I want a) to finish the massclaim specifically looking for one role which may confirm the existence of the new mafia faction and b) get a full claim from rofl. I asked for it yesterday, and we should have made him do it. But I want his abilities locked in before he claims they are all spent.

[SerialClergyman]

I am vanilla.

Empking, you're up.

[SerialClergyman]

Simul. Tar asked me at the end of his post :p

[SerialClergyman]

Aside from the fact that I think there are scum in the people who are now claiming, I don't agree. I think we were always likely to have a stack of vanillas left, given how many power roles are dead.

[SerialClergyman]

Also, for Percy -

You were right.

[SerialClergyman]

Tar, you've read every single word
I've written on site and the best
you can come up with is null tell? Seriously? You were
more convinced that Percy was scum on meta than me. Could you give me a list of those games? I get most of the rest of your case, just don't agree. I expected it after Percy flipped town. Perhaps I should hammer sajin?

[SerialClergyman]

I think Sajin picking the person to hammer works well. Worth a big sigh at tubby who says he doesn't believe Sajin then immediately votes, signalling that he's not prepared to hammer to actually back his words.

Are we finished with the claiming?

[SerialClergyman]

Why would you think voting on it is a good idea if the town is 60%scum?

Ok, here's my question. It looks to me like there's an sk. Tar's point about the FBI agent is decent, but there is no FBI agent in the game. So there either isn't a cop for the sk, or this idea about a completely new mafia is bogus and it's a simple setup of sk, lynchers and mafia.

Also, if sajin is town, even if he can kill someone, can we afford to lose him? I'm not sure there are two scumgroups but either way we are running out of townies fast and I'm not liking the willingness to throw away someone.

[SerialClergyman]

Tar, what faction in your theory has the 'erasure' kill?

[SerialClergyman]

This is a very good point. I was thinking it was likely to be an SK because every other kill flavour changed so dramatically.

So essentially you're saying that the lynching team acted similarly to an SK. How did they manage to win without actually lynching anyone? Did they just have to kill certain people?

Anyways, that's immaterial. I leave my doubts, I think there must be a mystery mafia team. I agree that tar and siri are probably town. I'm still not in favour of lynching Sajin. I know it's WIFOM but people who claim roles that are asking to be lynched are typically not scum. I'd prefer to just outright lynch.

[SerialClergyman]

It's hardly a logical leap.

[SerialClergyman]

Still don't think that Sajin is scum, still think that the argument 'if he's town we get to take one with him' is making him the default lynch and it's dead stupid.

[SerialClergyman]

So you think there's only one scum team, Sajin?

[SerialClergyman]

I used to agree with you but have a look up a bit with Tar's answer to my question about kill flavours. If the lynching faction have the Erased kill, there can't really be an SK still alive.

[SerialClergyman]

Dizzy top for scum - replaced Tzeench who did nothing all game exceot lurk to here and a dodgy role.

Rofl I'm neutral on, I don't get why he'd be so forward with his role and admit to the kill of Korlash, and I could see why a pro-town player would kill Korlash. His 'powers' are essentially pretty useless for us now - one is keeping him alive and one roleblock which can barely help us unless he gets lucky with his shot.

HH I'm neutral on, Sotty gut town on. Tar it seems to me is very unlikely to be any scum apart from an SK or other third party, and his knowledge of setup structures alone is worth keeping him around.

tubby, hascow, empking - I think they are all valid lynches as well. In fact, of the three I think hascow has the meta of someone a lot more useful than he has been (no offense, just how I'm reading it - you kinda expect Emp to be Emp.)

I'm not sure about Sajin either way, but my main point is that default status of 'lynch him because if we're wrong we might get another scum' really stinks at this point in the game. We NEED to hit scum with this lynch, and there should be no compromise, we can't afford another town lynch. Plus he'll be useful in lylo - if it ever gets down to a 3 man lylo with 1 scum, for example, we effectively have a 50/50 shot because one of the two non-sajins can hammer him.

So all in all, I just don't think scumhunting should begin and end with a 'meh, in the worst case scenario it's ok', not when it's likely we're already outnumbered.

[SerialClergyman]

rofl - I get your point about Empking and Percy, but why can't it be possible that the scum groups saw each other as the real threat and were aiming each other? THat's what I did in Emerald city mafia and that worked out better than aiming at town..

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry, move + my sister's wedding has eaten my posting opportunities.

I'd prefer to lynch someone other than Sajin. I'm going to

vote dizzy

but after empking's interactions with percy and he not finding himself dead I'm willing to switch.

[SerialClergyman]

I think using setup speculation to suspect Tar is a) not reasonable considering meta and b) not entirely reasonable in this game at all. He's taken the initiative and really thought it out when the rest of us have been less prolific so to come around and say h's scummy for that is a bit of a slap in the face.

The point about Empking and Percy is excellent though. We haven't talked about Percy's townflip nearly enough - the fact noone chose to take out empking and get a 2-fer including a power role really does point to emp as scummy (scum took qwints when given the chance, for example, didn't bother leaving him around for WIFOM questions about fake counterclaims.) So for Tar not to care about the significance of that, and gloss over it whenever someone mentions it (I think rofl did earlier) is a solid scumtell.

But for that to be true, he'd have to be part of the scum, not just an SK. I think that's unlikely given we have a not discontinued investigation on him and he was himself (and still is) the one who brought up and pushed the idea of the 'mysterious' scumgroup.

From my perspective, I think empking looks the worst out of everything. I don't think there's enough to look at lynching Tar when empking is the scummier example and most of tar's possible scumminess hinges on whether empking is scum or not.

[SerialClergyman]

So to put my money where my mouth is,

unvote, vote Empking

[SerialClergyman]

I think it's hard to see Tar scum if Empking is town, so I think a vote for Tar is less powerful than a vote for Empking.

I'm happy with a wagon on Emp or dizzy. If Tar is promising a wagon on Emp later down the track, I'm cool with dizzy now.

vote dizzy

What happened to lynching me, Tar?

[SerialClergyman]

Why are you suddenly worried about there being an SK? I'd dismissed the possibility primarily on your own analysis of the night kills.

The reason why I asked is your vote on Dizzy seems a little out of the blue. I voted her last page and noone seemed keen to get on board, and now with your influence I could see a wagon come up, but I'm suspicious about the motivation coming out of the blue. If she townflips, I can just see your long detailed post tomorrow about how I steered it to Dizzy.

So, this might be paranoid, but why the concern about an SK now?

[SerialClergyman]

With deadline coming close, I think people need to either vote dizzy or explain why another lynch is more worthwhile.

[SerialClergyman]

Tar, why are you increasingly doubtful of Sajin but increasingly happier with me? I probably fought the most to not lynch him and move it onto someone else, aren't you worried if he's scum that I was saving my buddy?

[SerialClergyman]

I think hitman is more powerful than NK immune godfather, so unrevealed may well have more members and with rofl claiming a JOAT I think it's likely as Tar said that there's a roleblocker somewhere, so might as well try and off him.

Plus unrevealed clearly killed Tar for totally reasoning out their existence so that was total rubbish.

I'm a little surprised they went after Tar and not the other mafia though. Once the cat is out of the bag with dizzy's lynch, surely their main concern had to be their opposing faction?

Anyway, rofl knew, despite the mod's flavour, that korlash and mufasa killed each other. He agreed with my in hindsight incorrect case on Percy, and claimed to be ready to make a case of his own yet never did. His claim is dodgy, his posts are lacklustre attempts to get empking lynched (don't worry, it'll happen soon enough) and he's a perfect place to rest my weary vote for tonight.

vote rofl

[SerialClergyman]

Yeah, rofl, I'm not picking up what you're putting down.

I'm wondering what the best way to use sajin is, but it's not wasting his ability in a lynch now.

I think you know that yourself, given that you suggest outright lynching of Emp is worthwhile. If that's worthwhile, outright lynching of

you

is worthwhile.

[SerialClergyman]

I think we should vote rofl, and empking and then start to piece through the rest. Usually I'm a fan of openness and full scumlists but I worry that with four nks probable with those lynches, we will soon see all the most town people knocked off.

Rofl - just like the invitational you used a bad, scummy softclaim to try and save yourself and just like the invitational you got called on it. You actually need to try when you're playing scum and not think your dismissive posts and soft claims are going to get you over the edge.

Let's noose them and goose them (not an actual phrase).

[SerialClergyman]

Ok, as far as I'm concerned we have two non negotiable lynches coming up. The squabbling isn't helping anyone. We will almost certainly hit scum twice and we know that the scum have to be aiming for each other at night or they will both be at lylo and therefore will be at a big disadvantage (they would have to get their opposite scum lynched rather than just make sure they don't get lynched themselves. )

this makes sajins claim actually very useful - if there aren't more than three of each mafia which is unlikely given the power flipped so far, the scum can't afford to kill him because they will be looking at each other. Then we just force the voted person in lylo to hammer sajin and we win if either they or sajin is scum.

So time to pony up and get these lynches done. My feeling is that hitman is more powerful than nk immune godfather but I think it doesn't matter and we have even teams. so unless there are any last objections, let's get this done.

[SerialClergyman]

I think we should vote rofl, and empking and then start to piece through the rest. Usually I'm a fan of openness and full scumlists but I worry that with four nks probable with those lynches, we will soon see all the most town people knocked off.

Asked and answered.

Someone explain to me why we're fishing for other targets and who is suspected when we have two particularly good lynch candidates sitting right there and I'll answer the question. Until then, you're giving the scum a roadmap to whoever is town.

[SerialClergyman]

Actually, now that I think about it, scum will be aiming for each other, won't they? If we assume rofl and empking are both scum of differing factions and that the factions are 3/3, there will be 1 scum of each left in a 4-man lylo. If rofl and emp are on the same team, we'll lose if we lynch both, but that seems unlikely. If we lynch rofl or emp with the plan to lynch the other tomorrow, the other scumteam could do our dirty work for us, but I think that's unlikely for a few reasons I see no pro-town reason to highlight.

So the scum need to take out the scumpartner of rofl/empking so that when they get to lylo they only have to get someone else lynched, not have to worry about who the opposite scum is.

The only exception is Sajin is obv town to me and the scum can't afford to let him into lylo (because town will force someone to hammer Sajin, letting them win if Sajin OR the hammerer is scum), so he'll be taken out sooner than later I think.

Of those alive:

1. Hasdgfas Prob town.
4. Sotty7 (Slicey) possible scum.Sprite?
9. Empking Discontinued scum
15. Head_Honcho possible scum. Sprite?
17. roflcopter Sprite scum
19. Sajin (xRECKONERx) Almost certainly town
24. Tubby216 (ZazieR) possible scum. Discontinued?

That's where I am at the moment. I'd prefer to continue this after the scum has had a few potshots though.

In the meantime, I've been advocating a rofl lynch because I don't believe his claim, his play has been dicey at best and discontinued are more likely to have more members. If anyone wants to argue with any of that let me know, otherwise lets get this done.

[SerialClergyman]

Whoops, typo, I meant sprite are more likely to have more members.

But how could you not know that? 2-shot hitman > nk-immune as I've said all game. Relying on brain slips to defend yourself is pissweak.

If you want a reason to vote you over empking, I refer you back to your bullshit claim and softclaiming antics and general total lack of scumhunting (remember the case on Percy that you had that would totally blow everyone away that you never actually made because I was doing all the hard work for you?)

[SerialClergyman]

Just to dispel the lack of softclaiming -

i killed korlash. that much should have already been obvious. i'm not willing to claim anything further at this point.

tar wrote:
Ah. The one way your claim is believable (I think I know what you're claiming - would I be right in guessing that you targeted either Percy or Korlash N1?).

i know where you're head is, but no i don't have that ability, so no i didn't target percy or korlash night one.

potentially i should full claim, but i'm not even convinced of that yet, i think i'm still more valuable without the scum knowing what else i'm capable of. and i'm still more than sure that percy is scum, so no reason to run anyone else anywhere near claim territory.

reading that piece of character description from the applegeeks website percy posted again i noticed a clear correlation with another of my abilities which perceptive scum are sure to pick up on as well. i'm not sure what to do about this yet, but for now i'll leave it open ended. have a nice wifom sandwich, scum.

i will say that i have at least one unused ability remaining which can disrupt the scum's nightkill now that korlash the mafia strongman is out of the picture.

Etc etc,

The rest of what you say is actually quite interesting. I'm unhappy about relying on your word of not having any self protects though. If you're fakeclaiming, as I think is almost certainly the case, why would you fakeclaim a self-protect when you didn't have one? And if you did have one, this gambit becomes a hell of a lot more worthwhile.

Leaving for work, will deliberate.

[SerialClergyman]

So rofl, your theory is that the scum teams may well be symmetrical, in which case we should aim at discontinued because they have a NK-immune person.

But if the scum teams were symmetrical then sprite will still have a hitman left. So they'll be able to kill through protection.

Your theory doesn't hold up, I'm afraid. I see no reason to switch (although I appreciate your effort and echo your calls for more participation)

[SerialClergyman]

has no one considered that if the scumgroups are truly equal we're probably dealing with a nightkill immune discontinued scum, and no amount of attempted crosskills will help anyone with that?

I was specifically responding to this theory - that the scumgroups are symmetrical which means we should lynch discontinued because they may still have a NK-immune member.

I think if we were to assume that, which I agree is relatively unlikely but not impossible, we'd have to assume that there was a hitman who could kill through the immunity.

You're correct about using his shots though.

unvote

for discussion.

Hads - do you think rofl is scum? Do you think the teams have equal numbers?

[SerialClergyman]

The question is which one should town weaken? Sprite needs another hit I think. Vote: Rofl

So if you think it's likely that there's a NK-immune discontinued, why are you voting likely sprite?

Sorry hasdgfas - I should have been more vigilant in checking. I thought that the town were pretty much sold on both Empking and rofl.

[SerialClergyman]

(chuckshot, beaversticked), black magic'd, sarcasm'd are discontinued, with the first two apparently both belonging to korlash

Hold on - why assume that chuckshot and beaversticked were two seperate kill methds for the same person?

[SerialClergyman]

Both of those kills were on a known and outed power role (one doc, one cop). I suppose it's possible that he could have not used the hitman function for the doc.

In order to think it's the same person you'd have to a) think there's different flavour for the 1 person, b) think the Korlash used his hitman ability for only 1 of his 2 kills.

In order to think it's different people, you'd have to think there are 4 discontinued scum.

I think the former is more likely on balance, but in terms of the next lynch I'm getting swayed towards lynching Emp.

[SerialClergyman]

See, it's that bullshit that gives you away as scum, rofl. You can't claim your attacks against empking had anything to do with a worst case scenario because you have NEVER made any mention about the better safe than sorry 4 kill types until AFTER I raised it. In fact, I raised it while DISAGREEING with your reasoning that said the first two belonged to korlash.

The only consideration I'm making is which scumbucket is it more worthwhile to lynch first.

[SerialClergyman]

MOD: PRODS PLS. SRSLY.

To Empking and tubby - please explain using setup info or any other evidence you can think of why there are more likely to be 4 sprite than 4 discontinued?

[SerialClergyman]

Arg.

Well then, can you give me some idea why you think it's right? I'm not asking you to prove it in a court of law, I'm asking you to tell me your reasons for thinking it.

[SerialClergyman]

vote empking

kill flavour dictates if there are four members in a scum team they will definitely be with the discontinued team.

I'll be going after sprite tomorrow either way, but for today the empking lynch makEs more sEnse.

Town members who so far sem utterly apathetic, vote empking today please.

[SerialClergyman]

M'okay.

Here's the problem I see in this situation.

If your partner is NK-immune, we need to have him killed and quickly. We have 8 people left - that means we're seriously dependant on cross kills to win as town. There's essentially zero chance of us winning unless the scum massively kill each other.

If what Empking says is true, we need to lynch his partner or we can't win.

Of course, if empking is lying and he has 2 scum mates, if we lynch discontinued we've essentially lost pending some lucky night kills and some good lynches.

So if we lynch rofl, there are two kills at night, we'd then have to lynch Empking's partner to have any chance of winning. That would leave 4 people with empking there, and he and rofl's partner would have to kill each other for us to win.

What about this:

actually - scratch that.

Empking has to be lying.

He says that they had a 3 man scum team with a hitman who had 2 bonus kills, and suggests that there is an enemy hitman with 2 bonus kills. Not only is it bizarre that sprite haven't used their kills by now, THE FLAVOUR DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Discontinued have

4 kill flavours

AND

they never double kill

. If the hitman kill is a different flavour, we would expect to see it WITH a normal scum kill, but that never happens. I think it's a safe bet to say that korlash's kill did NOT operate as an extra kill, and either he used it on one of the power roles or they have 4 members.

Either way, the smart money remains on an empking lynch today. (Not to mention a gambit where you admit to being scum reeks of the extra man in the scum team desperate to get the numbers.)

tl:dr - Empking is almost certainly lying, we should lynch him.

[SerialClergyman]

So who did Korlash target?

[SerialClergyman]

See that's another reason why I don't believe you. Why not just say 'Korlash targeted Percy N1' or something rather than 'There are plenty of reasons why a hypothetical kill might not have happened'

[SerialClergyman]

Sorry, you're saying you don't know who your own scum team targeted to kill??

><

[SerialClergyman]

unofficial vote count

Rofl (3) - Emp, Sajin, HH
Empking (4) - rofl, sotty, hasd, SC

Unvoting (1) - tubby

[SerialClergyman]

unofficial prod

GET OFF YOUR ARSES PLEASE.

If you are not voting Empking, please explain why not lynching him is a good idea in light of the fact that he is a) admitted scum, b) in a scum group with 4 kill flavours c) claims the reason for his not giving us a kill history to explain the 4 kills is because he doesn't know who his own team targeted.

[SerialClergyman]

Why do you believe Emp's claim?

[SerialClergyman]

I do.

I think discontinued have 4 members and by targeting sprite we might well lose ourselves the game.

This would also explain why Empking claimed, and it would explain the 4 kill flavours attributed to discontinued that Empking has fallen over himself failing to explain.

[SerialClergyman]

Essentially, I agree that if there's a NK-immune discontinued, I think that would be an ideal lynch.

But that's quite risky, we'd have to lynch unknown rather than obvscum.

We also have no reason to think that's the case, and no reason to think that Empking isn't the NK-immune one, for example.

But then if there's a NK-immune scum left alive by the end of tomorrow's lynch, town can't win.

But then that still means empking is telling the truth, and I have a massive gut feeling that says he isn't. It just doesn't make sense to suggest that he didn't know who was targeted by his own scum team. And it doesn't make sense that sprite would have a 2-shot hitman and not have used either shot by now, you'd have to have some guts to wait till you were down to 8 people before using EITHER shot.

[SerialClergyman]

Also, if Emp is telling the truth, and both factions have an UNK, as emp was himself arguing earlier, that means there is a 2-shot with shots left on sprite. So the UNK is not as UNK as we had previously thought and therefore isn't as dangerous.

What about the possibiltiy that we lynch an unknown and let rofl and emp cross kill? I can't imagine why either wouldn't want to kill the opposition - by my count there's 3 or 4 town players left, essentially a non-entity. We're currently acting essentially as facilitators to try to set up a scum vs scum night kill.

[SerialClergyman]

I am not having fun in this game and it's because of the activity.

Sotty hasn't posted since 8 Nov,
HH since 9 Nov,
hads since 12 Nov
tubby Nov 13

Gorrad, I know you're busy. Can you please get the backup mod and have them issue prods/replacements?

[SerialClergyman]

Onto content.

I'm so not comfortable randomly voting out in the group. Barring some unforseen circumstance, I find voting someone other than confirmed scum or almost-confirmed scum 2 is bizarre. I also don't know why you think that's less risky than an empking lynch ><

I double also don't know why you continue to believe Empking. I don't. He was in trouble and pulled a gambit to try to get out of trouble. There's nothing corroborating his story - in fact, there are elements (a lack of a hitman kill from sprite and 2 flavours for one person) which actively go against his story. And finally, when grilled on it he says that he can't remember and deleted the communication where he was told who was taregted when!

tubby makes sense as either scum, so in a way I have a feeling like he might be neither. But I'm double guessing myself because this game has been baning around in my head for ages. I find him scummy, but I think that's partially a playstyle thing as well. I don't know why he didn'th ammer rofl if he wanted a rofl lynch, which makes me think he is scum with rofl, but then he has been arguing solidly against rofl all day, unless it was a bus attempt he got cold feet on at the death.

TO be honest, what I'm lookign for here is to hear EVERYONE'S reaction to Empking's claim, and for justification as to why not to vote him (ie, why do you believe his claim?)

Emp - I don't know 2/3 of the comics in the game, so speculating on which comic the flavour doesn't do it for me, I'm afraid. Are chuckshot and beaverstick close enough that they are likely to come from the same comic? Does anyone else know the comic better?