R-SURVIVAL -- Game Over

[semioldguy]

Why should we avoid using the gatekeeper? It seems to me that when someone fires a shot into someone else we should have the gatekeeper put them into the Safe Zone. Helps protect players who are most likely to be town. I don't really see what there is to lose by doing this. We can always request players to step out of the safe zone, it's not like they get stuck there forever.

If the Safe Zone is found to be beneficial to town in some way or another later in the game and we haven't been putting anyone in there, then we are behind and disadvantaging ourselves. If it turns out we find reasons to believe that the gated area is most beneficial to scum, then town should have no qualms stepping out of it. As it stands now, I don't see the harm in placing people there who we think are most likely town.

[semioldguy]

Taking away some of scum's power to be able to choose their kill target doesn't impress you? You'd rather give scum more options rather than limiting them?

If there is a good enough reason for a vig to shoot someone who has taken a shot already, wouldn't that also be a good enough reason to ask people to step out of the safe zone or to just straight up lynch that player? It isn't like people can never leave the safe zone once they are there.

[semioldguy]

Does a worse-than-bodyguard protection really limit scum's options?

Yes. It changes from having 100% scum targeting certainty on everyone into not having 100% scum targeting certainty on everyone.

(And yes, I'd argue a 66%, 50%, or 0% chance of redirecting a kill onto someone scummy looking is worse than a 100% chance of redirecting a kill onto someone who could be anywhere from clean looking to scummy looking;

First, the idea is to put people who are seen as town into the safe zone, not a wide range of scumminess. Second, it isn't so much about redirecting to a more/less scummy player as it is about not letting scum specifically choose who they want to kill.

Do you realize you are arguing in favor of giving scum 100% control over who they kill all the time?

It's about keeping scum from having all options open. For instance, if scum wanted to kill Player A, and Player A was not in the safe zone, then scum have a 100% chance of correctly targeting that player. If Player A is in the safe zone with three other players, there is no longer a guarantee that scum will target Player A, they could target one of the other players instead. Sure it might randomly decide the way scum want, but they can't be sure who will be the target in the end.

Now let's say we have a confirmable power role claim on the third day. We can throw him in the safe zone with a couple others, but if we had been putting a couple people in every day, there are greater chances for that player's survival than if we had not been.

[semioldguy]

Well that changes things. I think we should probably do two daykills then, if we get a confirmed town out of each, and then toss them in with the other most protown guy.

I'd say we get a lot more valuable information and reads from a single kill and a lynch and on most days that would be preferable to a double day kill. Otherwise we just give players reasons to be able to sit back and not really do much.

[semioldguy]

Knowing whether the Gatekeeper's actions and player movements are public is important. I thought it would be known when a player was moved, if not then I think it was very foolish to elect a player to have abilities which cannot be monitored by roll of the dice alone.

I still don't see a big downside to putting players we think are town into the Safe Zone. If they start being scummy, we can ask them to come out of the safe zone or just lynch them if they refuse to comply. What do we lose?

At the very least, if all players are inside the safe zone at the end of a given day, then scum don't get to choose their night kills. That by itself doesn't seem so bad to me.

Can someone please explain to me what the downside of putting players in the Safe Zone is that outweighs the positives of putting them in? We can still lynch those players. We can still ask them to step out of the safe zone. We aren't going to be putting scummy players in there, so not being able to be day killed isn't a valid argument in my opinion, we shouldn't be wanting to day kill the players who aren't scummy.

[semioldguy]

Prod on Chamber please

He hasn't posted yet.

Regarding the speculation, I don't think it particularly useful to go into discussion as to what power roles might be/do. It isn't an open setup, it is possible there could be power roles and let's just leave it at that.

@bird1111
It could still become that, though I am a little surprised no one has been shot yet. Good that it hasn't though, gives town a lot more power when we can shoot more constructively or with more information rather than just going trigger happy on each other.

[semioldguy]

I already explained my reasoning. What do you think is the pro-town reason

for

using the safe zone?

I have explained several pro-town reasons for using the safe zone, none of which you have shot down, have you just completely ignored or missed these posts intentionally?

[semioldguy]

I think judging motives for a night kill or trying to analyze night kills generally does more harm than good, and in itslf would contain much more WIFOM than the Safe Zone. How about we just not let them get rid of who they want to get rid of instead? The safezone removes WIFOM the way I see it. There is no "why did scum kill X player?" when someone inside the safezone dies, it's a random kill that involves no wine.

[semioldguy]

perhaps we should take a poll: who else thought it was open/closed?

This would have no indication of alignment and is HEAVY role fishing.

Vote: Ortolan

Your accusation makes no sense to me and seems very misguided. Not only is this information not in any way indicative of alignment, but this proposed poll is beyond horrible. Do you intend to out any potential power roles we have by means of this poll? Seriously... what the hell are you thinking?

We should definitely NOT take a poll. No one further should answer that question.

[semioldguy]

overreaction++ Do you think it is scummy to ask for a poll or simply a bad idea? "What the hell are you thinking" implies I am town who should know better, rather than scum, so please explain why you're voting me.

I don't feel the vote is unwarranted. You have a lot of posts, yet the majority of your posts are not helpful or productive.

You are right though, it is an overreaction. I am more than a little frustrated from the other games I was/am playing in. One of which is Mini 859, which is no longer ongoing. I had just come back to see that I had been lynched as town in lylo within less than 24 hours of the day having been opened and before I was even able to make a post.

I also disbelieve that you didn't realize your poll was role fishing. One answer to the poll, as opposed to the other, very clearly would indicate someone not being a power role. I didn't see how this could have been so easily overlooked. Perhaps I am wrong though, since several others also didn't see it as deliberate or see what I saw to be obvious role fishing. In that case, I'd ask that you please tighten up your games.

[semioldguy]

hey you do realise that power roles can simply lie? hey, who'da thunk it

That sets a bad precedent for any claim situation.

[semioldguy]

Would you rather our power roles out themselves on day 1?

That's a False Dichotomy. I would rather a question not ever be asked/answered if it would would force our power roles to choose between either a lie regarding their own role or potentially outing themselves. Power roles shouldn't do either.

[semioldguy]

It's better not to answer it at all.

If someone feels that by answering truthfully he will out himself and by pointing it out he will out himself, then he can ignore it. Ignoring it until someone else picks up on it is very simple. Or he can respond that he doesn't see how answering the question helps town and ask for an explanation. If someone points this ignoring out, answering that it could be fishing for role info or lack thereof is a sufficient response.

There are lots of ways to deal with shitty questions. Lying shouldn't be the go-to response.

If I were to ask you "Are you a cop?" If you are the cop, are you going to lie? Will you tell the truth? You'd better not do either! It'd be better to ignore it, refuse to answer it, ask how the hell answering that question could benefit town, explain how answering it doesn't benefit town, or any number of different responses. But you don't lie. That would be retarded. If you were the cop I doubt enough people would believe your claim when you did after you already lied saying you weren't.

[semioldguy]

Before any killing is done, I think that charter and chamber could be placed into the safe zone. The Gatekeeper can do so publicly so that we all know it actually has been done. If they don't want to b in the safe zone I suppose they could speak up or ask not to be placed into the safe zone, no reason need be given. (or just secretly choose to leave the safe zone I suppose)

I didn't like ortolan at the end of yesterday, and today hasn't done much to change that perception.

Vote: ortolan

[semioldguy]

There is little that distinguishes the current lurkers from one another until some or all of the become more active, by either free will or by prodding/votes/whatever. It is much easier to distinguish amongst the already active posters this early in the game.

Hopefully this second day will last long enough to see some postings from those who have been less than active. If they don't post, they will be replaced, if they continue to post as infrequently as they have while still remaining active enough not to be force-replaced, then they will be examined for deliberate inactivity and for what little they have provided.

We aren't even two weeks into the game, and three of those days taken by night. Going on a lurker hunt this early is not my idea of scum hunting.

[semioldguy]

also, why do you assume I'm the scum instead of any of the countless lurkers semioldguy?

This is not something I assume, nor is it something I've said. There is no reason it can't be both.

[semioldguy]

I don't find meta research to be the best indicators of alignment, especially so for players who are aware of their own meta. Players change over time and learn from mistakes.

I don't think the lurkers have posted enough yet to determine whether or not they are scum. If you disagree, show me why. It has to do with being able to determine if someone is likely to be scum. Sure, a person alignment doesn't change throughout the game, but that doesn't mean you can tell each person's alignment from his first post, or even the first several. Doing so would asking me to look for something that isn't there yet.

Given current game state, the most likely person to be scum is an active scummy player rather than five lurkers only ten days into the game that I have little to no read on.

[semioldguy]

I've been wondering about this for a while. I don't see how the second paragraph explains the first. Would you please explain?

The second paragraph doesn't explain the first. They are both responses to different aspects of your post.

[semioldguy]

I separate things into paragraphs because they are separate ideas. If one was meant to explain the other I would have made it one paragraph and one complete thought.

[semioldguy]

I am saying it was an overreaction due to my frustration from that game carrying over into this one. There wasn't a similarity between the lylo game and this, but that doesn't me some ill temper generated from that game couldn't be carried over into another. Emotion lasts longer than the instance in which the emotion happens. I was upset from that game, and it showed in my next couple posts in my other active games.

[semioldguy]

Sorry, didn't see that post.

I am not too sure actually. It is likely the part of my game that needs the most improvement. I don't seem to last long as scum and have never survived as one. I think I out myself as scum because I imagine that I have outted myself (if that makes sense). The times I've been scum I think that people are on to me even when they aren't and then adjust my play based on what I've created in my own head. And then my adjustments that other players see as for essentially no reason draw suspicion onto me.

[semioldguy]

Why is nobody voting?

Because people are cowards.

Seriously. People should be voting, especially if you are voicing suspicions. Back up your words with an action. Be accountable for your suspicions. Placing votes is going to generate discussion, force people's hands, and weed out the real lurkers.

At least comment on the few votes that are out there. Take some stances on something please.

I agree with DragonsofSummer that if we want to make people shoot, they should shoot who they find suspicious, not who everyone else decides. The idea being that we are making suspicious people shoot in hopes of catching someone who can't.

@dramonic
How do you know whether or not it's true?

[semioldguy]

Because this isn't a bastard mod, and giving mafia two kills is completely broken.

I disagree (about giving mafia a day kill being broken), and several "bad idea" style games have a mafia with day killing power. In fact, not giving mafia any day kill would be completely broken. In this game, because there can be two kills during each day, if there are not any day shooting scum, then the setup is broken and the scum cannot win. For example, two people shoot each day and everyone who has made a shot gets confirmed innocent. Scum would not have enough kills to ever keep the confirmed players down in number and the uninformed majority would soon become the informed majority.

I would argue that there wouldn't be more than one day-shooting scum though, as two scum with a day kill would mean that with 9 players, a 7 on 2 scenario could be lylo.

[semioldguy]

@dramonic
No, I do not seem to be forgetting that.

Allow me to show you what would happen if no scum could day kill:

(3) With

three scum

, they can't win. Period.

(4) With

four scum

, lets assume that by some random chance they are the last four people to need to shoot and never get shot. So two town shoot two town every day:

Day One: We start off 12 vs 4, end at 10 vs 4 (2 confirmed town)
Day Two: We start off 9 vs 4 (1 confirmed town), end at 7 vs 4 (3 confirmed town)
Day Three: We start off 6 vs 4 (2 confirmed town), end at 4 vs 4 (4 confirmed town)

The above is the absolute worst case scenario for town, in which they just barely lose. With four scum, the scum could only win if everything went exactly perfect, if they lose just one scum, they can't win, which at random happens about 1.5% of the time. That would mean that 98.5% of the time, town auto-wins.

(5) With

five scum

the win percentage for scum is still below 5% as they need an almost perfect game.

(6) With

six scum

, the scum need at least three mislynches/shots in the first two days to even have a chance at winning,or four in the first three days, and they still might lose with three misfires in the first two days. That still puts six scum at about a 16% win chance.

(7) With

seven scum

, they still need three mislynches/shot in the first two day to secure a win or four in the first three days. The chances for a seven man scum team to win are still only about 34%. And that's starting off at 7 scum to 9 town!

(x) These aren't even accounting for making the most suspicious people shoot, these percentages assume that town is going to be the one asked to shoot 100% of the time. If we are making players shoot and they have a chance to not be able shoot, the win percentage drops to below 1% with four or five scum and to less than 3% with six. And only around 10% for seven!

No matter what it would be ridiculously imbalanced if making a day kill confirmed people as town. Having two kills a day gives a huge power to town when scum can't get in on that action. Confirming town in addition to the extra kill each day would give us in insurmountable advantage over scum.

[semioldguy]

Actually my math for six and seven is off.

Six should be at about 32% and 10% and seven should be about 67% and 40%.

[semioldguy]

I thought about this a bit and it seems that you want a partner that the scum don't want to kill. That way if the pro-town player turns up dead then you know that the other person is scum and we can just vote them out. On the flip-side, if the buddy dies then the mafia eliminated a scummy looking townie.

That's a bad assumption to make. It could just be a scummy looking townie that didn't get randomly selected.

[semioldguy]

What I was saying is based on placing two players in the safe zone - one who we believe to be mostly confirmed and one who appears to be quite scummy. By selecting someone quite scummy to be in the safezone, it's less likely that the scum will target them and end up killing our pro-town player. That means if the pro-town player is killed then we know that the other player in the safe zone is scum. I'm assuming that if the only pro-town player in the safe zone will die if targeted.

This is no way the above confirms or semi-confirms anyone regardless of outcome. This is just flat out wrong and could lead to being wrong in several ways. What if the person we think likely to be town is scum and then scum kill the scummy person? What if scum want to take the chance anyway, and they get lucky? It doesn't make the other person scum or innocent for not being killed. Does this really have to be explained?

[semioldguy]

@Mod: Is that modkill counted against us as one of our two kills/lynches for the day?

[semioldguy]

Vote: DragonsofSummer

I disagree that dramonic was more useless than you are. Also, if you had a problem with him and thought of his posts as not giving any information on anything, then why didn't you at least ask him for it or ask him any questions rather than just shooting? If you don't think his posts gave any information, then his death wouldn't give any information either.

Also I think we should elect a new Gatekeeper. Even if we don't want to use one now, which I still think we should. If we ever need the use of one, if we've already got one then we don't have to waste time electing a new one.

GAT: charter

@Mod: Does a newly elected gatekeeper know of any players who are already inside the safe zone when he becomes gatekeeper?

[semioldguy]

Actually,

UnGAT; GAT: yabbaguy

I'd rather see charter inside the safe zone with a couple others. I have a town feeling of yabbaguy and putting him in the safezone renders him unable to shoot.

[semioldguy]

@Mod: Can we get prods on chamber and ortolan?

@charter
Where does your pro-town read of chamber come from? The town feeling I have in his direction is that I don't think multiple scum would be likely to have a day kill for reasons explained yesterday. DragonsofSummer and Anon are both much more scummy. But as far as chamber's play is concerned there isn't a whole lot to go on.

@Anon
Why did you shoot HackerHuck? You hadn't mentioned him at all prior to shooting him.

[semioldguy]

No opinions on Gatekeeper from anyone?

If votecount is reset the

Vote: DragonsofSummer

[semioldguy]

Something I just thought of, might be worth thinking about, is getting those that haven't shot to shoot others that haven't shot. That way we eliminate this 'scum might have shots' paranoia. Just a thought, more from me later.

Something else, this also eliminates any scum that can't shoot. Any comments on this idea?

It'd leave us with five, possibly four, left in the game, all with no shots left. It'd also eliminate any potential town roles that don't have a day kill. Aside from killing scum who can't shoot, another plus would be that if there is remaining scum who haven't shot who can, then they would use their shot in this plan and thus not be able to hold it until lylo. If we intend to shoot someone I think we should ask for a claim before shooting at this point, in case any information can be shared and not lost. I think the upsides of the plan outweigh the downsides.

@ortolan
I'd prefer to shoot bogre if we are going through with charter's plan.

[semioldguy]

if it doesn't end the day, let's just elect a Gatekeeper, put someone in the safe zone and have all of us shoot at him (or two of us shoot him and the one of the last two shoot the other). Accomplishes the same as charter's plan but we would be much less likely to be cut down to a four player game.

[semioldguy]

Another way to make sure people aren't in the safe zone is to elect a gatekeeper, he can publicly place three people in the safe zone and then those three people would be able to leave because they know they are in it. This would potentially allow up to three people to not be in the safe zone whether they are currently in it or not.

[semioldguy]

I am not able to shoot.

I can investigate someone each night and find out whether or not they have a shot to make a day kill.

Night One: I investigated malpascp. He could shoot. He was a major lurker and I thought it was an easy way for scum to ride through several days in games like these, so I checked him because of that.

Night Two: I investigated Ortolan. I re-evaluated my investigating strategy after Albert's mod-kill and didn't want the chance of that happening again so I thought to start checking some of my suspects, which led me to Ortolan as he was one of my suspects and he hadn't shot. Ortolan could shoot.

Night Three: I checked Bogre, as he was the only player left aside from myself not to have taken a shot. He had a shot.

At this point, as far as I can tell, my ability has no further use. My role is now essentially the same as what the rest of the town's is currently.

Lynching me may be the best option numbers-wise, as my ability gains us no further information, it ensures that I don't actually have a shot and that I am not scum. I doubt lynching me would end in scum victory today, because I don't think the scum team had multiple players with day kills for reasons already explained.

If there were still two scum left it would have to be me and one of you guys (due to the no two scum both with day shooting hypothesis), so lynching me would still be the best option by the numbers.

[semioldguy]

V/LA Until Sunday or Monday

I am leaving for a trip a little bit later today. I will try to check back once more before leaving in about four to five hours to answer any questions.

[semioldguy]

I am very much against intentional bread-crumbing. I have never done it, nor will I ever do it. I simply do not like it and think that intentional bread-crumbing is not a good idea. I know I have attested to this viewpoint in several games prior to this.

[semioldguy]

SOG: Not that i don't utterly agree that town roles should not breadcrumb, but if you're going to use the meta crutch, prove it.

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &&start=32

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=127

I'm sure there are more, those are just a couple more recent ones within the past couple months still somewhat fresh in my memory.

I have never made a bread-crumb before, so I can't exactly make links to back that up. I can't link to things that aren't there. Though anyone is welcome to look through my games to see if I am lying about that (games in my wiki). Some of the games listed as townie aren't necessarily a vanilla townie role, such as 'Mini 778' and 'Stars Aligned'.

Well, aside from breadcrumbing, you didn't comment one way or the other when people were talking about the setup no longer being open, and the possibility of power roles, or any of that. I would think that if you are a town power role, you'd have at least thrown your two cents in about the game not being open and therefore it was likely to contain power roles. Not doing that weakens you claim a bit.

This post makes little sense to me.

My first post of the game was Post 93 due to being away. This was after the moderator made a post explaining that it was not actually an open setup in post 75. That

should

have been the end of any discussion/speculation on the setup. Continuing the discussion after that is bad.

What good would it do to throw in my two cents after the question had been resolved?

As far as the discussing after that (because people still did), I did comment on it. Post 132 takes the stance that I was against this discussion taking place. Post 192 further explains why I was against such discussion.

[semioldguy]

It was made to disprove a point not prove one. The examples I was posting were what couldn't be, not what could be. It was to disprove dramonic's continuing argument that the only roles were those listed in the OP, which I knew to be false. I proved it the best way I knew how.

[semioldguy]

@ortolan
That's what I was saying in my claim post. By the numbers it makes most sense to lynch me, as due to balance reasons I don't think multiple scum could have shots (they would win at 6 vs 2 going into night). I think there is only one scum left, thus it would be the right call to lynch me most of the time in such a scenario.

As far as the question as to whether or not my role is balanced, that's not usually the question I ask myself. Roles can be imbalanced but still have a balanced setup, and visa versa. For instance a regular cop would be a balanced role, but if you have 9 of them in a 12 player game against 3 goons, then the game is not balanced. (The flip side of the coin would be something like the Kamek role in Mushroom Kingdom 2 that we both played. A role that I don't think is a balanced, but I thought the setup was balanced.)

The setup of me, two non-shooting scum and one shooting scum is mostly a balanced setup I think, but leaning in favor of the town, with a personal disadvantage that I am probably a little more likely to die at some point. These bad idea games have a tendency to end poorly for town, so starting off with a balance that leans toward town favor is probably a good idea.

Without going to much into more baseless setup speculation, it is possible that the shooting scum could shoot again (giving him/herself away in the process) and making my detection ability still useful. I think this unlikely though. And probably still be better to lynch me. I'd rather be mislynched now than in a three player endgame. If I were any of you, I'd likely be pushing for my lynch right now.

[semioldguy]

What I was trying to say is that you were absent from the setup speculation about it being open/closed and whether or not town could/couldn't shoot, when, if you knew the answers to these questions, you didn't say anything about it. The good it would have done for you to throw your two cents in is that your claim now would be much more believable.

I can't help having been on V/LA when the game opened.

[semioldguy]

I think Malpascp was modkilled because he wasn't posting here at all but posting a lot elsewhere.

Chamber was replaced instead of modkilled because he simply wasn't posting anywhere (I assume, I haven't actually checked this).

I don't think anon of DragonsofSummer will fit the modkilled category, they both have posts from less then 72 hours ago here in this thread and have not blatantly disregarded the game as malpascp had.

[semioldguy]

Claiming seems like a bad idea at this point, unless the scum just wants to come forward and claim.

Any counterclaim that came forth as a result of my claim would have to be from scum, but since mislynching me won't end as a win, a counterclaim is not something the scum can afford.

If there were any other town power roles, I would have been counterclaimed immediately, and if they were sincere, town would have lost as one of our mislynches would have almost certainly led to the other (due to conflicting information of town power roles having/not having shots). This didn't and would not have happened.

Of those of you left, charter's kill is the one that made the most sense to me. Ortolan's kill fit his play, though I disagreed with the target as yabbaguy was one of my stronger town reads and didn't understand where ortolan saw any scuminess. chamber did more or less what he telegraphed that he would do with his first post, so I think Fonz is likely good, as if chamber was scum i think it would have been foolish to immediately follow the case of his scumbuddy with his shot. Anon and DragonsofSummer both made very odd kills.

[semioldguy]

If you don't explain where or why something doesn't make sense, then you are making no effort to correct anything or even attempt to understand the point I am driving at. It makes sense to me and I do not see any contradiction.

if there are town without shots and scum with, knowing who has one doesn't help.

If there are town POWER roles that both do and don't have shots, then the one claiming power and a shot is almost certainly fake (unless having the shot is part of what the role does) because I didn't get a shot with my role.

If you are referring to my ability being useless, I disagree and don't think that what you are saying makes sense because knowing who has a shot could have been a help. As the game has come this far, apparently I am the only town role without a shot, so from the setup standpoint it is not possible for me to investigate a town without a shot assuming I don't investigate myself. As far as scum who have a shot, then it's just like having an investigation immunity, like a godfather role in any other mafia game.

Knowing who has or doesn't have a shot right now isn't any help, I agree with that and said as much in my first post today; but having known who did or didn't earlier could have been very helpful.

What is the contradiction here?

[semioldguy]

A DragonsofSummer kill could only be helpful to town. Either eliminating a top suspected town member or eliminating scum. I the former case it is helpful to town because we don't actually lose a day from the kill since we are at an even number of total players.

That being said though, I don't think he fit the schema of being modkilled and should be replaced instead. Looking at malpascp, he delibrately avoided the game, DragonsofSummer just isn't around. (much in the same way chamber was eventually replaced by The Fonz)

[semioldguy]

I doubt we are at Lylo, since it would mean at least two scum had the ability to shoot, which is why I think it is safe and the best call to have me lynched.

It would have been better to start GATing yesterday and then we could of had everyone in the Safe Zone by today making the night kill completely random. I agree about the GAT probably being best as the person to be lynched, otherwise scum will know at least one person for sure whose kill won't be redirected.

[semioldguy]

I don't think there is much of a way around it charter. Tomorrow wouldn't look much better for me, and likely much worse, considering the amount of suspicion and willingness to lynch currently headed my way. A mislynch today would be better than one tomorrow (or at the very least, it couldn't be worse).

I don't think there are two scum left. Even if there are, it has to be two of the three people who were on my wagon, since if charter or The Fonz were paired with anyone else they could have ended the game with a vote on me for a while. Additionally, if either of you two are scum by yourselves it wouldn't have been difficult to have been able to place a rationalized vote on me either without falling under immediate suspicion. I think the two of you are both likely to be town.

[semioldguy]

Only myself, information that could be gathered just from reading the most recent day. I don't have one. See Post 449 for my claim.

[semioldguy]

ortolan, would you be opposed to vote me for Gatekeeper so I can secretly put a couple people in the Safe Zone before dying in hopes of creating the possibility to divert the night's scum kill?

I see no downside to doing this. No one has shots left so it isn't protecting anyone from any town abilities or cause anyone to be unable to shoot, it only provides possible protection against scum abilities.

[semioldguy]

GATing complete.

[semioldguy]

Won't be long now.

I initially joined this game so I could daykill someone, I was a little disappointed when I got my role and found out that I couldn't. See you all for the post-game.

Go town!

[semioldguy]

Woo! Good job Anon.

I joined this game because I really wanted to save my shot and shoot someone. I was a little disappointed when I got my role and learned that would never even be a possibility.

Also, using the safe zone at all would have been a HUGE help to the town. I ran the math on it from scum's perspective and it was just miserable to think about. I'm glad it was never used.

@charter
Post 600 was what I was really hoping someone would get out of my play. I was actually paranoid that you thought I was scum and was trying to get a read off my possible partner so I didn't want to go after DragonsofSummer if that were the case and give away that he wasn't.

[semioldguy]

Using the safezone secretly as a town gatekeepr ensured a larger endgame of people who were out of bullets. With scum only being able to slip one person into this group regardless, it would provide the town with more lynches to catch the final scum.