Mafia v. Wolves Redux: Finally Over!

[Fuldu]

Your general attitude towards the game so far is sending red flags through my head.

That's the reason PBuG gave. And while I understand it, I'll admit it could stand a little more clarity, especially when leveled against someone in their first game.

In general, it appears that you're less interested in the game than you are in chitchatting inanely. And we have a name for people like that on this forum - AniX. Some specific things you've done that give a scummy impression, although I suspect they're actually just newbish ignorance of good play practices:

Complain about every single vote you get, even though you're barely a third of the way to lynch.

Misunderstand the nature of bandwagons as an information-collecting device, not merely a means of killing.

Offer to claim, simply because you're bored.

[Fuldu]

Noob scum generally try to keep a much lower profile in my experience.

I don't imagine you've been in too many games with noob scum, then. It's not uncommon for a noob scum who starts getting bandwagoned for no good reason (which, let's face it, the early votes were) to freak out and end up flaming out in a blazing inferno of mob justice. That's why I say that XReyoX's getting up in arms about every single vote placed on him is a warning sign. I don't think we want to just say "Well, he's a noob, so we ought to accept absolutely any sort of bizarre behavior from him."

That said, I find Raffles' argument far more interesting:

I noticed Reyo was the leading bandwagon. I estimated there are 6 or 4 scums in this game, more likely 6. Reyo has not presented himself with much of a scummy act so far, just what an everyday noob would do. So I put Reyo on lynch -6 with semi-rubbish reason, to see which fish would crawl out of their hole and take the bait. A noob scum would go with the flow, try to appear inconspicuous and push him up on the bandwagon. Probably using Reyo's noobish-ness as an excuse. You fit this perfectly.

On the one hand, the assessment of OTU's vote is a perfectly reasonable one. But the trap's he's describing having set is a bizarre justification of an equally bad vote. "I figured there were 6 scum in the game, so I placed a vote I didn't actually believe in to see who else would jump on the bandwagon at lynch -6."

First of all, traps like that don't work at lynch -6, even if you know for certain that there are exactly 6 scum in the game. If scum are going to jump on a bandwagon, they're more likely to do it closer to lynch than -6; maybe at lynch -2 or -3, but not at -6. If it looks like scum are pushing toward a fast lynch, they have to all vote in relatively quick time or someone will get wise and remove their vote. It's hard enough to do that with two scum, doing it with six is downright laughable.

And that assumes that there weren't already any scum on the bandwagon. If one of the six scum was already voting XReyoX, then the remaining five know they can't get to lynch and so they just have to wait.

To me this looks like and ad hoc, and frankly ridiculous, explanation for a vote in an attempt to make sure that the bandwagon that follows XReyoX's is on OverTheUnder and not on Raffles.

-----

The problem, of course, is that if it weren't for the weirdness behind Raffles' explanation, I would have no problem with an OverTheUnder wagon. His behavior does look scummy for all the reasons described. I just don't like Raffles' "yeah, that's what I was trying to make happen; I'm not one of the people who arbitrarily joined the wagon, I was trying to make it a wagon worth arbitrarily joining so we could see who might arbitrarily join" argument and want to make sure that his behavior is noted as well.

vote: OverTheUnder

[Fuldu]

I had to put a vote I didn't believe in to push the wagon up to half way line.

I continue to find your establishment of this halfway line to be bizarre and unsupported by reason. I basically agree with MoS here, except that I'm less willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Fuldu]

The second point is that there isn't any point pushing raffles for making more explanation of his vote or challenge the post he made about L-6 and the halfway line. If he's a town, the explanation is enough and he don't need to make something up although I feel that he's trying to credit himself for the trap while I deserve the full credit more than he does ( Twisted Evil pwn you raffles)

Now let's wait for
1) raffles explanation to his ridiculous L-6 plan and how did he really think it would work out. ( the halfway line thingy still make me laugh every time I read it).

XReyoX, your stream of consciousness style of posting is producing so much scummy material that I'm really starting to wonder if you're doing it intentionally. Please, please, please try to think before you post in the future.

[Fuldu]

XReyoX, your stream of consciousness style of posting is producing so much scummy material that I'm really starting to wonder if you're doing it intentionally. Please, please, please try to think before you post in the future.

I'm sorry. How is posting in a style like this make someone scummy, I don't get it? Will a scum acheive anything by doing so?

The style isn't what's scummy. The style is just annoying. It's that the style is producing a decent amount of content that is scummy. For example, the two posts I quoted in the previous post were separated by about seven hours and offer two diametrically opposed views of Raffles' 'trap'. That's scummy behavior, in that it gives the impression of someone who doesn't really care about who's scum, but only about pushing along a bandwagon or sowing discord, however they think they can at the time.

[Fuldu]

I agree with Mr. Flay that witholding thoughts would not be beneficial to the town unless it's really an ultimate plan, not the noobie trap

we

made.

Emphasis mine

How was this a "we" plan? There are very few circumstances in which the two of you ought to have been collaborating, most of them bad.

[Fuldu]

Unless you consider telling each other to respond to posts, we didn't talk about any other things thats related to the game.

I wouldn't consider it a serious offense, but this is probably inappropriate behavior. Consider the extra information you would have if Raffles started lurking in the game. All we can do is ask the mod to prod him and wait and see. If you are telling him to respond to posts, that means you have a better sense of the severity/deliberateness of his lurking than the rest of the players.

Obviously, it isn't always possible to avoid every form of this. If you knew he was sick, for example, that extra knowledge wouldn't be something I'd hold against you. But actively telling the player to participate seems a bit more active and avoidable than that.

[Fuldu]

OverTheUnder,

Now would be a good time to convince us not to lynch you, because as things stand, you have more than sufficient votes for a deadline lynch. If you have someone you feel you can make a case against, now would be the time to do it. Alternatively, if you're just going to claim, now would be the time to do it. The longer you wait, the less likely it is that we will be able to adequately respond to whatever defense you put forth.

[Fuldu]

Does that mean you are going to place one soon, or the deadline is set already and I'm oblivious about it?

Imminent means that it's likely to occur at any moment.

Thanks, Kison. Raffles' question is still a reasonable one, in that he's asking whether the placement of a deadline is imminent or whether there's already a deadline in place that is imminent. As far as I can tell, it's the former.

[Fuldu]

If we don't get 11 votes by the deadline, does it mean it'll be a no-lynch day or the one with most votes will die?

Read the rules, people. Not just here and now, but in all games. It's not complicated, and it saves you from asking stupid questions. Or, so I don't look like I'm picking on just one person, giving stupid answers to those questions.

I agree with Fuldu.

@OverTheUnder, Please claim now.

An interesting reading of what I said. I had thought I had made it fairly clear that claiming was relatively low on my list of preferred responses. I'd much rather see OTU convince us that he's not scum or that somebody else is than see him claim.

FOS: Akbar

for suggesting a non-ideal plan and making it look like it was my idea.

[Fuldu]

Claiming is almost never preferable to talking your way out of a lynch without claiming. And given that claiming is always a viable backup strategy, I'd prefer he start sooner rather than later, which I believe is what my post was trying to indicate. But talking his way out of a lynch on the basis of sentence-long accusations leveled at five different players isn't going to be nearly as effective as picking one or two of them and laying out the specifics of scummy behavior in detail. Nothing OTU said in that post made me any more likely to vote for anyone else, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't develop an argument that would. It's just that nothing in the post you quoted looks much like an argument to me.

[Fuldu]

OTU has disappeared at most crucial of times...

I'm not there to place the hammer when the deadline comes I'm afraid, someone else needs to do that.

No, no one will need to do that, as I've already pointed out, but people seem not to have bothered to check, the deadline lynch rules are pretty clear, and OTU is presently in line to be deadline lynched, per the rules:

At deadline, half majority or more will constitute a lynch. First come, first served. Less than half majority = no lynch. Endgame (6 players or less) will require fully majority regardless of deadline.

So even if no one posts between now and then, OTU will be lynched.

And the only thing that my reread turned up was that Raffles dissuaded OTU from claiming when he was first thinking about doing so two weeks ago.

[Fuldu]

Raffles seems to be pushing pretty hard on a theory of scum that, to me at least, seems to defy reason. ESE is mafia (maybe, but his suggestion that mafia would be inappropriate flavor in a game called Mafia v. Wolves seems odd) who was killed by wolves (wolves that strangle? The flavor inconsistency of that doesn't both him?) and there's no cult, because that would be unbalanced (even though there was a cult in the first game). The best reason I can think of for this is that he's trying to draw attention away from some aspect of this conversation that is correct, and dangerous to him, and my inclination is toward his being another ESE, whatever it is.

vote: Raffles

[Fuldu]

@theopor_COD: You were pointing at remus before the end of D1. Do you not think he is a scum now?

Bah. That reminds me that remus did something in the now lost bits of the original Day Two that had me voting him. I wish I could remember what it was.

[Fuldu]

@Fuldu: I can't remember as well. Could it be something about his comment on the night scene?

It might have been, but it's not exactly fair to to be speculating on why I suspected someone when the material isn't here any more. I just didn't want to give him a complete pass on it.

@theopor_COD, Fuldu, DGB: Are all your reasons listed in my list. Was those all the reasons that made you think OTU was the right lynch?

As time went on and OTU didn't really respond to people's concerns and then vanished altogether, he became a better lynch in my eyes, especially for Day One.

[Fuldu]

I still think people are thinking into this too much. An antagonist has been killed, could be on either side. There was only one nightkill. Does analysis need to go any further than this? In fact, why does it matter if al4xz was wolf or scum? They are just names. You don't need to do this if there is just two mafia groups, namely because well... it's not possible. Why does this need to be done here?

If he was neither wolf nor mafia, then that is important information.

[Fuldu]

Bah, I see that the above was addressed further along. Too many posts while I was at work.

[Fuldu]

I'd like to request that, in the interest of keeping any potential cults in check, we back away from arguments that involve explaining how smart cults should play.

[Fuldu]

But Raffles' unvote as the deadline loomed is scummy to me in the "oh crap I'm gonna lynch a townie" sense

I think most of Flay's reasoning is sound and some of it accords with the reason I'm voting Raffles, but the above quoted line is pretty clearly a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. If OTU had turned up scum, we'd all certainly be all over Raffles for his "trying to avoid lynching a scum buddy." So what arguments like the above do is create strong inertia in favor of whatever bandwagon happens to be going on. Obviously, there are ways to counter that - offering a legitimate reason for unvoting (something that Flay points out Raffles didn't really do). But if we're going to vote for people who get off townie lynches that go through anyway

and

we're going to vote for people who get off scum lynches that go through anyway, it's going to become harder to derail any bandwagon.

[Fuldu]

It doesn't appear especially pressing, but in case something changes, I wanted to say that I'm going to be away on business for two days. As things stand, I still find Raffles' behavior regarding ESE to be the most suspicious thing going (i.e., neither Battle Mage's nor Mastermind of Sin's behaviors seem out of character for them), so I'm happy with my vote there. I may be on again later tonight, and should be back Wednesday.

[Fuldu]

The point I'm attacking is he may have

known

there were 3 scum groups. I'm not disputing there shouldn't be 3 groups at all at this moment. You are just bringing that complication in. For what purpose, I don't know. Some sadistic enjoyment?

Your rationale for this argument is based on an interpretation of mneme's sentence that, to me at least, doesn't seem supportable. "At least" doesn't mean what you're saying it does, and mneme's tone did not seem to exhort certainty nearly so much as it seemed to indicate strong belief. At which point, yes, MoS's suggestion that you're latching onto this bandwagon as an attempt to derail your own seems reasonable.

[Fuldu]

MoS, you didn't ask me, but my vote remains on Raffles because I still find his response to discussion of ESE to be highly suspect. Many of his posts at the beginning of today seem desperate to suggest that ESE isn't a cult (or, later, that it doesn't matter what ESE is) and a couple of them try in both direct and indirect ways to produce speculation on why there was only one kill last night, something that generally only serves to out power roles. All this subsequent noise with DGB and Flay has been interesting, but neither of them seems to me to have proven scummy enough to move me away from Raffles. DGB is perhaps worth pursuing if Raffles is scum and Flay is perhaps worth pursuing if Raffles isn't scum. But either way, I think Raffles is a better bet than either of them.

[Fuldu]

It's all well and good for people to be requesting that the deadline be rescinded, but I wouldn't expect it to happen. The rules pretty clearly indicate that second deadlines (which this is) are "final and binding." That gives us a little over 24 hours.

[Fuldu]

As we edge toward the deadline, I believe we stand at four votes on DGB, three on Flay and three on Raffles. On the one hand, we need five on somebody if there's going to be any lynch at all, and going no lynch at this stage would be a grievous waste of a day. On the other hand, saying we need a lynch means that scum can basically cherry-pick a desirable wagon and usually provide an entirely valid rationale for their decision.

Given those facts, I'd like to request that

everyone

who is not presently voting one of these three wagons do so. And give a reason for why they selected that wagon out of the three choices. Alternatively, if you'd like to try to convincingly argue in favor of an entirely different wagon, I'll accept that, as well, but I suspect that ship has probably sailed at this point.

Also, I will likely be on again later tonight or tomorrow morning, but I will be away from the computer for the last 4-5 hours before the deadline.

[Fuldu]

this seems rather timely, considering Lowell did the same thing to you in another game recently. i recall that most people were willing to believe the claimed cop in that situation. are you hoping that the same thing will work here?

FoS: N9V

Battle Mage, it's much too early in a game this size for scum to expect to get much out of an unforced cop claim. I'll side with MoS's apparent belief that the claim was foolish and unnecessary, but I doubt that it's a lie.

[Fuldu]

I think moving forward with an IH lynch is a reasonable plan for today. However, I'd like for us not to forget about our suspects from yesterday. Raffles looked scummy to me then and was the only active player not to participate in my plan to find some common ground at deadline. The information from Flay's death tells us that he wasn't scum, and given the interplay that went on, I have a hard time believing that none of the three original targets (the Battle Mage wagon was an interesting turn of events, but just tells us that there were players looking to avoid something) isn't scum. Lynching to pursue an investigation is a better play for today, but tomorrow we'll likely have something else to talk about, and I don't think this should go unnoticed.

vote: IH

That puts us two away, so let's hold back on more votes to give both N9V and IH opportunities to speak.

[Fuldu]

Think, then type.

If I thought he was doing it deliberately, that would have gotten him nominated for a Coffee on the Monitor Scummy.

Since Battle Mage doesn't seem to care about waiting to hear from IH before we lynch him, I'll back off, but this is just to prevent a lynch before we can get additional information.

unvote: IH

[Fuldu]

mod

: Unless something screwy is going on, the number is correct but my name shouldn't be there.

Fixed it.
Thanks.

[Fuldu]

I was then attacked by someone the same way Alexz was attacked. They tried to stangle me from behind, but I fought them off.

The killing of Alexz could have fitted the flavour of my role so I asked if my predecessor had killed that night and apprently he hadnt. Which was one of the reasons I was trying to discourage speculation on the nightkill until I discovered that they werent down to me.

So what you're saying is that you didn't kill al4xz, but that the kill was made in the same way that you would have made a kill? That's interesting. Does your flavor shed any light on what type of individual/group might have made that kill without giving away things about your role that should still remain secret? If the answer is 'no,' that's fine, but since you've already claimed vig, I imagine there's not a whole lot more of importance that you should be keeping secret.

[Fuldu]

We know that someone also killed Mastermind of Sin. Since our Vigilante is dead, I'm going to guess that it was the ESE?

Unless Night One's strangling came from the wolves (since Shanba disavowed that kill), that would mean ESE killed one of their own with al4xz. I think this is further evidence that ESE is one of three scum groups, possibly the Mafia, but I still think more likely to be a non-killing group like a cult.

As for color coding, my recollection is that IH wasn't blue initially. Possibly the colors don't appear for a certain amount of time, or more probably, Phoebus just doesn't always remember to do it, then sees it and goes "Oh, yeah."

[Fuldu]

The cops in this game can only detect one scum group, making them 1/2 as powerful as the ones in normal games already.

Unless I'm mistaken, we're assuming that to be true because of N9V's claim. If he's lying, then it may well be the case that there's a full cop out there.

The important thing you're forgetting is, if he's not the real mafia-finding cop, THERE'S ALMOST CERTAINLY ANOTHER ONE OUT THERE. So unless and until he gets counterclaimed, we shouldn't lynch him.

Yeah, not really. Counterclaiming as a cop, especially this early in the game, really wouldn't be very good play. If a cop claim is a lie, it usually doesn't take long to figure it out; when that happens, the town should lynch, even if there's no counterclaim. Consequently, the real cop should wait for that to happen rather than outing himself with a counterclaim.

Also, in a game this size, it's not totally infeasible that there would be two half-cops and a full cop, although two of each type of half-cop would be unusual. In any event, if N9V turns up scum, you've just bought yourself a long hard look, The Fonz.

-----

As for actually determining where to go today, I'd point out that the alternative for checking N9V's claim is to lynch his other investigation, Raffles. If he's insane, then Raffles should be mafia. I've been wanting to lynch Raffles since Day Two, and nothing he's done has made me less inclined to do so. For now, I'm still willing to cut N9V enough slack that I'd rather lynch somebody I'm suspicious of for other reasons in order to verify/disprove N9V's claim.

vote: Raffles

[Fuldu]

I have only one good explanation for why IH turned out Scum for me. Mabey he is the counter GodFather type role? Where if investigated, he turns up scum. Cuz all politics are scummy in one manner or another.

Yeah, that's generally called a Miller-type role, which is something several other people have suggested. The thing is, that's always what scum who have claimed cop are going to say when their "guilty" result turns out not to be.

Also, I couldn't veiw anyone last night, because of 'strange occurences'. I still beleive I'm sane, and Raffles isn't the way to go today.

Yeah, this does not inspire confidence. For one thing, insane cops are a lot more common than millers. And rarely are insane cops given much of a hint regarding their sanity, so they often continue to believe that they're sane, despite evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, "strange occurrences" is pretty vague, whereas Shanba got a fairly clear picture of why his attempt on Akbar didn't work. And in addition to being vague, "I didn't get a result last night" is another choice approach for scum who have claimed cop.

Also,

Vote BM

Your willing to kill a claimed cop because of some little fight of me being sane/insane. Even so, if I'm insane, I can still contribute lots. I'm beleiving your scum as of now, and thereso, your the play today.

And here's the thing: if you're an insane cop, we need to figure that out. The only available datapoint that can contribute to that discussion is Raffles' mafiosity. Raffles coasted through yesterday because your claim put pressure on IH (and because Akbar and Kison didn't feel like listening to additional discussion on the subject). He's been scummy in a variety of ways since Day One and still hasn't been held accountable for it.

[Fuldu]

If there is a cult, then they would have failed against MoS and been killed themselves.

That's what would (usually) happen if the cult had tried to recruit MoS. Cults are sometimes able to both recruit and kill (typically not on the same night), though, and there's no balance reason that cult kills against scum would need to be blocked.

It makes more sense for the MoS kill to be mafia (though it begs the question, if N9V was unlikely to be doc protected because IH came up town, why didn't the mafia kill him? Possibly because Raffles is scum and they know N9V is insane and are trying to delay having the fact that N9V is telling the truth from coming out as long as possible), but the other explanations aren't as thin as you're making them out.

[Fuldu]

Raffles may have been a 'prime suspect' but I actually think that wagon was poorly-reasoned and full of scum.

Would you care to explain what you think is poorly reasoned about finding Raffles' behavior (especially, but not exclusively Day Two) scummy? I'd be happy to stand in for the now deceased (and known pro-town) Mr. Flay in prosecuting his actions.

As for the bandwagon being full of scum, I'd point out that one of the other players still on that bandwagon at the end of the day was spectrumvoid, who you substituted in for.

[Fuldu]

Akbar, Kison is backing N9V's missed investigation last night. He's suggesting that it wasn't a roleblock, but that Kison (who was targeted) used an item that may have allowed him to avoid being targeted.

The Fonz, I'll try to put something together as a response to your views on Raffles. It may take me a little time, though. Neither today or tomorrow is likely to be good.

[Fuldu]

BM, if your a townie, then start acting like one.

Vote BM

this is where my vote stays, unlesswe can all agreethat the best play is to lynch raffles to decide my sanity.

Bah, lynching Raffles is a terrible idea. That means if Ih was a miller, we've pretty much lost.

Lynch raffles, comes up town

Oooh, can't be insane, must be lying.

Lynch N9V. Actually was cop.

Luck on the NKs could end the game there, i think.

I don't know how you're reaching this conclusion, and I can't see how it could be true. First, lynching Raffles doesn't necessitate that we lynch N9V if Raffles is pro-town (something I still think is unlikely and will address in my next post). Second, I think the case for IH being a miller is tenuous, and would rather verify whether N9V is insane than presume he was stymied by a miller and wait around for him to get another guilty result. And fundamentally that's what you're suggesting we do, since we aren't testing his innocent results.

Third, it's a very rare game when multiple scum groups don't also have to eliminate one another to win. So it would take some very serious luck on the part of one scum faction to end the game there. You're suggesting that the town might be well into the minority by that time, which is certainly possible, but in games with multiple scum groups it is not uncommon for town to come back from that as the scum turn their attention more heavily to eliminating one another.

[Fuldu]

Redux:

There appear to be a few points against Raffles:

1. THe claimed scumtrap, and his reaction to it. I find this:

I just said, you can think what you want, but this is what I did, end of story.

A particularly town defence- don't OMGUS, don't deflect, don't change your story, just say, this is it, this is the truth and nothing more. Kison claiming argument from repetition is obvious misrep- he claimed there were no more arguments to be made, let you make up your own mind. Those continuing to push the subject were clearly not helping the town.

At the time, I said this about his "trap":

I just don't like Raffles' "yeah, that's what I was trying to make happen; I'm not one of the people who arbitrarily joined the wagon, I was trying to make it a wagon worth arbitrarily joining so we could see who might arbitrarily join" argument and want to make sure that his behavior is noted as well.

And I stand by it. He's welcome to say "I exhibited arbitrary behavior and defended it with a bizarre explanation. Deal with it." But I remain unconvinced. Something to note is that the defense you're talking about him sticking to without changing

is

, in my view, his deflection. He jumped on a bandwagon without reason and then when people started calling him on it, provided an ad hoc justification. I won't deny that he stuck faultlessly to that justification, but the ridiculousness of it doesn't exactly make that a virtue, in my opinion.

2. The unvote as we neared deadline- whilst I think I myself disagree with some of his premises (stalled wagon = town) I can get on baord with his claimed thought process there.

I actually disagreed with Flay on this point. The fact that Raffles didn't explain his unvote at the time he made it, but only once he was being pressed about it (see above on ad hoc arguments), is a point against him, but I've got nothing against the unvote itself.

3. His speculation about scum numbers- I don't see anything wrong at all here. His 'two groups of three' theory was fine, probably right, and in no way suggest scum, important to remember that scum wouldn't know how many in the other group. In particular, I see no good case that he had any more information about the nature of ESE than anyone else.

I can't speak for the other people who voted Raffles on Day Two, but this is in no way what my argument about the ESE discussion was saying.

Raffles seems to be pushing pretty hard on a theory of scum that, to me at least, seems to defy reason. ESE is mafia (maybe, but his suggestion that mafia would be inappropriate flavor in a game called Mafia v. Wolves seems odd) who was killed by wolves (wolves that strangle? The flavor inconsistency of that doesn't both him?) and there's no cult, because that would be unbalanced (even though there was a cult in the first game). The best reason I can think of for this is that he's trying to draw attention away from some aspect of this conversation that is correct, and dangerous to him, and my inclination is toward his being another ESE, whatever it is.

My point was that he was presenting a number of arguments based on the night scene that seemed calculated to push the discussion well away from where it was. To me, this suggests that he was reacting badly to something accurate about that discussion. I suggested that this might be because he was a member of ESE (since his treatment of that group was the most disparate from the general consensus), but it could really be any part of that discussion that scum didn't want the town talking about. Later on, he tried to further dampen discussion with a "Why does it matter what al4xz was?" argument. And finally, there were aspects of his contribution to the discussion that verged on rolefishing for people who might have prevented kills that first night. Taken all together, I don't find that to look good.

DGB coming up town when everyone was trying to jump to a 'Raffles and DGB' conclusion doesn't hurt his cause either. DGB gave me a very 'townie, convinced she is right, and willing to go out on a limb to derail a scummy bandwagon' vibe that day.

I never really commented on this proposed tie, and, quite frankly, don't remember what I thought of it. But my recollection as I skim through is that the ties you're talking about tended to be more of the "If Raffles is scum, then it might be worth looking at DGB," not the other way around. Given that unidirectional logical argument, then whether or not DGB is scum shouldn't impact the argument against Raffles in any way. Also, DGB became progressively more confident of her opinion regarding Raffles because Flay vanished, which she believed to be evidence that he was setting Raffles up. Since Flay has also been shown innocent, that hardly seems the best source of her certainty.

Also, given the size of his wagon, and the fact that the one person willing to defend him has come up town, I find it hard to think of a plausible set of scumbuddies for him.

I've got one to suggest. Read Battle Mage on Raffles over the course of the game. Aside from a very brief vote on him at the beginning of Day Two, he has been largely supportive of him. Also note the votes of the two of them at the end of Day Two. Flay's bandwagon had dissolved, so the relevant bandwagons were Raffles, Battle Mage, and DGB. Battle Mage's vote was on DGB, but DGB had been supporting Raffles most of the day, so he couldn't very well vote there. Rather than vote in a way which would break the tie and result in a Battle Mage lynch (and whatever your opinions on lynching for information, no lynch in the early days of a game is rarely to the town's benefit), Raffles kept his vote pointlessly on mneme (now shown to be pro-town).

Also, Fuldu, regarding SV, I'm sure I'm not the first replacement to find himself disagreeing with one or more actions of his predecessor.

That wasn't quite my point. You were saying that you felt most of the people on the Raffles bandwagon were scummy. My point was that spectrumvoid's presence on the bandwagon ought to be an indicator to you that pro-town individuals thought (and still think) Raffles was worth a vote, too. You might disagree with SV and with me, but you're in the position to know (or else presumably would claim) that she wasn't doing it for scummy reasons. Ideally I hope I've convinced you that Raffles is worth lynching, but failing that, I at least hope you recognize that I'm not pushing for it for scummy reasons.

[Fuldu]

Raffles may have been a 'prime suspect' but I actually think that wagon was poorly-reasoned and full of scum.

I read "full of scum" as implying a suspicion of a large number of people on the wagon, not just "Well, it was a big wagon. Somebody must have been scum."

[Fuldu]

That averages to two precisely, and one of the killing groups is dead.

Okay, the math is a little weird, partly because Akbar is including lynches and Flay, whereas The Fonz isn't, and partly because the average of 1, 1, and 3, isn't exactly 2. It's actually less, so it still supports Fonz's point if all you're interested in is night deaths, but I think Akbar's method of counting makes better sense if we're talking about how long the game is likely to continue. Lynches and other miscellaneous deaths contribute to hastening the end of the game.

[Fuldu]

The flavour text? Absolutely. As I said before, the actual death announcement was in black, not in red.

But the flavortext evidence that IH was a miller is so strong that you're willing to give N9V a pass, not only on whether he's telling the truth, but even on the possibility that he might be insane?

[Fuldu]

I don't think it makes much sense that bird would have a restriction. When he has posted, it's been negligible content. Not like Flay where he was posting like gangbusters and then suddenly stopped. I still think Raffles is a good play for today, but I can see the value of applying some pressure to bird.

unvote: Raffles; vote: bird1111

. I believe that's five.

[Fuldu]

Again, this is pretty close to being a flat-out lie. We get role names, not alignments, and there is no reason to think a politician is particularly unlikely to be miller or traitor. Alex's deathscene did not reveal his alignment, it's as plain as day.

And this is where you lose me. Your argument relies heavily on the notion that IH, based on a fairly vague interpretation of his deathscene, is likely to be a miller. This ignores, for one thing, the basic statistical argument that millers are a much less common role than insane cops, but leave that aside for now. At the same time, you argue that, even though al4xz's death scene labels him as an ESE member in red, and provides a number of reasonably disturbing (even using the word "disturbing") images to go with it, you're unconvinced that he was scum.

Either you trust the circumstantial evidence of the death scenes or you don't, but you can't have it both ways. And more than that, the circumstantial evidence that al4xz was scum is a lot stronger than the circumstantial evidence that IH was a miller.

[Fuldu]

I see nothing in that argument to suggest that anyone other than PBuG is more likely to be pro-town, Akbar. Your whole argument boils down to "A pro-town player sent me something useful, so I must be pro-town" which doesn't logically follow at all. PBuG is well within his rights to now believe that he made a mistake sending it to you, which, based on his comment, he apparently suspects he might have.

[Fuldu]

I think a dump of the people out and about is probably a bad idea. It gets us a list that includes (presumably) one person from each scum group and all power roles who did something (likely all cops and docs, for example). That seems much more valuable to scum.

Your whole argument boils down to "A pro-town player sent me something useful, so I must be pro-town" which doesn't logically follow at all.

No, that's what you decided make it into. One of my points was being attacked at home showed I didn't have a night action. Another was attacking MoS, a proven Wolf. Another was the witnesses that attested to the circumstance. And now I have a new one. The people suspect of me are....oh look, The Fonz, BM and Fuldu. What a coincidence.

I didn't realize that having been attacked at home was based in any sort of facts that could be deduced from the information available to the town, and still don't see where that's coming from. I had read that as a claim, not an argument. Attacking MoS is an acceptable argument, but it's hardly indicative that you're not scum, only that you're less likely to be a wolf. Witnesses attesting to your having received and used an item from a pro-town player still goes back to my earlier argument. I was not trying to suggest that you hadn't received an item from PBuG, just that that fact doesn't have anything to do with your being pro-town. Witnesses don't change that, they just verify that you're telling the truth about having received and used the item.

Add to that the fact that PBuG is now saying you weren't really home and I'm more inclined to trust him than you.

unvote: bird1111; vote: Akbar

[Fuldu]

unvote: Akbar; vote: bird1111

At the very least, this will force him to say something.

[Fuldu]

And if the broom was out last night, presumably that means PBuG has important information for us. I don't like waiting, but I think it's probably the best course of action.

[Fuldu]

I don't have any quarrel with a mass claim, but I have been and will continue to be busy over the next week or so, so I might not be quick to respond when it comes my turn.

[Fuldu]

I'm back, and while I generally prefer claims to go in a set order because I think there's as much information to be gained in creating the order as in obtaining the claims, I'll agree that this is silly.

I'm the town butcher, a plain vanilla role.