Board Games Mafia -- Game Over!

[Sefer]

Hey, all. I have a bit of catch up reading to do, so I have a couple of favors to ask:
1) don't blame me if I don't read the long, drawn argument RR had with (I think) Twito. I was following the game, got bogged down in that, and never started reading again til now.
2) if there are any open questions directed at olio that I need to address right away, repost them to draw my attention to them.
I'll do my best to get caught up and post something useful this weekend.

[Sefer]

So I'm pretty much caught up, though I did a lot of skimming pre-page 25. Sorry it took a while, but I think you'll agree there's a lot to sift through in this game.
I strongly suspect RR to be town; I can't see any reason for scum to claim cop at that point- as has been pointed out, he won't make it to endgame one way or another with that claim. It's a bad town play, too, but I can see the thought process a newbie would go through that leads to deciding to claim, thinking it gives his suspicions more weight; I can't figure out a thought process that would lead scum to do so. All of RR's play seems indicative of a newbie convinced he has more ability than he actually does; maybe it's easier for me to see this because I remember doing the same thing (being absolutely convinced that I had found scum when I didn't really have much to back it up) not so many months ago.
The case against Kison seems fairly solid. His claim of being Monopoly is almost certainly true- it's too popular a board game for scum to be sure it would be safe (unless it were granted as a safe claim); however, until we have some idea of a theme behind scum in this game, it's not any more likely to be a scum claim than a town claim. He seems more likely scum than anyone else right now, so I'm leaving my vote on him.
Fritz is Fritz. His claim not to have a win condition yet could just be a creative way to avoid having to put any effort into the first two days (always a tempting prospect), but I don't think we can draw conclusions either way until we see how he acts tomorrow.
I'm curious as to what makes IH and BattleMage so certain that RR's claim is false. BattleMage also stated that he felt the Kison wagon was opportunistic without stating WHY it was opportunistic (rather than a decent lynch). IH's play has seemed off to me; his points don't seem as well thought out as they were in the only other game I've been in with him. I'm leaning towards scum on these two but don't have anything solid as of yet.
Twito I'm uncertain of. His style of play as town tends to look scummy to me. I actually think he's more likely to be town at this point, but that could easily change.
HackerHuck gives me good vibes. I think he's town at the moment.
I also think Ecto's town; this is based on what I feel was a well thought out case against Kison. If Kison does end up being scum, I'll feel fairly certain Ecto is town; if not I won't be so sure.
I'm leaning towards town on Zindaras, but nothing certain.
CES is someone I'm having a hard time getting a read on, probably because I don't remember his playstyle from other games I've read at the moment. He's done a lot of pushing the Kison wagon, repeatedly telling us to lynch without really giving his reasons for it. While I agree with the Kison wagon, the way he's going about pushing it bothers me. Zindaras, you were saying you think CES is scum because he wasn't pushing wagons like he usually does; is the way he's been acting more recently his normal playstyle?
Others really didn't stand out enough for me to form an opinion yet.

[Sefer]

I should have been more clear. It's the only plausible alternative to Fritz telling the truth, and it seems unlikely. Therefore Fritz is probably telling the truth. Either way we're not getting anything useful from him until tomorrow.

[Sefer]

Thesp, what makes you think Ecto is more likely scum if Kison is scum (if you can answer without giving away whatever Ecto asked you to keep quite about)? He is the one that started the argument against Kison, and I'd think a successful scum lynch which make him less likely to be scum.
Nightfall- my vote's on the only one I think there's been a strong case against so far. If I see something else I think is strong, I'll move my vote (or if an impending deadline means we wouldn't lynch without me moving, I'll probably move then, too). So if you have any strong cases, I'd love to hear it; why do you think BM is a good lynch, for instance?

[Sefer]

Battle Mage- I replaced Olio. In the last update, the mod changed Olio's name to mine in the "being voted for" section, but not in the "voting for" section (I never changed my vote after I replaced). I'm voting for Kison.

[Sefer]

EBWOP: That should be "being voted

by

."

Vote count fixed.
-Glork

[Sefer]

Twito always sees me replacing into a game as a scumtell.

[Sefer]

When he replaced Olio in the game, who wasnt under a great deal of suspicion, he immediately started off on the defensive- in what could be construed as a desperate attempt to dispel suspicion. I'm not sure whether this is common practice, but it strikes me as a remarkably scummy thing to do.

You're going to have to explain where you're seeing this, because I don't see where you're getting this defensiveness from.

A little later, he posts the following:

So if you have any strong cases, I'd love to hear it; why do you think BM is a good lynch, for instance?

To me, this looks like someone trying to latch onto someone with alot of suspicion, in order to lynch someone protown. Certainly looks opportunistic.

It's pretty clear in context. A few posts earlier, Nightfall had asked if anyone was willing to move their vote. That was my response- if someone made another case I felt was more solid than the Kison case, I'd move. Since he was voting you at the time (and still is, for that matter), I asked him why he thought you were a good lynch. Someone asks us to move votes, I ask for a reason to; that's a strange definition of opportunistic.

[Sefer]

My first post in the game... the one 6 minutes after I was confirmed to be in the game? All I did was point out that I probably wasn't going to wade through the big argument through RR and Twito again and ask that someone point out to anything I needed to respond to immediately. Since, y'know, I hadn't been reading the game for more than 10 pages and didn't know if there was something I was supposed to respond to. How you interpret that as defensive is beyond me. It's ironic that this comes from someone who attacks someone for saying, essentially, "you want us to move our votes, what's your case for it?", just because the person in question was voting you.
And you can't really say I was willing to "more than willing to leave a dying wagon and go elsewhere," since I never did leave it. I just asked for a case from someone who wanted us to leave it, and I see no problem with stating a willingness to listen to a case from another player.

[Sefer]

BM, you've clearly never replaced into a game before.

why would there be something you had to respond to?
were you expecting a heap of criticism to be on you before you arrived?
of course not.

I'm amused that you think the only possible thing I could have to respond to is criticism; it tells a lot about you.
The first time I replaced into a game, a response from my predecesor (it was something along the lines of confirming a night action and giving opinions on a short list of players) was the only thing holding the game up. Other times, I've replaced into games where everyone's opinion on a certain player was being collected, and knowing that let me focus on something during my catch-up read. So in every game I replace into, I make a hello post letting people know that I'm in the process of catching up and that they should let me know if there's something I need to respond to. I find it eases the transition, and more often than not there is something that a replacement needs to respond to.
Think about this: have you ever been asked a question in one of your games? I think it's safe to assume you have. What happens if you have to be replaced without answering the question? In some cases, it's trivial, so nothing needs to happen. Otherwise, people ask your replacement. RR is being replaced in this game. Do you really think his replacement won't have to deal with a lot of questions based on RR's claims and actions?

The natural protown thing to do, would be to come into the game and say who you think is suspicious. Why would someone protown want to waste time defending themselves from people who are probably scum themselves?

I couldn't say who I thought was suspicious. Hadn't read the game for several weeks and didn't remember anything about it except the long, pointless argument that made me stop reading. As I've pointed out, I made this post before I reread, so I didn't have anything to base a suspicion on yet. The natural protown thing to do is avoid saying you suspect somebody until you've actually read the game.
As for the second sentence, I've pointed out that I wasn't defending myself. The assumption that any given player in the game is "probably scum themselves," again, says a lot about you.

Much better would be to look for yourself and make judgements.
The wagon thing revealed that you were looking for an escape from your starting wagon. The fact that you are still there doesnt absolve you-it just means that you havent risked leaving it yet, or you are still hoping for someone to hammer Kison.

Nah, it just means asking for an argument indicated a willingness to listen to reason. You should try it sometime. Stating that I wouldn't change my mind no matter what evidence is presented would have been kinda insane.
It's also interesting that you think there's some kind of risk in taking my vote off of Kison; honestly, what makes you think I'd need this elaborate ruse, particularly so soon after I replaced in, to change my vote? You took your vote off of him not long ago without a problem.
BM is clearly making some typically bad newbie arguments. He certainly has an ironic amount of overdefensiveness (saying I looked "like someone trying to latch onto someone with alot of suspicion, in order to lynch someone protown" when I asked one of the two people voting him what their case was; since when was two votes a lot of suspicion and since when was asking for the reason for someone's vote latching onto their target?). I don't know that he's more likely to be newbie scum than newbie town, though; I've seen overdefensive town newbies before (heck, I've been an overdefensive town newbie before). Is there a case against him besides "he makes bad arguments," or are the people voting him just reacting to that?

[Sefer]

Oh, jeez. Now that's a case- nothing better than catching someone directly contradicting themselves.

Unvote, vote: Battle Mage

.

Cue BM claiming I'm opportunistic

[Sefer]

Hrm... there are good points against Kison, but there's something new we need to consider now that we have scum dead. All of the dead townies (yahtzee, scrabble, pictionary, candyland, chess) are traditional American boardgames- while I don't know whether they originated in America (chess certainly didn't), they're all games one would expect anyone would know of, going back 50 years or more. Settlers of Catan, on the other hand, is a German board game that's only about a decade old and still isn't mainstream in America. This suggests that mainstream American games, like Monopoly, aren't scum; if we believe his claim we may want to look somewhere else. Jalyn's made a good case for BM protecting Kison, but this is something we should probably talk about before we make a decision on lynching him.

IH, you were the other person besides BM that I noticed being certain that RR's cop claim was a scum strategy. What made you so sure it was that, and not a dumb town play? Do you still think that RR/Jalyn is scum?
Thok, is there a reason we should trust that Fritz is town and able to somehow clear you? I just find it odd that you're using it as evidance that ShadowLurker/you is someone on BM's list that was town.

[Sefer]

@Thok: While I do believe his claim that he had no win condition until today, I can't help but feel that he would have told us he wins with town no matter what to avoid being lynched (if he wins with scum now, he's not exactly likely to tell us). It does seem more likely that he'd pick someone who actually is town to tell us was town so that suspicion wouldn't go to him on your death, though. I'm just not going to take claims of his at face value without more of an explaination.
In particular: Fritzler, do you say Thok is town because of observation on your part or is it information that was given by your role (when you still had one, now that you claim vanilla)?

@HH, IH: I don't think that considering what might be a scum role and what might be a town role is a bad idea. I'm not saying we should make it the only basis of a decision, I'm just saying we should take all the information we have into account before making a decision. We only have one dead scum, but all the dead town fit a theme the scum didn't. It's already clear that my original theory about who town members are (games popular in America for a long time) can't work if Jalyn is town; I forgot her Cranium claim. Cranium's American, but it's late 90s. Still, scum could be eurogames and town everything else. It does influence my thinking on Kison because, as I stated yesterday, I think he's probably Monopoly but I had no reason to think Monopoly was or was not scum; now I have a reason to think that game isn't scum. Doesn't stop me from looking at the case against him, but does give me more to think about.

[Sefer]

I also agree that Risk isn't a eurogame (I'd call it a wargame) despite its origins in France. Of course, this is where having only one point of data on the scum side hurts us; all of the scum could just be European in origin. I'm basing my assumption that this isn't the case off of Chess being the first dead, but we can't be certain. I'm inclined to think that the two are both town members that are part of a wargame masonry for the moment, though there are things about IH's play thus far that have given me pause- his strong belief that RR was scum, his calling speculation about scum roles "retarded." That last could easily be chalked up to him also thinking Risk was a Eurogame, though.

What are the odds that someone will claim a "Euro-Game" now?

Apparently not good...

This always seemed a pretty poor argument to me. "If we figure out the scum's theme, they won't make claims that belong to that theme!" The scum know what their theme is already; once they had some townies dead to see what was normal for us, if they were all eurogames, I think they probably figured out that Die Macher would be a bad claim before I said anything.
Of course, I didn't figure on that discussion provoking a bunch of power role claims. I'm a little leary of us having two cops, but I know at least one of Ecto's results is correct and Thok has a good argument for the other being correct as well. I'm willing to believe both claims until we get something that contradicts them, though we may not have both of them around for long.
I'd still like to hear from Fritz about whether he's saying Thok's innocent because of observation or because of knowledge given by his role.

[Sefer]

On the speculation about themes: while I agree that we don't have enough dead scum to be certain of a theme, Kison's claim fits thematically well with all of the dead townies we have, and makes it unlikely that I will vote him at this time.

On Twito's claim: I'm inclined to believe that a boost doesn't overcome a block; having a stronger ability wouldn't necessarily help if someone has stopped you from using abilities alltogether.
As for the missed kill when I was blocked, clearly something else was going on. Either we have a vig who decided not to kill night 1 or CES managed to stop a kill that night. I realize that my former statement implies a claim of "not vig," and in the interests of clarity I will confirm this- I am not a vig, so the missing kill night 1 was either by choice of the killer or being blocked in another fashion.
Further, Ecto's innocent investigation on me implies that I can only be scum if I'm a godfather. There are a couple of things that indicate this isn't the case; first, we had people torn apart both nights, lining up with the way Chess was killed. The missing kill night 1 was through burning, implying that it was not the mafia group that missed its kill. Second, BM's attacks on me yesterday are pretty good evidence that I'm not his godfather. While I don't think there's enough to clear me, I think there's plenty more evidence pointing to me being town than there is pointing anywhere else.
Whatever happend to Thok's HackerHuck wagon? Lost in the crash, you say?

Vote: HackerHuck

.

[Sefer]

Yeah, there could be something like that going on, which is why I don't think there's evidence enough to clear me. I just wanted to point out that Twito's pre-crash post where he said something like "most definate scum ever" about me was bull; in the absense of evidence of a second scum group, evidence points towards me being town. Me being blocked during a night there was a missing kill is not a reason to immediately assume I'm scum- if you think Ecto's sanity is off, there's just as much reason to assume Twito is scum and lying (in that Ecto got an innocent on Twito, too). Since I know Ecto got me right, though, and I haven't seen anything different from the last time I saw Twito as town, I'm assuming Ecto is sane and Twito is telling the truth.

[Sefer]

Ahh, I love being misrespresented.

FoS:Sefer

I don't like this post at all. He seemed to have come out with a strong rebuttal about Twito's statement, when Twito was just being Twito. It just seems like being overdefensive, and seems like he's trying to eliminate all possibilities of him being scum.

Twito wasn't the only one who thought it pointed at me being the one who didn't kill, though I can't remember who else did since it got lost in the crash. I don't see why a bad argument made by Twito means I shouldn't point out that it was a bad argument, though.
Also, your last sentence directly contradicts me saying there's not enough to clear me. There are scenarios under which I could be scum (Thok pointed out a couple); there are just more scenarios that explain the missing kill in a different way.

First off, he seems to completely ignore the possibility of a second scum group, but look at the part that I bolded.
The mafia missed it's kill, and then he seems to try and infer the only other person who would kill would be a vig, with the godfather comment.

I didn't mention another group because we don't have any reason to believe there is one yet; that'd certainly be changed if someone from a second group dies. You're misrepresenting me when you say I was infering only vigs would kill; I said we have a vig or CES blocked a kill. I should have specifically stated that I meant SK there.

Then he votes for Hackerhuck? Why? There was no wagon, it was pretty much Thok throwing on a vote and saying "I want a Hackerhuck Wagon."

That's why I voted. There were some interesting reactions to the vote coming up (lost now, alas). HH hasn't really given me much to read him on, other than one very badly thought out argument, and I wouldn't mind pressure on him so that he might give us more to go on when judging him.


I will be moving this weekend (those of you in games with me when I last moved, back in December, may understand why this is frustrating). I have an appointment to get internet access set up Monday, so I don't think my absence will affect this game too much, but I thought you should know.

[Sefer]

What are the odds that someone will claim a "Euro-Game" now?

Apparently not good...

This always seemed a pretty poor argument to me. "If we figure out the scum's theme, they won't make claims that belong to that theme!" The scum know what their theme is already; once they had some townies dead to see what was normal for us, if they were all eurogames, I think they probably figured out that Die Macher would be a bad claim before I said anything.

So... just to put pressure on someone out of the blue? I just don't think that right now was the best time to do it, as it looked like you were essentially hopping on a random wagon.

In that, unless you count Thok's vote during the crash, there was no one else voting him, I don't see how you can characterize it as hopping on a wagon. I wouldn't mind turning it into a wagon. In that the only person people seem to be looking at is someone I'm not currently convinced is scum, I don't see what else I would do than vote someone in the hopes that people would look at him and, yes, pressure him into giving us more to go on.

[Sefer]

Thesp, you're not voting Kison; you can end this if you want him to stop breathing.

Or you could vote someone more interesting, like HH or, heck DoS. But don't scream at us when you're not voting.

[Sefer]

Is Frustian still alive? Who is his replacement? I am thinking that they are town at the moment, or at least not part of Thesp's group. Just everyone he mentioned as being "hot" have turned out to be town at the moment.

That was Kison, who was, indeed, town.

I am guessing that Thesp and BM were both from the same group. Any similarities between backgammon and Settlers of catan?

Older games perhaps?

Backgammon is 5000 years old; Settlers came out around 1995. Only similarity I see is "somewhat strategic game using dice," which doesn't apply to any dead town (Yahtzee and Monopoly use dice but no strategy). However, it could apply to Axis & Allies and Risk, which makes it unlikely as a scum role indicator.

Does anyone know how Thesp busses? Was it anywhere close to how he was doing with Sefer?

How he was doing what with me? The only reference to me that I see skimming his posts is the one you quoted, and that quote involves seven people, five of which are still alive- half the town.


These are the roleclaims as I remember them. Are there any I forgot/misremembered?
Zindaras- Axis & Allies, Mason
IH- Risk, Mason
Fritzler- started no condition, now vanilla town (I wouldn't mind hearing an explaination for this; since he's already claimed vanilla I don't see how explaining his role could hurt town. Could also explain whether him saying Thok is town is role info or not, a question he's ignored a couple of times)
Ectomancer- trivial pursuit, cop
Twito- Chutes & Ladders, boost/blocker

Twito, I'd like to hear your target for last night if you don't think it would hurt town to hear it. From your distrust of me I'd guess that you'd block me, which could show that I'm not the burning killer (assuming we don't find a second group at some point). If you blocked someone else it'd narrow down the possible vig/serial killer list, so it's kinda up to you whether you think it'd be good to reveal that (if you think it's an SK, it'd be good; vig, bad).

[Sefer]

My current thoughts on people-
Pretty sure are town:
Ecto, because he has a correct investigation on me.
Twito, because Ecto has an innocent on him. Godfathers are a consideration, but it seems unlikely that he'd claim a power (like roleblocking or boosting) that is testable if he has no way to demonstrate it. Only way I could see him being scum is if he's a Godfather of the group that has a roleblocker in it (the one blocking cops is definately scum), and that seems a pretty iffy theory- as Thok pointed out, there was no reason for scum to block RR if they knew he was targeting their investigation immune godfather that night.

Likely town:
IH and Zindaras, because it'd be risky to claim masons when the death of either would incriminate the other. Alignments aren't guaranteed, so it's possible that the mason claim is true and one isn't town.

Uncertain:
Thok and Fritzler. Fritz has stated that Thok is town but has ignored questions as to why; I'd really like him to state whether he knows for certain, and how, so he can't just write it off as being based on gut if Thok dies and ends up being scum. Thok, for his part, said he thinks the claim of Thok being town was a reasonable followup to Fritz's variable win condition claim, which I don't really understand. The connection is something we may want to look into.

Mod,

Fritzler hasn't posted since D3; can you prod him?

I don't really have anything solid on DoS, HH, or Nightfall. I'd like to change that.

I'm going to have to do a reread so I can base some of this on gameplay and not just claims, but that's probably going to have to wait til the weekend.

I'd been operating under the assumption that there was a 4-5 person mafia and an SK or vig, but the lack of a readily apparent connection between the two dead scums' roles may indeed be an indication of two mafias.

[Sefer]

Agreed, both that it is possible but that it's unlikely. It's my understanding that one doesn't usually see that outside of Bastard Mod or similar games (though I could be wrong there).

I'm fine with a mass claim; if we go through with it, I'd suggest Thok go first (since he suggested it) and have each person choose the one who will claim next.

[Sefer]

I'm fine with a mass claim; if we go through with it, I'd suggest Thok go first (since he suggested it) and have each person choose the one who will claim next.

Huh? It's fairly clear that any logical mass claim order has Fritzler going before me.

I'm fine with him going first, assuming he shows up at some point.

[Sefer]

I'm still in favor of each person choosing the next person to claim, so I think Fritzler should choose whoever claims next.

[Sefer]

I'm a little leary about anyone who suggests a mass claim but wants to go last.

[Sefer]

I'm leery of a person who hides behind metaprinciple and doesn't think about the actual game situation.

Who of HH, DOS, Nightfall, me would you prefer to go last? (i.e. which one do you think is least likely to be scum?) (I'm leaving you out of this question for obvious reasons.)

Tossup out of those; they're all ones I haven't been able to get a good read on. DoS is the one that I'd say was most scummy, so I'd probably put Nightfall last given the choice.

I'm really curious what game situation thinks warrants the trust you want the rest of us to put in you. Fritzler's claim? Let's assume that the basic mechanic (choose a player, join his side) is correct. The situation could be what he claimed, that he targeted you and that you're both town. The situation could be that he targeted scum and is now scum; then you could either be amonst the group he targeted (not the way I would go, in that it opens awkward questions if you die first, but possible) or you could be outside his group, at which point he's guessing you're an innocent but doesn't really know (you could be an SK/in a seperate scum group). In that I asked four times over a period of a month and a half whether Fritz was claiming you were town based on role knowledge or just belief before he committed to an answer, I'm not really inclined to assume that he was telling the truth; I don't see any reason not to answer other than keeping the option open of saying "what, Thok's scum? My bad, I just thought he was town then." You've fairly consistantly acted as though it was a reason we should all assume you're town, though, even though he hasn't given a reason for it until now.

Further, this:

There's also an incongruity about Sefer in particular; he apparently trusted me enough to follow me with respect to HH yesterday, but apparently doesn't trust me to go late in the claiming chaim.

is pretty disingenuous; I stated the reason I voted him: I didn't think the Kison wagon was correct and I felt pressure on someone I hadn't gotten a good read on would be helpful. In that you never stated the reason you voted him, I don't see why you felt I was trusting you; I saw a reason that building a HH wagon could be helpful, which is not at all the same as assuming the one who first put a vote down on it is town.

So there are many things about the actual game situation that I feel support not giving you a free pass in claiming last. Note that since I've supported Fritz choosing the next person to claim (and so on), you definately wouldn't be claiming first and might end up claiming last if we follow my suggestion. I'm not assuming you are scum, but I'm not going to assume you're not on Fritz's say-so, and the defensiveness you displayed at the notion that you might not go last in a mass claim you brought about doesn't make it easier to trust you.

[Sefer]

I want Sefer to claim RIGHT now, just because of his express to go last. It stinks of desperation to me.

Why

does he want to go last? It shouldn't make a difference either way if this is a true mass claim, and he is town.

You're confusing me with Thok. I've never expressed any desire to go last (I assume that's what you meant to type); I've suggested each person choose the next because it keeps us from having one potentially scummy person choose the order. In that this plan would have Fritzler choose the next person, and I've been expressing doubt of Fritzler, this would actually have a pretty fair chance of me going first.
This is not the first time you've claimed I said something I never did. Please stop.
If we are going to pick one person to choose the claim order, I trust Ecto the most. That's something Thok and I agree on, so is there anyone who has a problem with Ecto choosing the claim order?

Also, for him not answering your questions, we're talking about Fritzler, who is currently in massive lurker mode. You should know that Fritzler's lurking is at best a null tell.

Scum tells, in my understanding, are often things that townies might do, but are more beneficial for scum to do than town. Fritz lurking may be par for the course, but when he does it in such a manner that it would be much more beneficial for him to do as scum than as town, it makes me suspcious. I'm fairly certain it's also normal for him to step in, make a claim as to someone's alignment, and then go back into lurker mode, so it's not like he couldn't say his claim about you wasn't role information without being out of character.

I actually gave my reasons for voting HH at some point-I felt he was attacking as if he knew too much, and that it felt like he was avoiding confrontation. All of this (along with my original HH vote) was removed in the crash. I know HH responded to my reasons; I'm sure he could verify that I did in fact give reasons.

I didn't remember that, and I'm sorry I misremembered if it's the case. I remember someone attacking you for starting it without a reason, and I remember mentioning that I've seen you do the same as town before, but I didn't rememer you responding to it after.
I went for HH because I wanted a better read on HH; he and IH were the ones who objected most to anyone discussing scum theme and I wanted to get more of a read on him because of it. I probably wouldn't have gone after him in the same manner if you hadn't started it, true, but agreeing with you on one point (that we'd benefit from pressure on HH) hardly supports your conclusion that I trust you in every respect.

Basically, your argument is "Fritzler might be lying! We shouldn't let Thok go last!" In order for that to be the case, you need to provide convincing evidence that
a. Fritzler actually is lying (which I feel you haven't done and which there's decent metagame evidence from Fritzler's previous games to support him not lying)
b. That Fritzler lying implies I'm scum (which I feel you haven't done [in fact you've admitted that if Fritzler is scum, I'm not part of his scum group])

My argument is "Fritzler could be lying. We shouldn't let Thok unilaterally declare he's going last." My first suggestion for turn order did have you first, but the second one (Fritzler first) could have you going last, but you seem dead set on us declaring from the beginning that you will be last.
I've addressed a- the fact that he avoided a question for a month and a half when answering it would help him as town but hurt him as scum is enough reason to not assume that he's telling the truth. As for b, him lying means you can be scum; I've never claimed that you must be scum, just that you're demanding more trust than the situation warrents. (Also, I admitted no such thing; I've said it's not something I would do in Fritz's place in that scenario, but Fritz and I obviously have different playstyles; in your experience, how likely is Fritz to take risks? Clearly if you were scum in the same group and we discounted the possibility because I wouldn't do it, it'd be a risk that paid off)
Moreover, I think you have things backwards here; I'm not the one who should be proving things. You want us to decide you're definately not scum, you need to prove/provide convincing evidence that either
a. Fritzler must be telling the truth or
b. you must be town even if Fritzler is lying.
You've done neither. Feel free to expand on your post analysis point if you think you can prove one of these things, but don't act like the baseline assumption is that you must be town and we're not allowed to distrust you. To put it another way: if I'm mentally putting people in town, scum, and undecided boxes in my head, you're in the undecided box. I don't need to prove to you that you're undecided before I decide not to blindly follow you; you need to prove that you're town before I do. You can call this thickheaded if you like (I prefer stubborn and/or suspicious, personally), but you're the one with a claim that needs to be proven.

Finally, I'll add a few more observations; the group of nonclaimed people probably has 2-3 scum (maybe 4 scum) out of those 5 people, unless something weird has happened. In that situation, a pick the next person to go scenario likely guarantees a scum goes last (as scum won't pick their partners to go);

It wouldn't have been such a bad thing. If, say, DoS were scum and you were town, and the claim order had been Fritz, DoS, you, what do you think would have happend? Your disdain for others fakeclaiming indicates you'd probably agree that we would have caught DoS, and then you would actually have a strong case for being definately town. It's not something we can use now that it's been mentioned, though.

Finally, unlike most people, I don't suck at making fake role claims. If you honestly think I'm scum, then you should be willing to accept that I've already made up a fake claim (and probably two or three depending on the circumstances) and that I feel confident in picking a game that's unlikely to be counterclaimed but likely to be in the setup. Basically, if I am scum, having me go first to claim will have little to know benefit.

In that you're saying the only way we'd catch you based on a claim is if you by chance fake claimed someone else's role, you've just made an argument for why you should go first (going last, there's no chance of catching you based on role; going first there's a chance you'll claim a taken role). I don't agree with the conclusions you reach from your premise.

[Sefer]

I thought he meant he is wary of someone who wants a mass claim, and left out like an I or something. X_X;;

You thought I would write something like "I wants to go last?" That hurts, man. That's just cold.

(I will admit that your feelings about Fritz here are consistent with your feeling about Fritz there, so it's possible that you're just being dumb about this).

Being insulting isn't something that's going to make me want to trust you, especially when you're either ignoring the point I was making or being dumb yourself; your argument does establish that it's something he could do as town, which isn't something I've argued against; you've never done anything to establish that it's something he would not do as scum, which is what you have to show before we start trusting his word about something. You keep arguing as if I'm trying to say you and/or Fritz must be scum, when what I'm saying is that the claim that you must be town isn't true. Until you actually argue against the point I'm making we're not going to get very far.

You've missed the point about my comment about fake claiming

I understand the point you were trying to make; I just don't agree that your premise supports your conclusion. The only way to pick a fake claim that might be in the game is risk picking one that's actually in the game. You choose one that's not as likely to be in the game and we'll know your claim isn't as trustworthy. The only way to have no chance of screwing up is going last. Glancing over the list of town deaths, there are two games that I'd say have to be in this game based on the townie theme we've seen, and my role is one of them; if you're not the other one I'll have reason not to assume your claim is true.

of the five people in the claim, I claim that to an outside observer, I have the highest likelihood of being town by far

Funnily enough, I think I do; I was the subject of a more likely reliable investigation and have a better voting record.

While I'm sure the Thok/IH/Sefer show is very entertaining, does anyone else have thoughts about this? In particular, are there any objections to Ecto choosing the claim order? If there aren't any in the next few days, we should probably just go ahead with him doing so.

[Sefer]

You're involved with an investigation that is only reliable if we believe that Ecto is both protown and insane

You mean protown and sane, yes? His has innocent on Twito and me.

(and that's ignoring godfather issues); the cop arguement for me being protown actually relies on more assumptions than the cop argument for me being protown (which only requires Fritz to be protown; sanity/godfather issues come for free from that one).

I think the likelyhood of Fritz being scum is higher than the likelyhood of Ecto; whether it's higher than the likelyhood of Ecto being insane is something we could debate, since we never got any sanity from RR/Jalyn.

As for your voting record being better than mine, that's a laugh. The only reason you could argue you have a better voting record than me is because you voted BM and I didn't, and that only occured because Battle Mage essentially got quick lynched (I had previously expressed suspicion of BM, and I espressed willingness to vote him in a post that was simulposted with the quicklynch vote). You were a supporter of the Kison wagon until I pointed out that it sucked, then followed me to voting HH.

I'll give you BM going fast, but you're incorrect on Kison. I was on him day 2 until Jalyn pointed out BM's contradiction, but day 3, after we had more role information, I was never on him. You, on the other hand, spent time telling the town to look for other lynch possiblities day 2 without ever doing so yourself (unless you count HH day 3); you said that the Kison wagon sucked but ended up joining it day 3 (there may have been new arguments by that point, but I don't have time to check at the moment; I'll look into that this afternoon). Your record surrounding Kison isn't very good at all.

[Sefer]

You're involved with an investigation that is only reliable if we believe that Ecto is both protown and insane

You mean protown and sane, yes? His has innocent on Twito and me.

Fair enough, I misremembered his investigations being innocent rather than guilty.

You mean guilty rather than innocent, yes?

I'll give you BM going fast, but you're incorrect on Kison. I was on him day 2 until Jalyn pointed out BM's contradiction, but day 3, after we had more role information, I was never on him. You, on the other hand, spent time telling the town to look for other lynch possiblities day 2 without ever doing so yourself (unless you count HH day 3); you said that the Kison wagon sucked but ended up joining it day 3 (there may have been new arguments by that point, but I don't have time to check at the moment; I'll look into that this afternoon). Your record surrounding Kison isn't very good at all.

Did you freaking read the thread at all during the period lost during the crash? Did you freaking read the various summaries of the crash comments? Thesp and I had a big discussion of the whole Frustian-Battle Mage interaction, which was a new piece of evidence and hadn't been discussed before.

Did you read the paragraph you just quoted, in which I stated "there may have been new arguments by that point, but I don't have time to check at the moment?" For someone who forgot what the cops results are and just either lied about or misremembered my history of voting or not voting Kison, you're pretty worked up that I didn't remember off the top of my head the contents of a discussion that occurred a month and a half ago that I haven't had the opportunity to read more than, at the most, once (I'm pretty sure I missed some of the discussion right before the board went down).
And the relevent "summaries" of that discussion, as far as I found, is just:

Crud, we lost more of my push for the Kison wagon, partly founded on Thok's allusion to Frustian/BM interaction, which appeared to be textbook scum-to-scum communication in thread, along with Frustian's pull off of the BM wagon (when it became a wagon) while still trying to claim BM looked scummy.

"Sefer is being really stupid"

Honestly, is it necessary to be insulting? A big part of why I'm finding you hard to trust at this point is your going back and forth between strawmanning my arguments and insulting my intelligence. The way you're behaving here is much different from DSIV; for instance, in that game, when Mackay responded to you pointing out that you were unlikely to be GROSS mafia (due to your temporary death at their hands) with an accusation that it meant you were part of GROSS and that you'd been breadcrumbing Moe, you never called her thickheaded or stupid even though those charges were a lot less reasonable than me pointing out you're not cleared here. In that I didn't try to insult your intelligence when you argued against points other than those I was making, I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you; these games become much less fun when people start insulting each other in them.
By the way, your response to Mackay's accusations included this:

Frankly, if I was scum, I would try to make that statement as vague as possible, as it discourages people from worrying about me, and I'd be hammering on it as hard as possible.

Which is pretty much what you're doing here. That you've continued trying to argue it even after I suggested Fritz choose the next person, and especially after we agreed that Ecto was a reasonable person to choose the order, is defensiveness on your part.

As a side note, I ran across another Thesp note while I was checking back for what was mentioned about the posts that were lost:

Still here, still happiest with a Kison lynch. Sefer can wait until tomorrow (unless a vig feels so inclined).

Not really pertinant to the current discussion but it's something I thought I'd point out.

[Sefer]

@Sefer-in our discussion you've made the following mistakes

a. You suggested I should claim first, when it was blatantly obvious Fritz should go before me
b. You claimed I never gave my reasons for voting HH, when in fact I did
c. You criticized me for joining the Kison wagon without bothering to see why I did so

a. You've never established why you feel this is so. Is it because it would get him to say what information he had about you? I'd been trying to get him to do that for a month and a half and he hadn't. What claim from you was going to change his claim? If your claim isn't going to change his, there's no particular reason for him to go first. As can be seen by me being fine with changing to Fritz first, I was more interested in the mechanic of each person choosing his successor, which has benefits both in that it doesn't really on one potentially untrustworthy person making an order (which we solved by finding someone that everyone who cared to talk trusts) and by giving us more information than a standard role claim (since we get information from who each person chooses to go next). I still feel that we would have gained more from this method.
b. You say you gave reasons in a lost part of the game that occured a month and a half ago. I'm willing to accept that, but I doubt I'm the only one that doesn't remember every part of every exchange that he was only periphirally involved in.
c. As I said, I didn't have time. I had to get to work, so I wrote what I had time for and made a note that I'd check to see if there was a mention of new arguments. In that the context of me saying that was responding to you claiming I changed from the Kison wagon because of you, which was not the case, clearly shows that you never bothered checking why I did so, which hardly puts you in a postition to complain about me not checking (particularly when I clearly stated that it was a time issue and that I would do so later, which you proceeded to ignore. Twice).

At best, those are sloppy play; at worst you're actually trying to get a bad case on me. So yes, I feel perfectly in my rights to insult you for being stupid; if you want to avoid being insulted, you can stop being stupid or sloppy or lazy and actually check your facts before doing things. (As for DSIV, look at the first paragraph of my reaction to Mackay's accusation of me; it's not exactly complementary to her. The reasons I didn't get more derogatory in that game was that it became likely to me relatively quickly that she was unlikely to be scum, and she realized relatively quickly that her arguments were stupid. The fact tht she actually had an argument to refute was also useful.)

(As for misremembering Ecto's cop claims; does it actually matter whether or not Ecto has two guilties or two innocents? It's certainly a much smaller mistake then any of the three things I posted above.)

That's hardly the only mistake you've made. The claim that I moved from Kison because of you (when I'd clearly stated other reasons for doing so), the claim that when I voted HH I was only following you and that it somehow implied that I should trust you now (when I'd clearly stated other reasons for doing so), claiming that I need to prove that you and Fritz are scum when I never made that claim (as a side point, the "trying to build a bad case against me" is another thing that makes me think you've missed the point that I'm not making the positive assertion that you're scum, just disagreeing with your positive assertion that you must be town; I'm just establishing that there are reasons you don't warrant absolute trust); these are just as sloppy as anything you've pointed out and only the fact that you've stated you aren't getting scummy vibes from me prevents me from saying you're trying to make a bad case against me. You're being pretty hypocritical; I'd be perfectly within my rights, by your logic, to insult you for being stupid for your mistakes, but I'm not, because I think this:

* Have fun, be kind and considerate to the players and the moderator, and do your best!

is an important rule. All I'm asking you to do is follow it.
As for an argument to refute, I've pointed out that you're the one that's putting forth the positive assertion ("I, Thok, can't be scum"). You need to put forth an argument that proves it if you want me to trust any particular plan you make (this whole discussion boils down to "you should trust me enough to let me claim last even though claiming was my idea" "I don't see a good reason to trust you that much"). If you'd

As for your comments early day 3 about Kison, they are filled with comments like "People raise good points about Kison's play, but maybe we should think about his role claim". It's not until after the crash that you actually start saying that the Kison wagon is bad; your behavior could reasonably be interpretted as an attempt to avoid being linked to a wagon you know to be bad.

Which, funnily enough, ignores all the discussion I was involved in that got lost in the crash, in which various posts of mine about what information we got from deaths led me to believe the wagon was bad. I'd assume that you would have remembered that, in that you expect me to remember everything that occurred in that period.

Finally, I'm not being vague about Fritz's investigation; I've pointed out that there are many more scenarios where it clears me. Moreover, the argument that "claimed one shot investigation involving a weird role mechanic suggest I'm protown, independent of the Fritzler's alignment, and oh by the way there aare other reasons to think I'm protown" is a lot more complicated than "mafia killed me, I'm protown".

I should have been more clear; the part of the quote I was refering to was the bit about hammering an assertion that you were town as hard as possible (even though it's not as conclusive as you like to imply).

I'm good with Ecto's list (not that it's terribly surprising); I await DoS's claim.

[Sefer]

The fact that he didn't add in that limiting factor of the role until someone else pointed out that seeing the action of a target is much more powerful than a standard tracker. While I'm actually not sure what the standard information given to a tracker whose target has a night action but is roleblocked is (does it register as no action or does it show that he targeted someone even though there was no effect?) and he's already claimed a role that gains more information than a standard tracker, Thok's concern 1 is definately a good point; I'd expect scum that claimed tracker to conviniently only have targeted players we know the role of now. The fact that he picked the player least likely to be scum doesn't help the claim.
Now that DoS has claimed everything, I think Nightfall is next on the list (HackerHuck actually jumped ahead in line when he claimed).

[Sefer]

I'm checkers (not chinese, just normal checkers). I'm vanilla.

For my own reference, I'm listing claims along with the dead (stealing the list from the first post and filling in claims):

Still Gaming (10/18):

1.

MrBuddyLee

(replaces Zindaras D4)

Axis & Allies- Mason
2.

Sefer

(replaces olio D2)

Checkers-Vanilla
6.

IH

(replaces WldHrtCgd08 D1)

Risk- Mason
7.

Fritzler

Diplomacy-Chose Thok, is now town
8.

Ectomancer

Trivial Pursuit-Cop
13.

Twito

Chutes and Ladders-Blocker/Booster
14.

DragonsofSummer

Railroad Tycoon-Tracker
15.

Nightfall

Battleship-Vig
16.

HackerHuck

(replaces Shamrock D1)

Clue-Vanilla
18.

Thok

(replaces ShadowLurker D2)

Chinese Chess-Vanilla (Supported by Fritz)

Game Over'd (8/18):

12.

Livingod -- Yahtzee, Townie -- Lynched Day One

4.

Cheesefan -- Scrabble, Message-Sender -- Killed Night One

5.

Battle Mage -- Settlers of Catan, Mafia Goon -- Lynched Day Two

9.

logicticus -- Pictionary, Inventor -- Killed Night Two

3.

Cogito Ergo Sum -- Candyland, Doctor -- Killed Night Two

10.

Kison

(replaces Frustian D1)

-- Monopoly, Townie -- Lynched Day Three

17.

Jalyn

(replaces Raging Rabbit D2)

-- Cranium, Cop -- Killed Night Three

11.

Thesp

(replaces JDodge D1)

-- Backgammon, Mafia Goon -- Killed Night Three

That all accurate?

I think we can be fairly certain that Nightfall is the source of the extra kill nights two and three (though he could also be part of a second group, it seems unlikely to me at this point), making him either an SK or vig. We can either assume SK and lynch him, which has the benefit of reducing kills to only one per night, or assume he's a vig for now and have the town direct his kills (lynching him if he doesn't follow through), making it so the town gets to choose two kills a day.
Whether or not Nightfall is an SK, I'd guess there are at least 2 and possibly 3 other scum out there. I'm fairly certain at this point that DoS is one of them, but I'm really not sure who the other(s) would be; HackerHuck's claim does seem likely, and back in March (post 1061) he objected to others indicating that Clue would be a cop role- not strongly or clearly enough to make it certain the role was his, but it is an indication that he's telling the truth here. The problem is that if HH isn't scum, one of the pairs (masons and Fritz/Thok) would have to be (though it need't be both from a pair, as the masons don't have confirmation of each other's alignments and Fritz can be scum even if Thok isn't). I think the best course of action would be to lynch DoS and have the town direct Nightfall's kill, but I'm not sure who the best person for that kill would be. If it were from the mason pair, I'd say IH (since Zind was the first to claim mason, indicating he worried IH could be scum); if it were from the Fritz-Thok pair, I'd say Fritz (for obvious reasons; with this, even if we do lynch town, we would get an absolutely confirmed Thok out of it, which would probably be worth it).

For clarity, this is how I'm dividing people up in my head:
Very probably town:
Ecto
Twito
Me

Pairs:
IH & MBL (don't have confirmation of each other's alignments)
Thok & Fritz (Fritz can be scum without Thok, but not the other way around)

Vig or SK:
Nightfall

Remaining:
DoS (Probably scum)
HH (Good claim, leaning town)

Vote: DoS

.

[Sefer]

Yeah, but Ecto got an innocent on Twito and there's good reason to believe that Twito isn't a godfather (or at least isn't one associated with the roleblocker). If we need proof that Ecto isn't insane, it's better to lynch me; that way we don't lose a power role in the process.

[Sefer]

Sure, though I was wrong. Life was the other game (besides checkers) that I felt the setup almost had to include. Clue certainly fits the style of games we've had as townies, though, and I was kicking myself for not having thought of it when I read that claim.

[Sefer]

That's a good point, HH; unless we get lucky and lynch the roleblocker today, the only chance for Nightfall's kill to get through while targeting scum is for the scum not to know who he's targeting. I'm fine with Nightfall choosing his own kill tonight, though if someone turns up burned tomorrow it had better be someone he can justify having targeted.

Is anyone besides DoS against lynching DoS?

Mod,

can we get a vote count? We haven't had one yet today.

[Sefer]

Ahh, sorry. That would explain it

[Sefer]

First.

Scum can only block one person of course. Then they still have to worry about the tracker. Of course, that is not taking into account how much is fake.


I'm nervous how ecto survived the night also.... there is no doc, no claimed protective role. WHY would scum leave him alive?

Bleh. Got to be godfather or fake claim.....

Ecto survived because scum killed the other cop; they blocked Jayln/RR N1 and N2 rather than killing him, presumably because they figured he'd be doc protected. The doc was killed N2, so they killed one claimed cop N3 and blocked the other. They haven't had another chance to kill him.

Is there a reason some people think Twito is the scum roleblocker other than the fact that he's the only one who's claimed roleblocker? It seems unlikely to me; he claimed a block on me on two nights that someone else was blocked. Both claims were before I'd claimed vanilla, so he couldn't have known that I had no role to block and wouldn't know whether or not I was blocked (and therefore whether I could catch him in a lie if he was actually blocking a cop those nights). This, in addition to the investigation on him, makes it seem really unlikely that he's scum. Therefore it's probably better to lynch DoS, who very well could be the scum roleblocker.

[Sefer]

Welcome, CTD. There's been some confusion about your role (which was claimed a good long time ago); care to take a crack at explaining it better than Twito did?

Glork's last 3 posts imply that Zindaras and Fritzler did pick up their prods but haven't checked in yet.

I still feel DoS is the best lynch. I'd still like to hear why some people think Twito (now CTD) might be the scum roleblocker, since no one really answered post 1474.

[Sefer]

I suspect he's delaying in the hopes that he can hold out long enough not to get two votes before deadline :/

[Sefer]

plus the possibility of a scumblocker.

Does scumblocker mean something other than what I think it does, or are you actually questioning the existance of a scum roleblocker?

[Sefer]

Ahh, I understand now. Thanks.

[Sefer]

Living players and claims:
1.

MrBuddyLee

(replaces Zindaras D4)

Axis & Allies- Mason
2.

Sefer

(replaces olio D2)

Checkers-Vanilla
6.

IH

(replaces WldHrtCgd08 D1)

Risk- Mason
7.

Fritzler

Diplomacy-Chose Thok, is now town
15.

Nightfall

Battleship-Vig
18.

Thok

(replaces ShadowLurker D2)

Chinese Chess-Vanilla (Supported by Fritz)

I was very wrong about HH. Good call, Nightfall. What made you decide to target him? I have some thoughts to post but I'd like this answered first.

what color are firetrucks?

You don't post for a month and that's all you have to say? :/ Firetrucks are usually either red or yellow, why do you ask?

As a side note I'll be flying to Seattle today and will be there for a week. I don't anticipate this preventing me from keeping up with games, but if you never hear from me again, it means I forgot to empty my water bottle before going through security.

[Sefer]

I agree that Fritz is the play, but we should probably also take the opportunity to direct Nightfall's kill in case Fritz's death doesn't end the game. If we direct him at whichever mason we consider more likely to be scum, we can take care of possibilities 1 and 4 on Thok's list and retain the ability to deal with 3. In that I know 2 isn't an issue and can't come up with any other possibilites (5), I think this is the best way to go.

Vote: Fritzler

, and I think Nightfall should target IH.

The thoughts I was considering earlier were about the possibility that Nightfall (an SK in this scenario) had purposely targeted the person least likely to be scum that still could be (that is, a viable target but not likely to actually be scum, so we wouldn't be curious when the game didn't end). This was based on my own assumption at the end of yesterday that HH was probably town, but I have to agree that it's more than reasonable for HH to be on a list of scum made before claiming. Clearly I was wrong, and Nightfall is just amazing at finding scum (since all of the people on his list were scum).

[Sefer]

Mod,

I voted Fritzler last page.

As far as balancing issues go, I don't like outguessing the mod. I've got a couple of theories, but they'd only help the scumbags.

In that we've all claimed, how are theories going to help scum more than town at this point?
My own opinion on balance is that 4 townies in a game this size is more likely than 3, but I wouldn't want to assume it's the case. I'll trust Thok if Fritzler turns up town, but he is, indeed, a tricky bastard.
I still think lynching Fritzler and having Nightfall kill IH is a good course of action. Alternately, I'd support lynching IH and having Nightfall kill Fritz if IH turns up as a mason and having Nightfall kill Zindaras if he's mafia (and not a mason). Six mafia seems like a lot, so I doubt both masons are, but it's possible, particularly if Nightfall is a vig and not an SK, so preparing for that scenario could be good.

[Sefer]

That's a fair point; I hadn't read the early game in a long time. SL's behavior could be distancing, but I don't recall him doing much of that when I was scum with him in another game. Still, you can probably understand that regardless of Fritz's alignment we'll all breath a little easier when he's gone; we'll either have gotten scum or we'll have confirmed you.

[Sefer]

Just in case Glork's still not counting the vote from last page:

Vote: Fritzler

.
I'm still in favor of Fritz and IH dying before tomorrow, in whichever order.

Prior VC fixed. Sorry, I somehow managed to miss that entire post as well as your comment about my incorrect VC.
-Glork

[Sefer]

I've run out of things to say unless someone has some specific questions for me. I was under the impression that we were waiting for IH to respond to Thok.

[Sefer]

You think Fritzler would be patient enough to wait the entire game without killing? Isn't killing people indiscriminantly kinda his thing?

[Sefer]

Yay crossposting.

[Sefer]

Fritz claimed no win condition first on March 1st. Thesp replaced February 5th, and day 1 ended February 22nd, so they would have had a chance to talk if Fritz were scum at that point.

[Sefer]

So we have less than two days left, meaning we'll be ending very late Sunday/very early Monday (well, my time, Pacific, anyway). Depending on whether Zindy's "gone until Sunday" actually means he'll be back and checking in Sunday, he may not have a chance to hammer. Fritz almost certainly won't hammer. The fact that IH delayed hammering because Fritz basically posted "I'm not patient, I'm town, but I'm probably the best lynch" concerns me. If Fritz doesn't get hammered by deadline, IH really needs to be the nightkill, because the only reasons I can think of for IH to be trying to keep Fritz from being killed are bad for town (either IH is scum and allied with a scum Fritz or IH is scum and not allied with Fritz but hoping that Fritz surviving the day makes him a better NK target than IH himself). Whatever the reason, knowing he'll definately be the target tonight if he doesn't hammer should help motivate him to do so.
Nightfall, you agree that's reasonable? IH, I'm not sure what you thought there would be to respond to in Fritz's post, but could you please hammer and not risk running us too close to deadline? I'm aware that this will mean that Zindy has no chance to respond to Fritz's post, but honestly, what would he need to respond to?

[Sefer]

I think it's likely Nightfall is an SK. We could no lynch and have him go after Zindaras to be safe and check both masons as possible traitors, which is probably the safe play, but the simplest explaination is the SK one.

I'm going to be at comic-con from the evening of the 25th through the 29th. I will have very limited access during that time.

[Sefer]

I'm fine with either the safe way or the likely quicker way. It's up to you, Thok. I'm leaving for Comic-Con in a few hours, though, so I probably won't be able to change my vote until then. I'll

Vote: the quick way (Nightfall)

until then; if you're feeling patient and/or cautious just vote no lynch and I'll change my vote when I get back.

[Sefer]

Unvote, vote: No Lynch

.
Let's go the safe way, then; Nightfall, if you're town, target Zindaras tonight. If you're not town, it won't really matter who you target because we'll have to lynch you no matter what if the game doesn't end by day 7.
Anyone have an issue with this method?

[Sefer]

I also find Nightfall=SK to be the most likely situation; no lynch to off one more player is just the safe way. Zindy was the one who brought up the possibility of scum masons, which could have been an effort to avoid bringing suspicion of being one down on himself, but if one of them was scum I would have taken IH as the most likely one. Battlemage's attacks on me make it unlikely that I was scum with him, and with 4 dead mafia there aren't really enough for me to have been in a different group. I also wanted to pressure vote HH, though I can see how backing off and believing him town after his claim doesn't count in my favor. I argued for a DoS lynch and against a Twito lynch (while some others were indicating they felt he was likely the scum roleblocker), which would be heavily against the interests of scum since I was advocating getting rid of someone who turned out to be a scum power role (one they'd been making heavy use of, and one they could have used to stop Nightfall) and keeping a town power role. These should all help show that I'm not scum. Clearly I'm going to advocate a Zindy nightkill over dying myself, but while Zindy being scum isn't particularly likely, I think that even to an outside observer it's more likely that he is scum than I am.

[Sefer]

Sure, as the only absolutely confirmed town, you get to drive. I can't answer either of those for sure, but I can give you guesses:
1. Some godfathers only get investigation immunity if they don't make the kill. If he felt he was a likely target for an investigation, he may have offed Ecto to avoid that. Alternately, he may have felt his role claim was good enough that a vig or an SK seeking to off scum wouldn't target him, so he felt no need to off Nightfall. Alternately, he may have though Nightfall was an SK that needed to avoid killing him so he wouldn't be in this awkward "the scum appear to be gone, why isn't the game over" place that we're in. Alternately, he could be a NK immune godfather (rather than investigation immune) that lost his immunity if he made a kill that night and forgot about it. In any case, he could be fairly certain that Nightfall would not target the cop, since we could identify him by his kill style; he may just have hoped to avoid doubling up on kills and keep Nightfall around to help him off town members more quickly.

2. Panic? It clearly isn't a good move from either a vig or SK point of view, but either way he needs to convince us not to lynch him to win (as a vig, if we lynch him and there is scum left, town loses; as an SK he loses immediately). It's a silly thing for him to have suggested, though, just because scum that couldn't night kill would mean we could freely lynch him today and lynch someone else tomorrow if the game didn't end. I feel that making something like that up makes him more likely to be an SK (unless he has some history of lying as town if he feels he needs to in order to convince others to do something), but I've already made clear that I feel him being an SK is more likely than there being scum remaining.

[Sefer]

Since you think it goes with the flavor of my role, I'll assume you mean someone that helps the mafia (and knows who they are) without the mafia knowing that he's a member rather than someone who's recruited by the mafia. It could certainly go along with BM attacking me (since he wouldn't know I was aligned with him) and me switching stances on HH, but it still wouldn't explain me arguing for a DoS lynch and against a Twito lynch when I could have gone along with the people suspecting Twito (getting rid of a town power role whose death would have solidified that Ecto was not an insane cop).

While you're considering flavor, you may want to consider the flavor of Trivial Pursuit being naive. I've never been in a game with a traitor, but as far as I know the non-recruited varieties of traitors detect as scum.

If you have any questions for me while you're pondering let me know.

[Sefer]

Up to you whether you think it's relevant; I think that I disagreed with anyone trying to say Twito was the scum blocker was relevant. I also offered to let myself be lynched instead of Twito if people needed some proof that Ecto's investigations were accurate. Of course, if it was a "target one person each night and if they're checkers they join you" situation, and you think HH was fishing to try to find who to target that night, it doesn't really count in my favor since in that theory I wouldn't be scum until day 5. I don't think that 1442 is any good indication of that; with a massclaim all HH would have to do is wait until I posted to know whether you counted as checkers by process of elimination. It's a more likely explaination that he had heard of chinese checkers but not of chinese chess.

You do realize that you could just as easily have that role, having changed a later night than the one in which Fritz chose you, correct (though if you did have that role I'd assume you'd have picked one way or another a month back and this day would be over)? Soldiers in Xiangqi get more movement options for reaching a point on the board, same as pieces in Checkers, so any flavor relation you between pieces changing their capabilities and the game being a traitor applies pretty equally. Also realize that it could swing the game balance a lot to have two characters (Fritz and a traitor) that could start more or less vanilla and become scum later.

[Sefer]

I thought recruited Traitors started with the townie condition and changed when they were recruited, but checking the wiki I see it doesn't specify and I was just assuming (apparently incorrectly).

[Sefer]

We did have two cops; one or both may have been able to find a scum mason. Do scum masons generally come with a role specifically for detecting scum masons? I do agree that there's no flavor to indicate a scum mason at the moment.

[Sefer]

Nope. It's being cautious.