Mini #582: Meta Mafia Mini! GAME OVER!

[EmpTyger]

Not vote: Mr Stoofer

Fonz:
Go fish.

[EmpTyger]

Hey, Primate, want to spot me a vote: KingPin?

[EmpTyger]

Thank you all, and especially Primate, for your concern over my interest level, but trust me, I’ll be fine. As far as I’m concerned, it means that I have to convince n/2+1 instead of n/2-1 players of my suspicions.

---

DotS:

Mr Stoofer's vote makes more sense if we accept that he missed KingPin's first post. But why did TheSweatpantsNinja and EmpTyger want to vote for him too?
<snip>

You mean, why did I want to vote a squirmy player early D1 while simultaneously sound out whether another player thought it vote-worthy?

Fair enough. It did look like an overreaction but I dunno if I'd call it scummy or even worth a semi-random-early-bandwagon vote. I'm sure there are better trees we can start barking up.

Would you care to make a suggestion?

---

The Fonz:
Hey, watch this.

---

Primate:
I don’t want to vote KingPin any more. Instead, hm, let’s see. This Primate fellow keeps coming up. Vote: Primate, please.

---

The Fonz (cont):

I believe it would be far more informative for you to use your two votes on the players

you

think deserve them. Anything else and it's like you're trying not to take full responsibility for something that's completely under your control.

Absolutely. Primate, if you're town, you know you're town. You don't know this about anyone else. Therefore, it makes no sense to proxy out your second vote.

Could work as buddying-up, though.

unvote, Vote: Primate

Wrong, on almost every level. As my little experiment above should have proven, Primate is under no obligation to do anything.

And on the contrary, it makes great sense for him to do this. Voting records = more information = helpful for town. This provides 2 additional datasets over Primate just doubling or splitting his vote: it shows (a) who I would vote for, and (b) who Primate would let me vote for. Moreover, it deprives me the chance to do some weaselly things I could try if I knew that my words would not be backed by action.

(As for why *I* care if I’m not on record, since *I* know my own alignment: Because tomorrow it might not be Primate and me. And I’m not about to let a bad precedent be set. And I’ve gotten to test Primate this way. And besides, democratically, there’s value in being able to vote, even if indirectly.)

---

Primate (cont):
Here’s a philosophical question: If I ask you to vote Fonz, on the grounds that I don’t like how Fonz is attacking you, is that an OMGUS vote? If you’re willing, let’s find out.

[EmpTyger]

Primate:
That actually the point I was trying to prove: that you wouldn’t vote yourself, even if I asked you. I was just being a bit scientifically flippant. But, I do happen to like a vote on Fonz more than one on KingPin right now.

---

Johoohno:

<snip>
To the rest of the KingPin voters (ThesweatpantsNinja, EmpTyger & Primate): did you also miss KingPin's post #10 or did you find his answer to Stoofer reason enough to vote him?

Did you also miss my response to DotS in [42]? Yes, I was voting him for his response, not for lurking.

[EmpTyger]

KingPin:
Very good catch. For those who are missing it:

The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote". It was my way of getting the game moving. I was using the word "Lurker" semi-flippantly, and I think that was obvious from the context.
<snip>

Stoofer claimed he missed KingPin’s post, so that’s why he thought that KingPin hadn’t voted. Well and good. But at the point Stoofer made his vote, *everyone* had posted. So there wasn’t a set from which Stoofer could have “picked one at random” from!

Primate, I’d like a vote: Stoofer. In any case, I’d like an unvote: KingPin.

---

DotS:

<snip>
Sounds good to me. So we saw that Primate was willing to use one of his votes on a player he didn't think was scummy. What does this mean to you?
<snip>

Honestly, it’s a sample size of 1, and that’s during early D1; I didn’t attribute too much to it. Since you are asking: my interpretation was that Primate didn’t feel strongly against KingPin, but he didn’t feel strongly for him either, and thus saw no reason not to “humor” me.

Firstly, I don't think Fonz suggested that Primate was under any obligation. The point I raised, which I assume Fonz was agreeing with, was that Primate had created a sense that he had an obligation to share his vote. The rest becomes Mafia discussion and I'm not interested in pursuing it in great depth because I straight out think that would be a waste of time.
<snip>

To me, Fonz was alleging that, since Primate knew his own alignment but not mine, Primate’s action was ipso facto antitown. I was trying to show how Fonz was wrong.

What's truly significant is that Primate's original justification for 'donating' his vote to you was that you may become uninterested,

not

that it would be more informative. In my mind, that's a very weak and downright suspicious reason to give a vote up.
<snip>

This is a decent point against him, especially since his most recent post does have an air of why-did-I-stick-my-neck-out/make-this-all-go-away. It’s just that to me, those arguing against Primate have been making worse arguments on the whole.

(Though I agree that, at this point, the pros/cons of this are not going to be of much use.)

[EmpTyger]

This issue is not that on page 1 Stoofer played sloppy. It’s that when someone asked him to explain, on page 2 he lied about it .

And I think he knows it. I think his repeated “vote me out now”s are a white flag he’s waving to his fellow mafia to warn them not to get caught up in a futile defense.

---

Fonz:
I still think that it’s the opposite of distancing, since there’s 2 additional factors of accountability that wouldn’t be present if Primate were simply x2ing his votes: whether he okays my choice, and whether he okays *my* choice. But, I’ll admit that I do get more of a benefit than, say, you, so I’ll concede this to Theorysville.

[EmpTyger]

Stoofer:
So why didn't you say that when you were first asked? Why give an inaccurate approximation of your thought process instead of the simple truth?

Someone asked you for an explanation to back up a vote, and instead of telling the truth you made up a response.

<snip>
The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote". It was my way of getting the game moving. I was using the word "Lurker" semi-flippantly, and I think that was obvious from the context.
<snip>

<snip>
I think you are not taking into account the fact that it was page 1 of the game. Nothing was happening and my impression was that a number of people were absent, so I looked at the playerlist and picked someone I thought hadn't posted yet, and voted for them. Obviously I didn't carefully identify the set of all those who had not posted; and therefore when I said "I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random" I wasn't describing my actual process, but just what I was trying to achieve.
<snip>

Your explanation was that you:
1) looked at all the players who had not posted
2) chose one of them at random

You did neither of those things, but you said you did.

That's lying.

And it's not a harmless lie either, but lying about how and why you cast a vote.

(And, if my explanation is wrong, what's your explanation for all your repeated "lynch me now please"s?)

---

KingPin:

The Primate wagon:
Point 1: Primate has two votes that he can use any way that he wants. He has chosen to "listen" to EmpTyger as an "adviser" for one of his votes. His reasoning was to keep Emp engaged in the game.
Point 2:

If I have a double vote, 90% of the time they'll just be on the same person, because I'm a gut player, and tend to be pretty single minded regarding the lynch I'm pursuing. You could argue that I should be using my double voting status in order to pursue two wagons at the same time, but I'm not going to do that, because I don't feel it's constructive.

Primate's votes continued to be divided between two players as these statements came out. This combined with Emp's request to unvote me seems to contradict Primate's contention that 1. he was allowing Emp to use a vote, or; 2. his belief that pursuing two wagons is not constructive, but is still pursing two wagons with his split vote.

Lastly, Primate has a double vote, this isn't an "if I could fly and shoot lasers out of my arse" this is the reality of the game today. Primate's example of his vote being on a single player 90% of the time, contradicts his voting record as of right now.

FOS: Primate

Primate's vote hasn't changed because he hasn't posted. He hasn't been *anywhere* on site since Friday.

[EmpTyger]

Stoofer:

I was just describing my thought process in a non-literal way. At the time the question was "why did I vote KingPin?". I was being asked about my thought process not about the procedure I used. What was important at that stage was not the literal process but my thought process. If the question had been "How did you go about selecting KingPin?" then I would have given a more literal, 'procedural' answer. I still think that, in context, my answer was clearly not a literal description of my actual process but of my thinking.

That has to be the worst excuse for lying in a game of mafia I have heard. “I wasn’t being asked directly about it, so I thought it was okay to lie?” “I thought it was perfectly fine to present *something that didn’t happen* as if it did?” I mean, considering what KingPin asked you- especially his last sentence:

<snip>
So why the "lurker" vote? Or were you just tossing out "lurker" to justify a vote that really was just a random vote change. To me it seems like if it was a random vote change that you would have called it such. But if you normally toss out random votes without any substance behind them and put a reason for that vote as a distraction, then you seem pretty scummy. Lastly, do you normally not answer straight forward questions and not expect to get called on them?

And, if my explanation is wrong, what's your explanation for all your repeated "lynch me now please"s?

Well that was semi-flippant.

There’s flippant, there’s semi-flippant, and there’s overdoing it. You posted your “lynch me now please”s 3 times, 5 days apart, the last of which with the preface “I meant it when I wrote”. That to me falls squarely in the “overdoing it” category. You are trying too hard to sweep this away as part of a general pattern of sloppy behavior. It’s not.

My point is that I am not one of those people who keeps obsessive notes or conducts rigorous textual analysis of the entire thread. I often miss things when reading through games quickly.
<snip>

I’m not talking about the incorrect lurker vote. This wasn’t you slipping up about something you misnoticed in the thread. This wasn’t you missing something on a quick read. (For that matter, it was halfway through page 1.) This was your own vote, your own thought processes- there was nothing to “miss”. You said you did something you didn’t do.

You lied about the reasoning behind your vote.

[EmpTyger]

I will probably not be able to post until after the weekend.

---

Stoofer:
Really? Trying to misrepresent mneme’s words? Is that your only attempt at a defense of how you put a player at lynch-1? I mean, why don’t you say whether you intended to put Primate at lynch-1 instead of just trying to twisting mneme’s [accurate] accusation?

Also, can mneme, The Fonz, Massive and EmpTyger answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe me when I say that I missed KingPin's original vote?

2. If yes: then what was my motive for "lying" about how I picked KingPin?

3. If no: (a) what was my real reason for voting Kingpin? (b) why did I lie about it?

Way to burden-shift.

No, I don’t know what your motive for lying was. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have one. I could make any number of speculative guesses (from “you’re mafia with KingPin and were distancing with a vote you could easily remove” to “all of the mafia are very active posters so you wanted to set an anti-lurker tone early, knowing that it would only hurt townspeople”). But that’s not the point, and I’m not going to play the “I-come-up-with-a-theory, you-dismiss-it-as-speculative-desperate-reaching” game.

The obligation is on the liar to prove that they’re not being antitown, not on the town to prove that lying is bad. “Lynch-all-liars” works because there is no reason why townspeople should lie, so anyone who lies should be lynched as antitown. If you have a reason for lying as a townsperson, it is up to *you* to provide it. So no burden-shifting. *You* answer to the question.

Why did you need to give a false description of your approximate thought process, instead of accurately describing why you cast a vote?

---

Johoohoo:

<snip>

EmpTyger

: I might be a bit paranoid but I'm being a bit suspicious of EmpTyger. He was the one who got the whole Primate affair started by asking to borrow a vote from Primate (post 23) and it feels as a safe move to do, you won't get in the heat for asking for someone's vote (whereas the opposite is risky). I know this might be far fetched, but I still want this thought to be planted and pondered on byy the rest of you.
<snip>

What exactly are you accusing me of? I mean, playing it safe by sticking my neck out, and then defending Primate? Is there anything more to this than, “A mentioned B; therefore, A may be mafia”?

(Yes to whether I would have done as Primate did, although as already stated, for slightly different motivations. But there’s been enough variance on opinions from everybody regarding this that I’m not too critical of his stated explanation.)

---

mathcam:
You want to actually commit to something? To say that your only post this week was uncertain would be an understatement.

---

Primate:
Now you’re posting elsewhere but not here on the site. Meaning KingPin’s accusation now holds a bit more weight that I won’t be bearing.
I will probably not be able to post until after the weekend.

[EmpTyger]

Will post more later today, but 2 quick thoughts:

mathcam/Johoohoo:
Temporarily assuming Stoofer is mafia, how do you think the rest of the mafia would react?

---

Stoofer:
Seriously, why aren’t you explaining why you put Primate at lynch-1 without saying so?

[EmpTyger]

Johoohoo:
I’d still like a response to my [97]. Especially since, on reread, it sounds like you’re accusation is that I’m guilty and Primate’s innocent- yet you’re voting Primate, so…?

<snip>

EmpTyger

: I might be a bit paranoid but I'm being a bit suspicious of EmpTyger. He was the one who got the whole Primate affair started by asking to borrow a vote from Primate (post 23) and it feels as a safe move to do, you won't get in the heat for asking for someone's vote (whereas the opposite is risky). I know this might be far fetched, but I still want this thought to be planted and pondered on byy the rest of you.
<snip>

What exactly are you accusing me of? I mean, playing it safe by sticking my neck out, and then defending Primate? Is there anything more to this than, “A mentioned B; therefore, A may be mafia”?

---

TSN:

<snip>
What benefit does stoofertown derive from lying about his reasoning Day 1? Unless you truly think that stoofer was, as scum, incapable of coming up with a good reason for a random vote. . . seems like a nulltell to me.

Logically, then, shouldn’t you be concluding that Stoofer’s vote wasn’t random? That is, the reason why Stoofer couldn’t come up with a good reason for a random vote was because the vote wasn’t random. I personally think Stoofer *thought* he came up with a good reason for a “random” vote. But he made a mistake, and got caught. He tried to lie his way out of it, but got caught again. And as I said in [97], there are a lot of reasons why mafia might want to cast a non-random vote and say that it was random.

But I see primate, as scum, as attempting to look good for the town by proxying his vote, when in reality he can un-proxy it at will, so it costs him nothing while gaining himself townie points as scum. That's certainly not a surefire case, but its the best I see so far.

Wait a second. You’re giving Stoofer a pass for (1) lying, (2) misrepresenting another player’s actions, and (3) putting a player at lynch-1 without warning. And you’re instead voting Primate, for… what? Doing something that the town might think good?

There has been varying degrees of opinion regarding how the doublevote situation should be handled. But *no one* has given *any* explanation for why Stoofer would do what he did as town. [And that’s not getting the fallaciousness of how you’ve assuming your conclusion: “Primate did something which, assuming he’s scum, would be helpful for him as scum.”]

---

DotS:
At the very least, putting someone at lynch-1 without comment is more than semantics.

---

Primate:
Chill out. That went so beyond unnecessary that I had to raise an eyebrow.
(Though thanks again for the vote.)

---

Stoofer:

Stoofer:
Seriously, why aren’t you explaining why you put Primate at lynch-1 without saying so?

Because only the most stupid person in the whole universe could be in any doubt about the matter?

Well, I agree with you that it shouldn’t be in doubt. But, see, for some reason, not everyone is yet convinced of your guilt.

[EmpTyger]

Primate:

<snip>But he didn't say it was random. If he was trying to make it look like a random vote, why would he put the word 'Lurker' in front of it, pointing it out as something that definitely isn't a random vote?

I agree with you: I do not think Stoofer’s vote was random, or intended as such, especially after the explanation he gave. Rather, that post was responding to TSN, who in [100] was offering “random” as explanation for Stoofer’s action.

And you should really know better than saying that there are many reasons why mafia would want to do that without actually getting into whether they are good reasons or not. Wafting about possibilities without going into whether they are actually likely isn't something you can base suspicions on.<snip>

If it’s something that town would never do, and mafia would do, then I don’t really need to know exactly why before concluding guilt. If he- or *anyone* in this game- wants to give a likely explanation for why a protown player would lie in the way Stoofer has, I’ll gladly listen. Until then, I’m certainly not going to waste my time and breath with an uncooperative Stoofer when I have better things to do. (See the section of [97] to Stoofer for the logic behind this.)

[EmpTyger]

Primate:

I think he made a mistake. It has the advantage of being a common problem and having a completely believable motivation behind it, that of sloppiness, which is a null tell in the early game. I guess I just don't see why, any point of this, he would lie instead of telling the truth, as either town or scum. You're arguing that his lying was intentional, but you have failed to come up with any likely motivation as to why it would be an outright lie as opposed to a genuine mistake, and the two reasons you put forward in #97 are an absolute joke.

Are we talking about the same thing? I’m not referring to Stoofer’s casting a “lurker” vote on someone who wasn’t lurking. I’m referring to Stoofer’s saying he “looked at all the players who had not even posted” and “picked one at random” when he could not have. Are you saying that *that* is a believably sloppy mistake? I mean, that’s not even Stoofer’s explanation.

[EmpTyger]

I do not understand why so many people are treating Stoofer so leniently when there are no explanations for his actions as town. The only partial explanation for some of Stoofer’s actions- and it doesn’t even explain most of what he’s done- is sloppiness. But temporarily assuming Stoofer is innocent, wouldn’t he try to play more carefully after being caught in error? Instead, people are choosing to believe he’d made further mistake after further mistake? Even if the explanation is sloppiness, isn’t it more likely that he’s guilty, and he’s overdoing it either to either justify his first errors or else because it allows him to get away future antitown actions?

And getting lost in this are that Stoofer still hasn’t given any explanation (other than ad hominem attacks against his accusers as “stupid”) for why he (1) put Primate at lynch-1 without comment and (2) falsely accused mneme of lying.

---

I was getting ready to propose a hypothesis, but Primate’s outburst has given me pause. As a result, I’m a little less certain of this, but I still want to mention this because I think it could be valuable on future days.

Short version:
Stoofer, Johoohoo, and mathcam are guilty.

Long version:
I took a step back and analyzed something. Temporarily assume Stoofer is mafia. What would the rest of the mafia be doing during all this? They should be hoping that another lynch could be put together before Stoofer crashed. And that looks like Primate. Assume Primate’s town. But as of Fonz’s unvote, the Primate wagon failed. Which the mafia should have realize immediately:

Consider the math: There are 11 votes, 6 needed to lynch. Primate’s not voting himself, mneme and massive have been solidly on Stoofer. When Fonz quickly unvoted at lynch-1 and switched to Stoofer, that meant that, in order for Primate to be lynched, everyone else would have to pile onto Primate. And that’s suicidal for the mafia- even if they lynch Primate, they’ll have exposed all of themselves.

And so, I think that the mafia tried to find someone else to surpass Stoofer in suspicion before the town also realizes that Primate isn’t being lynched and the innocent Primate voters switch to Stoofer.

So what has happened since Fonz’s unvote? Johoohoo, makes [95] with an air of “let’s see what sticks”. He’s still maintains the Primate wagon, on the off-chance pieces fall into place, but he’s trying to start something else up. And despite searching for an alternative, he ignores Stoofer, despite an earlier FoS.

mathcam is admittedly trickier, because he has been on DotS the entire day. But he’s been hedging on both Primate and Stoofer significantly, while everyone else has taken a strong position on at least one of the 2.

[I admit Primate’s recent actions are confusing- I’m having trouble making sense of them even independently of my hypothesis. I am resisting just adding him as a 4th antitown- that seems too convenient.]

---

Primate:
I honestly do not understand how you could think that that was done accidentally. For that matter, wouldn’t a protown player, assuming they accidentally messed up and got called on the error, play *more* carefully? Establishing a pattern of sloppiness.

But, set that aside for a second: what about the rest of what Stoofer has done? Put a player (*you*) at lynch-1 without comment? You were particularly scornful of all players in general of in [109]… why are you blaming the town as a whole, but won’t single out Stoofer? In fact, you attack Fonz as “spouting utter crap”, when he’s the one who unvoted you within minutes when you got put at lynch-1!

[EmpTyger]

Forgive the dramatic license. I’m not saying it happened exactly like this, but there is most definitely an explanation for Stoofer’s actions if he is guilty:

---

To himself: “I’m going to start the day by voting KingPin for lurking. This will either put early pressure on someone I want to feel heat, or make me look active, or focus the town incorrectly against lurkers, or induce another player to overzealously pursue this and thus get attacked by the town, or distance me from my lurking mafiabuddy, or some other Nefarious Scheme I’ve concocted.”
Aloud: “Lurker Vote: KingPin”
Town: “Uh… KingPin wasn’t lurking.”
To himself: “Oops!”
Town: “How did you choose KingPin?”
To himself: “Well, I can’t say that I was voting as part of my Nefarious Scheme. So I’ll have to make up a plausible story. Hm... I know! I’ll say that…”
Aloud: “…The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a ‘Lurker Vote’.”
To himself: “Whew, that was close!”
Town: “But there wasn’t anyone who hadn’t posted. Even if you messed up with KingPin, there only was 1. So how could you pick someone at random?”
To himself: “Oops! Well, maybe they’ll buy the sloppy excuse again, especially if I try to make it into a general pattern. And I’ll distort and twist the attacks made against me. And let’s use ad hominem to try to make this look more trivial than it actually is. And some burden-shifting to stall, hopefully long enough for the wagon against Primate to take off.”
Aloud: “Ad hominem! Burden-shifting! Distortions!”
Half of town: “I can’t think of any reason why Stoofer would do that if antitown.”

[EmpTyger]

Don’t have time to look into each player’s posting frequency, but things seem too quiet, considering that I feel there’s a relatively large set of things in this game that should contain something comment-worthy for everyone.

---

mathcam:
Heh. I developed my hypothesis before that post of yours. My question to you and Johoohoo in [104] was just first shaking branches before I stated my hypothesis out loud, to see what fell out. Unexpectedly, Primate did. And… I’m really still not sure what to do with that.

---

Stoofer:
Not that there’s any strong precedent of you answering my questions, but why are you concluding that exactly 1 of {EmpTyger, mneme} are guilty?

[EmpTyger]

Stoofer:

I believe that one of you is scum because I can't believe that both of you could be sincere in your pursuit of the bullshit Stoofer-wagon.
<snip>

Why us 2, and not, say, massive?

And, um, for what reason should you have been backed off of? What have you done since being accused other than:
Insult your attackers.
Shout “you’re wrong” in a manner worthy of a 4-year-old.
Lie & distort mneme’s actions.
Refuse to even acknowledgement most of the non-sloppiness arguments made against you. (Because, oh yes, there is so much more to the case against you than Stoofer=sloppy=scum.)

[EmpTyger]

mathcam:
Honestly, I’m trying to reevaluate your *older* posts. Primate is confusing me enough now that I’m suddenly wondering whether I should be more tolerant of your extreme hedging. Although I’m still leaning towards “no”, just in comparison to everyone else- plus considering how you’ve been with DotS.

[If you’re referring to [121]: that’s for later reference. I wanted your response on record before my hypothesis presentation would clue you in to what you, if guilty, would need to be guarding against.]

[EmpTyger]

DotS is innocent.

Temporarily assume DotS were guilty. His rolename would be black. He would have no way of knowing that the scheme wasn't protown roles=green/antitown=black, in which case he'd be lynched immediately for revealing he didn't know this in [153].

This makes mathcam and Stoofer’s attacks on DotS in [154-155] very alarming. Why didn’t they realize this?

---

mathcam:

<snip>
Emp: I guess I don't see what's so bad about hedging, and I'm not sure the "extreme" modifier is particularly appropriate. If I'm not confident one way or the other, should I pretend to be more sure than I actually am? I'll make a decision when I feel confident enough to do so or when it becomes strategically necessary to have me in one camp or the other (e.g., deadlines, risk of game-stalling, etc.).

Extreme because every other playing in the game was able to take a stance for or against either Primate, Stoofer, or both. Whereas the player you did take a strong stance on was DotS, which seemed strange in comparison, because at the time and especially in retrospect, it doesn’t seem like you had enough to make a strong decision on him but had to waver on both Primate and Stoofer.

And I’m quite skeptical that you need the theory behind why hedging can be bad spelled out. But anyhow: While hedging can be appropriate at times, it also greatly allows antitowns to get away with opportunistic behavior. Here for example: you could have either defended or attacked either Primate or Stoofer, whenever it was at maximum advantage, and it would have been consistent with your earlier behavior.

Primate is confusing me enough now that I’m suddenly wondering whether I should be more tolerant of your extreme hedging.

I don't understand what that means. You were so sure that Primate was innocent that you couldn't see how I could think he wasn't, but now that he's acting weird you can see why I was hedging? If not, why wouldn't you have been tolerant about it in the first place?

Also, I'm not sure what "How I've been with DotS" means. I'm not particularly sure about him either, but I do think I have a valid point against him, and my remnant of a random vote certainly isn't doing much harm there.

I mean that I understand a little better being uncertain about Primate (in either direction). But I wouldn’t have been tolerant about it the first place for the reasons I said in the above para. And it’s not just compared to me- everyone else seemed able to take at least a moderately strong stand on at least one or the other.

Also, if Primate and Stoof end up both being town (or even if not), it might be nice to see how various individuals reacted to a third option for a bandwagon.

Um, I agree? Which is why I’m curious how the player who ignored those 2 bandwagons tried to start this third one?

---

Stoofer:

@ Mr Stoofer

- Why didn't you mention that you were putting Primate at L-1?

Because I didn't know (I would have checked if there had been a risk of hammering, but I don't think it ever crossed my mind that my vote might be a hammer).

So why didn’t you say this when mneme called you on in on page 4, instead of calling her a liar?

And, then what are your actual percentages? Your trying to acknowledge there’s a chance that both {EmpTyger, mneme} are town with your “likely”/”must” distinction, but the percentages you gave give it a 0% chance, and you haven’t revised them since it was brought to your attention.

---

<snip>
What is wrong about this is that Emp is trying to describe an early barely-serious vote and the motivations behind it as somehow equal to those of a hammer.
<snip>

For the record: I am not arguing that that kind of early vote was necessarily serious- only that lying about the motivations behind a vote is. I’ve been in many a game in which mafia do and have reason to lie in early D1 play. Heck, I’ve done it before myself- most recently in Calvin & Hobbes mafia. (Which, incidentally, Stoofer modded, so he at least knows how true this is.)

[EmpTyger]

mneme:
(Bah, sorry on the gender. I blame MeMe.)

Er, that’s precisely my point. The roles did *not* have any color or mention any color scheme: Nobody got "red" or "green" in their PMs, as confirmed in [162]- everyone’s role-color in PM was black. So:

If DotS were antitown: he would have a black antitown PM, and have seen Greasy Spot’s was green. From his point-of-view, it would seem that black=antitown, green=protown. By asking about this, he reveals that his role not-green. Since [from his point-of-view] protowns would have green rolenames in their PMs, he would be incriminating himself as antitown.

But if DotS were protown: he would have a black protown PM, but have seen Greasy Spot as green. And his actions are consistent with this explanation.

Therefore, DotS is protown.

---

Stoofer:

<snip>
Because -- as is blindingly obvious -- I interpreted mneme's complaint as being that I made no comment about why I voted Primate. I did not realise that mneme was complaining about the fact that I did not comment on the fact that it was L-1.
<snip>

How’s this for blindingly obvious:

<snip>
Er...I don't -care- whether you explain your votes when you make them. If I want to know an argument why -I- should vote for someone (or, for that matter, if I want to know why you are voting for someone), I'll ask.

I -do- care whether point out, when you put someone into the hammer zone, that you are doing so. Not doing so risks lynching two people -- the target and the unwitting sap who hammers.

Voting primate in that way was an extremely anti-town action.
<snip>
But each vote progressively reduces difficulty of lynching someone -- in a 5 player game, the first vote takes you from needing 3/4 of the game to needing 2/3 of the remaining game, the second to needing 1/2 of the remaining game, and the third to needing 0% of the remaining game. And these numbers are even harsher in a larger game -- in a 12 person game, l-3 needs 3/7 to lynch, l-2 needs 1/3, and l-1 needs a mere 1/5 (and, of course, L needs 0/4). Drastically increasing the ease of a quicklynch without any real deliberation is antitown.

In response to this, instead of either recanting or reexplaining or doing anything approaching protown behavior, you try to twist mneme’s actions.

Firstly, you said that I voted for Primate without comment. That was wrong, wasn't it? Was it carelessness, or a lie?
<snip>

[EmpTyger]

DotS:

<snip>
But the overstatement is the same. You're still applying an undue amount of scrutiny to the

motivations

behind an very early vote. It was on page 1! Why would you

expect

anything remotely serious about even the motivations of a vote of that nature on page 1?
<snip>

unvote: Johoonho

Lurker vote: Kingpin

I really don't care about the metaful definition of "random votes". How does a vote from an experienced player preceded with "Lurker" on

page 1 of a game, just over 24 hours since it began

, come across to you as, if not random, meaningful?
<snip>

It’s not about the vote! It’s about the explanation!

I’m not arguing about [20]. I’m arguing about [28]

. That’s this post- also in its entirety:

The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote". It was my way of getting the game moving. I was using the word "Lurker" semi-flippantly, and I think that was obvious from the context.

Interestingly, my semi-flippant comment caused you to spring in to life immediately, which makes me wonder whether you were following the thread and not posting. Is that what happened? Or is it just coincidence that your first post of the game was immediately after I had called you a lurker?

Does [28] sound random to you? Does [28] sound non-meaningful? Does [28] sound not-serious?

---

KingPin:
First of all, this is factually wrong:

<snip>
Emp sees that Stoof just made a mistake on D1 page 2. Emp attacks Stoof. Then another player points out the obvious flaw in Stoof’s reasoning. Emp now has a choice, either go full force against Stoof or find another bandwagon or tree to bark up.
<snip>

I did not attack Stoofer until [53], which was *after* another player (you, in fact) pointed out Stoofer’s flaw, in [49].

Which option would benefit scum in this scenario? IMO Option 1, attack relentlessly and keep attacking knowing that if Stoof is scum and is lynched then he would have huge townie points for himself if he lynches a scum buddy.

If Emp lynches a townie then he can say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus the reason for my super-attack on Stoof. It was the rest of the town that is to blame.”

If Emp does not effectuate a lynch at all, then he could say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus my super-attack on Stoof.”

Forgive me, but what the hell would you rather I do?
I have no control over the fact that I don’t have a vote.
I have no control over the fact that Stoofer (as you yourself put it!) has been acting “more scum than town”.
So, because of 2 things that happened completely independently of anything I’ve done, and because I was attacking a player who you agree is “more scum than town”, you think I’m antitown? I mean, is there *any* action I could have taken in my situation which wouldn’t be “more scummy than town” to you?

---

mathcam:
So, given that DotS did not post in the wrong thread, thoughts?

[EmpTyger]

TSN:
The point massive is trying to make is that, if you accept that [28] is serious, then how can you not accept that either Stoofer’s explanation in [28] about [20] is true? (Since you are indicating that you don’t believe Stoofer was lying about a vote rationale.) And Stoofer’s explanation is that [20] was (partially) serious. Therefore, how can you hold the conclusion that [20] is just Stoofer kidding around?

Or put another way: How can I think Stoof is being serious in post 20? Because Stoofer himself said so:

The game had been going for 24 hours. Nothing had happened. So I looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random, and called it a "Lurker Vote". It was my way of getting the game moving. I was using the word "Lurker" semi-flippantly, and I think that was obvious from the context.
<snip>

His explanation for his rationale wasn’t that he wasn’t being serious. It was that he “looked at all the players who had not even posted, picked one at random”- something you agree he was being serious about- but something which he definitely did not do.

[EmpTyger]

I still disagree with the rationale used against Primate based on his treatment of the doublevote- it’s too similar to argument KingPin applied to me, where because of something probably beyond Primate’s control, anything he does can be seen as a sign of his guilt.
However, lurking for 2 weeks is completely in his control. Likewise, especially since I just explained to him the dangers of hedging, I’d really like to hear something definitive from mathcam.

---

TSN/DotS:

But what WHAT reason, that isn't incredibly far-fetched and speculative at this point of the game, would ANYONE who is half-decent at this game have to LIE about this?
<snip>

<snip>
Maybe so, but again, a "page 1 lurker vote" has no particular benefit to scum, so the fact that he did make a mistake isn't a scumtell.
<snip>

Why are you thinking that? Because, here’s why I *know* otherwise:
In the last game I was mafia in (Calvin & Hobbes), I made a page 1 lurker vote against my comafia in my second post of the game. 1 1/2 months later, I was eventually lynched. Later analyzing this, one of the townspeople gave my co-mafia “protown points”. In the 3-person endgame, that townsperson voted for the other townsperson (for a variety of others reasons, to be sure) for a mafia win.
Mr Stoofer was the mod of that game.

I’m not saying that that’s necessarily what Stoofer’s doing here. But he’s doing something. If you think that a “page 1 lurker vote” can’t be of use to mafia, you are woefully mistaken. I know otherwise. So does Stoofer.

And so any reason anyone give as an example is going to have to be speculative. But that’s no reason to dismiss the fact that Stoofer *did* lie about it.

Speculative reason for why he lied as mafia > non-existent reason for why he lied as town

[EmpTyger]

Primate/mathcam:
This is not acceptable.

---

mneme:
Any thoughts on who, assuming Stoofer is mafia, also would be?

[EmpTyger]

With all due respect to the mod: If 7 want to kill Primate, then those 7 shouldn’t be able to do it off the record. Especially when a vote of 6 will kill Primate more effectively. Fortunately, Primate’s post, being within 48 hours, has removed that possibility. Therefore I offer a counterproposal:

All players who would prefer a kill rather than a replacement can vote for it publically, in-thread. On a 6-3 supermajority, Primate will be killed and the game will go to night.

[EmpTyger]

Can anyone point to *1* thing that Stoofer has done this game which is

protown

? Because so far is just “antitown, but it’s okay because he’s sloppy”. Or “antitown, but it’s okay because he’s too good to do that if guilty”. Or “antitown, but it’s okay because it’s page 1”. Or “antitown, but it’s okay because he’s flippant”. Or “antitown, but it’s okay because of his ego”. At what point do you say, “no, it’s not okay”?

Instead of keeping on making excuses for him, why not ask why he hasn’t done anything which *doesn’t* need excuses?

---

Primate:
Remember how magnanimous you were towards me earlier, how much you wanted to ensure that I would stick around? Because protecting me and giving me a vote in no way makes up for lurking for 10 days. You’re either guilty yourself or you’re innocent and allowing an obviously guilty player to escape by being such a flagrant distraction. Stop whining, stop stalling, stop giving sort-of-but-not-really claims, and *play*.

This is where if I had a vote to threaten you with, I’d give you 24 hours notice.

---

mathcam:

<snip>
Well, of course it can be bad, but I also doubt I need to explain to you the theory behind why making decisions prematurely can be bad as well.

How was deciding on Primate or Stoofer “premature”? Since, everyone else had made at least one decision.

The rest of this paragraph made no sense- did you mean “If I were scum with Primate and picked up the Stoofer wagon early, and wanted to jump shift to Primate…”?

And the opportunistic behavior holds people who take a stance as well -- if I were scum and had picked up the Primate (my co-scum) bandwagon early, and wanted to jump shift to my scum-buddy Primate, I could just as easily stay consistent with my actions by commenting on how my vote on Stoof had been premature, along with an explanation of what information has been presented since then that has changed my mind

(and if I could not find such information, I wouldn't switch)

.

But even so, read the part I underlined you’ve just proves my point! Taking a stance *limits* opportunistic behavior. Because if you want to opportunistically switch bandwagons, you couldn’t without “finding information which [plausibly] could have changed your mind”. Whereas by hedging, you can act howsoever you like and it is consistent.

Let’s make this practical. Spell out why you’re “willing to lynch Primate”. Specifically, your previous “stance” (if it can be called that) was:

<snip>
The more I've thought about it since then, I think you're really off-base with this hedging thing, Emp: You act as if by not voting for either of them, I'm not taking a stance. But that's not true -- by not voting for either of them, I'm taking the stance that I don't find the evidence against them compelling enough for me to join the bandwagon. (And before you get on about DoTS again, let me point out that there's a big difference between putting a first vote on someone and joining a bandwagon on someone). You act as if there are only two choices to be made, and that by not picking one of the two choices you've isolated, I'm "hedging." This seems distinctly scummy to me.
<snip>

So what “information has been presented since then that has changed your mind”? Also, if that was genuinely your previous stance- then why not say so explicitly? If you thought them bandwagoned with insufficient evidence, why make weak objections that would be enough to point to later, but with enough hedging to not actually dissuade anyone?

[EmpTyger]

Is anyone else giving any thought into whether Primate and Stoofer might both be guilty? I don’t see any problem if they’re split SK/mafia, or if they’re in a 2-person mafia. But if they’re in a 3+ mafia, though, I’m a little confused by why their partner is letting them flounder each other guiltier and guiltier rather than cutting their losses. (Unless maybe it’s mathcam, because he limited the conditions under which he’d switch, but that really seems too recent and too weak a speculation for me.)

Also, to those lurking: review the deadline procedures. It does not favor this situation- the town won’t be able to default with deadline on reaching consensus.

---

mathcam:

<snip>
It would be premature for me to decide between the two (though, again, you make it out to be that there were only two choices) if I did not have enough information to defend my decision.

Um, *you* made it out to be that there are only 2 choices:

<snip>
Which brings up to Primate. I can hardly get on a high horse against lurking here, but it seems like we have to make a choice here, and Primate is definitely higher on my scumometer than Stoof is at the moment. I'd be willing to lynch Primate right now except that I'm jumping in after an absence and seems a little wrong for me to dictate the end of the day.
<snip>

Which is why I asked you- and am asking again now- to spell out why Primate.

I’ve not said you had to decide between the two- or even that one and only one are guilty. Rather, here are the possibilities:
Stoofer innocent, Primate innocent
Stoofer innocent, Primate guilty
Stoofer innocent, Primate ?
Stoofer guilty, Primate innocent
Stoofer guilty, Primate guilty
Stoofer guilty, Primate ?
Stoofer ?, Primate innocent
Stoofer ?, Primate guilty
Stoofer ?, Primate ?

Everyone else took one of the first 8. Only you went ??. (While maintaining a weak vote on DotS.)

Everyone else's ability to take stances are irrelevant -- everyone else was either able to either extract (or impose) more suspicious behavior than I was, or has lower standards for being convinced.
<snip>

So my point is that if you did feel that it was premature, then why weren’t you concerned that everyone else was acting prematurely? This was my point about the objections you were raising. You weren’t saying that the town should look elsewhere. You weren’t saying that people were concluding prematurely.

Instead you kept a quiet vote on DotS without strong reason. You lurked. And you expressed both positive and negative opinions of Primate and Stoofer, in such a way that, before I made such a big deal out of it (and actually Stoofer in fact was the first to bring it up, ironically!) you could have easily acted in the most opportunistic manner whenever you wanted.

Look, I get that you've got it drilled into your head that Stoof is scum. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but the fact is that you took that position way before I (and probably others) had a chance to make up my mind one way or another. I find your unwavering confidence in your initial read befuddling to the point of lunacy, possibly to the point where I'm actually finding it difficult to see Stoof as scum because of it. You apparently find equally befuddling my inability to take a definitive stance one way or another for either of these players before I can defend it.

Fair enough on this point, considering how I felt about Primate initially.

[EmpTyger]

TSN:

Emptyger: Isn't this post by massive precisely the same type of hedging mathcam was engaging in?

Not really. massive has defined his stances regarding Primate pretty solidly (as well as Stoofer earlierly). He can’t really use this to justify a huge range of possible actions, the way mathcam could have. It’s a matter of preserving opportunism.

The wisdom of announcing pre-claim what type of claim a threatened player should be making is more debatable.

---

The Fonz:

FOS: Kingpin

Don't bring a claimed 'doctor' to lynch-1! Especially not in this context!

What’s significant about this context? If Stoofer weren’t already voting for Primate, I might agree, but Primate clearly is not taking this seriously enough.

[EmpTyger]

I would like the advantages/disadvantages of a massclaim to be discussed. Specifically, I am worried about the way that roles interact could cause well-intentioned protown players to get themselves into a suboptimal situation based on incomplete knowledge. This is independent of the veracity of Primate’s claim, although given that he nevertheless made it, the possibility should be discussed.

For example, temporarily assume we some sort of direct information role, such as a cop. If they get a result on a player, there appears to be a significant risk of (1) the cop’s being affect by some ability or (2) the cop’s action being affected by some ability or (3) the cop’s target being affect by some ability. It seems that it would be too easy for some scenario to arise wherein a cop has reason to think that a player is guilty when in fact they are innocent.

This is not intrinsic to cops: similar situations are possible with trackers or other direct information-roles, as well as indirectly (for example, a player claims an action N1, a roleblocker counterclaims saying that they targeted them N1, but someone targeted the roleblocker resulting in both telling the truth.)

This leads to one of 2 suboptimal situations: either innocents are mislynched (with an increased possibility of their reveal as an innocent triggering the mislynch of another inadvertently lying innocent), or else all nightactions lose reliability.

(This is in addition to the usual pro/con considerations of: antitowns forced to prematurely commit to claims/antitowns will know exactly how to optimally use their nightabilities.)

---

Primate:
Even you acknowledge there is more evidence against your claim than for it. So, why would you think that what you gave is sufficient?

<snip>
ps: if you think my lurking is for in game reasons, please explain what makes this game different from the 15+ other games that I have lurked in, identically to this, this for non-game reasons.

1) Temporarily assume that there are 3 other mafia- a realistic possibility which, if you’re town, you have no way of dismissing. There are 3 votes in the mafia’s hands, and your 2 which are being squandered through your non-participation. That leaves exactly 6 in the hands of active town, with 6 needed to lynch. You would be singlehandedly destroying the town's margin-for-error.

2) Please explain what makes this game different from the 15+ other games that I have witnessed antitowns lurking in, identically to how you are, for in-game reasons.

[EmpTyger]

mathcam:

Because WIFOM aside, "I did X, which was clearly contradicted by events" doesn't inspire one with confidence.

Funny, I found this mildly compelling. It certainly would have been easier to pick a claim which

couldn't

be so easily contradicted.

Wine is supposed to taste good...

[EmpTyger]

For what it’s worth, no one has yet answered the challenge I issued in [219], for someone to point out something *protown* Stoofer has done.

---

TSN:

I don't think it's fair to call me hedging when I'm clearly on one of the bandwagons.

I agree. . . that was intended as a point against emptyger, actually. Perhaps I was a tad too subtle.

Unvote, vote emptyger.

I find primate's claim eminently believable, and emptyger's play has been making me feel off, particularly the attack on mathcam.

Spell it out. What about my play? What about the attack?

---

Primate:

<snip>
1) Again, you are assuming an in-game motive for my lurking, or at least you are assuming that I am thinking about in-game matters when I decide to, well, do something else.

Lurking is an in-game action. So, yeah, I’m going to evaluate on an in-game basis. Burden’s on *you* to show otherwise.

2) And please explain how that is different from the hundreds of people who have been replaced out of games or lurked for entirely unrelated reasons.

Because even when you’ve been around, you’re not even trying to participate.

Lurking is not protown behavior.

And not only are you doing something that is hurting the town, but you’re not even trying to do anything about it. All you’ve done is giving a [flimsy] claim, which does nothing towards the main reason I find you suspicious: your lack of participation.

You’re not trying to find mafia to lynch, and you’re giving the barest possible to ward off the danger of your own lynch or replacement. The last time you did something protown was April 22- and then there is another 11-day gap from 4/10-4/21 before that! It’s not acceptable.

Lurking is entirely relative to the person, and you know this. You would hardly hold Anix up the the same level as Battle Mage.

I absolutely have and will hold AniX to a common standard, although as it’s happened, the only 2 times I’ve played with him, he’s happened to be mafia. (I’ve no experience with Battle Mage, so I can’t comment on that.)

[EmpTyger]

I think people are missing my point about massclaiming. Let me put it this way.

Let’s say there’s a cop, and they get a guilty result tonight. Or, take it a step further, let’s say Player A comes forward claiming cop with a guilty result on Player B tomorrow morning. Is the town, as things stand now, prepared to do *anything* with that information? Are they prepared to lynch B on A’s say-so? Or if not lynch, at least begin by focusing heavy suspicion onto B? And if B is killed and revealed as innocent, is the town prepared to lynch A?

Based on the reactions to Primate, I think not. Primate says no one targeted me last night. I (by way of mod) say that I was targeted. And yet the town seems *less* suspicious of Primate than before his claim.

So, to take it a step further, why go to the trouble of keeping powerroles secret if they can’t provide anything useful for the town? The reason to keep powerroles secret is to prevent the mafia from knowing exactly which roles are optimal to kill/etc. But if we’re not going to be getting anything useful from the roles- then nothing would be lost! So there isn’t really a drawback. But in return, the town would receive (a) the opportunity for mafia to mess up in the claim process and (b) the possibility of the town working together to collectively circumvent whatever the optimal mafia plan is.

---

mathcam:
As for what Primate would get out of the WIFOM, to go to the trouble of it, I’m wondering whether it was instigated by massive:

<snip>
Well, I think "doctor" is about the easiest claim to fake in REGULAR mafia games, but I think it will be hard to fake a doctor claim in THIS game. We all know our own roles and have an idea of what else is going on in the game (vote stealing and doubling), so I think if Primate comes back with something ... arbitrary ... then it'll probably be lights out pretty quick. But if the role seems clever enough, I'm probably more likely to believe it.

At lynch-1, with massive not currently voting for him, Primate’s got to take his expectation seriously. He’s claimed that he’s a doctor who protected me N1, and massive is saying that he won’t buy a conventional doctor claim. Maybe that was the best Primate could come up with.

---

Stoofer:
What is your current opinion about Primate?

[EmpTyger]

[I just realized I’ve been mistaking Johoohno’s name all game. Sorry.]

Fonz:

<snip>
Primate's claimed ability would be overpowered in the hands of scum. Discuss.

I'll disagree. I think it sounds reasonable. It allows mafia to have counterplay for powerful protown abilities, yet scales very well, since it's less useful the weaker the town gets.

Also, I oppose massclaim. Emp's plan seems to amount to 'we don't know if power roles will produce anything useful, so we might as well give them away.' If someone produces a night result that appears to incriminate, the target can claim, as can anyone else who's dicked around with the results. That still leaves the possibility that there is no explanation for the result, it IS in fact incriminating, and we'd be better off keeping it hidden for now.

Reconcile this with what’s happened with Primate. Preclaim: DotS, Johoohno, TSN, Stoofer, and KingPin were voting for Primate. mathcam and I (admittedly uselessly) had indicated that we wanted to vote Primate. Postclaim: TSN and Johoohno have unvoted. mathcam has indicated that he is leaning towards believing Primate. KingPin and I have indicated we are still against. DotS hasn’t posted. I’m waiting on Stoofer to clarify.

So, again, tomorrow, let’s say there’s an incriminating nightaction, and the players involved claim. It can’t be assumed that antitowns don’t also have powerroles, and I doubt that antitown powerroles will be generous enough to clear up confusion without great benefit to themselves. So, the incriminated player could still be innocent or guilty, the one who pointed it out could be innocent or guilty, they both could, or neither could. Anyone who comes forward could be innocent or guilty. And based on reactions to Primate- I don’t like how quick some have been to back off Primate after a tenuous claim, when they were ready to lynch him beforehand, and there hasn’t been anyone coming forward who can provide another explanation- so I don’t see this hypothetical situation being any better, especially after the mafia gets a night to coordinate.

Right now our powerroles are useless, and potentially worse than that. It’s not so much giving them away- it’s trying to get *something* out of them.

[EmpTyger]

Fonz:

I dispute that they're useless. We just have to acknowledge that anyone who's responsible for inadvertently causing an incriminating result owns up.

IE:

Investigative role: I have a result on X which is potentially incriminating.
Target: MY role is Y, I guess someone musta redirected or something.
Then, If a town player has redirected, he must admit it. In the absence of town redirection claims, we lynch.

But what if Y comes up innocent? Do we lynch X? Basically, how are you accounting for antitown redirection? I have a feeling they're sure not going to speak up to prevent 2 mislynches.

[EmpTyger]

Fonz:

True, but do you massclaim in every game on the offchance there is a mafia redirector? If not, why is this game different?

From what I see so far, I believe that the game has a significant amount of protown powerroles that work in convoluted manners, and I do not appear to be the only one making that assessment. I therefore conclude it to be likewise for antitown powerroles, for 2 reasons: to allow them to blend in with the town, and to counterbalance the high protown powerlevel.

[EmpTyger]

TSN:
Just to make sure I understand, then: you believe that Primate's role implies his innocence?

[EmpTyger]

Sorry for the triplepost- just want to make it clear what I'm asking TSN: basically, iwhether you believe it possible or not for there to be a mafia deflector.

[EmpTyger]

Primate’s currently at 3 votes. Someone needs to put him back up to at least 5. (Unless for some reason people instead finally see the error of Stoofer’s ways and want to vote him instead.)

---

KingPin:
For 1: (Scum do not have similar night actions as townies)
I think you are badly overestimating the ability of mafia to devise fakeclaims, particularly on D1 when they haven’t had a chance to discuss this since hearing sample roles.

For 2: (Scum have similar night actions as townies)
Within this game, I am challenging the standard assumption that exposed powerroles is a bad thing. See the hypothetical that Fonz and I have been using. As things stand now, what benefit could the town receive from its powerroles? I don’t see any, as I’ve been trying to show. The presence of roles such as Primate’s and TSN’s (and certainly others’) taint whatever conclusions the town could normally draw.

Essentially, what I’m saying is that:

The town cannot rely on nightactions to win this game.

So I’m not seeing any reason to try to traditionally maximize the town’s success with nightabilities when we might instead be able to use them unconventionally in the day to some advantage.

---

massive:

<snip>

TSN:

What does the town have to provide to you in order for you to completely clarify what you are claiming / saying? Because you seem to be willing to hint about it an awful lot without any specifics. You also seem to expect the town to act based upon your hints.

Uh-uh. No rolefishing. If claiming is to occur, it is going to be done in a deliberate, direct, and organized manner. TSN came forward voluntarily because he thought it would be helpful. He is currently under no obligation to go further than what he feels helpful.

[EmpTyger]

massive:

<snip>
But he's NOT being helpful. He's being purposefully obtuse. "I might stress MIGHT be able to explain Primate's inability to affect EmpTyger." All it is is trying to explain away, with a wave of the hand, one of the big problems with Primate's roleclaim.

I'm sorry, but I don't fall for Jedi mind tricks.

I'd like to point out that that's more than *Primate* himself is doing. TSN was under no obligation to come forward.
Is TSN's evidence what's keeping you from voting Primate, or is this more about TSN?

[EmpTyger]

massive:
You are clearly making up your argument against TSN as you go along.

<snip>
But he's NOT being helpful. He's being purposefully obtuse. "I might stress MIGHT be able to explain Primate's inability to affect EmpTyger." All it is is trying to explain away, with a wave of the hand, one of the big problems with Primate's roleclaim.

I'm sorry, but I don't fall for Jedi mind tricks.

<snip>
I don't think it's a "help co-scum" thing. With no indication of Primate's alignment and TSN saying (right above me) that he doesn't necessarily believe Primate is town, it seems more like TSN is expecting us to lynch Primate and is trying to tie his half-role-claim into backing up Primate's innocence.

That's what I mean more than "testing out a fake claim" ... more like testing out the town's reaction to him claiming something related to Primate turning up to be telling the truth.

You, Stoofer, who else?

---

KingPin:

Does anyone here doubt Primate's claim?

If you do, what do you doubt about it?

With TSN taking responsibility for the discrepancy regarding my being targeted, I am willing to give Primate the benefit of the doubt regarding his ability. I do not see it as in any way indicative of his alignment, however. His play, on the other hand, has been second to only Stoofer in atrociousness, and he has massive getting sloppy to thank for me not making a more scathing argument against him.

---

mneme:

<snip>
Info that might explain it? But TSN doesn't know this? No, that doesn't work; we need to be able to evaluate it too.

Why can’t the town consider that when we’re ready to evaluate TSN’s claim? Nothing’s going to change between now and then regarding Primate and him.

For that matter, why are you against a massclaim? Because, it sounds like you were against Primate until TSN came forward, and now are thinking Primate innocent and TSN guilty. If you don’t think claims could be useful, how do you explain your switch on Primate? Are you expecting a fuller claim from TSN to be any different than the Primate situation?

<snip>
1. Meta. Day 1 massclaims are bad for Mafia. Not this game -- every game; they just make the game less fun and less meaningful.

You’re making a broad generalization without any support whatsoever for your position. Would you oppose a massclaim in lynch-or-lose? D4? D2? Where do you draw the line? My point is that you *can’t* arbitrarily pick a point at which massclaims are good or bad. You have to evaluate the specific circumstances of each individual game and circumstance. Which requires skill, and critical thinking, and deductive and inductive reasoning, and application of logic to developing a protown plan opposed by subtle antitown manipulative influences. Seems fun and meaningful to me.

2. If the game is well designed, a day 1 massclaim will help the scum a -lot- more than it will help the town, as the scum will claim plausble roles, and meanwhile get a nice laundry list of who they need to kill. They might even have safe claims. Do we really need that?

I’ve addressed this elsewhere- see my recent posts to Fonz and KingPin. The “laundry list” being given will be useless. And regardless of whether there is a massclaim, the town should not be blind to the possibility of safeclaims.

---

Johoohno:
Why did you unvote Primate? You were against him back at the start of the day, with evidence I personally thought weak. But since then, what has he done that’s protown?

[EmpTyger]

Have to run, so this isn’t complete- I have more to say to massive, for one. But for now:

---

TSN:
After Primate- I’m not necessary sure that what you are referring to in mneme’s is damning. Not that there aren’t other problems with it…

<snip>
So we should massclaim. And primate, since he's already claimed, should pick his most anti-town person to claim. And we should continue along those lines.

While I am skeptical at this point of the massclaim occurring, if it does happen, this is not how. The town should not place trust in the player it finds most suspicious, and if Primate delurks there is much more important things for him to do than this. Rather, someone should propose an order for everyone else. Others can raise and discuss any issues they have with it, as well as at what point the proposed should claim.

---

mneme:

<snip>
Anyway, what's so useful about outing all the doc and vig and cop types in the game and how they work in combination? How does this help the town? Doesn't it just provide too many targets for docs to protect and expose the doc types?

Look at what happened with Primate, and TSN. Nightactions are inconclusive without total knowledge, and their blind use will more likely than not lead the town badly astray.

In this game, powerroles will not help the town identify antitowns.

If you think otherwise, *show* it.

Look at it this way. If we don’t massclaim, what’s going to happen whenever we try to lynch someone? Before their lynch, they’re going to claim, and that claim’s going to have to be evaluated. And that evaluation will require cannot be done without others’ claims (ie TSN in Primate’s case). And certainly to you at least, given how you’re pressuring TSN, those other claims will need to be fully evaluated. So why not handle claims in a more optimal way for the town?

(And, I know, also your meta. Which happens to be something that hurts the town and helps antitowns. You’re going to have to defend it with more than a blanket, “that’s my meta”. Just like Primate’s meta-lurking isn’t an excuse for his antitown actions. Just like Stoofer’s meta-sloppiness isn’t an excuse for his antitown actions.)

And an OMGUS, too.

TSN, your defense of Primate was protown, but that only goes so far.
<snip>

TSN’s vote was anything but OMGUS. But more importantly, if you thought TSN’s defense of Primate was protown,

why did you attack him over it

! Why would you want him to reveal more? I mean, applying your opposition to the massclaim to TSN- it makes no sense why you would oppose a general massclaim but support it specifically for a player you were thinking protown!

I need to reread to check out Stoofer-massive-mneme.

---

Johoohno:
You unvoted Primate after his claim, and are trying to shift attention elsewhere- but your only direct comment on Primate since was “seems believable to me, but it's not indicative of his alignment”. Elaborate, please. With Primate one away from lynch, trying to expand focus to others while ignoring the attacks against and defenses of Primate feels too much like you’re trying to lie low.

[EmpTyger]

I was thinking about offering as a counterproposal: what if instead of massclaiming roles, we only massclaim targets?

But I’m kind of despairing of convincing people. So I’ll also offer this: I’ll drop pressing for a massclaim, if those who are against it pledge that they understand that

anything to do with claims is at best useless and more likely counterproductive

, and

all nightactions will be treated as completely unreliable until after a massclaim is done

.

I think this is less optimal than a massclaim, because if the town ever does resort to claiming, the mafia will have been given time to adequately prepare for one, whereas now I doubt they are. But at least it removes But it’s better than nothing. And while this probably deserves some eyerolls, it’s less distracting than the alternative would be.

I still haven’t had time for a reread. Also, something needs to be done about the Primate situation, and likely DotS too.

---

massive:

You are clearly making up your argument against TSN as you go along.

It does take me some time in general to figure out what's going on. The reason I changed my opinion of what TSN's net result might be was due to people pointing out that TSN-scum's claim doesn't help Primate-scum. At that point, and due to people confirming that they'd assumed Primate had been "interacted with", I moved to the next logical step -- assuming TSN-scum, Primate-town. I still feel that TSN is being purposefully vague about something he MIGHT know that could help the town.

Sorry, I don’t buy it. You’re not analyzing what you’re reading and making a conclusion about TSN. He’s guilty, no matter what, according to your logic. (Well, unless he fullclaims. But in the case of everyone else, you’re against hearing claims.)

---

Johoohno:
I wanted you to elaborate on Primate’s alignment.

Also, which other players specifically do you see “as more scummy”?

---

mathcam:

<snip>
I'd be nervous about a mass-claim for a couple of reasons. For one, I'd like to re-iterate the point that games are usually designed so that this is a bad strategy. While I understand (or at least think I understand) Emp's points about why this game is different, TSS is no noobie mod. It's possible, if not likely, that they have meta-information about what pro-town roles look like, or something of the sort. That would certainly fit with the theme. Second, I'm not sure our pro-town roles are as worthless as you think, Emp. While there will always be a degree of doubt surrounding a night result, this doesn't mean that the information is rendered useless. We just have to recognize that there's a possibility that the information has been tampered with -- for that matter, a somewhat small possibility, since presumably only one person per night can be targeted with this. Finally, if the target-switcher gets killed, then this threat goes away, and we're left with our roles exposed with no benefit.

Blindly following a meta and outguessing the mod are not good strategies. I’ll let Stoofer handle the rest of the rebuttal first point.

But your second- do you genuinely believe that? The probability is not small. In fact, based on N1, it is a lot closer to 100%. It is more than 1 person/night. And it is more than a target-switcher that will be confusing the town.
Honestly, the fact that you think otherwise really troubles me. It’s easier for me to read that as you’re providing a reason to kill Primate, “just in case”.

---

Stoofer:
I’m sure you’re pleased at punch at slinking out of a lynch without even needing to fakeclaim. But, instead of lying low and praying that the spotlight doesn’t return to you, why don’t you try pretending to be protown? You know, actually trying to help the town with your posts? (And before you point to [302], no, it doesn’t count. You’re not otherwise commenting about mneme. You’re just saying what you can to discredit an attack made against you, however effective the discrediting was.)

[EmpTyger]

But I’m kind of despairing of convincing people. So I’ll also offer this: I’ll drop pressing for a massclaim, if those who are against it pledge that they understand that

anything to do with claims is at best useless and more likely counterproductive

, and

all nightactions will be treated as completely unreliable until after a massclaim is done

.

Actually, on second thought, I’d like that of *all* players, even those who support a massclaim.

[EmpTyger]

The following underlined statement is *not* intended to aid the town in making any conclusion on Primate or TSN. Rather, it is to hopefully show just how pointless trying to draw conclusions from partial nightactions will be.

I have information which might negate TSN’s information regarding Primate.

And before anyone asks: No, I will not reveal any more at this time. To be honest, I do not trust the town, based on how they have reacted to Primate’s and TSN’s claims, to use well any information I give. And even if I do, it’s not going to change things fundamentally, unless there’s a massclaim. But things like:

<snip>
I admit that my suspicions of Primate dropped somewhat after his claim (and TSN's potential explanation as to why EmpTyger still was targeted),
<snip>

<snip>
Re primate, nothing's changed. But then, my only reason to consider him scummy was his claim, and while TSN's non-defense isn't actually useful for validating the claim, it does tie (vaguely) indicate that -if- TSN is not scum, Primate might not be lying scum.
<snip>

<snip>
If TSN has blocked a night action and chose to use it on N-1 without any hints as to alignment of any other player, his night actions are scummy.

If TSN has the same target transfer as Primate, then they both have the same night action and, IMHO, one of them is likely scum.
<snip>
The other troubling thing about all of this is the obvious coincidence that Emp lost a vote and Primate gained a vote. Primate targeted Emp. TSN targeted Primate. So someone took a vote away from someone. And then someone gave a vote to another. That is a whole lot of targeting around Emp and Primate. One to protect, one to vote block, one to vote give, one to power block or target switch. On two players N-1. I call BS.
<snip>

Each of these are just as likely to be wrong as right. And they show a disturbing lack of willingness to analyze the situation as a whole. It seems too many players would rather try to outguess the mod and rely blindly on metas than actually *think* about what information we actually have. And I’m worried that too many players will follow nebulous nightactions over actual, in-thread, suspicious behavior.

---

mneme:

<snip>
Emptiger, even more so:

TSN’s vote was anything but OMGUS. But more importantly, if you thought TSN’s defense of Primate was protown,

why did you attack him over it

!

I never attacked TSN over his defense of Primate; I asked him to clarify his defense, because it wasn't useful. At one point, I tried to push him on this...by voting -Primate-, not TSN.
<snip>

First of all, in [306] you did vote TSN. So the fact that you attacked him is not in question.

Second, you’d been mentioning 2 things against him: his attacks against you, and his defense of Primate. In [308] you accused TSN of OMGUS. So you’re saying that TSN was counterattacking you, which requires you to have attacked him first. Which means that you weren’t voting him over his attacks- because then *you*’d be committing OMGUS, not him. (I suppose alternatively you could have just been misrepresenting when you called TSN’s vote OMGUS. But, that’s not protown either.) Which leaves the defense of Primate, which even now in [318] you’re saying was protown.

So, try again.

1. Backed off on his defense of Primate and refused to make it useful, as well as refusing to tie his alignment to Primate's in any even vague fashion.
<snip>
3. Asked his ridiculous leading question which seemed intended to elicit a half-claim for no reason.
<snip>

TSN was clumsily trying to get you to claim because he thought he could trap you. Based on what you are assuming and arguing, you seemed to be unfamiliar with certain aspects of the setup. Worse, you seemed to be trying to stay as unenlightened as possible, and keep the town as much in the dark as you can.

---

KingPin:

<snip>
The same could be said about Primate, he has used his power to transfer night actions from one player to another and in the process used a potentially power role in a scummy way.
<snip>

How would that have been “in a scummy way”?

[EmpTyger]

massive:

Sorry, I don’t buy it. You’re not analyzing what you’re reading and making a conclusion about TSN. He’s guilty, no matter what, according to your logic. (Well, unless he fullclaims. But in the case of everyone else, you’re against hearing claims.)

I don't see anywhere in the game where I've said one way or the other if I'm in favor of the massclaim (which appears to be what you are referring to in that last sentence). Can you please explain what I've said that makes you feel I am against hearing claims?
<snip>

Sorry, you’re right. I was beginning to abandon the massclaim because of how little support for it there was, and I was assuming that everyone who wasn’t speaking for it was speaking against. But, you’re right- you’ve been silent. What is your position, and why haven’t you said anything so far?

I may be twisting how I'm seeing things due to my perceived scumminess in TSN, but it still doesn't change the fact that I think he's scum.

unvote, vote TSN

But that’s circular. You can’t say that you think TSN guilty because you perceive his actions guilty because you think him guilty.
*Why* do you “think he’s scum”?

---

KingPin:
Okay, thanks, I wasn’t sure if there was something else to this.

<snip>
It is my contention, and many of you may have differing opinions, but if you have a night action that could potentially hurt the town, and you use it on Night 1 when you know nothing about the other players alignments, then your actions should be viewed as scummy.

For example: Let's say that Primate is telling the truth and he is pro-town. He has the ability to "protect" a player by putting another player in harms way. If Primate chooses some random player Night 1, who happens to be an investigator ect., and redirects a target from scum to this investigator role, he has directly cost the town a power role and his actions should be viewed as scummy.

I kind of disagree. “Potentially hurt the town” is tricky, because in most instances, they could potentially help the town as well. Also, in most cases, using the role allows pseudo-information to be gathered. This is analogous to some of the logic I’m using for a massclaim: it can be just as important to know whether someone is lying about their role, than the actual role itself. (This is related to the questions of “Should a roleblocker/vigilante use their abilities N1”, questions more suited to Mafia Discussion.) In some sense this is related to Stoofer’s 3rd. Consider a simpler example: If one player has a role which lets them know if a target targeted someone that night, that player is effectively a cop. If every townsperson has that role, it’s useless. N1, there’s no way to tell which is the setup.

Specifically in your hypothetical, the probability of Primate directing an investigation away from mafia is almost the same as the probability of him directing one towards mafia. But the information *Primate* gains ordinarily would compensate. However, there are so many factors at work that the information Primate might have gained is just as likely to be wrong or distorted, and thus useless or counterproductive.

More than that, if you knowingly use your potentially detrimental power on night one without thinking about the possible negative outcome, then you are acting anti-town and are scummy as well.
<snip>

It’s even more true on nights other than N1, since the player has more knowledge of what is likely to be detrimental. But N1, I do not think that this is as cut-and-dried as you are making it. However, you are correct in that Primate, in describing his ability purely in protective terms, is (seen in the best light) not thinking about the effects of his actions in a protown way.

Emp, I don't believe that mass claiming is going to do the town any good. From what I have read and the reactions that we have seen from players, there are good scum choices here so far.

It seems too many players would rather try to outguess the mod and rely blindly on metas than actually *think* about what information we actually have. And I’m worried that too many players will follow nebulous nightactions over actual, in-thread, suspicious behavior.

I find this comment to be crap. What information do we actually know? Why not use a combination of night actions and their in game suspicious behavior to actually formulate an attack. Who here are you accusing of trying to out guess the mod?
<snip>

I’ve said why so often I’ve just been compared to a rabid dog. Look at the 3 I cited in the first section of [324] for the most recent.

We have the following information for what I am arguing:
Greasy Spot’s role.
Primate’s claim- and the reactions to it, which are telling even if Primate himself was lying.
Many of us seem to have our own roles as well.

Now, what support do you have for your position regarding powerroles and nightactions?

<snip>
a mass claim, so that scum can formulate a more perfect attack on our power roles?

If a powerrole is useless, then it’s really not a powerrole! Show me how a powerrole could be useful in this game, and I’ll concede that it’s bad that a massclaim exposes them.

[EmpTyger]

I’m not sure whether I’m adding anything new with this response, and will probably drop this unless someone offers something new or asks directly for a reply. But in the interests of answering questions and hopefully clarifying:

---

KingPin:

Emp,
Just so I am clear, you are arguing for a mass claim based on Greasy Spot's role, the claim from Primate (this is not a certainty merely a claim) and the assumption that many people have roles.

You have just stated that the only thing that the town knows for sure is Greasy Spot's Role. The rest is based upon assumptions and a claim from someone being band wagoned. Are you looking to qualify your own role based upon what everyone else has?

*I* know I have a role, so that’s not an assumption in my case. And, yes, I realize that Primate and TSN and anyone else might be lying. However, enough players have voiced expectations that they can’t all be lying. Outguessing players is not the same as outguessing mods.

<snip>
What do you mean support for my position regarding power roles and night actions? Do you mean information for not claiming? Or their usefulness this early in the game? I do not understand the question.

I provided the basis for my conclusions. I’m asking why you are concluding what you have. What’s your evidence? I’m not seeing a trail from hypothesis to conclusion that doesn’t go through outguessing the mod or blindly following a meta which doesn’t seem to apply here.

Lastly, are you saying that right now power roles are useless? Or are you saying that if a potentially powerful role is prevented from performing, then it is useless?

The former.

Again, in my opinion, if the town uses a potentially detrimental power and keeps a doc or cop from performing his/her actions, they are scummy in my book.

The roles are convoluted enough that it really isn’t so cut-and-dried. Some powers that are potentially detrimental are also potentially helpful. For example, consider a roleblocker who uses their ability N1 and inadvertently targets a cop. Yes, they have prevented the cop from getting a result, but they have also confirmed that the cop is innocent since the mafiakill went through. Was the roleblocker detrimental or helpful?

If scum can prevent the good guys from performing their actions, why would we out them?

Because the *setup* is already preventing them from using their actions. We aren’t losing anything.

Why not just inform the town to think about their role and use it carefully as a town person would.

There isn’t consensus on who is suspicious and who isn’t. Townspeople have imperfect knowledge, the whole “uninformed majority” thing. And, it’s tricky.
Consider the example of the roleblocker again, but this time add a doctor. What if there was a doctor who prevented the mafiakill? What then happens if the roleblocker comes forward and inadvertently accuses the cop of the nightkill?

In this game, however, the convolution is even more complicated. What conclusion could the town draw, no matter how careful?

---

<snip>
I understand that the dynamics of this game and the target selection process make this different from other games, but I still feel like that, much like in every game I play, it just means that there are other factors to be considered when evaluating the trustworthiness and validity of night-choices.

Were you considering these in Primate’s case? In TSN’s case? Were enough of the town?
It’s the “if a cop comes forward tomorrow morning with a guilty result” example.

It seems to me that having the roles hidden is as confusing for the mafia as it is for us (it seems possible that a poorly-chosen target could end up killing one of them),

Possibly. But they have multiple players that they can collectively coordinate, so they are always going to be more organized than individuals who only have their own roles. It also affects killing roles less than informative roles. If X kills A instead of B, it will usually only matter if A and B have different alignments; X isn’t accountable to anyone and no further action is necessary. But what if X learns something about A instead of B? If the relevant parties do not come forward (assuming they are protown), what further action can occur? Either way, what conclusions can be drawn about X, A, or B that couldn’t just as easily be the opposite?

and keeps our power roles hidden until their information becomes more potent

How, if not by massclaim, might this happen? That’s one of my big problems. I don’t see any other way of turning it reliable.

Or did I misunderstand your "100%" part?

My point was that there is no way to remove the unreliability of N1 before N2 happens. You seemed to be implying that there was a “somewhat small probability” related to only one role which might cause further confusion. It’s more than that one role.

This is also silly, seeing as how my objection to the massclaim is based on the fact that I disagree with these points.

The pledge was intended as an alternative to account for the conditioned fear that exposing powerroles is always a bad thing.

How could they possibly be counter-productive if we're aware of the fact that they could have been altered?
<snip>

If people aren’t acting on that awareness. Consider what KingPin is arguing in [326].

[EmpTyger]

I'm halfway through a reread, but things keep coming up irl. So far massive and KingPin have stuck out.

[EmpTyger]

Finished reread. I am most suspicious of KingPin, massive, Primate, and Stoofer.
massive sticks sorely out on reread, and there are some problems I have with KingPin (see below).
I have a feeling about mathcam that I can’t shake, but I’m otherwise not as suspicious of him as much as those 4. (Fortunately, I have a better feeling about Stoofer, so I don’t have to worry about ignoring my feelings.)
Johoohno, honestly, confuses me. Not sure what to make. Could be anything.
There are some good points in Fonz’s favor. He theoretically could be in a mafia with Primate and without Stoofer mafia, but there are although more suspicious.
mneme- really, it’s only his behavior in the last page that’s suspicious.
DotS and TSN I feel are protown.

---

KingPin:
Came across some things on reread:

<snip>
Meta to me seems to imply that there are some roles that can have a dramatic influence behind the scenes.

Just basic obvious points from the above. Carry on.

It seems that your opposition to the massclaim is based on your belief that this isn’t true. What changed?

<snip>
massive - On more than one occasion he has questions designed to elicit information from Stoofer that would clear up some scum feelings (for me at least) and give Stoof a more townie feel. Town
<snip>
Mr Stoofer - Sloppy, liar, and anti-town actions have him defending every action. His defenses seem to be reduced to slight personal attacks and jumping on another bandwagon to shift the attention from him to Primate. Scum

Primate - Gives vote to someone he thinks is scum. Reason enough to vote IMHO. Defends his actions with very personal attacks and claiming that it would be more beneficial if Emp had a vote. Of course this is true, except that Emp does not have a vote. Primate has two. Scum

The fonz - Unvote Primate and pointed out that he was at L-1 with Stoof's vote, then voted for Stoof for bringing Primate to L-1 without a notice to the town. Town
<snip>

The logic of [165] and [178] is all kinds of convoluted. I didn’t like it at the time, and in retrospect- it reads like an attempt to go on record as being nominally against Stoofer, while not voting him, not attacking him, and trying to keep an alternate bandwagon. Moreover, your reasoning concerning other players doesn’t match. What you said about Fonz doesn’t fit with what you said about Primate. What you said about massive doesn’t fit with what you said about Stoofer. What you said about me doesn’t fit with what you said about Stoofer.

---

Primate:

<snip>
I'll claim properly when I respond to everything. I've already claimed doctor, but that's not exactly my role, it's just that I will fill the 'doctor' slot in the game.

I don’t like this line. From what Primate has told us, I don’t think he should have been able to deduce that at that point, from his role alone. On the other hand, it makes sense if he were mafia and had access to extra roles, gaining a better idea of the setup.

---

mathcam:

<snip>
If nothing else, having a role-deflector just adds a ton of potential confusion to the game, and lynching Primate alleviates that confusion.
<snip>

How serious is this?

---

Johoohno:
In [311], why did you ask for only DotS to be prodded, and not Primate also?

Johoohno:
I wanted you to elaborate on Primate’s alignment.

Also, which other players specifically do you see “as more scummy”?

I am suspicious of Primate, but he isn't my top scum candidate right now. Two other players I see as suspicious are (not in any specific order right now): DestroyeroftheSky (for a long time now) and mneme (recent addition due to last page actions).
<snip>

Why are you suspicious of DotS?

<snip>
I'd say that we try lynching the player found most scummy this day (I am not ready to lynch yet - Heck, I'm not even voting now).

Am I missing/missunderstanding something according to the mass claim thought?
<snip>

Here’s the problem: The town votes up the most suspicious player. When that player is 1 or 2 away from lynch, they claim. How does the town evaluate the claim? Without a massclaim, how will you evaluated role information in this setup? And while the town could ignore the claim- by your own admission, your suspicion of Primate dropped after his claim.

As for the rest, I’m not going to repeat myself. Read through the rest of my posts.

---

massive:

<snip>
I haven't said anything because I've been interested in the rest of the town's discussion about it, and adding my voice didn't add anything.
<snip>

Do you think that if you admit that you’re deliberately lurking and pretend like it’s nothing, it’ll be okay? I’m not quite to waste my time with this, when I think it so much more likely that Johoohno was right and you’re mafia with Stoofer.

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
massive - On more than one occasion he has questions designed to elicit information from Stoofer that would clear up some scum feelings (for me at least) and give Stoof a more townie feel. Town
<snip>
Mr Stoofer - Sloppy, liar, and anti-town actions have him defending every action. His defenses seem to be reduced to slight personal attacks and jumping on another bandwagon to shift the attention from him to Primate. Scum

Primate - Gives vote to someone he thinks is scum. Reason enough to vote IMHO. Defends his actions with very personal attacks and claiming that it would be more beneficial if Emp had a vote. Of course this is true, except that Emp does not have a vote. Primate has two. Scum

The fonz - Unvote Primate and pointed out that he was at L-1 with Stoof's vote, then voted for Stoof for bringing Primate to L-1 without a notice to the town. Town
<snip>

So, you think Primate is guilty…
… but Fonz is innocent because he stopped the bandwagon on Primate?

And you think that Stoofer is guilty…
…but massive is innocent because he tried to give Stoofer a “more townie feel”?

That’s much more than “a hole” in your logic. If you really thought that Primate and Stoofer were guilty- how could you think that about massive and Fonz? Reread exactly what you wrote. Your description of massive presumes that Stoofer is innocent. Your description of Fonz presumes that Primate is innocent. But you are simultaneously saying that Stoofer and Primate are guilty!

---

massive:

<snip>Do you think that if you snip out only the bit of my comments that you want, that everyone will think that I haven't been active in this game and you can accuse me, realistically, of "deliberately lurking"?

Lurking doesn't have to be on a Primate-scale. It can be posting just enough to not draw attention, going with the low, keeping a low profile, not committing to stances, and waiting for the opportune moment. So, yes, I think I can realistically accuse you. You had an opinion in the massclaim discussion, and you stayed quiet. You weren’t just doing this to give others a chance, because I had to drag it out of you after others had spoken. Instead, you stayed quiet while something you allegedly agree with- the massclaim proposal- is all but defeated.

[EmpTyger]

3 reasons why I think KingPin has been lying about his suspicions:

1) Making a suspicious player seem innocent is a sign of innocence.

Mr Stoofer - Sloppy, liar, and anti-town actions have him defending every action. His defenses seem to be reduced to slight personal attacks and jumping on another bandwagon to shift the attention from him to Primate. Scum

massive - On more than one occasion he has questions designed to elicit information from Stoofer that would clear up some scum feelings (for me at least) and give Stoof a more townie feel. Town

So according to KingPin:
Stoofer is suspicious.
massive was trying to explain away suspicious actions, and give a suspicious player a more townie feel.
Therefore, massive is innocent.

But that’s not a sign of innocence. That’s a sign of *guilt*. *Maybe* if Stoofer were innocent, it could be argued. But massive has been voting Stoofer, so he didn’t think so. And KingPin just afterwards in [165] said that Stoofer was guilty, so that’s not it either.

2) Saving a suspicious player from a lynch is a sign of innocence.

Primate - Gives vote to someone he thinks is scum. Reason enough to vote IMHO. Defends his actions with very personal attacks and claiming that it would be more beneficial if Emp had a vote. Of course this is true, except that Emp does not have a vote. Primate has two. Scum

The fonz - Unvote Primate and pointed out that he was at L-1 with Stoof's vote, then voted for Stoof for bringing Primate to L-1 without a notice to the town. Town

So according to KingPin:
Primate is suspicious.
Fonz stopped the wagon on a suspicious player, and attacked the player who tried to lynch a suspicious player.
Therefore, Fonz is innocent.

But if Primate is so suspicious, that KingPin thinks him guilty- and has thought him pretty consistently guilty all day- then why would Fonz be innocent? Now, if Primate is innocent, I agree that Fonz would get heavy “protown points”. But KingPin didn’t think this at the time, and moreover he hasn’t ever thought this.

3) Attacking a suspicious player is a sign of guilt.

Mr Stoofer - Sloppy, liar, and anti-town actions have him defending every action. His defenses seem to be reduced to slight personal attacks and jumping on another bandwagon to shift the attention from him to Primate. Scum

Emp’s forcefulness strikes me as being over the top. I realize that I find Stoofer to be more scum than town myself. However, Emp’s play to me seems a little more than distancing himself from Stoof-scum. Perhaps this is because he lacks an actual vote today (I dislike lending votes).

He is blatantly sticking his neck out on day one where the actions at this point from Stoofer are Sloppy, Lie, L-1 w/o comment, deflection ect. What benefit would a Townie have for these actions? Potentially lynching someone whom is acting scummy.

What benefit for scum?

Note that Emp sees that Stoof just made a mistake on D1 page 2. Emp attacks Stoof.

Then another player points out the obvious flaw in Stoof’s reasoning. Emp now has a choice, either go full force against Stoof or find another bandwagon or tree to bark up.

Which option would benefit scum in this scenario? IMO Option 1, attack relentlessly and keep attacking knowing that if Stoof is scum and is lynched then he would have huge townie points for himself if he lynches a scum buddy.

If Emp lynches a townie then he can say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus the reason for my super-attack on Stoof. It was the rest of the town that is to blame.”

If Emp does not effectuate a lynch at all, then he could say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus my super-attack on Stoof.”

So according to KingPin:
Stoofer had been acting suspiciously.
EmpTyger attacked a suspicious player.
It is implausible that an innocent player wants to lynch a suspicious player.
Therefore, EmpTyger is guilty.

I commented about the illogic of this at the time. His argument is that, since I do not have a vote, attacking Stoofer forcefully is suspicious. I asked at the time and I will ask again now for KingPin or someone to tell me whether there was anything I could have done that would have been less suspicious. Until then, I submit that this logic makes no sense.

So, in conclusion, I really like a Stoofer-massive-KingPin mafia. Then all of KingPin’s inconsistencies make sense.

---

KingPin:
I am not interested in your feelings about the rest of the town. I am interested in *you*. I want you to explain how you concluded that
1) Making a suspicious player seem innocent is a sign of innocence.
2) Saving a suspicious player from a lynch is a sign of innocence.
3) Attacking a suspicious player is a sign of guilt.
because the only explanation I see is that you were lying about who was and wasn’t suspicious to you.

I gave you a chance to actually defend yourself, but instead you tried to brush it away as “nonsense” and itched towards OMGUS. If you feel more inclined to defend yourself now, go for it, but the rest of this post was intended mostly for the town- to make sure they have their eyes wide open.

[EmpTyger]

I know it’s just off a 3-day weekend, but based on precedent I’m still skeptical of DotS and Primate reappearing now. mathcam has also been active elsewhere but not here. Fonz had indicated V/LA until today, so, hopefully.

---

mneme:
Talk about “craplogic/creative reinterpretation”. Like with the lynch-1 issue, you have a badly hypocritical way about you. I have no idea where you’d fit into mafia pairings speculation. But you’re making me have to consider it.
I said in [310] why your attack on TSN is wrong. You responded by attacking me in [318].
I showed you in [324] why your attack on me is factually wrong, and why your attack on TSN is now suspicious. You responded by ignoring it, and you’re still maintaining your accusation against TSN.

---

KingPin:
1)

<snip>
No, trying to determine if a player is innocent, by the questions that they ask, has a townish feel. Did you read the types of information that Massive was asking? Did you think massive was scum because of this? Do you now think massive is scum because of this? Did you see the way that Stoofer responded? I did and still do find Stoofer's actions scummy. I think and still think that Massive's actions have a town feel.
<snip>

My point was about *your* assessment of massive. Why would you think that massive has a “townish feel” when he was voting Stoofer while at the same time trying to portray Stoofer “as just being careless and less anti-town”? Especially when you at that point agreed that Stoofer was guilty. And especially considering the imaginative gambit you ran with in my case. You think I was guilty and massive was innocent, because I forcefully attacked a player that we both thought guilty, and massive mildly attacked them and tried to give them an out?

2)

<snip>
This is independent of Primate's guilt or innocence. Fonz was doing the "town" thing.

No, it’s not independent of Primate’s alignment. If Primate is innocent, I do strongly agree with you. But if he’s guilty- which you thought at the time, think now, and have thought all day- then it’s a point *against* Fonz.

3)

3. "Attacking a suspicious player is a sign of guilt." It is a gambit. Of course if you know who is scum, it would make it easier for you to attack a guilty player and score HUGE town points if you get him lynched. I have seen this happen in other games, where one player makes a mistake and his scum buddy uses that to score big town points in his favor by lynching him. This is entirely plausible. Let me put in my disclaimer that you keep forgetting to quote in your many, many quotes. This is an assumption, which I can only make since very little is known at this time.

I understand gambits, and I will acknowledge that what you say theoretically be true. But if you can’t provide any action I could have taken which would be less suspicious, what’s your point?

Tell me whether there was anything I could have done that would have been less suspicious to you.

Because here’re the alternatives that I see: Defend someone who is suspicious, or ignore someone who is suspicious. (And you were at that point agreeing that Stoofer was suspicious.) Or are you saying that *those* would have been less suspicious actions for me? (And again, how is what I did more likely to be a gambit than what massive did?)

You had the air of accepting that Stoofer was likely going to die, if not then then soon, and you seemed to be hoping to preemptively launch a discrediting strike against me.

---

mathcam:

<snip>
That said, I think we're currently past the "if nothing else" phase. I'd probably still use it as a tie-breaker.

I have some problems with it, but I agree that there are enough other suspicions that I don’t think it’ll at this point in the game, despite your attempts to weasel it in as a “tiebreaker”.

---

massive:

I wasn't trying to "explain away" Stoofer's suspicious activities, and for you to categorize it as such indicates that you are only responding to KingPin's post and not going back to read them for yourself. Which is odd, when you seemed to understand where my train of thought was in [188].

I’m using KingPin’s categorization because I’m trying to show that I think he was lying about who he thought suspicious. I don’t actually don’t agree with it. (Although on reread I find it odd how Stoofer ignored you in favor of me/mneme in his “guaranteed mafia” counterattack, as well as KingPin’s treatment of you, those are stronger points against Stoofer/KingPin than you.)

If you don’t like that portrayal, why don’t you ask KingPin about it, instead of me?

[EmpTyger]

mneme:

<snip>
Claiming "mneme did X for Y reasons" when all the text of the thread indicates that mneme did X for Z reasons is either a claim of mind-reading or a flat-out lie. Which is it?
<snip>

Well, let’s clear this up right now then. As exactly as you can, what is “Z”? I want to be certain we’re talking about the same things.

Re you having potential information that would negate TSN's info re Primate: Would this info also potentially affect Primate's claimed night action and your still losing your vote?

Not directly. Potentially through interactions compounded interactions. I have no way of knowing with the information I currently have.

[EmpTyger]

mneme:
...Do you have any interest in clearing this up? Or, now that your attack on TSN has failed, are you trying to salvage something of it with an attack on me? I’d rather not put words in your mouth, but you’re not leaving me with much choice.

<snip>
Claiming "mneme did X for Y reasons" when all the text of the thread indicates that mneme did X for Z reasons is either a claim of mind-reading or a flat-out lie. Which is it?
<snip>

You keep restating my "X for Y" parts, which I perfectly understand, and ignoring what I'm actually asking you about, "Z".
We agree that:
X = you attacked TSN
Y = TSN defending Primate

You won’t clarify what Z equals. So if this is wrong, blame yourself. I gave you plenty of chances.
Here are the reasons you gave earlier:

<snip>
1. Backed off on his defense of Primate and refused to make it useful, as well as refusing to tie his alignment to Primate's in any even vague fashion.

2. Deliberately misrepresented my position (re massclaims) for rhetorical purposes. Including, at several points, lying. "In other news, we can ignore mneme's objections since he concedes it has nothing to do with whether it would be useful in the game." er, what?

3. Asked his ridiculous leading question which seemed intended to elicit a half-claim for no reason.
<snip>

Z better not be (3). TSN had a reason for his leading question, and if you were telling the truth in [318] you should have realized it immediately. (And for the record, if there is a massclaim, this is a strong reason why you should go towards the beginning.)

Z can’t be (2), because in [308] you said that TSN had committed OMGUS. Which means that, according to you, TSN’s attack on you came after you attacked him.

So that leaves (1). And your defense has been to ignore it or to grandstand with unsupported denunciations and double-dog dares or to call me and anyone who disagrees with you “lying scum”. TSN, me, mathcam, Johoohno (presumably, by his vote), and Stoofer all have disagreed with you, and you can’t dismiss all of us by calling us “lying scum”. (KingPin and massive seemed to share some suspicious of TSN earlier, but they’ve been quiet regarding your attack.) No one has outright (except maybe passively massive, by virtue of him leaving his vote on TSN) agreed with your points.


…But, here’s the silly thing. I actually am less suspicious of you than others on my list, despite this. Rather, I think that you are stubbornly incapable of admitting you could be wrong, and I believe you would immaturely rather call out anyone who has a legitimate disagreements with you as “lying scum”, rather than admit that you have the wrong definition of ad hominem and hypocrisy and meta. I’m leaning towards your innocence not because it’s a decent excuse for your recent behavior, but only because I’m having a really hard time despite my frequent attempts to plausibly connect you to others I am finding most suspicious. (Which, actually, is similar to what I’m thinking about Primate’s lurking.)

But it’s D1. I could be wrong about Stoofer and massive and KingPin, or TSN and DotS, or anyone. If you’re going to be as unhelpful as possible, then maybe I’m just overthinking this.

[EmpTyger]

mathcam/Johoohno:
Deja vu, but if mneme is mafia, who do you think is mafia with him?

[EmpTyger]

I’m not going to argue with mneme, because he is clearly not interested in having a honest discussion. If anyone else wants I fuller rebuttal for any point he has argued about me, him, TSN, or massclaims, ask and I’ll provide one. I will point out the most glaring contradictions, so that hopefully no one takes any of his rantings seriously.

<snip>
Actually, we don't.

TSN didn't defend Primate.

Aside from my not remembering to count, this was the mistake with my Primate vote -- because pushing Primate up toward lynch wasn't useful pressure against TSN, who acted as he should in that case, as if, aside from wanting to reveal that he might have semi-useful info, he didn't care that much whether Primate was lynched.
<snip>

And an OMGUS, too.

TSN, your defense of Primate was protown,

but that only goes so far.

Anyway, see you Monday. Same bat time, same bat channel.

<snip>
Hell, you also lied;

I've not called anyone lying scum (you do know the quotes mean that it's what I actually said, right?)

nor have I claimed anyone lied...except Stoof (about his own thought processes, after he admited to same) and oh, right, you. So "anyone who disagrees with me" is either Stoof and you, or it's TSN, you, cam, jono, and Stoof. It can't be both, you know.
<snip>

<snip>
Stoofer: Re primate, nothing's changed. But then, my only reason to consider him scummy was his claim, and while TSN's non-defense isn't actually useful for validating the claim, it does tie (vaguely) indicate that -if- TSN is not scum, Primate might not be

lying scum

.
<snip>

(it’s phrased circuitously, but it comes out to mneme is saying that Primate is lying scum, since he’s been arguing that TSN is scum.)

<snip>
So overall, I'd characterize him as "

lying scum

, trying to buddy up to a townie" making TSN as scum, and Primate as townie. Or he could be lying scum trying to save a buddy without tying their alignments together and trying to avoid hinting at a role he can't prove. Either way, we should lynch TSN.
<snip>

If I had any hope that Primate would respond, I would ask him for an unvote, because I guess I do need to prioritize pairings involving mneme, and that will require going back to square 1.

---

Fonz:

<snip>
Hang on. Are you saying whether or not avoiding the quicklynch is only protown if the victim is town, Emp? Because as far as i can see, townies don't know the alignment of anyone else, so therefore the instinct to not quicklynch is universal.
<snip>

If the victim is mafia, then you are correct that a townsperson has reasons to avoid a quicklynch. But a mafia also then has reasons to avoid the quicklynch- namely, they don’t want their comafia to die! So, if the victim is not town, then it cannot be concluded that the quicklynch-avoided is protown.

In this case, KingPin thought the victim (Primate) was mafia, and so should have had no basis to conclude that the quicklynch-avoider (Fonz) was protown. But KingPin’s logic makes sense if he was lying about his assessments- which is consistent with the other problems I found.

[EmpTyger]

EBWODP:
Sorry, that last line should read quicklynch-avoide*r*. Fixed below:

---

If the victim is mafia, then you are correct that a townsperson has reasons to avoid a quicklynch. But a mafia also then has reasons to avoid the quicklynch- namely, they don’t want their comafia to die! So, if the victim is not town, then it cannot be concluded that the quicklynch-avoider

quicklynch-avoided

is protown.

In this case, KingPin thought the victim (Primate) was mafia, and so should have had no basis to conclude that the quicklynch-avoider (Fonz) was protown. But KingPin’s logic makes sense if he was lying about his assessments- which is consistent with the other problems I found.

[EmpTyger]

Johoohno:

mathcam/Johoohno:
Deja vu, but if mneme is mafia, who do you think is mafia with him?

Is it really wise to speculate on pairings day 1?

Fair enough, and maybe that’s the answer. It’s just a little hard for me to get my heart behind mneme, when it flies against every observation I made before.

(Though in general, absolutely I’ll speculate on pairings on Day N if I have reason to, since there’s no guarantee I’ll be alive and able to on Day N+1. But that’s not to set up dominos- there should be full reevaluation on Day N+1.)

---

Fonz:

Emp- my problem is that you said this:

But if he’s guilty- which you thought at the time, think now, and have thought all day- then it’s a point *against* Fonz.

Which implies that not quicklynching a scum would be an indication of scumminess, when the natural town reaction is not to quicklynch, precisely because you don't know the alignment of that player. I'd agree that not quicklynching does not score on the town side of the ledger if the player in danger is scum, but I have a *very* hard time to see how doing so could ever count *against* a player.

That could have been more completely accurate, I suppose. I was focusing only on the anti-case at that point because the pro-case wasn’t in doubt, and I had already tried 3 times and gotten stonewalled.

<snip>
But then, I HATE massclaims in almost all situations. I believe them to be generally detrimental wherever a mod is remotely competent, and I don't believe the circumstances of this game make it any better as an idea.
<snip>

I think this is the crux of the massclaiming dispute. I do believe the circumstances of this game make it better as an idea. Although I’m not sure what to say or try that I haven’t already.

---

mneme:
<deliberately ignoring>

[EmpTyger]

Everybody list 3 people you’d be willing to lynch. Reasons are welcome, but promptness more so. (Primate, you can list 6 )

[Isn’t mathcam currently voting mneme?]

[EmpTyger]

Stoofer:
Maybe instead of hypocritically whining about how the town has made no progress towards a lynch after 17 pages (I’d ask where’s your protown effort has been, but don’t bother answering- we don’t have the luxury of allowing you to stall), you could, you know, do the protown thing and not completely ignore my very effort to progress towards a lynch. So, again:

Everybody list 3 people you’d be willing to lynch. Reasons are welcome, but promptness more so.
<snip>

[EmpTyger]

No one else vote Primate just yet; there is still work to be done today. For reference: someone will be lynched at deadline with 4 votes out of 6 cast or 5 votes out of 7 cast.

DotS was supposedly going to after dinner.
Fonz is V/LA until tomorrow.
mneme will presumably be back from his weekend absence sometime today.
Primate is a lost cause.

---

massive/KingPin:
My request for a list weren’t just a blah-de-blah “who are you suspicious of” conversation starter. Everyone has had plenty of time to say their piece. (Which is not to imply that there aren’t plenty of analyzable things in this most recent page. Because there are, and when everyone has listed I’ll get to them.) Rather, the town has been deadlocked, and we need to know who exactly people are willing to *vote* other than their top suspect, because as things stood, we wouldn’t have a lynch at deadline.

So, my list is meaningless, because I don’t have a vote. I can’t do anything directly to help obtain a majority before deadline. (Yes, it would list who I’m suspicious of, but we don’t have the time to rehash what’s already plain to read in-thread.)

Now, your lists indicate that there are only 2 people you’d be willing to lynch, out of the max 3 I asked for. Temporarily assume that Primate and Stoofer or Primate and TSN are unlynchable for whatever reason. Would you be no-lynching in that situation? If not, name a third player.

[EmpTyger]

I suggest that, unless there is objection, someone hammer Primate in 48 hours. This gives everyone a chance to make final thoughts, while leaving enough time to prevent last minute shenanigans.

---

Now, I have indicated a powerrole, I have been active despite a perfect excuse not to, and I took the initiative to prevent a no-lynch. I would not be shocked if I do not make it through the night. To prevent lost information: know that last night I targeted Stoofer/mathcam. Tonight- I’ll DotS/Fonz if Primate is innocent, and DotS/TSN if Primate is guilty. Remember when you’re wasting time puzzling it out that you have the same problems as today, only the mafia have gotten a chance to coordinate their claims. Seriously, if you take only one thing away from this post, it’s

do not trust nightabilities

.

If you take only 2 things away from this post:

Stoofer needs to die by end of tomorrow.

It is a testament to how much trouble the town is in that he will have lived this long. Look at the big picture. Take a look at all Stoofer’s behavior today. I’m not going to repeat all that he’s done that’s unhelpful to the town, because enough of you seem to be far too good at buying his excuses. (Although I’ll add how he was trying to rush mneme into lynching Primate for no good reason, right after I said not to.)

So instead I’ll challenge you to list his *protown* behavior. (To begin this I nominate DotS, Johoohno, mathcam, and TSN, who didn’t want to lynch Stoofer today.) Stoofer has all these myriad reasons why his unhelpful actions shouldn’t be held against him. But where is him trying to be helpful? (I asked this before in [219] and I seem to remember the only one replying to it was Stoofer, but I can’t seem to find his post right now- as I recall, it was that he defended himself, which is certainly not something that antitowns wouldn’t do. I’ll concede that if Primate is revealed as mafia, lynching Primate would count in his favor.)

KingPin needs to be raked over the coals. He’s been lurking-in-plain-sight all game, posting the least he can to go by without notice, and always taking non-controversial positions. His only action has been to offer moderate support to the 2 leading bandwagons (Primate, Stoofer), but never to the point of actually doing anything. The one time he did comment on other players: I’ve explained why it’s fraudulent. His refusal to name who he would lynch- in a deadline situation is icing on the cake.

But there are points which can be made against almost every player here. So reanalyze tomorrow.

---

massive:

<snip>I'm willing to lynch Primate, TSN, and ... ??? I should have voted Primate a long time ago, but keep getting distracted by this TSN stuff.

unvote, vote Primate

Sorry, my list was in my original post and I must have backspaced over it to vote.
<snip>

Interesting way of backspacing you’ve got there. I think when all is said and done, you’re still number 3 on my suspect list.

---

DotS:
The town does not have the luxury of having its confirmed innocents lurk. You want to know why so many suspect you? Because you are hurting the town in the same way that Primate has been. So either mafia get to opportunistically foist suspicion on a townsperson, or innocents get distracted from better targets.

[EmpTyger]

KingPin:

Hey Emp,
Why should I post three people when there is a player at L-1? I do not plan on unvoting at this point!

Why is the magic number 3?

The funniest part about your icing on the cake comment is that IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Temporarily assume that you’re protown. You’re saying that you won’t reveal who you want to lynch.
Why not? Here are the reasons you *should*:
You could die overnight and the town could lose whatever insight you have.
You provide other players with an excuse to hide their own suspicions.
It was not a moot point at the time- when you posted, only 5 had listed Stoofer.

The “magic” number is 3 because we need to go beyond first choices for voting. I felt second choices could deadlock too, and since we faced deadline, I chose 3. And everyone else did without a problem. Instead, you played games with your selection and hid your suspicions. This is utterly antitown.

So no, I won't abide by your every request.

Oh and Rake away.
-------

If you’re not going to abide by my request, then I’m going to demand an explanation why you’re taking an antitown course instead, in contrast to every single other player in this game (except of course the shining example of Primate). And then argue very strongly for your death when you can’t give one.

The raking is an instruction for players around tomorrow. If that includes me, well and good. But if not, I don’t want this already-too-lazy town to ignore this.

<snip>
On a side note, how much time do you devote to this game? I bet it coincides with your post count right? Mine too.

It “coincides” with Rule 11, which sets the expectation that players post at least every day. This game has lasted about 2 months, and I’ve made 60 posts. Which is about an average of 1/day.

I’m not sure what you’re implying here, but if it’s that your participation is as much as or more proper than mine, here’s why you are wrong.

---

DotS:

Yes, my absence was anti-town, but no, not in the way Primate's has been. Was there an actual demand for my presence? Was I the centre of discussion? No. And yes, this could very well be attributed to my lack of posting, but while I was active earlier, I still wasn't a hot topic.

My confusion came from the fact that next to no one had even mentioned me for ages. Then, suddenly, people are putting me on their top 3 lynches lists. I think that's odd, is all.
<snip>

No, it is in the way Primate’s has been. And the fact that so many are saying so- more than can possibly be mafia- should be all the proof that you need of this. *All* protowns have an obligation to try to find antitowns. If they don’t, it’s the surest sign that they’re not. It doesn’t matter if your at the center of discussion (and lying low is hardly a sign of innocence). It doesn’t matter if there’s demand. It doesn’t matter if there’s precedent in-thread. You (as a protown player)- and the town- cannot win unless its members participate. It’s not odd- it is fundamental.

[EmpTyger]

Primate is currently at lynch-1, TSN is promising to cast the final vote. Anyone who has anything to add about that has had opportunity to. In light of mathcam’s alleged promise to contribute today, I suggest that the lynching vote be done Friday night, about 24 hours before deadline.

TSN:
Will you definitely be able to cast the lynching vote before deadline?

Johoohno/mneme
In case something happens to TSN, can either of you guarantee that you can cast a lynching vote on Saturday before the deadline?

mathcam:
Read and type fast. I’ve explained why in the section below to DotS why the deadline lynch is too fragile to be relied on. It will not be tolerated if this gets stalled to an accidental no-lynch while waiting for you to do what you should have already done.

---

DotS:

I wasn't even lurking or

trying

to lay low. I'd missed pages of the game mostly through inattentiveness.

And the fact that so many are saying so- more than can possibly be mafia- should be all the proof that you need of this.

I've only noticed you suggesting my absence was as bad as Primate's.

The rest of that paragraph doesn't do anything to explain how what I did was scummy. Bad play, sure, I'm not arguing with that in the slightest, but scummy, to the point of being enough to base a lynch on? I

really

can't see the reasoning there.

Get it through your head quick, then. No, it’s not just me. TSN and Johoohno explicitly mentioned you as worse than Primate. mathcam and mneme were also willing to lynch you.

(And if your lurking is worse than Primate’s, your reading comprehension is worse than mneme’s. TSN, in the most recent post, said just that.)

Fonz, I realise you think he's not scum, but why? Just his claim alone? You don't think scum could have the same role? And with about 2 days to go until deadline, Stoofer at L-4 and Primate at L-1, I'm not sure how viable a counter-wagon that really is. Again, if you think it's really that much better a lynch and worth trying to realise in 2 days, go for it. Otherwise, at the very least, unvote.

Johoohno get's -ve points for keeping his vote on mneme.

No. Unvoting will not be necessary because if anyone wants to disrupt a deadline lynch, they can no matter what. Because of Primate’s doublevote, there will always be 2 non-Primate votes outstanding. Which means that the possibilities of a non-regular-lynch supermajority can only be 4 out of 6 cast or 5 out of 7. Either way, anyone voting Primate can disrupt it by unvoting (making it 3/6 or 4/7, both less than the supermajority), and anyone not voting Primate can disrupt it by voting someone else (making it 4/7 or 5/8. So if we have consensus to lynch Primate- and we do- it may as well be done by majority vote.

You are really lucky you are guaranteed innocent.

[EmpTyger]

“Guaranteed” is too strong a word, I suppose, since it implies mod-confirmation. But he is definitely innocent. Refer to [170].

Also, typo in my [433]- should have said Primate, not Stoofer. Sorry.

<snip>
It was not a moot point at the time- when you posted, only 5 had listed

Stoofer

Primate.
<snip>

---

KingPin:

Emp,
I would lynch you.

There are more than a few people that I have at or around number three. You are at the top of my list.

Nah, I don’t believe it. There’s no protown reason for you not to have said so at the time. I think at this point your just resorting to OMGUS to try to make this go away. If you truly were suspicious “all game”, “all day”, then why did *I* need to drag this out of you just now?

If you want everyone else to post a list like I did, why didn't you DEMAND it sooner?

When people didn’t immediately comply (ie Stoofer, massive), I did press them. Everyone else (except Primate) did comply, except for you.

And “sooner”? Are you asking why I didn’t try to prevent a no-lynch at deadline *before* a deadline was announced? I demanded it hours after the deadline was announced. When do *you* think I should have?

<snip>
Just because you have more free time should not make all others more scummy because they have not participated as much as you have. You are again fabricating an argument which is false.

That’s not what I’m not attacking you for. I’m attacking you for not playing protown in the posts that you have made. There was no protown reason for you not to say who you would lynch before deadline. You were the one who dragged postcounts into this.

---

Johoohno:
Deadline is around 11:30pm GMT Saturday night. You or anyone who can, lynch Primate any time Saturday if he hasn’t been already. I’d rather it not be cut that close, but mathcam should get a chance for his final post.

[EmpTyger]

DotS:

<snip>
I don't see how my 'lurking', if you want to keep calling it that, was more anti-town than Primate's. I've already explained why, and in the context of this day, I think that's clear enough.
<snip>

From the context of no one is agreeing with you and 4 players are agreeing with me, I think that’s clear enough.
*You* don’t get to be the judge of whether your own behavior is antitown.

---

KingPin:

<snip>
I said no to posting three because I thought it stupid. I still think it is stupid. To me there were two wagons, the one I was on, and Stoofer. Your little post about posting a third made it sound like you wanted a third option when we had two very viable options.

Fact check:

The votecount when I asked for 3 agreeable lynches was: 3 Primate, 2 mneme, 2 Stoofer, 1 TSN, 1 Johooho. (And it’s actually less, since that includes Primate’s inactive doublevote) The Stoofer and Primate wagons had 2-3 votes after the better part of 2 months. That’s not “viable”, not when deadline is a week away.

Moreover, the tallies when you only listed 2 agreeable lynches were: 4 Primate, 2 Stoofer, 2 mneme, 1 Johoohno. At that time, with only 5 people having already responded, the willing-to-lynch tallies were:
5: Primate
3: DotS, mneme
1: Johoohno, TSN, EmpTyger

So, no matter how you look at it, “there were two wagons, the one I was on [Primate], and Stoofer” is just not true.

By announcing a third option it appeared that you wanted to give an out to either Primate or Stoofer. Which would be dumb. By allowing the thought of a third option makes it sound like you want the day to end in a no lynch.
<snip>

Fact check:

Of the 6 people who were willing to lynch Primate, 2 of them (TSN and Johoohno) listed him as their third choice.

Johoohno
DOTS
Primate (I guess)
<snip>

Mneme
DotS
Primate (only if to avoid a no-lynch, I prefer the other two)

If third choices are ignored, here are the tallies:
6: Primate
3: Stoofer
2: mneme. DotS
1: Johoohno, massive, TSN, EmpTyger, KingPin

With third choices:
8: Primate
4: Stoofer, DotS
3: mneme
2: mathcam
1: Johoohno, massive, TSN, EmpTyger, KingPin

The 2-choices would have been more likely to mislynch than the 3-choices one. It would have needs only 1 person for sabotage. So, “By allowing the thought of a third option makes it sound like you want the day to end in a no lynch” is completely backwards.

Just for the record, what about my posts are not pro-town.

You put so much more effort into obstructing people helping the town and so little effort into actually catching suspicious players. You weakly supported the Primate and Stoofer bandwagons but left advancing them to others. The only exception to this general behavior (the list of your suspicions in [165]) I’ve explained why I think it’s fraudulent. And I mean, *I* had to drag your most recent accusation against me out of you kicking and screaming, when protowns should be almost always automatically be saying who they want to lynch.

(Sorry, I don’t have time to devote a post-by-post to you. I’m sure you understand all about deciding how much time to devote to this game. Maybe you can use that to hit 5 “You suck”s in your next attempt to get people to ignore me?)

[EmpTyger]

I hate not voting Stoofer at my first opportunity, but at the moment, I actually feel better about KingPin. I’m not too sure mneme’s alignment will reveal anything, but I think I want to reread anyhow.

---

Johoohno:
DotS and Fonz happen to be the 2 I think most innocent. So I’m really curious what this connection of yours is.

[EmpTyger]

Hm. I had read “Johoohno has photocopied his ballot” as him = mneme, meaning Johoohno took mneme’s vote. But it’s not unambiguous.

---

Johoohno:
I’m running out of eyebrows to raise…

<snip>
That took part a long way back, and is a very small thing. Though, I think I'll leave my votes where they are nonetheless (Emptyger's claim that The Fonz is townish is the main reason).

You *don’t* think that Fonz is townish? He unvoted immediately to prevent the early quicklynch of Primate (who is now confirmed as town). And Fonz was the only one with a vote who didn’t want to lynch Primate in the end. I mean, who has been *more* protown than that?

For that matter, based on what you’re implying with “Emptyger's claim that The Fonz is townish is the main reason”, why aren’t you voting *me* instead? (Was the mafia plan to give me a wide berth and hope I stayed focused on someone protown?)

What’s changed since yesterday regarding massclaims? Yesterday you said:

<snip>
Let's say we go down that way, scum already know quite about this setup (knowing each others role, powers or no powers, Greasy Spot's role and something about Primate and TSN - unless those are scums that is). They can probably easily make up fake claims and how are we to discern what's true or not Day 1? They on the other hand will know a lot about what roles are in circulation and can pick nightkills with great precision. If they, on top of that, gets to know how the powerroles stargeted they will be even more informed, whereas the town will have even more false information trying to filter.
<snip>

But now you are saying:

<snip>
On the claiming part: I'm actually considering a "claim one - claim all", now that we've had another night under our belts (and night choices has been made based on some kind of analysis, in contrast to N0 chicoes).

---

DotS;

<snip>
After Primate's lynch, his role and its mechanics were revealed to us. This makes me think that it might be worthwhile for us to reveal who we targeted without saying why or how. This way, even if we die, any extra info we have will be available without us having to roleclaim earlier than is needed.
<snip>

This is better than nothing, I suppose, and was the theory behind why I announced my nighttargets at the end of D1. But to me it seems suboptimal- I think it gives mafia more information than the town more than a fuller claim would.

[EmpTyger]

massive:

<snip>
Stoofer's now the SECOND person to do it in this game. Amazingly enough, it doesn't irritate me any less. Didn't we stop playing "I know something you don't know" in grade school?

He’s actually the third- TSN and I did so also yesterday. And I hate to begrudge Stoofer this, but there could be legitimacy for his hesitation. (Not that there couldn’t also be illegitimate reasons for it. The “Am I to reveal it?” feels like Stoofer is trying to wave the fakeclaim he decided on overnight, rather than genuinely help the town.)

The point is, without collective action, it’s going to be up to individual discretion. And as much as you may dislike it, there will certainly be situations in which limited revelation is best. If you want to do something about it, don’t attack the player- you won’t get anywhere, because you are substituting your discretion (when you have limited knowledge of the situation) for that player’s. You have to get collective support.

I would be in favor of a better-late-than-never massclaim.

---

Johoohno:

<snip>
Man, is it that simple to earn almost guaranteed town status in the house of EmpTyger?

Man, is it that simple to earn almost most suspicious status in the house of Johoohno?

About the voting I think you can relax, we're only hours in on this day. My votes will likely change during the course of day. Sometime during this D2 I'll do a reread and reevaluate my gathered notes so far. For now, I'm just stirring the pot a bit.
<snip>

I think you misunderstand. I’m not concerned about *Fonz* getting lynched- in fact, I would be shocked if he received a second vote. For that matter, I would be shocked if he were in anyone else’s top half, much less their top 2.
No, I’m concerned that *you* are mafia. Very concerned. So concerned I nearly voted you right here, but I’m going to reread D1 first.

As for claiming: I quoted and asked what I did because D1, you were concerned about fakeclaims and false information. But today, mafia have a better opportunity to fakeclaim and give false information- but all of a sudden your previous objections are gone and you’ve found a reason to be in favor.

[EmpTyger]

I found myself hesitating on voting Johoohno because I still had a strong feeling about Stoofer. But I don’t really have anything to say about Stoofer that I didn’t have to say yesterday, and not enough agreed that he was suspicious yesterday, so frustratingly it doesn’t really seem like it makes sense to waste my time with that today with another target. (Same with KingPin, to a lesser degree.) If anyone has reconsidered, though, please let me know.

Vote: Johoohno.

---

Johoohno:

<snip>
I wouldn't say he is #1 scum on my list, but he sure is on it.
<snip>

Really? Right now, your vote says that Fonz is number 1 or 2 on your list. So who’s higher on your list than Fonz (other than DotS)?
For that matter, is anyone more protown to you than Fonz?

I did a quick reread of your posts, and didn’t find any reason not to vote you.
When I was arguing that KingPin prematurely declared Fonz town, before Primate’s alignment was known, you had nothing to say. But now that I’m saying that Fonz is town, *after* Primate’s alignment is known- and all of a sudden you think that this is unacceptable.

---

massive:

EmpTyger:

I think there's another thing that's adding to my frustration over it, but I won't reveal what it is unless the town wants me to.
<snip>

lol Next time, don’t sit by quietly while the massclaim advocacy falters.

[EmpTyger]

Before I make a long post against Johoohno, is anyone (other than Stoofer) even remotely close to buying what he’s saying?

---

massive/mathcam:

<snip>
This. Does one of the more vocal advocates against massclaim flipping scum change anyone else's mind?

TSN is referring to mneme, who was strongly against the massclaim and is now revealed to be antitown.

---

<snip>
I am still meh on the massclaim. I don't see what's changed since yesterday, except that scum's had a chance to plan more.

lol I actually agree: there is one reason to massclaim today than there was yesterday. I happen to think it still falls in the should-be-done category.

Right now I count:
EmpTyger, massive, Johoohno for.
mathcam against.
DotS for limited, ? full

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
@EmpTyger: I'd like to see your analysis of Johoohno because the above is all I have against him and I'm not sure it's worth a vote. (The rate at which his has collected votes on this page is a small point in his favour.)

Before I make a long post against Johoohno, is anyone

(other than Stoofer)

even remotely close to buying what he’s saying?
<snip>

---

DotS:

<snip>
For the record, I didn't think Fonz came across as overly town during Day 1. If I hadn't been so sure Primate was scum, I probably would have unvoted too, and I don't know if any other player voting him at the time felt as strongly about Primate as I did. In fact, I'm still uneasy about how Fonz's perception of Primate went from suspicious to so town over the course of the Day.
<snip>

…huh? I feel like I’m missing something here.

Emp, did you go ahead with your night targets as you said you would yesterday?

No, I did not lie to the town.
(Interesting that you’re asking this.)

---

Fonz:

<snip>
I don't see why, though, Emp? Stoof had the biggest wagon of anyone not yet dead. You suspected him, and didn't have a vote yesterday. I don't see why the Stoof wagon is any less viable, and frankly the ease with which you've put it on the back burner makes me wonder about early distancing.
<snip>

To be perfectly honest, I’m feeling sufficiently confident about Johoohno that I wasn’t worrying too much about it. But, “biggest wagon of anyone not yet dead” is a bit misleading- he had 2 votes at the end of the day: you and my long-inactive proxy via Primate. I’m not sure how my casting a vote directly instead of indirectly would have made that bandwagon into “viable”.

[EmpTyger]

Fonz:

<snip>
And your 'sufficient confidence in Johoohno' thing doesn't jibe with your previous statement that you're voting johoohno because you didn't think anyone was going to agree with you on Stoofer. Which do you actually find scummier, in isolation?

In isolation: Stoofer. And if Stoofer and Johoohno were each at lynch-1, that’s who I would be voting for. But that’s not the situation we have here. The game has 2 parts: figuring out who the mafia are, and convincing others to lynch them.

I can’t lynch a player on my own, no matter how convinced of their guilt I am.

Yesterday I argued till I was blue against Stoofer, to no avail. I’m not going to waste my time repeating the same arguments when I have another strong suspect who more agree on.

Because there is not a pool of people willing to vote Stoofer. No one besides you has voted Stoofer today. The only others who have mentioned they are suspicious of him today (mathcam, TSN) are more suspicious of Johoohno. No one else who was undecided or defending him yesterday have replied to my “If anyone has reconsidered, though, please let me know” I put in when explained why I was voting Johoohno. The only one besides us who voted him yesterday (massive; mneme doesn’t count) isn’t pushing today either.

Find 4 others who will vote Stoofer and I’ll admit I was wrong. But right now, there is a pool for Johoohno, he’s very suspicious, and there’re plenty of reasons why he and Stoofer could both be mafia. Don’t like it? Argue with those who don’t think Stoofer is suspicious, who were defending him yesterday, who I couldn’t persuade. Don’t argue with me- I’m trying to make sure that when the town lets Stoofer escape their grasp again, maybe this time the alternative lynch can be someone guilty.

[EmpTyger]

Actually, you know what? I'm not infallible. Maybe I'm wrong, and you're right, and the Stoofer bandwagon *is* viable.

Unvote: Johoohno, vote: Mr Stoofer

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Johoohno's not going anywhere. That's 2 votes on Stoofer; he's now tied for the lead.

[EmpTyger]

The advantage of a targetclaim is to prevent potentially valuable knowledge from being lost in nightkills between now and a future when nightactions get straightened out. The disadvantages are the same as with the massfullclaim- except the mafia has a better chance to benefit more than the town (since they have a greater chance of deducing the full information anyhow). Moreover, this partial claim doesn’t significantly address the underlying issue of the unreliability of nightactions (which Primate’s innocence underscores), which was the primary reason I was advocating a massclaim in the first place.

---

Stoofer:

Well the bandwagon on me saves me from having to think, since the only sensible thing to do now is

vote: Johoohno

to save my skin. That's L-1 or L-2, I think.

So, you’re saying that it’s either Johoohno or yourself. Using that logic, doesn’t that mean that Johoohno has to vote you? And, Johoohno’s 2 votes are going to outweigh your 1.

Also, for the record, here were the protown things you might have done instead of playing WIFOM games:
1) Defend yourself
2) Make an argument on who mafia might be that the town could listen to tomorrow even if you were lynched today.
3) Claim fully.

I guess it was that important to you for Fonz to prove me wrong about your lynchability?

---

DotS:

<snip>
Primate's played this badly as town before?
<snip>

Forgive me, but LOL.

<snip>
For the record, I didn't think Fonz came across as overly town during Day 1. If I hadn't been so sure Primate was scum, I probably would have unvoted too, and I don't know if any other player voting him at the time felt as strongly about Primate as I did. In fact, I'm still uneasy about how Fonz's perception of Primate went from suspicious to so town over the course of the Day.
<snip>

…huh? I feel like I’m missing something here.

? The Fonz joined me in my early vote of Primate for the 'donation' of his vote. As the day went on, it seems like Fonz was pretty much convinced that Primate was town. Is that what was confusing you?

Um, but Primate *was* town. How is being sure that an innocent player is innocent worse than being sure that an innocent player is guilty? And even by your logic, how is the fact that Fonz grew less suspicious of Primate meaningful? I mean, you said that you were most suspicious of Priamte, and that if you were less suspicious you would have unvoted- so isn’t that consistent with Fonz’s actions?

<snip>
Am I allowed to ask why it's interesting that I asked?
<snip>

You’re trying to get me to confirm that I targeted *you*.

Btw, why mathcam?

[EmpTyger]

DotS:

<snip>

Moreover, this partial claim doesn’t significantly address the underlying issue of the unreliability of nightactions (which Primate’s innocence underscores), which was the primary reason I was advocating a massclaim in the first place.

This is why I'm inclined to wait for the cardflip then let the target claims speak for themselves. Town who put the effort in could deduce certain things about a players possible role from who they targeted. Scum can do the same, and probably better, but at least this makes it that much harder for them.
<snip>

So, if we’re waiting for rolereveals, what’s the point of voting mathcam based on a mightresult?

Nightactions are not reliable indicators of alignment in this game.

Any result is just as likely to indicate the exact opposite. Look at what happened with Primate, who was innocent despite being incriminated by nightaction. We still don’t know how I got an extra vote despite Primate’s redirecting me. How can any conclusion be accurately drawn about mathcam?.

If we did a masstargetclaim first, immediately followed by a massroleclaim, would that be acceptable to you?

[EmpTyger]

Nail in Stoofer’s coffin: if he were genuinely innocent, why would he blurt out that the mafia can’t claim vanilla safely, when we’re discussing doing a massclaim or a targetclaim today? Seriously, talk about waving a fakeclaim decided on overnight, rather than genuinely helping the town.

---

Here’s my massclaim consensus tally:
For: EmpTyger, Johoohno, TSN, massive
Against: Fonz
Targets only: DotS, KingPin
Reconsidering: mathcam
Hasn’t said but at this point opinion doesn’t matter: Stoofer

6-2 or 7-1 is a clear consensus to claim targets. I propose the following order:
Johoohno
mathcam
KingPin
massive
Fonz
DotS
TSN
[Stoofer and I have already gone]

Any objections/suggestions to the order?

---

KingPin:

<snip>
The mass-claim in that game came almost as a reflex, since hey I am the town cop, how can you be the town cop. Or maybe it was called cops and mobbers (I'll look again) and we knew there were a lot of cops in the game without knowing if our results would be skewed one direction or another. I for the life of me cannot remember how the game concluded, but I think it was a town win. In short, mass target claiming may provide more information for the town than for scum. I believe this is a compromise that I can make. It will lock in targets, which can then be weighed against the role claims later (I am still not sold on full role reveal).

The primary purpose of a massclaim here is not to trap the mafia in fakeclaims. (It’s certainly a potential fringe benefit. But if that were the only point, there’s no reason to not do it D1.) Instead, the point of a massclaim here is to untangle nightactions.

<snip>
Can anyone give a reason for DoTS's results being off? I cannot.

Can anyone give a reason for my losing my vote D1 despite Primate preventing anyone from targeting me N1? I cannot… but, it clearly happened.

[EmpTyger]

massive:

I'd prefer going later if no one has any objections; my role is immediately provable.
<snip>

I designed the order so that players who hadn’t made partial revelations went before those who had. Since KingPin wants to see Fonz higher anyhow, flip it so you go after him? Then you’ll go last among those who haven’t claimed anything yet.

The WIFOM answer to Stoofer's claim is definitely that it's an easy-to-fake claim, now knowing that not only is the serial "killer" dead (so a fake claim won't randomly turn up dead) but also nicely ties in to the known information. But it's even more WIFOM to assume that the Mafia, working in conjunction, came up with fake claims for all of them that including ONE townie.

I don’t understand this- are you just playing WIFOM with yourself there? Because… don’t do that.

---

KingPin:

<snip>
You know there is one way to sort this out, lynch him. On the other hand, suppose he is telling the truth. I agree that Stoofer has played badly, very badly. I do not know whether to doubt his claim or believe it. It would seem to fit with certain other game aspects. And, if lynching him proves that all other players have roles, it is a small plus for the town.

The reason for the town to be lynching Stoofer is *not* to modconfirmed roleknowledge. The reason would be because we believe him to be guilty.

However, if we lynch him, assuming a 3 person mafia, the town is then thrown into a very tight place.

What alternative would you propose? I mean, if we’re talking absolute worst cases, is there any plan in which not lynching Stoofer leaves the town in a less tight place?

<snip>
I don't care about the order, I'll go first if you'd like. I would like to see Fonz and Mathcam nearer to the top, though.

Okay about mathcam, but why Fonz nearer to the top, but not Johoohno?

---

Stoofer:
Your distortion is the exact inverse of what I actually said.
What I said: If Stoofer is innocent, then his claim is false.
What you’ve twisted my words into: If Stoofer is guilty, then his claim is true.

Nail in Stoofer’s coffin:

if he were genuinely innocent,

why would he blurt out that the mafia can’t claim vanilla safely, when we’re discussing doing a massclaim or a targetclaim today? Seriously, talk about waving a fakeclaim decided on overnight, rather than genuinely helping the town.

There is something wrong with you.

If I am Scum,

how would I know that "the mafia can't claim vanilla safely"?

Furthermore, your whole post is premised on the basis that it is indeed true that "mafia can't claim vanilla safely" -- i.e. I am telling the truth.
<snip>

My post is premised on the basis of reducing to absurdity the *explicitly stated assumption* that you could be innocent (which I just highlighted in blue, along with your distortion). Do I need to get even more Logic 101 about this for anyone (other than Stoofer)? We’re waiting on Johoohno anyway, so I won’t mind.

[EmpTyger]

KingPin:

<snip>
If he were scum, why would he throw in additional information? It just doesn't make sense to put all that information out there as scum. Which is why I think we need to evaluate why he claimed like he did.
<snip>

Case 1: Stoofer lied about his claim.

Case 2: Stoofer told the truth about his claim. Then vanilla is not a safeclaim for mafia. Either the mafia knew this, or they didn’t.

Case 2A: The mafia didn’t know that they can’t safeclaim vanilla.
Then Stoofer, right when we’re agreeing to do a targetclaim, unpromptedly tells the mafia what not to claim.

Case 2B: The mafia knew that they can’t safeclaim vanilla
Then at the very least Stoofer’s claim does nothing to establish his innocence, and there’s all the preclaim suspicious behavior suggesting just how Stoofer knew this. And, unless he is guilty, he has no way of knowing that it is this case, and not 2A.

So, in which case in Stoofer behaving protown?

<snip>

What alternative would you propose? I mean, if we’re talking absolute worst cases, is there any plan in which not lynching Stoofer leaves the town in a less tight place?

Short answer, lynch the player who turned up scum in night results. I know that this assumes that scum can mess with results and won't give that information to the town. But, by providing night targets, we would have some idea of how those results should be interpreted.

If you’re going to assume that Stoofer’s telling the truth, then that means that there are at least 7 protown powerroles. Which means that there have to be either antitown powerroles or inaccurate protown powerroles to balance. How would lynching based on nightactions instead of suspicions account for this?

(Not to imply that something like DotS’s on mathcam should be ignored forever. But, I think it is foolish to think that a nightaction is more reliable, especially prior to a fullclaim.)

<snip>

I don’t understand this- are you just playing WIFOM with yourself there? Because… don’t do that.

Why not? Providing possible theories is an excellent way to play the game, which is how I read that post.

If it’s just brainstorming, okay. But I couldn’t tell how far massive was going when he was calling it “WIFOM”.

---

TSN:

Regarding stoofer's claim: Why are, after agreeing that we couldn't trust role information to relate to alignment, immediately trying to tie stoofer's alignment to his role claim?

My argument against Stoofer is not based on night information, but his actions during the day. It’s not what he claimed- it’s how he claimed it. See above.

(And, also, almost everything else he has done D1 and D2.)

[EmpTyger]

DotS:

<snip>

Hasn’t said but at this point opinion doesn’t matter: Stoofer

Why doesn't it matter? I'd still like to know what Stoofer thinks about mass-/target-claiming.
<snip>

It doesn’t matter because
1) He’s had plenty of opportunity to weigh in today on massclaims, and hasn’t even pretended to have any interest in doing so. (Seriously, if you read his posts in isolation, you’d have no idea that a massclaim was being discussed.)
2) He himself has already claimed, so we don’t need to wait on him.
3) There’s already a supermajority who wanted a targetclaim.
4) I (and others) think he’s antitown.

This does raise a good point against Stoofer, though.
Temporarily assuming he was innocent: why didn’t he support a massclaim, especially D1? Because, he should have known that mafia would have either had to (a) claim honestly (which is good for the town), (b) fakeclaim a role (which especially with the mafia uncoordinated D1, would have greatly risked discovery), or (c) fakeclaim vanilla (which he would have been able to expose as a lie).
Instead, he has only commented on a massclaim once, in [247], in which he takes a weak stand against massclaim. That doesn’t fit with his “sole vanilla” claim.

(There’s some other stuff in your post that I’m not sure is prudent for me to respond to, at least not before the targetclaim is finished.)

---

Stoofer:
I know that your pure ad hominem is just you trying to dismiss the arguments against you by casting this all as just something personal, but, seriously, what response do you expect to “It's this sort of thing which makes me think that there is something wrong with you.”?

[EmpTyger]

Fonz:

<snip>
Who do you think are Stoofer's cronies?
<snip>

I'd also like to hear your answer to this.

[EmpTyger]

Johoohno did indicate V/LA until today.

[EmpTyger]

Yes, and he's active on site...

[EmpTyger]

Unvote: Stoofer

. That was very enlightening, and it is just beginning. I am so not ready for a lynch.

I realize that there is no consensus, but I would propose the following order for claims.
mathcam
DotS
Fonz
TSN
KingPin
[I was going to place myself between Fonz and TSN, but someone less biased can insert me into that list.]

*However*, mathcam and DotS are the important ones. I expect that result to be very interesting.
(Ideally, having Fonz and me go makes a lot of sense, too.)

---

massive/everyone else

<snip>
Do you think that it would be likely that the town would have a target redirector AND a target switcher?

I’m not commenting on whether you’re right or wrong, but let’s not try to outguess the mod *before* people claim, whenever that may be, hm?

[EmpTyger]

@ Emptyger

: According to your post 425 your night choices are:
N1 - Stoofer/mathcam
N2: DotS/Fonz
Are we to understand that mathcam and Fonz are backups or not?

Before anyone else claims a role, I really want to be clear on EMpTyger's targets: Back ups or dual targets?

Backups.

[EmpTyger]

DotS:
This is no longer about a massclaim, or a consensus to. This is about *me* demanding that specifically *you* claim. I am accusing you of lying. And I am honoring the insubstantial chance that there’s some explanation I haven’t considered by giving you a chance to claim.

(Primate first called the secondary choices “backups”. I know the term is inaccurate, but it was not worth getting into a semantic argument over it back then. And it still is not worth it.)

[EmpTyger]

DotS:
Both N1 and N2 you targeted you targeted 2 players. One died, the other you voted (Primate first thing D1, mathcam saying that it was from a nightresult). So, since Primate was innocent, how could you conclude that mathcam is guilty?

---

Johoohno:
You suspected mneme/DotS at the end of D1, and suspected DotS/Fonz at the start of D2… and yet overnight you targeted *none* of those people. Instead, you targeted TSN and massive, and KingPin and me. Why?

---

mathcam:
I do not think you *need* to explain more at this time. Reveal or not as you feel would be of most use for the town.

Speaking of being useful for the town, quit the WIFOM.

<snip>
Surely you'd believe that if I were scum and fakeclaiming this role, that I would have made sure that the details worked out before claiming a role and then claiming not to use it, right?
<snip>

---

KingPin:
There is no need to resort to circumstantial arguments. There is a plenty of direct evidence.

---

Stoofer:
Sorry, you’re going to have to stay nailed in your coffin for a little longer.

[EmpTyger]

Johoohno:

@ EmpTyger

: I targeted those that I was having a hard time to read as either scum or townie.

You suspected DotS, Fonz, (mneme).
You weren't sure how to read: EmpTyger, KingPin, massive, TSN.

What about mathcam and Stoofer? How did you feel about them?

[EmpTyger]

DotS:
I have no interest in hearing you tell others how to select their nighttargets when you can’t justify your own. Answer my question.

---

Johoohno:
Okay about KingPin-EmpTyger, I suppose. But how did you choose TSN-massive? It makes no sense to me that you would interfere with their nightchoices, instead of people who you were finding suspicious. Why not mneme-Stoofer? Fonz-Stoofer? DotS-mathcam? Stoofer-EmpTyger? massive-Stoofer? Seems like you had plenty of options.

Because this is my point about mathcam/Stoofer:
You tried to interfere with the nightchoices of massive/TSN/KingPin/me, and then voted DotS/Fonz.
That leaves Stoofer/mathcam… and I can’t help but think back to my Stoofer/mathcam/Johoohno hypothesis…

[EmpTyger]

mathcam:
What do you think should happen the rest of today?

---

Johoohno:

@ EmpTyger:

Another equally valid theory would be difference in playstyle. The way I did it, gave us information that massive is the vote doubler, and an indication on who he wants to give that extra vote to (N0: Primate, N1: TSN). That gives me more to build my view of both their alignments on in combination with their actions D1.
<snip>

But that’s only because massive turned out to be the vote doubler- which you didn’t know at the time you selected your targets. If you’re trying to get information in a way that’s going to disrupt nightchoices- I still don’t understand why you wouldn’t be using that disruption on people you not as suspicious of instead of people you are.

Can I get a list from you, complete from most to least, of who you are suspicious of? I think this has much to do with my problem with you all day.

[EmpTyger]

@ EmpTyger:

I plan to post a list like that, but not just yet. I want to do the reread first, and that has to be postponed until some time after July 15 unfortunately (I'll be away all next week with limited access, and up till then there are tons to do).

That’s not what I’m looking for. I want *past* tense. I want to know what your suspicions *had* been. I want to know who you had thought suspicious and who you hadn’t been thinking suspicious. I do *not* want you to look for new evidence and reevaluate- I want you to put forth the evaluation you’ve already done. Because I’m trying to make sense of the way you have acted since the end of D1, and it’s not adding up.

(I mean, reread and find new evidence and reevaluate and make a new list if you want, too, I don’t care. But that’s not what I’m looking for here. I want a list, 1-8 or however you want to do it, as long as it indicates who and how strongly and relative positioning. That better not take 14 days.)

I'd also like to know if we're going to make a mass claim or not before I do my reread. EMp; you've probably kept notes on who's willing and who's not, what's the count pro and against?

The count is DotS and Fonz would be next to go, DotS and Fonz are unwilling to go, and there is no consensus. Don’t satll because of this.

[EmpTyger]

I am trying to decide how much of a rant to post to DotS. And it basically comes down to how likely a 3-person mafia including Johoohno is, a possibility I can’t discount. Because if that is case, either he’s mafia or the town will need his vote (and judgment) to win.

In any case, I’ll reward him for doing the second-best job I have ever seen of attracting suspicion for no good reason, and I’ll retract my conclusion about his alignment. I have found 2 other explanations for his behavior: he is suicidal, or he is an atrocious player; either of which fit his behavior as well or better than him having to being protown.

Nevertheless I am *still* seeing him as town as a very real possibility, inheriting Primate’s legacy of distractingly imploding right as I’m about to argue a Stoofer-Johoohno-mathcam mafia. But his play D1 has been atrocious, his play D2 has been atrocious, and if he is a townsperson, his inability to play decently is a liability. I am frustrated enough to consider the alternative- that he’s mafia with a death wish.

{DotS, Johoohno, mathcam, Stoofer}. I feel certain that the mafia are entirely in that set. No one else’s behavior comes close.

---

Johoohno:
You don’t like my dictating the claim order so much that… you propose exactly what I “dictated”?

<snip>
Now, I don't like you dictating the claim order anymore. My order of claims would be:
EmpTyger
DotS
The Fonz
TSN
KingPin

<snip>
DotS
Fonz
TSN
KingPin
[I was going to place myself between Fonz and TSN, but someone less biased can insert me into that list.]
<snip>

Perhaps you meant that you don’t like *mathcam”’s decision to place me, but wanted to slander me instead of him? Which is it: Are you mafia will DotS and this is your best shot at throwing him a lifeline, or mafia with mathcam and so obviously can’t attack him? Both?

I mean, basically all you’re saying- without giving any reason- that you want me (who targeted DotS) to go before DotS, your alleged top suspect, who others are pressing because of problems with his claim so far, and who has been stalling and rolefishing me and trying to get out of claiming all day. Why?

As for my posting habits, you and KingPin can have a nice debate without me, I’m sure.

---

mathcam:
It’s just like yesterday. I feel you are playing this game far, far too passively to be a townsperson. I can’t remember ever seeing you actively trying to find mafia- just participating as minimally as you can off of what others are doing.

Heck, look at DotS’s actions today. You should have *something* to say about that, especially given how he’s fingered you. Or something to say about how he’s avoiding a claim. Or some suspicions. Something. Anything. But you can do is weakly go along with a massclaim. Despite the fact that you before you said, “If we have enough information to make a reasonable attempt at a lynch today, then there is no need to claim“ now that’s sheepily the only option you can mention?

[EmpTyger]

I would feel a lot more comfortable with a massclaim if my top suspects weren't all pushing it.

heh You noticed that too? Especially considering their prior feelings.

[EmpTyger]

DotS:
I can’t dismiss the possibility of a 3-person mafia, and I think there is a good enough chance that Johoohno is mafia. In which case, the mafia can filibuster any lynch which the rest of the town doesn’t unanimously agree on. So I have 2 choices: bother wasting my time on you (if you’re town), or just throw up my hands and go for what I think will be an easy lynch of you (if you’re mafia). And let me tell you, the more I have to go over your bad play in an effort to persuade you to play well, the closer I get to just thinking that latter is saner in every respect.
But here goes.

Emp, if you've got something constructive to say about my play, I'd honestly like to hear it. I don't know what your problem with it is.
<snip>

I know *you* don’t see a problem with it. Once again, *you* don’t get to be the judge of your own behavior. It is so difficult to motivate myself to be constructive, when if I take the effort to go point out just how unhelpful you are being, you’re just going to say “well I think I have been helpful so everyone else is clearly wrong”. Look at your lurking at the end of D1. It’s just an exercise in tearing my hair out.

Let me put it this way. Just focus on today for a moment. What have you done today to work with the town? In the best light, I see only 2 things:
1) Announce a nightresult on mathcam.
2) Promoted a masstargetclaim

But countering 1 is that:
You haven’t expounded on this nightresult.
You haven’t tried to rebut the contradictions others have addressed based on your behavior.
You haven’t made an argument against mathcam which doesn’t rely on your nightaction.
You actually try to make the argument that you voted “based on your nightactions” not “because you thought he’s guilty”.

And countering 2 is that:
You have tried to dissuade the town from massclaim
You don’t want the masstargetclaim to be used today. (Your initial support for masstargetclaim was because you thought it would be useful on a future day.)
You dismiss without giving any reason the deductions others made about you and Johoohno from the masstargetclaim. (Despite your asking what could be deduced from what we already had.)
You refuse to answer questions others ask you about your claim, saying that “Well, I think the way I've voted and played answers this”. (Despite your similarly being skeptical of mathcam’s claim and asking him questions.)

And in addition:
You haven’t made an argument against a player (except mathcam, but see above).
You haven’t actively tried to find mafia.
You haven’t supported any bandwagon.
You have tried to dissuade the town from acting at night.

So how, based on your play, is the town supposed to win?

How are you going to find mafia? How are you helping someone else find mafia? How are you helping a lynch occur? How are you helping 6 players to agree on the lynch? At every possible point, you’ve done whatever is most obstructive to the town without offering *anything* as an alternative. It’s like you’re putting an unbelievable amount of energy into trying to be as unhelpful as you can. (I seriously have only seen one other person, in any game, of any alignment, behave this extremely, and they were a modconfirmed pro-town jester.)

Yes, I know, you’re going to bristle again at how harsh I’m being. Save it.

I have just spent time cataloguing a list of valid reasons why you- a player who I don’t want to lynch- deserves to be lynched!

Can you imagine how frustrating that is? I think it earns me a little latitude.

---

TSN/Fonz/massive/KingPin:
I will agree to whoever of DotS, Johoohno, mathcam, or Stoofer you form a consensus on. At this point, I’m frustrated enough that I’m not even sure what my preference is any more. Maybe after a reread.

[EmpTyger]

bah I want to reread. Something is not sitting right.

---

DotS:
Why do you think that mneme “was not a logical nightkill for scum”?
Do you have a hypothesis for what happened N1 concerning your ability, now that you know that Primate is innocent?

---

Fonz:
Participation would be nice, seeing how you’ve been rather active elsewhere on the site.

[EmpTyger]

Still haven’t had time for a reread, but I’m crossing DotS off my list- I’ve had a chance to cool off from that. For one thing I’m not giving him enough credit to be mafia with mathcam (although mathcam, for the record, I do give that much credit to). And mathcam’s been digging himself a nice deep grave alongside Stoofer’s.

My “not sitting right” was an itch hat I had dismissed KingPin from consideration too swiftly. I don’t want to second-guess myself, but I don’t want to overlook something either. Still needs to wait for a reread.

---

mathcam:

<snip>
I think you're confusing my role with one of my proposed explanations for what happened last night. The former is rather straight-forward,

Your role, at least in comparison to everything else which has been indicated (or claimed, for that matter), is most certainly not straightforward.

the latter is admittedly rather elaborate. But given the number of confusing roles we have at night, I don't think we'll go through a single night whose targeting situation and death resolving

isn't

fairly elaborate.

Does your proposed elaborate explanation account for the missing mafiakill?

To be clear, I have no idea if my role is randomly activated if I don't use it, but since it apparently happened to Kingpin, it became in the town's best interests to know that this was a possibility.
<snip>

How does this not make you such a liability that you should be lynched immediately?

[EmpTyger]

mathcam:

<snip>
Really? I pick a role from the graveyard and restore it to a player, balanced by one caveat to make my role not over-powered.

No, it’s not straightforward. Unlike everything else claimed or indicated so far, your role requires a specific other role to work- something which is capable of stripping roles. The only thing coming close to that is the SK, and a role solely to make the SK’s job harder seems implausible, balancewise, with this many other powerroles.

<snip>
Because my role is now impotent? If we determined that my role was indeed being used randomly even if I didn't attempt to activate it, I'd be the first on my own bandwagon, but there's been some doubt cast on this speculation.
<snip>

No- on the contrary, your role is lethally potent- but to the mafia’s advantage. Two possibilities:
1) You’re mafia, you were the nightkiller, your kill was redirected to mneme, etc. Obvious lynch.
2) You’re innocent. Given the other abilities revealed and claimed, it seems too likely that the mafia would be able to abuse your ability to gain an additional nightkill?

Mind you, I am thinking (1) for plenty of other reasons.

Vote: mathcam

At this point, I’d be comfortable switching to Stoofer, but I think that’s suboptimal. I could be persuaded to Johoohno, but I prefer mathcam: since Johoohno’s power is all but proven, I think it would be better to be dealing with the known rather than the unknown on future days and nights.

[EmpTyger]

Still haven’t done the reread, sorry. Also was thinking of trying to design some grand overarcing nightaction plan, but don’t have any solid ideas there. This needs be figured out before mathcam gets lynched. Possibly related: we need to figure out whether and how much more claiming will be done today. I’m not doing anything on Johoohno’s say-so alone. I think the theory for still holds up, but I’m not certain, and planned to evaluate both questions after rereading.

---

KingPin:

Emp,
I think you are on the right track here. I believe that the way to vote today is Mathcam, tomorrow Jo, and finally the trifecta Stoof.
<snip>
I would then go Jo before Stoof simply because if mneme did strip Stoof of his power, then he is rather harmless in his efforts at night to confuse or otherwise disrupt the town's actions.
<snip>

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. First let’s see what, if anything, mathcam’s death reveals. And again, all things being equal, lynching Stoofer is better than lynching Johoohno: removing an unknown vs removing a known.

---

mathcam:
Why don’t you tell us your final suspicions? Gives us something to analyze after you die. You can pretend to be a townsperson a little longer!

[EmpTyger]

Claim: role doubler

(I keep getting interrupted in my reread, sorry. I'm about through D1, but have to go to work now. Should be done by end of today.)

[EmpTyger]

Sorry again for delays. General reread thoughts:
mathcam and Stoofer are need-to-dies.
Johoohno is still very suspicious. I keep falling back to Occam’s Razor.
I am again more suspicious of massive after a reread, but he’s nowhere near the same league as the above 3.
No suspicions towards anyone else (including KingPin and DotS).

Here’s the best I’ve come up with, for N3 (assuming mathcam is lynched without surprises). Someone (actually, everyone) should doublecheck that I am not overlooking anything.

I double Fonz.
Fonz mirrors DotS, secondary Johoohno. (We do not want these abilities being manipulated with, or for anyone to claim that these abilities were manipulated with.)
DotS forces Stoofer to target Johoohno. (Mirrored so that Stoofer targets himself.)
TSN blocks Johoohno. (Mirrored so that TSN targets himself. This is a safety play- in case Fonz or I are interfered with, Johoohno gets blocked.)

Not completely sure about, but considering:
Johoohno should switch KingPin and massive (to evince his ability with minimal disruption)
Not completely sure about what KingPin and massive should themselves do, but I think at least 1 of them should target DotS (to confirm that DotS gets mirrored).
Not sure about other secondary choices.

Again, this all is assuming that mathcam is lynched without surprises.

---

DotS:

That being said, I think Johoohno is still the right choice for lynch because, with one less redirector, we can be a little more certain that our night choices will work out how we want them to.

Assuming both Johoohno and I are town

, so long as we target claim truthfully, this shouldn't be an issue, should it?

This does not strike me as a safe assumption to make.

At this point, I’d be comfortable switching to Stoofer, but I think that’s suboptimal.

Why do you say that?

The short answer is, I don’t trust mathcam and Stoofer, including and especially their take on mneme.

---

mathcam:

You have nothing to say in reference to the fairly major piece of information that you missed?

No, I don’t. I’m sorry, am I supposed to be trying to convince *you* that the *your* role is fraudulent?! ‘Cause, I don’t hear anyone else needing any convincing. And I somehow don’t really think there is anything I could say to you to which you’d admit, “Why gee, EmpTyger, you’ve made a good argument, I guess you’re right and I’ll go vote myself now”.

There’s nothing left to argue regarding you:
Your play has been bad all game.
Your claim is problematic.
The town is in consensus.

---

massive:
Why did you not submit a secondary choice N1?

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, I've had a ridiculously weird day. I wanted to get my targets in before the thread is locked: TSN/DotS.

Also, my plan is moot since Fonz's ability doesn't work as I thought and there's definitely no consensus. All townspeople should disregard.

[EmpTyger]

Johoohno:

<snip>
Furthermore, EmpTyger is REALLY eager to get me killed tonight (see post 686. Most of his night choice suggestions are aimed at me and that gives the mafia a lot of leeway to kill me and then blame someone else for it. Who are we to know who of all aiming me is lying?

Um, earlier I was really eager to get you killed *today*. And you seem to be implying that there’s something obscenely horrible if mafia kills the most suspicious player? Would you rather the mafia kills someone who the town is pretty sure is innocent?

You are in a lot of people’s top 3. The goal is to eliminate suspicious players one way or another. You’re welcome to advocate counterplans which you believe will be more optimal for the town- and, honestly, the one you enacted is probably not that bad.

I find this a bit strange since he in the same post tells everyone that mathcam and Mr Stoofer are his main targets.

mathcam I was assuming would be dead by then. Stoofer, if you noticed, was being forced to target himself by a player I thought would be mirror-protected. You, as I said in the same post, are my clear number 3.

---

<snip>
I don't mind the planning night actions, but it does sound like there are some inherent problems with doing so. First, scum could be lying about roles/targets already. Scum could then use the information, especially Emp's ability to double, to obliterate the town tonight.

It’s moot now, but, for the future: How does not planning have make thing safer?

[EmpTyger]

I will be without home Internet access 8/5-11, and will be traveling 8/13-17. I do not expect to need replacement- I will be able to obtain Internet access during both periods- but I will be posting less frequently then.

---

<snip>
I think it's time to claim targets again today, shall we just blurt them out or do it in an orderly fashion? I prefer the latter and my list would look like this:
TSN
Fonz
EmpTyger
DotS
Stoofer
KingPin
Johoohno (you might want me in another position, but this is my list - do your own)

Stoofer and I have already claimed. DotS (given that mathcam is guilty and what his role is) obviously should claim last. KingPin obviously will be able to claim honestly if necessary regardless of his alignment, so he only needs to say something if he can counterclaim. So, let’s instead try:

Johoohno
TSN
Fonz
DotS

[EmpTyger]

No, actually, astonishingly, Stoofer is right. And there’s more to it than that.

Johoohno obviously lied, and is today’s lynch. However, I think that means that there is 2 mafia: Johoohno + someone else. Because if Johoohno manipulated KingPin- then who killed massive? And vice versa.

Case 1: Johoohno is the manipulator, X is the N3 killer. Johoohno and X may have lied, everyone else is honest.
KingPin claimed to target Stoofer. Stoofer didn’t get voteblocked.
Johoohno switched the targets of <someone who targeted Johoohno> and KingPin.
No one claimed to have targeted Johoohno. (And I strongly doubt massive would have.) So whoever did must have lied about it. The only other possible liar is X.
So this means that the killer and KingPin switched targets- meaning that the killer would have killed Stoofer. But X didn’t kill massive- they killed Stoofer.
The only way this works is if KingPin lied about targeting Stoofer- but then KingPin is the liar, and thus the killer, but we know that KingPin used his ability last night.

So, instead:
Case 2: Johoohno is the N3 killer, X is the manipulator. Johoohno and X may have lied, everyone else is honest.

Case 2A: Assume X is KingPin: Thus KingPin lied about targeting Stoofer- he probably actually targeted Johoohno. But his role is verified.
EmpTyger doubles TSN
TSN roleblocks Stoofer and Johoohno
Johoohno kills (blocked)
DotS forces Stoofer to target Fonz.
Stoofer targets Fonz (blocked)
Fonz ?
massive votedoubles KingPin
KingPin voteblocks Johoohno?

But then Johoohno couldn’t have killed. So KingPin is innocent.

Case 2B: Assume X is Stoofer. Thus Stoofer lied about being vanilla.
EmpTyger doubles TSN
TSN roleblocks Stoofer and Johoohno
Johoohno kills (blocked)
DotS forces Stoofer to target Fonz.
Stoofer targets Fonz (blocked)
Fonz: ?
massive votedoubles ?
KingPin voteblocks Stoofer

But Stoofer was retargeted to Fonz and blocked. He couldn’t have manipulated the voteblocking. So Stoofer is innocent.

Case 2C: Assume X is DotS. Thus DotS may have lied.
EmpTyger doubles TSN
TSN roleblocks Stoofer and Johoohno
Johoohno kills (blocked)
DotS ?
Stoofer targets Fonz (blocked)
Fonz: ?
massive votedoubles ?
KingPin voteblocks ?

An explanation exists: DotS lied about his role. With his actual role, there is no way he could have both stopped TSN from roleblocking Johoohno and manipulated KingPin’s target.

Case 2D: Assume X is TSN. Thus TSN may be lying about being a roleblocker.
EmpTyger doubles TSN
TSN ? + ?
Johoohno kills
DotS forces Stoofer to target Fonz.
Stoofer targets Fonz (no effect)
Fonz: ?
massive votedoubles KingPin
KingPin voteblocks ?

An explanation exists: TSN lied about his role. As a roleblocker, there is no way he can manipulate KingPin’s target.

Case 2E: Assume X is Fonz. Thus Fonz may be lying about being a mirrorer.
EmpTyger doubles TSN
TSN roleblocks Stoofer and Johoohno
Johoohno kills
DotS forces Stoofer to target Fonz.
Stoofer targets Fonz (no effect)
Fonz: ?
massive votedoubles KingPin
KingPin voteblocks ?

An explanation exists: Fonz lied about his role. As a mirrorer, there is no way he can manipulate KingPin’s target.

Case 2F: Assume X is EmpTyger. Thus EmpTyger may be lying about being a roledoubler.
EmpTyger ?
TSN roleblocks Stoofer
Johoohno kills
DotS forces Stoofer to target Fonz.
Stoofer targets Fonz (no effect)
Fonz: ?
massive votedoubles KingPin
KingPin voteblocks ?

An explanation exists: EmpTyger lied about his role. As a roledoubler, there is no way he can manipulate KingPin’s target.

---

Conclusions:
Johoohno is guilty.
Stoofer is innocent.
KingPin is innocent.

One of the following is guilty. Whoever it is, lied about their role:
DotS
EmpTyger
Fonz
TSN

After Johoohno dies, there will only be 1 mafia left, so the mafia won’t be able to both kill and manipulate nightactions. The course of action for tonight is to clear as at least 2 of these 4. Since the town gets 2 lynches, if we get down to 2 unconfirmeds, the town has a guaranteed win.

Does this make sense to everyone? I’ll work on drawing up a plan, but I’d appreciate someone checking my logic.

[EmpTyger]

Emp:

I'll go over your logic in a sec: but first, please clarify what 'roledoubling' actually does. Does it mean that the targetted player's action affects both the given target and the backup?

Yes.

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
One of the reasons I'm questioning The Fonz's claim is that my role pm sort of implies that any "night action" involves targeting. The Fonz's is simply 'activated', based on what he's told us.
<snip>

Fonz’s claim is definitely the odd one out, but I’m not sure I want to consider that suspicious, though. I mean, Stoofer’s also counts as odd in that regard.

And I think Fonz is right. I assume Roleblocks trump all other night actions. That would make sense.
<snip>

Not necessarily. An argument could be made that targetswitching goes first.

An immediate question that arises is: How did KingPin's target get diverted to Johoohno?
No one else has claimed a target manipulating role. So I'm pretty sure we've got at least one scum in Emp, TSN, Johoohno and KingPin.

That’s the point of [715]- essentially, someone must be lying not only about their targets, but their role.

Emp, I've been meaning to ask, why did you target me Night 2?

I considered your innocence proven.

Also, can you conceive a way

your

night action might be doubled?

All I can think of is if I targeted Fonz.

I'm really tempted at this point to stop looking at at night actions and focus on interaction again.

You’re not the only one. Johoohno’s play is itchy enough that I don’t think it’s a problem today. But I’m really worried if there’s a third mafia- and Johoohno’s shiftiness and the extra actions last night make me think there have to be.

But I’ve been tossing the nightaction puzzle around my brain all day, and the more I think about it, the more I think we’re missing a critical piece of the setup. I’m tempted to wonder if the mafiakill doesn’t count in the same realm of actions as the rest- but then the mathcam/DotS thing is too coincidental. Or I’ve wondered whether the retargetings are meaningless- but the vote manipulators are too visible for that. Or whether I found 1 potentially false assumption I’m assuming that Johoohno’s described his ability honestly. Or even whether mathcam was telling some truth about his role, and restored GS’s or Primate’s ability back to the mafia N2- but I don’t trust mathcam at all. No one targeted Johoohno- so how did he get voteblocked? It must have been due to someone who lied, and therefore mafia- yet I can’t imagine the mafia going to so much trouble just to get one of their own voteblocked.But with the evidence we have, I’m having trouble coming up with a theory- any theory- to explain (1) Johoohno’s lie, (2) Johoohno being voteblocked, (3) Stoofer *not* being voteblocked.

[EmpTyger]

Johoohno:
You claimed to self-target. Not only was that forbidden, but logically a role like that can’t self-target. (Probably why self-targeting is not allowed in the first place.) Everyone with the possible exceptions of Stoofer and Fonz should know it, and they should be able to deduce it.

---

Fonz:
The problem is that we know Johoohno lied.

<snip>
One of the reasons I'm questioning The Fonz's claim is that my role pm sort of implies that any "night action" involves targeting. The Fonz's is simply 'activated', based on what he's told us.
<snip>

Fonz’s claim is definitely the odd one out, but I’m not sure I want to consider that suspicious, though. I mean, Stoofer’s also counts as odd in that regard.

I'm not sure, of all the things that are susp about stoofer, his claim is one of them. I mean, mathcam appeared to come up vanilla mafia. It would make perfect sense for there to be a vanilla town equivalent.

Er, that was my point- I was responding to DotS calling yours suspicious. At most 1 of {Stoofer, Fonz} is guilty, so at least 1 of you is innocent, so having an odd claim shouldn’t be considered suspicious.

Emp, what do you make of my assessment of Stoofer/Joh and last night's actions?

I’m brainstorming options, but even if myself or TSN are guilty, it doesn’t explain it, because even though that works in that Johoohno isn’t blocked, I do not see an explanation that explains all 3 of
(1) Johoohno’s lie
(2) Johoohno being voteblocked
(3) Stoofer *not* being voteblocked

Unless you also postulate that TSN or I were lying about our role. And if we’re postulating somone has a different role- it also works if you or DotS who lied.

Right now I’m doing some brainstorming, possibly futilely.

---

Stoofer:

so the mafia won’t be able to both kill and manipulate nightactions

How do we know this? I'm wondering if this is a slip.

The more I think about it, the less sure I am. But I’m having trouble fitting an extra-action-mafiakill into the same matrix of nightactions. If this was a misassumption, then I am having trouble seeing how most of the abilities would work.

[EmpTyger]

Adding a 4th item: all theories also need to explain
1) Johoohno’s lie
2) Johoohno being voteblocked
3) Stoofer *not* being voteblocked
4) massive dying

I’m feeling increasingly unsure that it’s possible to explain all 4 given the information we have. I think I may want to reread and see what jumps out knowing mathcam/Johoohno, and take another look at that early Stoofer/mathcam/Johoohno hypothesis I had.

---

KingPin:

<snip>
It seems to me that if we had a "serial role killer" that this would explain the vanillafied scum mathcam.
<snip>

The SK nailing mafia that accurately seems a little too coincidental, but I suppose it’s possible. I was also waiting on mathcam’s reveal; I’m not sure what to make of it. Seeing how Johoohno shows up might be useful, although we need to plan for tonight before that.

---

Fonz:
Are you just referring to how EmpTyger + TSN results in Johoohno and Stoofer being blocked?

1) If DotS or you lied about your role, there could be interference somehow. Possibly Stoofer too, given how something is not adding up. Possible brainstormed roles: some kind of randomizer (possibly one-shot), some kind of killing+other effect role, similar to what mathcam was clumsily trying to claim, something similar to an existing role.

2) But more simply, from N2, it seems that if Johoohno and TSN target each other, Johoohno gets priority. In which case it becomes:
EmpTyger doubles TSN. TSN targets Stoofer, Johoohno. KingPin targets Stoofer.
Johoohno switches TSN and KingPin.
TSN targets Stoofer. KingPin targets Stoofer, Johoohno.
Stoofer gets roleblocked, voteblocked. Johoohno gets voteblocked.

Actually this seems like it has to be how Johoohno got voteblocked. If Johoohno is mafia with X, then it just doesn’t seem to make sense that X would target Johoohno, and then Johoohno would switch X and KingPin so that he himself were voteblocked. (Which would be a point in TSN’s favor.)

This still needs to explain why Stoofer wasn’t voteblocked, but we had that problem to begin with anyway.

[EmpTyger]

Still haven’t yet a chance to reread.

---

KingPin:
Assuming you’re right about mneme vanillafying mathcam one night, what’s your theory about mneme’s action the other night?

---

TSN:

Possibly stoofer, as the vanilla townie, cannot be affected by those sort of abilities?

I don’t really like this theory. Fonz has already claimed an ability that prevents those sorts of abilities affecting him. Why would a vanilla ability work similarly without saying so?

---

Johoohno:
You’re confirmed mafia, so feel free to ignore this, but, what did you think the result of switching your and my targets would be?

[EmpTyger]

Stoofer:

Mod

: please could we have a vote count.

EmpTyger

: Just to make sure I have understood it properly, please could you set out in a single post why Johoohno is "confirmed mafia". The reason I ask is that there is so much going on I am not sure anyone can be that confident that they have accounted for all possibilities.

Sorry, but not yet. There’s no rush, and right now, I’m more concerned with catching whoever Johoohno’s partner is than lynching Johoohno himself.

(No one’s voting.)

---

Johoohno:
So, to activate your secondary ability, were you relying on lying mafia? Or would I be telling the truth and targeting you- and there’s your “it gets a lot more complex”?

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, all- the library changed its summer hours in AUgust, so it's been even harder for me to get Internet access. I'm trying to do a reread, but it's hard to do with only quick grabs of access- I'm only on p.7.

I'm not ready to post a list of suspicions until I complete the reread, and certainly not ready to vote yet.

I'm trying to figure out the bigger picture with nightactions. Part of me thinks that I was more right than I knew when I was earlier arguing that nightactions are useless.

---

About Johoohno:
I don't have any special knowledge (aside from the same prohibition of self-targeting which KingPin, TSN, and massive also have). I'm just deducing based on what Johoohno's saying.

1) If Johoohno could self-target that way: then he's saying he gets to use his ability twice if he self-targets.
(If he targets X and Johoohno, X targets Y, and Y targets Z:
He switches it so that X targets Johoohno, Johoohno targets X and Y.
But then his ability triggers again, so that X targets Z, Y targets Johoohno. This is absurd.)

2) The mod clearly banned self-targeting in most cases.
So let's also consider the 2 that might have allowed partial self-targeting: DotS, and potentially Primate.
I can see DotS forcing someone else to target DotS. But he is forbidden from forcing himself to target someone else.
I can see Primate forcing someone else to target Primate. But he is forbidden from forcing himself to target someone else.
I can even see Johoohno forcing someone else to target Johoohno.

But then why wouldn't he have the restriction

? Instead, he is claiming that he is paradoxically allowed to affect himself. Then why would this be forbidden in everyone else?

In Johoohno's case, the restriction is pointless, since his ability is symmetric. It shouldn't make any difference whether he targets X & Y or Y & X. So why is he claiming that he could target Johoohno & EmpTyger, but not EmpTyger & Johoohno?

The only reason that kind of restriction would have a point is if he lied about his ability.

3) Moreover- even if his ability does this- why would a protown Johoohno choose to use it this way? It doesn't match the claimed motivation for his primary targets- to have trackable data. Nor would it allow him to interfere with mafia: if he targets mafia, and if his ability works the way he claims it does, instead of simply messing with mafia, he's messing with mafia's target, and the target's target- one of which has to be town!

---

KingPin:

<snip>
My theory is this for mneme: He has an ability to strip the players of their roles. Then he has the ability to kill a player by targeting someone without a role.
<snip>

2 big problems:
1) A SK's win condition is hard enough when they have to target everyone once. For them to need to target everyone *twice*...?
2) We don't have a complete explanation for N3 assuming that there are 2 mafia nightactions. If we assume that mneme's vanillafication targets N1 and N2 were {mathcam, Mafia X} then there is only 1 mafia nightaction last night- and I don't see any way for that to allow all that happened.

Incidentally, I'm not making too much of mathcam's insistence about his role, for reasons that I think are better to explain in postgame.

[EmpTyger]

Vote: Johoohno

I'm really sorry all. I'm reread D1, skimmed D2, but I have not had the time to finish the type of reread I’d like, or to edit notes into anything helpful. I will try to do what I can between now and Sunday, but I really cannot promise anything. Quickly-

Stoofer: I’m having a hard time finding anything Stoofer has doing that is helpful or protown. Not just D1- afterwards too. Part of me really just wants to vote him today instead.

DotS: Utterly detest his play. And yet he could not be more town.

TSN: Solid play.

KingPin: Don’t see this as possible.

Fonz: I suppose maybe if Stoofer is innocent, then his switching from Primate to Stoofer D1 is less meaningful, since he’s unvoting one innocent to go to another. And then if Johoohno is guilty, Fonz’s trying to switch the early D2 focus from Johoohno to Stoofer is bad. Or there is the simple fact that Fonz-Stoofer-mathcam have had the 3 odd claims. And the lurking while being active elsewhere. But those are a lot of maybes. I’m mentioning since Fonz is the only other one who even approaches possibility. I’m really feeling a Johoohno-Stoofer Occam’s Razor here.

[EmpTyger]

I think that the mafia are entirely within {Stoofer, Johoohno, Fonz}- I still don’t see anyone else as likely. I will vote for whichever of those 3 are able to be lynched- I prefer Johoohno or Stoofer, but will rather the safety play of Fonz over a no-lynch. I realize that I have not set the best example lately, but I urge the town to consider the deadline. Only a vote of 3-0 (with 4 not voting) or 3-1 (with 3 not voting) will lynch then.

---

KingPin:

<snip>
Emp, Could you explain why you believe Jo lied about his night choices? You have made some bald statements today regarding him, have been asked for support, but have been silent regarding those requests.
<snip>

Initially, it was because of the self-targeting- it’s inconsistent and illogical. This discrepancy is not in and of itself a reason to lynch- there are inconsistencies with Johoohno, Stoofer, and Fonz’s claims, but at most 2 of them can be guilty. However Johoohno has antitown play to back it up. He didn’t push the massclaim until after the mafia got a chance to coordinate. He voted for Primate, and only voted for mathcam after it was obvious that he was going to be lynched anyway.

But Johoohno can’t provide a single explanation for what happened last night which doesn’t contradict himself.

Look at what he’s arguing on this page alone- that he believes:
1) That there is only 1 more mafia
2) That a mafia can’t nightkill and use their ability on the same night.
This is simply impossible- then there is no explanation for last night. And it certainly does not prove his own innocence, which Johoohno insists it must. In fact that he insists that he must be innocent for switching the targets of 2 people who targeted the same person.

It is interesting that in [797] Johoohno is considering that I lied because there’s no proof of my ability- except that there’s no other explanation for how Johoohno could have been a possible target for KingPin. And he’s considering that TSN lied. But he is *not* considering if Fonz lied- in fact, I can’t seem to find where he ever has- when that seems like that should be the most obvious possibility, as well as one without any kind of dismissal.

[EmpTyger]

First of all, a warning- I was getting quota-exceeded errors trying to post this. I’m not waiting until the last minute, and I’m willing to lynch Fonz. If he or anyone else has anything to say, say it very soon. Coordinating nightactions seems futile, since there might be no way to stop Johoohno’s meddling. It’s clear that TSN can’t limit him, and I don’t see any way to know who would take precedent between DotS and Johoohno. (Though I suggest DotS test this tonight, and I think it is good for TSN to keep Johoohno tied down.) I do suggest that KingPin claim his nighttargets today (perhaps twice: once for if Fonz is revealed town/once for if Fonz is revealed mafia). That way, if the mafia kill him, the town has a chance to unravel what happened.

WIth Johoohno: the problem isn’t only that Johoohno claims he can directly affect himself, when no one else can. It’s *how* he claims he can affect himself. If he were telling the truth, why is he only using this self-targeting in the manner he claims to have:
On N3? Why not earlier?
As a secondary action? Why not as a primary action?
Targeting the only possible protown way that secondary action could be triggered? (me, the claimed roledoubler)? If I don’t trigger a secondary action, then whoever does is a liar, and therefore mafia.

So either Johoohno’s secondary ability does nothing, or it’s being used against someone who told the truth about their ability.

And that contradicts what Johoohno claims to believe about the setup.

---

Fonz:
You’ve still got time, regardless of alignment. Do something helpful. Defending yourself with WIFOM (“I don’t do X as mafia; I’m doing X, so I’m clearly not mafia!”) and making insistances about the setup will work as well as it did with mathcam. (And I’d be more likely to buy your idea of what the meta theme means if you weren’t going right on to ignore it, by making assumptions about roles/setup in order to “clear” players.)

You think I’m mafia for suspecting Johoohno? Lovely. Which 3 players do you expect to follow you in the next 36 hours? The ones currently suspecting Johoohno? The ones currently suspecting you? The voteless Johoohno? Me? The absent Stoofer?

So, pretend to be town and be helpful. Temporarily assuming I’m mafia, who do you think is my partner? Because- regardless of your alignment- do you seriously think that offering me as an alternative lynch will help you in the slightest? You’re at lynch-1 and I’m not voting you. Yet.

[EmpTyger]

Fonz:
Honestly, the only reason I’ve not just already voted and lynched you is in case anyone (in particular KingPin) has anything to say about N4 actions. I was denigrating what you said because what you were doing is useless- there aren’t 4 votes available against me, and you weren’t speculating on something useful, like pairings. And I was curious how you’d react. (Not mentioning TSN, or even EmpTyger-TSN, is an interesting touch.) But ultimately I feel sure that the mafia are in {Johoohno, Stoofer, Fonz}. (More precisely, that the mafia are not in {EmpTyger, DotS, KingPin, TSN}. With 7 alive and 2 mafia, the town has 3 lynches available. I don’t care what order the lynches happen in, because as long as they happen, I’m fairly confident the town will win.

(To be completely honest, if I had to pick, I think it’s most likely that you’re innocent, and Johoohno-Stoofer are mafia. But there’s no reason to put all my eggs in one basket by insisting on that, and risking a no-lynch. KingPin and DotS might be right, and I lose nothing by trying that.)

As for the rest:

Emp. It couldn't be less wifom. I do not consider tactical lurking an acceptable strategy- town or scum-, and it pisses me off immensely to be accused of it. I simply overlooked this game when doing my big catchup for all my games. I'm not saying it makes me not-scum- i'm saying it doesn't make me scum (though if you want to point out what the tactical advantage is, go ahead). Nice distortion.

No, what you said was:

Furthermore, lurking

because

I'm under suspicion, as scum, is inconsistent with my meta- see Open 60, when coming under attack from Shteven causes me to redouble my posting. When you're staring down the barrel as scum is the most important time to be making sure you're forcefully making your case.

You’re saying that if you were mafia, you would be acting forcefully, but you’re actually lurking, so you clearly can’t be mafia. That’s WIFOM.

<snip>
So far it appears to me the votes on me are:

KingPin x2, because he makes an absurdly illogical claim about how nightactions should work, and uses it to call my obvious, logical reading of the situation illogical and scummy.

DoTS, because I 'flip-flopped' on Primate. I've explained why this is a ludicrous reach.

So would you mind terribly telling me whether you agree or disagree with this obvious craplogic? I want to stake you to a position at the very least. Do you believe my believing Primate to be town, having previously launched a starter wagon on him, is scummy? Do you believe my reading or KingPin's is the more logical?
<snip>

I staked my position quite clearly in [777]. But again: Your “obvious, logical” reading of the situation is anything but; as I bet every other player will admit, there is nothing obvious about how these nightactions interact. Reversing on Primate isn’t a sign of guilt, but switching to Stoofer is only a sign of innocence if Stoofer is guilty- and that hasn’t been shown. And your opposition to the D1 massclaim helped mafia, not the town. I could easily see you mafia with an innocent Stoofer and a guilty Johoohno, especially after early D2 you shifted the focus off Johoohno and onto Stoofer. (Stoofer-Fonz does seem increasingly unlikely given the current D3 situation- I don’t see why Fonz wouldn’t just simply support the attack on Johoohno.)

<snip>
Not to mention that you've outright called someone else a liar, and you're willing to vote me over the person you've made very clear is your top suspect at deadline because...?
<snip>

Fact check: As you even just pointed out, I’m not voting you. KingPin and DotS are, but I’m not. So, no- I am voting my top suspect over you- but I’m voting you over no-lynch.

You are making assumptions that aren't supported by any evidence. I have given reasoning for mine- namely, that in order for either Stoofer or Joh to have killed, either your action or KingPin's HAS not to have gone through as stated. That is based on a reasonable reading of things.

Except we know that KingPin’s action didn’t go through as stated.
And you’re yet again ignoring how according to D2, Johoohno’s target-switching appears to have precedence over TSN’s roleblocking.

[EmpTyger]

Unvote: Johoohno, vote: The Fonz.

Either way I'm doing KingPin/DotS.

[EmpTyger]

Also, I don't like how TSN didn't vote despite promising, right after Fonz ignores him. Will reread to check to see if this is significant, but wanted to mention now in case mod locks thread.

[EmpTyger]

Meh, I don’t think there’s anything to it.

Case 1) Fonz is guilty:
Then the only reason I can think of why he wouldn’t support the Johoohno attack is if Johoohno is also mafia. If Johoohno were innocent, mislynching him should almost definitely have been a mafia win.

Case 2) Fonz is innocent:
Then there’s nothing to analyze of the fact that he omitted TSN from consideration. TSN’s not casting a lynching vote as promised can be argued either way: on one hand, he didn’t vote for an innocent, but on the other hand, he didn’t offer an alternative, when being silent would cause either Fonz’s lynch or an unhelpful no-lynch. But this is true worse of, say, Stoofer.

[EmpTyger]

I think I’d like to see today the following claim N4 claim order:
1) TSN
2) Johoohno
3) DotS
followed by a Johoohno lynch.

Any objections to the claim order?

[EmpTyger]

KingPin and I aren't on any list because we have already claimed. On this very page, in fact.

---

Johoohno:
While we're waiting, why don't you amuse us with some explanation for your nightchoice. Specifically, why you retargeted DotS, who was instrumental in lynching both mathcam and Fonz.

[EmpTyger]

I keep coming back to Fonz’s D3 play- I don’t see any reason why Fonz wouldn’t attack Johoohno, if Johoohno were innocent.

Vote: Johoohno

Just for fun:
Stoofer:
If the last mafia isn’t Johoohno, who is it?

Johoohno:
If the last mafia isn’t Stoofer, who is it?

---

DotS:

<snip>
I also noticed rule 10: "No choice means no action."
This could be relevant unless it's more to do with getting choices in before deadline.

This was how I interpreted it too.

---

KingPin:

<snip>
I think that because both scum have been revealed without roles that they probably didn't have role names or the ability to target as town members target. If this is the case, then we need to seriously look at Stoofer. He is the only other player that has stated he did not make a night choice.
<snip>

We need to seriously look at Stoofer for other reasons, but not this one. I don’t think that Fonz can be genuinely vanilla- then there is no possible explanation for the N3 results.

[EmpTyger]

hm Noticed something interesting on reread, almost purely at random. I'm a little more curious now what response my last post will get.

[EmpTyger]

Still wanting curiously on response, although it might be time to just move on, maybe.

[EmpTyger]

DotS:
Which do you prefer: explaining your setup theory without Stoofer, or just moving straight to a lynch of whoever?

[EmpTyger]

meh My hesitation was just another doubt because of the TSN/Fonz problem. I was curious whether TSN, who has been rather hesitant in voting, would place a quicker vote now that it's apparently Stoofer or Johoohno. But he didn't. And there's still too much against Johoohno and Stoofer, and I can't find anything else against TSN.

So... why aren't we voting for either? I mean, if there's reason to hesitate, okay, but then we should be talking about that. But it seems we're all in consensus, so what are we waiting for?

[EmpTyger]

Fine, if we’re waiting on Stoofer, then let’s give him a reason to check in- and a way to proceed if he’s mafia just stalling it out.

Unvote: Johoohno. Vote: Mr Stoofer.

That’s 1. Every 24 hours, someone add another vote.

Stoofer:
You’ve got 48 hours.

[EmpTyger]

On review, actually, it seems Stoofer is only back doing listmoderation, and even that appears to be limited- mith is looking for a replacement listmod.

Unvote: Mr Stoofer

to discuss practicalities.

If he’s requesting replacement as listmod, should he be replaced out here? Perhaps- but either he hasn’t requested it or the mod hasn’t allowed it. And, even so, is that fair to a replacement? (ie: Hi, please read and comment on these 34 pages so we can go ahead and lynch you.)

My inclination is to lynch him and be done with it, but I think that’s mostly because I don’t see another reasonable option. In any case, there needs consensus.

[EmpTyger]

Massive, for what it’s worth, you didn’t deserve this.

Given the hot water Stoofer got into on the first 2 pages for whether he was being completely honest with a vote rationale- I can’t believe he would be less than honest about when he became a townsperson:

Alright, I'll accept the calls for a claim.

My role is

Townie

. But what's more, I am at present the only Townie in the game. Yes, that's right. my role PM specifically says that at present there are no other Townies in the game.

The phrasing is a little odd -- it includes a synonym for "at present". I didn't think very much of this when I first read my role PM, but when Joohonho suggested that mneme might have the ability to take people's roles away, I thought that that was an explanation for the wording of my role PM; and I though Joohonho was likely to be right. Having considered the subsequent discussion, mathcam's point in particular, I am not so sure.

Vote: Mr Stoofer

. Lynch-1

Does anyone have any suggestions for tonight, assuming that game is still going? Johoohno’s judgment can’t be trusted, but I’m not sure what to do about it.

---

TSN:
Just wondering, but why, the closer the games gets towards wrapped up, do you persist in itch-inducing behavior? First it was accidentally not hammering mafia. Now, you react to massive’s new story without any doubt whatsoever. My reaction was akin to KingPin’s- why wasn’t yours?

---

KingPin:
Isn’t massive claiming to have been targeted by mneme N1? That wouldn’t contradict being mathcam being targeted by mneme N2. Not that there aren’t other issues with this last minute revelation.

[EmpTyger]

er,

Unvote: Mr Stoofer, vote: massive

[EmpTyger]

I do not see myself voting for anyone other than Stoofer or massive this game.

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
@ EmpTyger: What is your opinion of KingPin and TSN?

KingPin is protown.
TSN is protown.

Neither have played perfectly, to be sure- KingPin misplayed D1, TSN D3- but they've been generally helpful. You and Stoofer haven't been, the entire game. If I had to pick between Stoofer and you, I'm honestly not sure which I'd go for. Fortunately, we have margin of error, so I don't need to waste my time.

---

KingPin/TSN:
Where're the lingering doubts?

[EmpTyger]

I don't know how I missed that. You're absolutely right- my apologies, and my condolences to massive.

[EmpTyger]

Thanks all and mod, and well done, town!

massive:
Stoofer deserved the loss here; and moreover, you deserved a win for your play in your first incarnation. Not that scoring matters in the grand scheme of things: I do hope you are coping well with your real-life troubles.

Johoohno:
Sorry for doubting you. But even now there’s so much I just don’t understand about your play.

DotS:
No offense, I hope, for my criticism of your play? I know I was harsh at times- please let me know if you’d like me to add anything constructive.

TSN:
What I said in-thread represented only a fraction of the second-guessing your non-lynch of Fonz made me go through. That’s normally a lynchable offense, but you had played solidly until then, there was enough evidence that it was just a fluke. Thanks for playing so well everyplace else, otherwise this might have been tricky. Well done.

As for massclaim: I think’s that the wrong lesson. I’d instead take from this game that the merits for and against a massclaim should be evaluated for each situation. Saying “massclaims are always good” is as foolish as saying “massclaims are always bad”- whether one would be advantageous is something that will depend on the context of a particular game.

Primate:
Thanks for the concern about my first game back; maybe I’ll get a chance to return the favor some time?

Mod:
Could we get full setup/role information? Kind of curious about the theme: what were the answers to the “logic puzzle”?

[EmpTyger]

KingPin:
Actually, this was the first game I had signed up for in year, also. And, heh- the D1 frustration was mutual. The little things kept piling up (listing 2 instead of 3? omg so trivial in retrospect). Fortunately, I got a reread in during N2, and got to reevaluate, although I can’t remember what it specifically was that made me think better of you.

---

TSN:
Wow- I hadn’t noticed that we only had the one replacement. You’re right- I think it helped the game be enjoyable because nearly everyone (on all sides) really committed to the game. (With the exception of Primate, who probably should have been replaced or lynched earlier. As for Stoofer- honestly, it’s hard for me to judge him harshly, since the game was effectively over by that point. I understand him needing to move on irl, but needing to balance OOH the obligation to his teammates even in a rather hopeless scenario, and OTOH not wanting to subject a replacement to having to read, defend things that weren’t their fault, and probably get lynched for it anyhow.)

---

Mafia:
Just wondering, who did you intend to kill N2?