Mini 607 - Cop Central [GAME OVER!]

[Aimless]

Hmmm... I'm not sure we should lynch QoS today, even if she isn't cooperating. We can nail her tomorrow, if need be.

I rather think it's better to start learning our sanities, even at the potential cost of lynching a townie. Tekk or Fark is a better choice.

[SensFan]

mod, do we still get a result if the person we targeted gets NK'd?

Yes.

[Skruffs]

Hmmm...

I'm not sure we should lynch QoS today, even if she isn't cooperating.

We can nail her tomorrow, if need be.

I rather think

it's better to start learning our sanities, even at the potential cost of lynching a townie

. Tekk or Fark is a better choice.

Fos: Aimless

The game is still about catching scum more than figuring out our sanities.

I have a habit of misinterpretting things, but it sounds to me like you are suggesting that Tekk and Fark are more likely townies than QoS and that we should lynch them anyways. If QoS turns out to be scum, I"M going to have to say you should be heavily questioned for this.

[Aimless]

We choose the second scummiest player (after the one who gets lynched), and

everyone

investigates him tonight (excepct for those who already did last night, obviously).

Usually, I'm against ideas like this; the town directing the investigation is almost never a good idea. But, in this case, I think you may be on to something. At the very worst, (assuming our mass target is down) we will have narrowed everyone down to (paranoid/insane) and (naive/sane).

The only risk is that this potentially costs us an extra day; with three scum in the game that means we will open day 3 in LYLO.

Hrmmm... actually, that prospect worries me quite a bit.

Counter-proposal - this is a good idea, if we lynch scum today, and can afford to waste the day. If we hit town, we should try to spread the results out, the better to have more results on more players to work with.

Besides, it's easy to identify our useful cops.

[Aimless]

I have a habit of misinterpretting things, but it sounds to me like you are suggesting that Tekk and Fark are more likely townies than QoS and that we should lynch them anyways. If QoS turns out to be scum, I"M going to have to say you should be heavily questioned for this.

Three points:

One, all things being equal, it should be obviously better for the town lynch a person investigated twice over one investigated once or not at all.

Two, I'm just about convinced that Fark is scum. I'm running out of time now (have to go teach in a few minutes), but I'll make the case better later.

Three, I'm

not

convinced that QoS is scum. I'm inclined to think that she's simply a useless player; this tells me no information regarding her alignment. (And, in truth, in previous games I've played, useless players have been more likely town than scum, because said player is more likely to pay attention if they get a "cool" role.)

[Skruffs]

We choose the second scummiest player (after the one who gets lynched), and

everyone

investigates him tonight (excepct for those who already did last night, obviously).

Usually, I'm against ideas like this; the town directing the investigation is almost never a good idea. But, in this case, I think you may be on to something. At the very worst, (assuming our mass target is down) we will have narrowed everyone down to (paranoid/insane) and (naive/sane).

The only risk is that this potentially costs us an extra day; with three scum in the game that means we will open day 3 in LYLO.

Hrmmm... actually, that prospect worries me quite a bit.

Counter-proposal - this is a good idea, if we lynch scum today, and can afford to waste the day. If we hit town, we should try to spread the results out, the better to have more results on more players to work with.

Besides, it's easy to identify our useful cops.

This is absolutely a horrible idea. We have the capability of four investigative results a night that are worth considering. The more the results are spread out, the more likely, later on in the game, that the results will incriminate or clear a player. Also, mafia can kill that player, effectively eliminating the amount of results that can actually be used to lynch someone to 0.

All things being equal: You are trying to avoid lynching someone who has not claimed their target or results to try and lynch one of two people who have both supplied their results and targets and are positing valid arguments.

We can not do anything to determine who's results are good vs wrong vs broken until we have at least two results. Waiting one day might clear BOTH Tekk and Fark. It is better to lynch someone with no results on them because there is no loss of information AND she's likely sucm anyways.

[Aimless]

All things being equal: You are trying to avoid lynching someone who has not claimed their target or results to try and lynch one of two people who have both supplied their results and targets and are positing valid arguments.

This is a mini game. 3 scum, 8 town. This means that the town gets to be wrong twice.

As much as I am annoyed that QoS is not participating, prior experience has told me that, generally, this is at best a neutral indicator for finding scum. Uselessness is generally neither a scum tell nor a town tell.

Furthermore, not only has QoS not

claimed

any investigations, she was not

targeted

by any investigations, either. Lynching her gives us no information at all regarding our sanity. Further, the lack of participation means that the lynch itself also give us less information than normal. Thus, yes, I'm rather against lynching QoS. If this were a mountainous game, or were all else indeed equal, then I would be fine with lynching the least useful player on day one. Not the case here.

And, lastly, because useless players tend to make a good distraction, the first to go for them are often scum.

[ZeekLTK]

unvote; vote Skruffs

There is nothing positive that we can gain, for the town, from lynching QoS IMO.

-No one investigated her so it doesn't help anyone narrow down their sanity.
-QoS hasn't posted here, but she also hasn't posted anywhere else on the site. In her profile it says her last post on the whole site was in this game. Clearly she just hasn't been online...

Skruffs is pushing us to lynch a player that won't help the town in any way... nice try scum.

Also, possibly influencing my vote here, I want to note that the two games I've been in with him, I've seen Skruffs try to pull this both times (try to get the town to do some ridiculous plan and lynch someone that in no way benefits the town). Both times he was anti-town.

In the one I was alive in (533), he was telling us to lynch the most pro-town player in the game (who turned out to be the doctor) and telling us if that guy didn't come up scum, after we'd be in LyLo the next day, we could lynch him. In the other game that I had already been killed in (random mafia 3), he was trying to get the town to lynch another clearly pro-town player and was trying to claim that guy was a cult recruiter when there was no evidence of a cult (and Skruffs was actually the cult recruiter). If they hadn't lynched Skruffs they would have lost.

Now I'm not saying QoS is "clearly pro-town", but Skruffs, as scum, would know QoS is pro-town AND that lynching QoS now would not benefit the town at all... This is turning into the same thing... "hey let's do [Skruff's plan], it's not going to help the town at all, and I don't really have any good reasons for it (other than it'll help Skruffs, as anti-town, win) but let's do it!"

I mean, look at his last post:

This is absolutely a horrible idea. We have the capability of four investigative results a night that are worth considering. The more the results are spread out, the more likely, later on in the game, that the results will incriminate or clear a player. Also, mafia can kill that player, effectively eliminating the amount of results that can actually be used to lynch someone to 0.

This is absolutely false. If we all target the same person, the worst thing the scum could do (for themselves) is to kill that person so that we enter Day 2 having narrowed down our possible sanities to 2 (possibly one based on Day 1 investigations).

For example, let's say we lynch Skruffs today (as he is the scummiest) and then the mafia kills someone we all targeted.

Based on that, both Fark (who has a result on Jenter) and drool (who has a result on Skruffs) would most likely be able to determine their own sanities because they will have 2 confirmed results (the person who had already died, and the person who everyone investigated). If either of them get a different result then they've already gotten, it proves they are one of the sanes (insane or sane), and they'll be able to know which one because they have proof. Then they can be useful in finding scum (and scum won't know if they figured out they were useful or not useful). Also, some other players will be able to figure out whether or not they are useful/not useful (and just won't be able to narrow down if they are sane/insane) based on if they get a different result during the investigation.

For example, I got an innocent on TDC, so if I investigate (whoever) on Night 1 and get a guilty then I know I am useful, I just need to figure out which person is scum.

So Skruffs is misleading us... trying to make us think that a good idea for the town won't work if the scum do something, but the reason for it "not working" (scum killing the target) is a reason why it would work even better, because then we wouldn't have to waste a lynch on Day 2 to get the guy's alignment! Basically, there really is nothing the scum can do to thwart us from gaining information from all investigating the same person, if that is what we choose to do.

But now that the scum know it's not a good idea to kill the target, let's assume we do have to lynch the target on Day 2. Even if we still haven't hit scum on the first two days (which I think will be unlikely given some of the arguments some players have made that are fairly anti-town when you really look at them (*cough* Skruffs *cough*)), by Night 3 a majority of people will be able to figure out their usefulness/sanities since, to begin Day 3, there will be 5 players dead (Jenter, day 1 lynch, night 1 kill, Day 2 lynch, night 2 kill). As Aimless said, we may be in LyLo, but with that many results, and that many players who most likely find out their usefulness/sanities, we should be okay and be able to lynch a scum (if we haven't already, which I kinda doubt we will fail to the way this game is going).

All things being equal: You are trying to avoid lynching someone who has not claimed their target or results to try and lynch one of two people who have both supplied their results and targets and are positing valid arguments.

Even if we, for whatever crazy reason, decided to lynch QoS... obviously we would wait until she came back and claimed... or until she was replaced and the replacement claimed. Well, not you apparently. You want us to lynch her ASAP so that she can't claim and then we get zero information from her instead of at least a little... Also I notice you're really trying to avoid us lynching Tekk or Fark...

We can not do anything to determine who's results are good vs wrong vs broken until we have at least two results. Waiting one day might clear BOTH Tekk and Fark. It is better to lynch someone with no results on them because there is no loss of information AND she's likely sucm anyways.

Again, you are awfully defensive of both Tekk and Fark considering how gun-ho you are about killing QoS... and again, it is NOT better to lynch someone with no results on them because that means no one gains any information from the lynch. If we lynch you, drool learns something. If we lynch me, TDC learns something. If we lynch Tekk or Fark then TWO players learn something. If we lynch QoS... no one learns anything.

So I'm not sure if you're being defensive of them just because you don't want the town to get information from them, or if it's because you're scumbuddies with one or both of them...

-----------

But, aside from Skruffs being so scummy...

If we decide to lynch Tekk or Fark because of the information it'll provide a lot of information, especially if we decide to use Rabbit's idea and all investigate the same player.

I think Tekk would be a better lynch because of the fact that two people have two different results on him.

By lynching him, and allowing those two (clammy and Korlash) to investigate someone else tonight (especially if it's someone we plan on lynching tomorrow), there is a good chance that they can figure out their usefulness (if they get a different result than they got on Tekk) and their sanity (they'll know whether they were right or wrong about Tekk).

And then, I know I voted Skruffs at the top of this post, and after writing this I'm more convinced he's scum than when I started... but I've changed my mind. We should lynch Tekk today to get the most information possible for the town and then we should investigate Skruffs because that ensures that we lynch him tomorrow (since he's most likely scum). As far as I'm aware, lynching scum Skruffs tomorrow vs today is not going to make that big of a difference (he'll have one more night to talk with his buddies, but that's about it), so...

unvote; vote: Tekk

And request: mass investigation Skruffs tonight to help determine everyone's usefulness/sanity.

Does that make sense? Does anyone agree with me?

[Aimless]

Zeek, I agree with you one all points except one - I still feel Fark is the better target. I'm all but certain he is scum. Since I promised earlier to make my case, I'll do so now:

We should not massclaim on Day 1, in my opinion.

As has been pointed out numerous times, this is an anti-town suggestion. Fark's excuse, for having made it, is that this is his second game - and yet, that belies his motive. Had he truly been unsure, he would have stayed silent. (This isn't enough, by itself; but, in conjunction with the rest it seems in retrospect clear to me.)

Whoa there, skruffs.

You bring up some good points that I didn't consider, but I'm still not convinced. We should all discuss and decide as a group whether we want to mass claim. Until then, I won't be saying who I investigated or what my result was.

A half hearted defense of his position, when called on his earlier mistake.

If the majority of players think the mass-claim is a good idea, I'll go along with it.

In the very next post, made immediately thereafter, he retracts even his first feeble defense, with the excuse "I'll go along with the majority."

This is the statement that first convinced me he was scum; to my eye this is a very glaring attempt to duck the attention he had garnered. Furthermore, basically every time I've ever seen anyone use this defense in my past games, they've been scum.

Let's say that we don't mass claim. Doesn't that give an investigative advantage to the 4 useful cops that are still out there? They may independently be able to figure out their usefulness. And they may be able to stay alive longer and do more investigations, which could be very useful in the endgame.

Fark continues in his attempts to prevent cops from posting their investigations. Actually, his entire post was scummy as heck; for brevity's sake I quoted on the most relevant part. At any way, the logic that he uses here isn't the way a townie thinks.

The only way that a cop will know he's useful in this game is if he gets a result that differs from a previous result. The second he does so, he will know he has found scum (either his current target, or all of his past targets). To hide this information is inexcusable, and yet Fark suggests that this is exactly what said useful cop does.

Further, we have 4 useful cops, and three scum. If we trade them one for one, we win.

At any rate, this post is simply more evidence on the heap that Fark is scummy.

He belabors this point for several more posts, not quoted for brevity.

I investigated Jenter Brolincani.

Claiming he investigated the dead guy, after he's finally given in and accepted the need to claim.

But let's not take our eyes off the prize. If we can find scum on Day 1, we should lynch them.

Now, I think that lurking is our biggest enemy in a game with a deadline right off the top. So:

Unvote
Vote: Queen_of_Spades

Contradicting himself in the space of two sentences (find scum vs. lynch the lurker), and immediately jumps on QoS; the first person to do so by my count.

As I've said before, lurkers/useless players make great distractions for scum to hide from the heat.

We should also think about coming up with assigned investigation targets for N1. If by the time we hit twilight, every player has an assigned person that they have to investigate, it gives less leeway for the scum to coordinate their false investigations after sundown. It also will maximize the information that we get from investigations.

This is less of a tell than the others. Wanting to have the town direct the investigation is usually a scum move, but in this case (at least for a single night) it may actually make since.

******

At any rate, as I said, I think Fark has been acting scummy all game so far. He logic just does not seem to me to be the way a townie would think.

The two biggest are his "I'll do whatever the town decides" defense and jumping all over QoS (especially contradicting himself in the post to do so).

In light of the above, I completely agree that Skruffs is also quite scummy, and likely working with Fark. After his original IGMEOY, he's done quite a bit to throw suspicion off of Fark and onto others - especially QoS, recently.

However, I think Fark is the better lynch of the two, for the reason stated above: he was targeted twice, and so we get more info.

Regarding Tekk: I'm a little suspicious of him for immediately claiming an innocent result towards Fark, but I'm far less suspicious of him than I am of the other two, and would hesitate to draw a link between them immediately.

[dRool89]

On a note that is far less intricate as the posts that just recently came before me, lynching QoS wouldn't do much. At least not yet, she needs to post more. But not cooperating with the majority of the town looks very bad.

She may be the antithesis of cooperative and unresponsive, but nonetheless that is not a necessary scum tell imo. She may be busy with stuff irl or she may have simply forgotten about this whole game (silly, but plausible).

Skuff is (in my opinion) either very scum or very town. He supports his ideals strongly, VERY STRONGLY. Either he thinks he knows what is best for the town as a whole or he wants to convince the town of something that will result as a negative for the town. He supports his claims (fairly) well and seems convincing. After reading the posts it seems that mass claiming will eventually (but probably not immediately) work in the town's favor. Something he strongly supported. If Skuff isn't town I bet that he'll be NK'd soon.

Fark, however, comes off very scummy to me. I'm not particularly familiar with the game, but he seems to be someone who is scum. This may be a result of being new to the game of Mafia, but Fark appears to be scummy.

Honestly, I'm not convinced on anyone quiet yet, but I have several suspicions. Some of which are definitely incorrect. I do have my suspicions, some of which (most) have been outlined in this post.

I will vote on who to lynch soon. Ideally, we will catch someone in a lie soon.

[dRool89]

She may be the antithesis of cooperative and unresponsive, but nonetheless that is not a necessary scum tell imo.

and *is* unresponsive.

[dRool89]

vote farkshinsoup

[TDC]

Raging Rabbit: That player will get night killed, and nobody has any result..

Fark investigated Jenter (assuming he's not lying), and got a result.

Ah, my fault, sorry.

[TDC]

We should definitely wait with any lynch until we have qos's result.

can we get a prod on qos?

Zeek: Why do you prefer a Tekk lynch over a Fark lynch? I agree that it should be one of those two, but I'd go with Aimless and prefer Fark.

Further, we have 4 useful cops, and three scum. If we trade them one for one, we win.

Yeah, but trading one for one is not that easy.
Let's say Player A has an innocent on player B and a guilty on player C. Which of the three is scum?

[Korlash]

I think Zeek said he thinks Tekk is better because he has both an innocent and guilty.

Personally I was under the opinion knowing the alignment of my target was important so obviously I would rather see Tekk lynched. However i'm not exactly an excpert at this sort of game.

Let's say Player A has an innocent on player B and a guilty on player C. Which of the three is scum?

player A. b is obviously paranoid, and C is obviously an unhelpful townie. next!

[TDC]

I think Zeek said he thinks Tekk is better because he has both an innocent and guilty.

Hm.
If Tekk is scum, then one of them is naive/insane and one is paranoid/sane.
If he is town, then one of them is naive/sane and one is paranoid/insane.

There are two innocents on Fark.
If Fark is scum, then both of them are naive/insane, and if he is town both of them are naive/sane.

Where is the advantage in the former?
Either of the investigators has three possible sanities now, and two possible sanities when we know Tekk's/Fark's alignment.

[Aimless]

Yeah, but trading one for one is not that easy.
Let's say Player A has an innocent on player B and a guilty on player C. Which of the three is scum?

That is indeed the trick. If it were that easy, this wouldn't be a game.

[Aimless]

I think Zeek said he thinks Tekk is better because he has both an innocent and guilty.

Hm.
If Tekk is scum, then one of them is naive/insane and one is paranoid/sane.
If he is town, then one of them is naive/sane and one is paranoid/insane.

There are two innocents on Fark.
If Fark is scum, then both of them are naive/insane, and if he is town both of them are naive/sane.

Where is the advantage in the former?
Either of the investigators has three possible sanities now, and two possible sanities when we know Tekk's/Fark's alignment.

If we look at things statistically, the odds that both of the players who investigated Fark are naive is slim. The odds that we have a naive and a paranoid investigating Tekk are slightly higher.

[clammy]

I'd be all in favour of a Tekk lynch for the same selfish reason as korlash, happy for te higher chance at knowing what my own sanity is.

I agree the maths, as well as the slim amount of D1 evidence, is in favour of lynching Fark for today.

I'm happy to go with either for the reasons above but not sure i'd go anyone else at this stage.

[Farkshinsoup]

LONG POST ALERT:

Lots to respond to. I'm going to start with Aimless. Let's have a look at this case you have against me.

We should not massclaim on Day 1, in my opinion.

As has been pointed out numerous times, this is an anti-town suggestion.

It may have been pointed out, but it hasn't been proven. I'd like you to prove to me how this is an anti-town suggestion.

Fark's excuse, for having made it, is that this is his second game - and yet, that belies his motive. Had he truly been unsure, he would have stayed silent. (This isn't enough, by itself; but, in conjunction with the rest it seems in retrospect clear to me.)

Huh? You're going to have to explain this one again. If I had really had doubts I would have kept them to myself? Under that logic, whenever a townie saw something that didn't sit right with him, he'd keep his mouth shut. How is that good for the town?

Whoa there, skruffs.

You bring up some good points that I didn't consider, but I'm still not convinced. We should all discuss and decide as a group whether we want to mass claim. Until then, I won't be saying who I investigated or what my result was.

A half hearted defense of his position, when called on his earlier mistake.

It was not a mistake, it was an alternate opinion. For the record, I don't regret any of those posts I made, and I'm puzzled by why you want to stifle discussion. That, to me, seems anti-town.

If the majority of players think the mass-claim is a good idea, I'll go along with it.

In the very next post, made immediately thereafter, he retracts even his first feeble defense, with the excuse "I'll go along with the majority."

This is the statement that first convinced me he was scum; to my eye this is a very glaring attempt to duck the attention he had garnered.

At this point, most of the other players had accepted the mass claim idea. No one wanted to discuss it. It seemed pointless to keep at it.

Furthermore, basically every time I've ever seen anyone use this defense in my past games, they've been scum.

I love this argument. So I'm scum for expressing a different opinion, and then I'm scum for dropping it as a course of action after we've discussed it. You're right, if I was town, I would have never let it drop.

Let's say that we don't mass claim. Doesn't that give an investigative advantage to the 4 useful cops that are still out there? They may independently be able to figure out their usefulness. And they may be able to stay alive longer and do more investigations, which could be very useful in the endgame.

Fark continues in his attempts to prevent cops from posting their investigations. Actually, his entire post was scummy as heck; for brevity's sake I quoted on the most relevant part. At any way, the logic that he uses here isn't the way a townie thinks.

I'm sorry, you do not have a lock on how a townie thinks. It is possible that I can be town, and think differently from you and the rest of the players. Bad argument.

The only way that a cop will know he's useful in this game is if he gets a result that differs from a previous result. The second he does so, he will know he has found scum (either his current target, or all of his past targets). To hide this information is inexcusable, and yet Fark suggests that this is exactly what said useful cop does.

Look, in many mafia games, keeping the power roles hidden is a GOOD IDEA! Why? Because scum will kill those power roles once they know them. I don't think that it's so crazy for me to think that keeping their identities a secret might be a good idea. "Inexcusable"? I don't think so.

Further, we have 4 useful cops, and three scum. If we trade them one for one, we win.

Oh great. I had no idea it would be so easy!:roll:

I investigated Jenter Brolincani.

Claiming he investigated the dead guy, after he's finally given in and accepted the need to claim.

Again, no way I can convince anyone about this choice, but seeing as I was already drawing some suspicion, if I was scum, why would I choose Jenter? I wouldn't. I would do what all the other scum have clearly done and NOT choose him.

But let's not take our eyes off the prize. If we can find scum on Day 1, we should lynch them.

Now, I think that lurking is our biggest enemy in a game with a deadline right off the top. So:

Unvote
Vote: Queen_of_Spades

Contradicting himself in the space of two sentences (find scum vs. lynch the lurker), and immediately jumps on QoS; the first person to do so by my count.

As I've said before, lurkers/useless players make great distractions for scum to hide from the heat.

I'm sorry, where did I say that I wanted to lynch QoS? I want to lynch the scum. I don't know if QoS is scum. How could I? She's barely posted anything.

You see, there's this thing called a "pressure vote". You may have heard of it. It is different from a lynch vote.

And I'm sorry, but lurkers are very bad news in a game with a deadline. Now I am getting scum vibes from some players, and my vote may end up changing, but I'm happy with it where it is right now.

However, I think Fark is the better lynch of the two, for the reason stated above: he was targeted twice, and so we get more info.

This is a good one. "Even if you think he's town, let's lynch him anyways. We'll get more info." As I've said previously, I agree that all things being equal, Tekk or myself would be a good lynch. But I'm disturbed that some players don't even want to bother scum hunting, and want to go right there.

I guarantee that scum will go along with that idea on Day1.

Aimless, your arguments against me are pretty weak. Here's my assessment of you. You are town, I think. You are a follower.

The very first post of the game, i put down a random vote. I can honestly say that mass claiming hadn't entered my mind. You had the second post of the game. Did you come in and suggest a mass claim? Nope, you followed my lead and random voted TDC.

TDC has the 3rd post, and he suggested the mass claim. I thought it was a bad idea, and said so. I was eventually convinced. I wasn't worried about what town would think of me, I thought it was more important that we start talking about our options and reach a consensus.

In your very next post, you say:

Of course we should mass claim. The more information the town has, the better off we are, and if we know everyone's results, we can begin a process of elimination to find scum.

Suggesting anything else is rather scummy

If this is a rule written in stone, how come you did not suggest it in your first post? Clearly, because either you didn't think of it, or you did, but did not want to lead the way, and kept your mouth shut.

Considering that you are a follower, it makes sense that you would think that I am scum.

What is most dangerous is that you are seriously underestimating the scum. I think they are a lot smarter than you are giving them credit for. Keep looking.

And a big old

FoS at drool

for that weak bandwagon vote. That seems scummy to me.

[Farkshinsoup]

Fark, however, comes off very scummy to me. I'm not particularly familiar with the game, but he seems to be someone who is scum. This may be a result of being new to the game of Mafia, but Fark appears to be scummy.

Is there an actual argument in there anywhere? You know, it doesn't become true if you just keep repeating it over and over.

[Raging Rabbit]

Fos: Aimless

The game is still about catching scum more than figuring out our sanities.

Since figuring out our sanities enables us to catch scum, why not do both?

This is absolutely a horrible idea. We have the capability of four investigative results a night that are worth considering. The more the results are spread out, the more likely, later on in the game, that the results will incriminate or clear a player.

Not true, imo. We have 4 useful cops in a 12 player game, which means figuring out our sanities will absolutely break the game for the town.

Going with Skruffs' idea of lynching those who've been investigated the least is likely to get us into day 3 with tons of useless info, since hardly anyone will know whether their results are true of false. We'll have no way of figuring out the false scum claims. The chaos and confusion that'll create are only good for the mafia.

Going with my plan of having the entire town investigate the same guy and then lynch him might "waste" us a night, but by day 3 we'll have an excellent chance of having enough cops figure out their sanities to basically win us the game. Hopefully one of those two lynches will turn out scum, since we choose the two scummiest players. Even if they don't turn out scum, going into lynch or lose with that much info gives us a far better chance than going there with tons of useless cross-investigations and no actual knowldege, which is what we get by following Skruffs' plan.

Also, mafia can kill that player, effectively eliminating the amount of results that can actually be used to lynch someone to 0.

If you meant that the result'll be useless since we won't get them in case of a NK, the mod just said we would a few posts earlier than yours and I find it odd you managed to miss it.

Otherwise, I still don't see your point - in case the player we all decide to investigate is town, the

stupidest

thing scum could possibly do is NK him, thus saving us a misslynch and giving us free info.


All in all, it looks to me like Skruffs is so busy trying to lead the town that he's not even trying to see the entire picture and look at things from different angles, which is very scummy.


Still, I completely agree with Aimless' analysis of Fark, and also agree that we're better off lynching Fark than Skruffs since Fark's been investigated twice. I therefore suggest lynching Fark and mass-investigating Skruffs.


I'm keeping my vote on queen atm, not because I advocate her lynch but because I'd like to keep her under pressure 'till she claims. I join TDC's request for a

prod on queen_of_spades

.

[Raging Rabbit]

Look, in many mafia games, keeping the power roles hidden is a GOOD IDEA! Why? Because scum will kill those power roles once they know them. I don't think that it's so crazy for me to think that keeping their identities a secret might be a good idea. "Inexcusable"? I don't think so.

But this happens to be an open set up, where having all results in the open is

the only thing the enables power roles to know they're power roles

. What use are 4 good cops if none of them are even sure their results have any value?


It makes sense for your vote on qos to be a pressure vote, but other than that your defense contains mostly appeals to emotion and does little to convince me of your innocence. The "Aimless is a follower" assessment is weak at best.

[Skruffs]

Aimless:
You have pointed out that we can mislynch twice. Does this mean that you know QoS is town?

Fos

Zeek:
What if she is scum? Do you think scum are more or less likely to abandon a game where they have to fake claim their sanity, targets, and results IMMEDIATELY on day one?
I am glad that you pointed out that QoS hasn't been posting anywhere on the site. I just checked that myself. Hopefully she is going to be replaced soon, or start posting.

Also:

DO NOT TALK ABOUT ONGOING GAMES

. I can not respond to any of your comments because it would affect the outcome of that game, possibly, by revealing my thoughts about it. So

SHUT IT

.

You completely ignored the other game, and I can't even really remember what it is. If it's over, feel free to discuss my play here.

The other thing you are missing is that you did not look at my play in any games in which I am

Town

. If you had, you would see that this behavior is par for the course.

Of all the players, based on targets, the two most likely scum are Qos (for saying we should reveal targets WHILE people were doing so without revealing hers) and the person who targetted Jenter (because it's a known alignment that gives no information tot he town about that player). I am not saying that targetting jenter was scummy, just that it was a bad play.


I think it's amusing that Zeek started off his post by voting me for saying that we should vote for the least cooperative player, because that player has no results on them, when I myself had no targets.


Let me put it this way:

WE have to lynch every day.
As Aimless pointed out, with 8 town and 3 scum, we have 2 mistakes.
If we lynch someone today because they have investigations on them and NOT because they are acting scummy, we are removing all traces of scum hunting from the game. One slot is used up.

IF we then all target, say, me, tonight, and I get NK'd, then the only possible results we would have tomorrow would be people who got a different result on me, then on the person that they targetted n1. So the only chances we would have, tomorrow, of lynching correctly depends entirely on who people targetted, *last night*.

By not directing investigations, scum will not know who to kill, and will have to base their decision on who THEY think is the most likely a threat to them. This will include people who have targetted them, and people who are scum hunting, and if none of those situations apply, a WIFOM choice of someone they think is likely sane or insane.

I don't see why we need to confirm someone is sane, insane, paranoid, or naive, before the night happens. Lynching someone that the town has no information on eliminates the scum's chances of 'knowing' who to kill right off the bat. Let's save the confirmation of sanities until the morning.

Which means lynching someone with no information results in the greatest chance of lynching scum AND helping town.

Hope that was helpful!

[Skruffs]

Fos: Aimless

The game is still about catching scum more than figuring out our sanities.

Since figuring out our sanities enables us to catch scum, why not do both?

Who says I'm not trying to figure out our sanities?

Scum already know who's results are 'correct' and not, we don't. They just need to find out who's sane and who's not. We can only get confirmation of that with multiple investigations. Directing all four useful investigations into a dead end, even for on enight, is just horrible. IT is better to spread out investigations so that as sanities are revealed, a domino-effect of clearing and not cleaing, confirming and not confirming, happens.


I am always amused by people who say that someone is missing hte big picture as part of an attack which, basically, is missing the big picture.