Mini 619 - Ramen Mafia (Over!)

[sthar8]

Vote: Oman

for being a bulletproof Serial Killer

[sthar8]

EBWOP:
I should also say that I am probably the newest player in the game. I have one game ongoing in Road to Rome, and my mafia experience before that amounts to a few games played in the third grade. I'm familiar with most of the terminology, and I won't use newbie status as a defense for poor play or ignorance, but I figured you should all know that I have little meta knowledge or trend experience on the site.

[sthar8]

I think we can all agree that No Lynch is a Very Bad Thing unless used to solve a particular situation. I doubt severely that such a situation will arise on D1.

Would it be advantageous to us as a town to create a plurality policy? That is, we agree that at some predetermined time before the deadline (-6 or -8 hours), if there is no consensus we will lynch the person with the greatest number of votes? I can't see any particular advantage in this for scum that matches the disadvantage town gets from no-lynch, and our Day 1 information is going to be limited anyway. I think that scum misdirecting a lynch near deadline or abusing the policy would be a pretty transparent tactic.

aioqwe: Why did you vote for Oman?

[sthar8]

Oman: Are you opposed to setting policies in general or to this one specifically? I ask because I couldn't think of a way for scum to abuse this more than the current deadline rules. I agree that a genuine concensus lynch is better, and I think it's more likely given the activity so far. I just thought it might be nice to guarantee at least a little information gain should the worst occur.

Also, was that a name claim?

Liam: The idea was only intended for Day1 anyway.

My opinion on aioqwe so far is that he is most likely anxious about the deadline rules, but was worried that wanting to speed up conversation would be seen as scummy. This could go either way, and his response to my question may earn him an FOS or vote.

[sthar8]

Guy who might be A Kiwi: So the answer to my question is that you were acting scummy in order to analyze the behavior of those on your wagon? In this case it was a fair strategy, but I don't think I would try that outside early Day 1, as town are more likely to think "scummy means scum" than "scummy means town pretending to be scum," and then you have to defend yourself, which might taint any findings you present. I'm looking to get some mindset info on you still, so could you explain specifically why you chose Oman for your vote?

Interesting observation about food.

Oman's joke refers to the fact that I might accuse him of cowardice for refusing to accept my proposal, and "chicken" is English slang for coward. Chicken is also a flavor of Ramen, and this is allegedly a Ramen-themed game, thus the humor. Or, Oman could be referring to himself as a young homosexual male.

I teased Oman about the name claim in order to let him know that I got the joke and found it amusing. I don't think the rolename "Creamy Chicken" would tell us anything, since Chicken could either refer to some kind of healing as a reference to chicken soup, hiding as a reference to being chicken, vanilla as a reference to the popularity of the flavor (or, everything tastes like chicken), or mafia if our Mod doesn't like it.

[sthar8]

Whoops, missed one. Thank you for answering my question, Oman. I examined the strategy for potential means of abuse, but I couldn't find any, and I tried to be flexible, but I respect that you feel that the benefit is not worth the risk. It really was more a discussion point than anything else.

[sthar8]

[quote="Oman, post 32]Dice tags are wrong and evil, and you should be killed. [/quote]
[quote="DarlaBlueEyes, post 33]I agree Dice tags = Bad. [/quote]

Because she was the first to mention that Dice votes were bad. No particular reason other than that.

What?

Food and Kiwi are high on my list, but so are windkirby and strife220.

Oman, would you care to elaborate on your thoughts about strife?

[sthar8]

Food, I was giving you the chance to recognize your mistake and answer the question based on the correct information, since the answer you gave us was either invalid or incomplete. If you'd rather that I vote you over something so small...
Also, please restate "so what if I pointed out that she said a certain person? What will that lead to?" as I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[sthar8]

Beyond_Birthday: I haven't attacked anyone yet. What I

am

doing is asking a lot of questions while expressing my opinions on things the town seems interested in. Some of the questions I ask may seem insignificant; I assure you that they are not. The answers to these early, low pressure questions provide a baseline by which we can evaluate the behavior of individuals and groups later in the game. It also gives us a more informed look at the mindset and attitude of each player. Deviations from established patterns in tone and style can be very helpful in determining the motivation behind an action. Since the scum aim to imitate townie behavior, but differ in their motivations, determining motivation is the key to catching scum.

Also, what I said in my early opinion of Kiwi was that he appeared

anxious about being perceived as scummy

. He posted later that he expected to receive attacks based on that post. I said nothing regarding the information or context the tactic generated, other that calling it "fair strategy" at this point, although I don't think it was optimal play.

Is your reasoning on Kiwi based on his assumption that I am town, or something else that I missed?

Food: Hopefully this will help you understand what I'm getting at. From your last few posts, I get the feeling that you think I'm attacking you over stupid reasons. I would like to stress that I'm not really gunning for you right now.

Oman: Actually I wanted to know more about how you disagreed with strife. And I would argue (in a more appropriate place) that LAL is a sound strategy that is often misapplied, as it would have been if anyone had brought it up regarding Food's mistake.

[sthar8]

Darla, I also like to "see things and stuff" but there are not a lot of ways to do that legally in the US

I'm suspicious of Kiwi for his vote on food, which seemed more like bandwagoning than anything else.

I'm a little suspicious for strife, as his vote on Kiwi was based on a safe topic rather than Kiwi's recent actions. Plenty of people had time to comment on the "appearing scum to catch scum" thing, and strife could have seen that no one was likely to suspect an attack based on it. This is very weak though, there are several other explanations that work.

Windkirby has a poorly justified wagon vote on food, which sets off all kinds of bells. I need a better explanation fo the vote and some other observations from kirby, or he'll get my vote.

We need to hear more from ClockworkRuse before he starts risking modkill. I'd like to hear Liam's opinions on recent developments, and I'm looking forward t Darla's observations. I also have a question for Oman outstanding, but he probably just hasn't seen it yet.

[sthar8]

Oman: I read from Kiwi's post 43 that he was intending to bait attacks on his scumminess, but I may have been mistaken.

As for LAL, as I said, it is often misapplied. I also believe it is worded in a nonflexible manner because Lynch Some Liars has no vowels and is less catchy It also creates a meta which avoids some very bad situations for pro-town power roles, which I approve of.

I just looked at your profile and realized that you are younger than me. I do not consider myself to be old, so I disagree with your qualitative judgement in post 49. As I understand it, if you were gay, you would fit into the definition I was referring to perfectly.

[sthar8]

Strife: The first half of the flavor disposed of the remaining players in PEGBAM, made a few gay jokes about another member of this site, made a couple of remarks at Oman's expense, and established that Jdodge might be our villain. The second half established that we are all Ramen-people and created a setting in which this is normal. It had a nice explosion, a few horrible deaths, and much less rape than I expected. Nothing useful to our game, and I believe the mod when he said he'd keep alignment related information out of the flavor, as anything else would be plain stupid.

On a more serious note, I like your last post much more than the previous ones.

Liam: I agree about food's apparent attitude, but I'm not sure it points to anything.

Oman: I still have a question you haven't answered

I'm going to go ahead and

Unvote, Vote: charter

You have six in-game posts, and three of those have been votes. Two of the remaining three have been explanations for your serious votes. Now, your second point against Darla may be valid (I'll wait till her post to decide) but it seems to me that you are fishing for reactions with these votes, which could be scum trying out wagons to find the easy lynch.

[sthar8]

Oman: I just realized that you've already answered my question. Sorry

[sthar8]

Food: Just because some of us think the wagon on you was silly doesn't mean you can lurk. I need opinions from you about other players.

Also need opinions from Oman and Muerrto on things other than flightless birds.

No longer suspicious of strife. Kirby and kiwi are up there, but I'm still happy with my charter vote.

[sthar8]

Just checking in, will post later after I sober up a bit. Hopefully I can stop the horrible vibrating that I'm apparently doing.

[sthar8]

Oman: Assuming all that hinting was pointing at what I thought it was, I'll keep that in mind. The problem is that Kiwi keeps saying things that make it seem like he's more interested in people ignoring him than he is in finding scum, which doesn't quite mesh with his earlier play.

We obviously can't trust you completely, though. You could just be manipulating Muerrto and buddying up. Not a whole lot of evidence for this though.

Seriously, do you have any other suspicions or are you just going to badger me all day?

Kiwi, I don't know what Muerrto mean by "plea," but this is a loaded question based on the negative connotations of the word "badger." It creates a false dilemma between moving on to another suspect and "badgering" you, which ignores the possibility that Muerrto continues to pursue you, but without harassment. Also, in any noncomplete answer to this question, Muerrto would confess to having "badgered" you.

I'd like to see some scumhunting by Kiwi, Liam, Clockwork, and Food. Kiwi has been focused on his own defense for too long, I need verification of Liam's opinions (they seem to agree with mine), I don't know how Clockwork feels about anybody, which leaves him unaccountable for whatever happens today, and Food doesn't have anything concrete i -thread, which makes me wonder about what his priorities are.

Darla, in your las big post you didn't address Liam or I on your list, presumably because you were rushed for time. Would you like to share your opinions now?

Miles, happy 15th birthday. You are about 1 year younger than my brother.

[sthar8]

Oman: for the record, when you mentioned LoudmouthLee, I did some searching. I thought you might be referring to this game where you came under fire for behavior similar to Kiwi's. For those who don't feel like reading the first few pages, neither Oman nor his accusers were scum. The real scum just stood back and watched while the townies ripped into each other, which is what I thought Oman was warning against.

Muerrto: Ah, you meant that he was appealing to emotion. I didn't know if the word "plea" had some other connotative meaning. I certainly agree that it is an appeal to emotion based on it's diction. This reinforces the image of anxiety at being targeted that Kiwi has been presenting.

If you want to see an example of Oman as scum, I would suggest the prequel to this game. Oman was a bulletproof serial killer who survived to the endgame and almost won.

Charter's last post helps his case a little in my eyes, but I think his attacks on Oman and strife are rather weak and stretched. I'll give Oman a chance to respond before saying anything more, to avoid doing his work for him. In strife's case, I'd like to add that charter's vote on Food was random, and Oman's vote appeared to be based on personal policy. After the point had been made, Kiwi and Kirby tried to make a bandwagon out of the policy vote, which is not good. Charter still seems like he's attacking everyone he thinks he might be able to get a few votes on, which seems scummy to me. I'm not buying the "charter-as-newb" theory, since he's been on the site for almost a year and he's got five completed games.

Windkirby: "Vibes" are

not

valid as reasoning. They provide no evidence or argumentative material other than simple assertion. You cannot defend yourself against someone's "vibes," because there is no point to defend against. Furthermore, your "vibes" could be based on any number of irrelevant issues like a posting style or personality that you don't like. Feel free to examine behaviors and attitudes, as I agree that both are key to determining motives and alignment, but you need to quantify the causes of your suspicions to other players so that we can be persuaded, reach consensus, and find a good lynch. Anything else is asking us to simply trust in your "vibes," and asking us to do that in a game where

any other player might be on the opposing team

is exceptionally arrogant. I want to see real reasoning behind your vote

soon

, or I'll have to assume you didn't have any to begin with. If that happens, you'll have my vote because adding unreasoned votes to leeching, unreasoned bandwagoning, weak excuses, lack of substantial scumhunting and lurking makes me think that you're trying to blend in without having to produce any real information. I don't think I have to tell you which alignment

those

behaviors and attitudes point toward.

My current suspects are charter, windkirby, and kiwi, in that order.

I'd like some more from Liam.

Since Windkirby's vote, my username seems to be gathering extraneous consonants like iron filings to a magnet.

[sthar8]

I'd support a lynch of any of those three, so I'll move my vote to whichever wagon has momentum.

Note for later: Oman has chosen not to defend himself against charter. When I post later I will be speaking to the points that charter raised based on my own observations because my opinions on them are key to the reason I'm voting him, not because I wish to defend Oman.

[sthar8]

I have more to post later, but these issues are important to have out now.

Food: doc might protect him, I think.

I agree with strife, and I'd like to point out that barring sanity issues, the information we gain from WK is verifiable, therefore so is his claim (mostly).

I'm not even sure a counterclaim would be required at this point, if we have someone else would.

[sthar8]

First off, Food, let cops make their own choices, that way scum don't get a night phase to plan a bussing strategy. Also, I'd really like to see some suspicions from you, since WK wagoning was the only "scumhunting" you've done.

Windkirby: I support Oman's ultimatum 1000%. I want your first post of each day to include who you investigated,

why

, and the result. If you do not, I may be forced to melt your brain with my mind. I also would like to point out that it may become game breaking to kill you at some point in order to confirm some number of innocents.

Charter is still my number one suspect. His first two attacks were garbage, and he spent a long time doing nothing. His recent posts started off by attacking strife's suspicions of him on points of diction. He also seems to respond to strife's "there were some poorly reasoned votes on that wagon" with "Every vote on that wagon was poorly reasoned. How is that scummy?" which isn't really a defense. He then bites at Oman's gambit-bait, though not with any real conviction. Next, charter attacks BB on an "inconsistancy" in BB's post, but on further examination I think it fairly clear that the expressed opinions are not inconsistant. I find charter's assertion that strife intentionally botched his unofficial votecounts to be a big stretch, since I don't see anything for strife to gain by doing so, regardless of alignment. Once it was clear that Windkirby was going to have at least a few votes, charter was quick to hop on the bandwagon with a couple of additional points of evidence for the arguments Oman had already presented in his defense. Charter has not yet responded to my initial posted suspicions of him, other than to adjust his posting style away from what I noted as suspicious.

In short, I feel that charter has been fishing for an easy bandwagon all day, and his defenses against points against him have been incomplete, missing, or flawed.

Darla: "beef" "food" "breadcrumb" and an avatar that says "Yum" all in the same post
Also thats pretty clearly a nameclaim. Oman is def. "Beef Ramen- bulletproof serial killer"

My suspect list now starts with charter, Kiwi, Food, Liam, in that order.

[sthar8]

I, at least, was joking. Beef is also used in that context where I live.

[sthar8]

I'm not attacking strife's suspicion of me, I attacked his assertion that at least one of the four voting food was scum.

Maybe I'm not understanding something here. I saw strife's (fairly reasonable) assertion, and your rather extreme reaction to it. Strife then started to suspect you, at which point you started attacking his posts on diction. Instead of defending your reaction, you attack his initial assertion, since if he will admit any serious flaws in it, then your reaction to it would have been justified, and not scummy. Thus attacking his assertion and his suspicions are the same thing.

According to you, how is that any different than any of my other votes? Also, a lot of people are putting absolute trust in Oman and his numerous gambits.

Your other attacks have been much more confident in presentation, even though they were quickly dropped. I attribute this to the awkwardness Muerrto created with his response to Oman's attack. Who do you think has been trusting in Oman's gambits? I seem to be seeing a lot more suspicion of them than you do, and I know

I've

never stated that I'm trusting in his pro-town intentions or the results of his gambits.

I questioned why he voted for someone and unvoted and gave no reason. Saying it was a mental mistake is fine, but I didn't know that when I questioned him. Attack is a little extreme of word to be using, I questioned him, I didn't even accuse him.

This is not what I was referring to, and I agree that we need to hear from BB on the WK issue. I was referring to the third of your post dedicated to pointing out inconsistancy in BB's attitude toward Oman.

Well, I didn't see it as as big of a stretch as you did I suppose.

But what does he gain from misleading the town about the quantity of votes on you? Especially when the misattributed vote was not his own?

Sthar8, could you direct me to "Charter has not yet responded to my initial posted suspicions of him, other than to adjust his posting style away from what I noted as suspicious. " the post you're referring to there, I can't find it.

The end of this post

Liam, I expect a substantial post from you tonight.

Oman, what are your thoughts on charter?

Can we get a quick count on who supports which lynch?

[sthar8]

Beyond_Birthday: Whoops, I meant to say "needed" instead of "need"

charter:

Yeah I was trying to get reactions from the people I voted to see if they would jump and overreact when I voted them. They didn't so I backed off them.

Would have been a great response. My point was that you jumped on strife pretty quickly when he expressed some weak suspicions of you, and attacked his diction when he voted for you, but entirely ignored a vote coupled with an accusation that you might be trolling for an easy bandwagon.

Your question regarding the inconsistancy of BB's post seems really odd to me. I'll let BB have the opportunity to explain it to you before I elaborate, just in case it's a misunderstanding.


Everybody: We need to get moving if we're going to have time for claims on our next wagon. If Kiwi has more votes than charter by the end of the day tomorrow, I'll move my vote. If I can't have scummy, I'll settle for unhelpful.

Liam: Where is that post?

Regarding night actions: Power roles don't need your advice, since they can't confirm it to be trustworthy. Surprise is better. Drop the subject.

Kirby: The reason I want your reasoning with investigations is so that it's harder to fake poorly reasoned ones if you are scum, and so that we can recreate your thought processes after your death.

MOD: Happy Scumday

[sthar8]

We need votes, folks. We need to leave enough time for at least one more wagon to claim.

I'm ok with charter or Kiwi, but my vote alone won't do it.

What happened to Liam's post?

[sthar8]

What the hell is wrong with you, Kiwi? You've been contributing less than the minimum, just checking in with contentless garbage posts, then claiming

for absolutely NO REASON?

I mean, you didn't even bother to mount a defense before you spout a claim that a moderate sized bacterial colony could have speculated as being in the setup. And after your ridiculous claim you, in your impudence,

presume

to tell the town to "GTFO" your wagon, and that "this many votes near a deadline is hella bad." I think you need to realize something: YOUR play has put you in this position. I shouldn't have to say this, but the optimal strategy as a pro-town power role does not include being forced to claim Day1 for suspicious behavior.

I'll believe for now that Kiwi has a killing role, as I expected at least two kills per night in this setup, and a controlled kill is verifiable. I haven't decided yet if he's an SK or a vig.

Kiwi, I want a nameclaim in your next post. If there is a kill mechanism in your role, I want you to paraphrase it for us. You will kill only when directed to by the town, and only when explicitly instructed to.

I'd like to hear Darla's thoughts on Kiwi and her recent suspicions.

In other news, charter continues to appear scummy with his desperate attempts to get anyone lynched but himself.

My current suspects are: charter, Liam, food, in that order.

[sthar8]

Ok, so I just checked the thread for new posts, and was astonished to see strife's post in the place where I thought my last post was, expressing just about the same thoughts. Turns out, when I rolled out of bed to go find some coughdrops and tissues, I forgot to hit the submit button. So, here is the original missing post. Some of these questions have already been answered, and I will post again as soon as I have read the intervening posts.

Clockwork, can you explain that please? I don't see how the mafia kill could make kiwi appear to be lying.

Kiwi: You don't get to decide whether the town can direct your kill or not. If we give you a kill to make, and you decide to kill someone else, you die. Period.

If we decide that Kiwi should pick his own kills, I want full and complete reasoning from him at the start of each day. This should prevent him from using Oman's strategy from the prequel. Basically, Oman made his infamous claim fairly late in the game, and explained his kills up to that point with "sorry I'm bad at vig."

I haven't decided whether Kiwi's kill would be best used as a no kill, or on Liam. A no kill would force Kiwi to go against the best strat for a win as SK, and as SK he might not even be allowed to no kill. On the other hand, we have no idea how many kills there are in this setup. If Kiwi's kill flavor isn't obviously connected to his claimed mechanism, he could kill without us knowing, or a third killing role might be able to set him up. If Kiwi targets Liam, we get an example of his killing flavor, which is Very Important. My only problem with this is that I think we should try to force Kiwi to do something that makes it harder for an SK to win, and I think that might be harder to do on later days.

I chose Liam for the potential NK because he hasn't been contributing enough for anybody to get a read on him, but he has been posting just enough to avoid modkill. This makes me nervous.

[sthar8]

Also, the fact that no one has given a reason to not kill liam tonight (again for an arbitrary reason, lurking is a null tell in my book) tells me that liam is town. His scumbuddies would have at least suggested someone else, but no one has said anything other than kill liam.

This made me laugh.

I am very okay with the mafia allowing town to direct their kill. In that case we lose the scummiest player instead of the towniest, and all it buys for scum is a small opportunity to try to convince us on weak, silly reasoning that a claimed vig is actually mafia, rather than the easier to believe theory that he is an SK.

I am also OK with fewer kills at night. Docs are powerful pro-town roles.

Oman and Clockwork are not helping with their eagerness to martyr themselves. I think that the best option would be to have Kiwi kill a scummy player, but I don't have anyone on my list that I'm confident enough to suggest. Next best thing is to possibly confirm Kiwi's role flavor by sacrificing someone who isn't really playing the game at all. Liam's signature says that he will be V/LA for 23 more days. I'm not willing to give him a free pass for that amount of time, and it doesn't look like we'll be able to get a read on him until then. Worst case is to trade an active, townie player for the possibility of Kiwi information. Unless Oman can give us a very good reason that he should be targeted tonight, there is no way I'll support his silly bandwagon tomorrow. It really is very noble of Oman and Clockwork to offer, but lets stick with pro-town solutions for now.

I think it might be best at this point to let Kiwi decide whether to use his power, and where to direct it. As long as he can adequately explain himself tomorrow, I'm willing to trust him for now.

We are running out of time for our lynch. charter still seems the scummiest to me.

Happy scumday charter!

[sthar8]

If being targeted will not kill you, then this setup is very interesting. I don't to see how this helps us, though, since a failed kill will not give us Kiwi's kill flavor.

[sthar8]

Charter, that was funny for a few reasons.

First, when you posted it, there was only

one

person calling for Liam's kill, and one person who had said "eh, I'm OK with that." A couple of others had suggested letting Kiwi decide, and I think someone had suggested a no kill. In short,

several

people had said things other than "kill Liam."

Second, I found it humorously ironic that you are defending Liam with the evidence "No one is defending him, so he must be town." Little bit of a paradox there

Third, and most important, I'm pretty sure that the whole defense is WIFOM. In fact, I'm

really

sure.

I didn't note these in my previous post for two reasons. First, I thought that they were blatantly obvious. Second, I knew that if they weren't somebody would ask me about them.

I've

noted everyone who seems to think we gain no advantage from things like keeping the mafia away from our scumhunters, having effectively more Doc protects, and using majority to direct a kill rather than trusting a player who has been pretty scummy so far.

Also

FOS: ClockworkRuse

for incomplete logic and underestimating the reasoning capabilities of the town.

I'm willing to trust Oman in his plan to let Kiwi cream on him tonight, but I'll want an explanation (which may include a claim) soon.

Kiwi

: Because of the dissonance in the town, I'm willing to let you decide what your action will be. I would like you to announce it in thread before night, but I'll understand if you can't. I definitately want who and why in your first post of tomorrow, even if your kill fails. I currently support a choice between Liam, Oman, and no-kill for you, but if you reason well enough, I could probably accept any kill but Clockwork.

It has been suggested that we might have an SK in addition to a vig and a scumgroup. Normally, I would say that three kills per night seems high for a twelve person game, but available information suggests that this might be the case, and is balanced if it is.

Vote: Charter for President

(Hey, 100 game posts yesterday!)

[sthar8]

EBWOP:

Liam, you're still not helping, and I'm not going to give you a free pass for two more days.

Charter, Darla, Muerrto: Why are you still voting for Kiwi?

Food: using the kill without consensus and not using the lynch is possibly the worst play we could make at this point. We really need to get lynching.

[sthar8]

Oman: figured something along those lines. (Well, not really, but I figured you were beef and knew something about chicken) I should have been more clear, though. I wanted your explanation, and

possibly

your claim, tomorrow. We're getting pretty damned close to a D1 massclaim here.

strife: I've got more than twelve different flavors of Ramen in my cupboard right now, I think.

As for the Clockwork thing, I figured that a request to be killed without a good reason should

not

be indulged, as according to the information we have right now, such a request does not further

any

win condition if it is fulfilled. The only purposes behind making such a request would be to WIFOM some townie points, or to accomplish some goal we don't know about. I don't want to risk fulfilling the requirements for something we know nothing about, and we don't really have time for proper questioning now, so Clockwork shouldn't be NK'd yet.

I'd be pretty pissed if Kiwi targetted WK or charter, though.

Kiwi

I would try asking the mod about the Oman thing before you kill him. Send him a PM along the lines of "do I have to try to kill him to prove I've found him?" If you get a yes, no answer, or it gets too close to the night deadline, you can go ahead and shoot at Oman. Otherwise, kill at your discretion. Just remember, we need reasoning tomorrow.

[sthar8]

By my count, Liam has five votes: strife, charter, Kiwi, Food, and Oman. That's L-2. Liam has been pretty lurky so far, and the timing of his posts has me a bit nervous. Oman's claim is also more convincing, what with the breadcrumbs and all. If he's telling the truth, we know to go after Oman tomorrow. Since I'd actually be comfortable hammering right now, I'll put him at L-1.

Unvote, Vote: CallmeLiam

[sthar8]

Or maybe Kiwi is V/LA like I was. I found out that I was going to be gone after night started, so I pm'd the mod to let him know.

Anyway, I'm back, now. I'll post my thoughts a little later.

I'm pretty mad at Oman though.

[sthar8]

OK, well, at least he was scum.

I'm willing to

Vote: Muerrto

on the investigation.

I'm still suspicious of Clockwork, but for his end of day garbage from yesterday. The points that have been raised against him today have not been indicative of anything, in my opinion.

I'd also prefer to keep speculation about what scum strategies are optimal out of the thread for today, and I think we should avoid massclaim for now.

[sthar8]

FOS: Beyond _Birthday

1. I still haven't seen evidence to suggest that CWR "saved" us from anything but a solid pro-town strategy. His points against that strategy were flawed, incomplete, and based on the assumption that the rest of us would be limited to the same kind of logic.

2. Just because someone said something then died and flipped town, does not make that something true. Especially when that person

fake claimed a name that was not his own

. Oman had no more information than the rest of us.

3. You propose a false dilemma when you suggest that our choice is between no-lynch and Muerrto.

4. Though your defense of CWR is informative, it might be better if you let him speak on his own behalf in the future, or at least let him have the first say.

Charter: Why wouldn't we lynch Muerrto today? If we fail to, we miss the opportunity to gain information about which of the four possible roles that WK has. We also potentially lose the use of a very pro-town role. I understand your reservations about potential cop sanity, but the only way to solve that problem is to act on WK's info.

Also, your case against CWR seems to be that he needs to die because he is giving the scum advice. If I'm not mistaken, that assumes that he is town, but you still want to lynch him? I don't disagree that CWR is exceptionally scummy, I just think you're going about his case the wrong way.

I have to agree with Muerrto that we shouldn't waste the day just to put him (back) in his grave. I think that we should all agree that Muerrto dies today, then discuss candidates for tomorrow. I favor CWR at this point because I beleive he has been making deliberately confusing statements in order to derail pro-town actions.

I am strongly opposed to a massclaim at this point.

[sthar8]

I am

strongly

opposed to a massclaim.

Any setup info we gain will be limited to pro-town roles, so we won't be able to outguess the mod's balancing strategy effectively. There is a high probability that we have more roles whose effectiveness is limited after a massclaim. In addition, I find it

very

unlikely that any framers or millers on the town side

know

that they are framers or millers, so a massclaim doesn't really help us with that situation either. In fact, if we have a pro-town RB or similar who targeted Muerrto, I'd rather that player sit on their thumbs and continue play with the knowledge that they

might

be a framer, rather than potentially outing themselves to the scum.

And how does lynching someone

without

an investigation result even make sense? It's already been noted that until we have more info on our cop sanity, or can confirm Muerrto's role, our cop is less powerful than he might otherwise be. I doubt that we will be in LYLO tomorrow, so I'd rather have a decreased doubt in our cop, or at the very least be sure that Muerrto isn't scum getting away after being investigated guilty.

Now, Day 3 I might be willing to massclaim, but I don't think we're ready yet.

As for tomorrow's lynch, we don't need to decide today, but it can't hurt to get some input from whoever is going to die tonight. If we spend today discussing tomorrow's lynch, we will be that much closer to sure when it's time to hammer tomorrow.

[sthar8]

strife: I'm really not liking your play today. It reminds me a lot of CWR's end of day shenanigans yesterday, and thatis a dance we should not be imitating.

I still have not seen any concrete reason for a massclaim, or for Muerrto to survive today. The vague fear that he might be a miller does not outweigh the potential gain from his lynch, and a guilty result is the most concrete evidence we could possible have against him.

Your speculation regarding the mod's balancing strikes me as fruitless. There are a dozen different strategies he could have used to balance a significantly powered town, and only a few of those require unreliable investigative roles. Trying to outguess the mod in this manner is foolish and wastes valuable time.

Your soft claim is also unwise, in my opinion. You have potentially added your name to the list of scum kills, and for what reason? To prove that there is more town power in the game? Why did pro-town players need to know that? I was hoping to have at least

one

night of scum uncertainty

somewhere

along the line, but you've pretty much shattered that strategy, if you're town. You've accelerated the timetable for a massclaim by forcing us to accept some of the negative consequences without gaining the benefits

Charter: That's not the first time I've been mistaken for strife this game.

BB: why does your claim help anything?

3. You propose a false dilemma when you suggest that our choice is between no-lynch and Muerrto.

So, instead of no lynching, I can see a Muerrto lynch as being more sensible, assuming we trust the cop and his possible sanity issues.

And for two, your implied argument was that since Oman said it, and he turned town, it must be true. That is a false authority. If you had argued that the argument was sound on it's own merits, I would have responded differently.

Sane cop is fair if the scum has two GF's, since you guys can't wrap your heads around the fact that there are multiple ways to balance this. Just sayingl.

I guess I can deal with the "lynch the second best option today and save Muerrto for tomorrow" plan, even if I don't like it.

[sthar8]

EBWOP: If we have anymore power roles, can you please not randomly out yourself until we're ready for a massclaim? Please?

[sthar8]

What the hell, Food?

Did you even read my post?

We outed our cop and doc on D1 - the two main kill targets for scum. At the earliest, cop will have these roles gone by D4, by which time I'm sure we'll either be mass-claiming, or have outed the majority of roles anyway due to lynching.

Irrelevant. If we manage to lynch scum, or our cop is sane, or one of the claimed players is really scum, or we have some other protective role, scum have to make more than two more kills. This is the same problem that CWR's vig/SK strategy had. I think we've already had a conversation about how giving scum advice is a Really Bad Thing, if you're town.

The number of power-roles seems to heavily favor town, increasing the likelihood of some mechanism to make our cop less effective. Our claimed cop has expressed a bit of concern about his own sanity. About a quarter of the players in the game have jumped on the guilty result with complete tunnel-vision, and given poor reasoning

Irrelevant, since the balancing mechanism could be in some other detail besides unreliable info. Irrelevant, because ambiguous wording in an investigation result, even on a sane cop, is nothing short of responsible and reasonable behavior from the mod. And irrelevant, since if you weren't so focused on the cop being wrong, you'd see that a guilty is the most solid evidence we are likely to get.

If we lynch Muerrto today, and he flips guilty then we've caught scum, and A) our cop is sane, paranoid, or scum. If he flips town, B) our cop is insane, paranoid, or scum and Muerrto might be a miller. On Day 3, if we get a guilty and A is true, we must lynch the guilty to gain more info. If B is true, we ignore his info for that day. If we get an innocent on Day 3 (much more likely), and A is true, then our cop is sane or scum. If B were true, then Muerrto might have been a miller, or our cop is insane or scum.

If we don't lynch Muerrto today, and we get a guilty tomorrow, then both A and B are true and we need to lynch one of the two in order to verify. If we get an innocent tomorrow, C) our cop is sane, insane, or scum and Muerrto might be a miller, and we need to lynch one of the two in order to verify.

I might be missing something, but putting off Muerrto's lynch seems like we're just delaying the inevitable, and since two mislynches could put us in LYLO on Day 4, I'd rather go with the plan that gets us the most info in the fastest time.

I don't disagree that there is a high probability that we have a Miller, especially if Muerrto is the only townie, but that could be a safe claim just as easily as a real one, and there is only one way to find out.

By my count we have three confirmed roles (Kiwi, Oman, Liam), three full claims(charter, WK, Muerrto), and three soft claims (strife, Food, BB). That leaves only three who are alive, unthreatened, and intelligent (me, Darla, and CWR). We've managed to destroy any advantage we might have gained by concealing our roles, and for no apparant gain. We might as well be rid of the minor WIFOM of "we shouldn't vote X, he's softclaimed power." So, strife, you win. It's time for a massclaim.

A few rules though:
1. We decide on a claim order through town consensus
2. Full claims, including flavor (in both senses)
3. Be careful not to quote the mod, we don't need accidental modkillings (unless you're quoting a scum pm, I'm OK with that)

I am most suspicious of CWR and BB at the moment, but I'd like to see more from Darla.

[sthar8]

For face value, Sthar8's logic is pretty solid.

That's all I've got to say about that.

So we have one or two more scum, likely with some kind of power. If we only have one more scum, he's probably a roleblocker who gives up his kill in order to block.

I think that the "bottom ramen" thing is just a contrast with "top Ramen." In other words, I think it's a name for the scumgroup, not an indicator of number or power of scum.

I'm very suspicious of BB at the moment, because of his failure to counter and some of his behavior yesterday.

With regards to claiming, we already have enough soft claims that scum have plenty of direction on their kill, so we might as well get the information benefit.

I disagree with popcorn claiming, I think we should set a list and agree on it before claiming.

I would like to add any night choices or targets, plus justification, to the information required with each claim.

I propose:
CWR
BB
Darla
sthar8
Food
strife


Any objections or changes?

[sthar8]

NO FOOD!

You will make your claim when you are told to.

I'm not sure what you mean by "going outside," but if you're going to be V/LA, you should let us know when to expect you back, then we will decide whether you should claim first.

[sthar8]

BB, I've read

all

of your posts both carefully and closely, and no ampersand is going to change my habits in that regard. I wouldn't be so suspicious of you otherwise. And just because I see something doesn't mean I'm going to broadcast it in thread, unless I feel that it would be pro-town to do so.

If we have two scum living, that means we had four originally. That might be balanced with the large amount of town power, and I'm not discounting it, but one scum with the choice between power and kill

does

fit rather well with the evidence. In that case, I'm sure town will have some kind of disadvantage that we may or may not be able to see shortly.

If Clockwork has no objections, I think we're ready to start claims when he posts.

Remember, claim should include role name, role type, pertinent flavor, night choices, targets, and justification for targets.

[sthar8]

Clockwork:

For face value, Sthar8's logic is pretty solid.

That's all I've got to say about that.

This was my way of saying "I told you so, and you should have gone with the logic" to strife. This should have been obvious since his next line from that post basically says "but I think we should ignore the logic here and go with gut."
Second, strife was the one speculating about fake claims, and trying to outguess the mod. In fact, I've raised that as a point against him already, so I think you can see what my stance is on the subject. I have not defended against any accusations from you, mostly because you haven't made any against me. In fact, the reason you might see buddying between strife and I is that you've

repeatedly misattributed my statements to him throughout this game

. I wonder if you hope to gain some kind of advantage from this, or if you need to be reading a little more closely, as the last time I consistently agreed with strife was on Day 1, and even that was not across the board (for example, our opinions on Oman were markedly different).

Third, I

proposed

a list, then asked for discussion on it. If anyone had proposed any changes, we could have agreed on them, but it seems everyone liked my first draft. Your suggestion that scum would be able to manipulate the list to some form of advantage is insulting to the town, since scum are a small minority at this point. I'd rather assume that at least

some

of the pro-town players have brains

somewhere

inside their skulls. If the scum are as good and the town are as stupid as you're trying to make them out to be, then we've already lost this game.

I am not cleared, and have never claimed to be cleared. In fact, as of this post we have only two cleared players: Oman and Liam. Being confirmed is not a prerequisite for acceptance of any argument or claim. The standard we use is logical validity and soundness or cogency, because even a confirmed pro-town player can propose arguments with horrible, fatal flaws, as I believe to be the case with strife's thoughts yesterday.

My intent behind the list was to take into account soft-claims and scumminess to create an order that was dangerous for false claims. This is

impossible

with dice, and I've stated repeatedly that we should try to get as much benefit from the massclaim as possible.

For example, strife soft-claimed first. This suggests to me that he has a roleclaim ready, since he could have been forced to claim right away because of his risky (and poorly reasoned) move. If he's scum, having him claim last maximizes the chances that his claim of choice will be taken already, forcing him to counter, or lose the benefit of any breadcrumbing he's done and make up a new claim on the spot. If he counters, we can test the powers or lynch the scummiest one, and if he makes up a new claim it will not be as thought out as his original, which leaves more room for scummy errors.

Finally, what you're saying with your claim is that you could have countered Muerrto on flavor and chose not to? That's two people who just chose to let Muerrto off the hook with a claim they knew was false (points to BB for stating strong suspicions and lynch preference, even after he had unvoted, though).

Your play over the course of the last two days has served only the goal of attempting to confuse and scare the town. In addition you dropped your Muerrto vote as soon as it looked like others might be unwilling to lynch him, without giving any reasoning other than "if you guys don't want to lynch him, I won't vote for him." I'm happy with you at the top of my scumlist.

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Note that I do not advocate lynching until after the claims have been completed an analyzed fully.

Darla: I would guess that four scum is a bit powerful, but it could account for why the town has so many strong roles. There are alternative explanations that work, though, so I'm going to assume that there are one or two scum left. I think five would have been too many, since it would have created the potential for a Day 2 town loss (mislynch, sk kill, mafia kill, JOAT miskills to result in 4 mafia out of 8 players, mafia outnumber town and win).

WK: I'm okay with the edit to the list, and food seems excited to claim, so we might at well let him do so sooner. My placement of myself on the list was arbitrary and indended as a compromise to anyone who was suspicious of me. I don't actually care when

I

claim, it's everyone else I'm concerned with.

BB: You are up next.

[sthar8]

The logic I applied to your case does not hold when applied to BB, as it is specific to being the

first

to soft claim. Being second, he could demand that you claim first if pressed, and could thus buy himself some time to think up a proper claim. If you were not pressed, he gains the breadcrumbing advantage to any future claims. I felt that the significant advantage of having scummy players claim without the additional setup info of other claims was outweighed in your case and food's by the very specific nature of your claims. In BB's case, I felt it benefited the town most to give him the chance to claim something improbable or impossible in this setup, thus nailing him as scum. Also, you have been acting much less like scum than BB is, meaning either that you are town, or that a claim slip is less likely because you are (mostly) playing well.

[sthar8]

Fair enough, and good idea.

[sthar8]

BB: Thank you. It's kind of funny that you jailed me, for reasons that I will explain when I claim. I'm a he, by the way

CWR: I don't know what advantage that could have, either. Besides claiming that we are buddying up by misattributing a consistent statement by me to him, and using that to show that we are in agreement.

We

should

assume that the scum are trying to trip us up, but it seems like you are saying that we shouldn't even

try

to reach majority consensus on any point because one or two players

might

be trying to convince us to do something that is anti-town. I think that if we all look for scummy actions, we can figure out which courses are anti-town. If we find someone trying to push something like that, we lynch them and solve all our problems.

Again, I didn't

pick

the list, I

proposed

it. Important distinction. If you don't like how little the town discussed the list, you should have said "We should discuss this list further," not "Guys he's not confirmed don't listen to anything he says!" One of those is pro-town.

Regarding your unvote, you weighed my arguments

for

Muerrto's lynch against your arguments

for

Muerrto's lynch, and decided to unvote?

And as for my vote, we have a lot of day left and quite a few more claims to see.

Darla: Your turn.

[sthar8]

Excellent. Food, was your puzzle based on your intent to claim cryptographically, or does it have some other significance to your role?

Time for my claim:

I am Shrimp Ramen

I am a Bulletproof Townie. The flavor justification is that I can breathe underwater, so every night I go to my secret undersea hiding place, where I cannot be shot at or raped.

Thus, I am the person who needed BB's protection

least

, since I was already safe. I dropped several power role tells on Day 1 in order to attract nightkills, but all the roles I breadcrumbed were forced to claim immediately after I had done so. This also explains why I was so strongly against the claim, as my role is now useless. I was hoping that after scum ran down the list of claimed power, they would target strongly pro-town players, which I have attempted to be to the best of my ability.

This also may explain why there were no kills last night: at least 1/3 of the town couldn't be nk'd

I'm slightly less suspicious of CWR with a second vanilla having the same flavor, but it doesn't warrant the removal of my vote, yet. I'm more suspicious of BB than I was, partly because we know scum has a RB.

CWR: I'm not sure the test will prove anything.

Darla: Why didn't you counter-claim Muerrto?

strife and Food: are you explicitly confirmed?

[sthar8]

CWR: It could prove her innocence, but I'm not sure that an incorrect result will prove her guilt. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

[sthar8]

Unvote

CWR is effectively cleared unless Darla is also scum, but there are possible scenarios in which Darla is scum and CWR is not.

I'm not sure how BB's guilt or innocence has anything to do with mine, since if both of us are telling the truth, 1/3 of the protown players were unkillable last night. If this is so and we accept the mafia's odd reluctance to kill charter, there was a solid chance that they would try to kill WK and outguess the doc, or me. The likelihood that I was the kill target goes up if you add CWR and/or BB to the pool of townies, since they have been rather suspicious in the last few days, and scum might not want to kill someone that they can feasibly try to lynch. This makes the lack of kill easy to explain even if BB is truthful.

However, BB's role would be very powerful for the mafia to have. It would give them all the usefulness of a RB, with the added benefit that he can act as a mafia doc if, for example, town decides the JOAT or SK kill. BB could also be lying about his targets. If he is scum I think it's very likely that he blocked our cop last night.

I also think that Oman was initially protown, but that he was either a backup to the SK, or a judas-like role that would have turned the lone SK into another mafia group.

Darla, you need to answer CWR's question, if you're able.

BB is the top of my list at the moment, but I need to hear Darla's answer before I vote.

[sthar8]

B_B:
1. I don't think anyone doubts that your flavor is chicken. And I believe that you have some kind of RB power. The only thing we're questioning is your alignment.
2. I'm a dude
3. As of my claim, you were number two on my list. I was noting that

if

you were telling the truth, targetting me was funny. Also, it's kind of funny that I was intentionally dropping PR tells, and you decided I was the least likely to have a power role of all the pro-town players. The "quick change" really only moved you up by one spot, and that was because CWR's chances of being scum are entirely dependant on Darla being scum.
4. Lemme check my shorts...yup, definately boy-parts
5. It kind of bothers me that you are limiting your scum-hunting to "players who find me suspicious." Keeping to that reasoning is bound to increase your suspect pool.
6. My chest is almost as hairy as my face, and I'm not from Eastern Europe.
7. I'm a little uneasy letting a claimed blocking role live when we know that our cop was blocked last night. Claiming town jailer as a scum RB or jailer would be very similar to Oman's gambit in the prequel game.
8. I'm pretty sure I was the one who said I was reading your posts very carefully. Then again, my avatar and strife's are apparantly virtually identical...

I agree that BB/Darla is the most likely scumpair. I think CWR/Darla is very unlikely, and the only other pair I could see at the moment is BB/charter. That pairing is very unlikely, however, because it potentially limits the scum team's actions a whole lot. In addition, if we discover that BB is scum, we have a solvable situation if it comes down to a choice between Darla and charter. I'm not sold on the fact that both masons are confirmed, but I doubt that they are both scum and a scummason is a little unlikely.

[sthar8]

Good point strife. I'd like a votecount before I place mine, though, to avoid any abrupt day-ends like yesterday's.

[sthar8]

Way back in the early 90s, when I learned to operate the Internet, the military (at least the base I was on) was in the habit of assigning account names. Mine was the first two letters of my first name, then the first three letters of my last name, then the number 8, since I was the eighth user to be signed up on an account with those particulars. Since my birthday is the 8th, and my school ID number at the time (which was pretty useless, given that there were only about 15 students) was 8, I decided I liked the convenience of the screen name. I've been using it ever since, excepting an unfortunate period when a girlfriend changed it to compliment hers.

Also, the little symbol next to "gender" under each person's avatar is generally a safe guide when attempting to determine the sex of an internet entity.

I'm waiting on the mod before I vote, but I think Darla is a good plan. If she flips town, however, I think that BB should target somebody other than WK, on the slight chance that either the GF can't submit kills, or the RB decides to target someone else. I also think BB should target someone other than me, since I don't need his protection and if he's town that leaves only two targets for scum.

On the other hand, if BB continues to protect me, scum may try to increase suspicion on me by no-killing or targetting WK on the off chance that charter doesn't protect him. If WK dies, there is less suspicion on me and we lose a cop. If he lives, which is more likely, we have a second night without kills and there is a slightly greater amount of suspicion on me. This does not bother me at all, as fewer kills means more chances for the town.'

All of this is very unlikely, and I find it probable that Darla will flip scum, but we should be prepared in any case.

[sthar8]

WK, just remember that if we do decide to jail you, you still need to pick a target and submit, otherwise we gain significantly less information.

[sthar8]

In fact, Food, BB would

need

to use his ability on the cop because that's the only way we can confirm he used it. Otherwise, if he's scum, he can just kill someone other than his protect target and claim to have blocked/protected, and we'd never know.

[sthar8]

Actually, I was just waiting for the mod to come back and post a VC before hammering. It was an arbitrary decision on my part intended to give a definite deadline so that everyone could air whatever business they needed to before the lynch. In particular I assumed Darla would attempt a defense, but that seems to not be happening. I intend to hammer as soon as the mod gets back, but you can feel free to do so sooner if you wish. I'm basically just bearing out my implied promise at this point.

BB: I don't care who you protect if Darla is innocent, so long as it is not WK or charter. I would request the block on me in order to force scum to WIFOM with a no-kill or prove that I do not send in mafia kills, but there are too many variables for that evidence to mean anything. Besides, having three unkillable townies instead of two, especially if the third one is possibly a surprise with the potential to block the kill on either the sender or receiver's side, is too advantageous to give up.

[sthar8]

If Darla flips scum of any flavor, BB needs to jail you. If he's lying, you'll get your investigation, and there is a possibility that we'll have no kill. If he's telling the truth, you'll be blocked, we'll know that he has at least a RB ability, and there is a possibility of no kill. It proves nothing about BB's alignment, but if he's assigned to block you and he's scum, it would be suicide for him to let you die. If Darla flips RB and you get your investigation, we kill and eat BB.

If Darla flips town, BB targets someone else on the chance that he either RBs the RB or gets a successful protect, since we gain no info from him blocking you. This will allow charter to target you, keeping you safe and possibly netting another investigation. Who BB and you each target should be kept personal until tomorrow, to prevent scum from changing who sends the kill, killing around protects, or killing confirmable townies.

I was expecting some questions about my claim list, and a defense from darla, but I guess that both of those are essentially irrelevant at this point. It does tickle me that you were apparantly waiting for my permission to hammer, BB

[sthar8]

I thought BB had already done so, but just in case

Vote: DarlaBlueEyes

[sthar8]

Actually, I was thinking that BB's flavor makes more sense as a doctor. Of course, I think charter's flavor makes more sense as a JOAT, and Liam's flavor should have been an SK, so I'm not putting much faith in that line of reasoning.

[sthar8]

Ok, so lets look at that quote in context.

First, I said:

On the other hand, if BB continues to protect me, scum may try to increase suspicion on me by no-killing or targetting WK on the off chance that charter doesn't protect him. If WK dies, there is less suspicion on me and we lose a cop. If he lives, which is more likely, we have a second night without kills and there is a slightly greater amount of suspicion on me. This does not bother me at all, as fewer kills means more chances for the town.'

Then, after BB asks who to protect if Darla is town:

BB: I don't care who you protect if Darla is innocent, so long as it is not WK or charter. I would request the block on me in order to force scum to WIFOM with a no-kill or prove that I do not send in mafia kills, but there are

too many variables for that evidence to mean anything. Besides, having three unkillable townies instead of two, especially if the third one is possibly a surprise with the potential to block the kill on either the sender or receiver's side, is too advantageous to give up.

Emphasis added.

If I needed a WIFOM defense to escape blame for nightkills, I would have already needed to use it today. I think that the fact that I still live shows that most of the players have already independantly determined that the odds of a scum that is not me accidentally trying to kill someone who is protected are greater than or equal to the odds of me being RB'd scum. Since I do not have a killing ability,

I

know that any suspicion arising from nightkills is indeed the result of WIFOM, although the use of that term applied to suspicions of me says literally nothing about any defense I might present. Also, with the pro-town strength of my role, I can expect scum to cast suspicion on me any way they can, especially if I'm seeming pro-town, since they can't just NK me. I was hoping to combat this by using a block on me to reduce suspicion, but I realized that there is a greater protown advantage to another course of action.

In the first of these two posts, I was thinking about how the small amount of concern that my RB-ing may have prevented a kill could be assauged. I realized that if I were blocked by BB and WK still didn't get his investigation, but there were still a kill, The odds of me being scum in your eyes would go down significantly. Unfortunately, if the scum guessed that I were RB'd, they could simply target WK. If WK was protected, we learn nothing about my alignment. If WK dies, due to charter trying to outguess scum or some other odd circumstance, then my appearance matters much less, as the cop is dead. I announced that I would be OK with any of these outcomes, even if they cast more suspicion on me, and felt that I should be a part of the pool from which BB chose his night action in the event of Darla's innocence.

By the second quoted post, however, I had realized that being blocked while a kill went off wouldn't clear me. This doesn't mean that there is no reason to jail me, but I believe that BB jailing someone other than me maximizes the use of our potentially protective roles, and gives us the greatest chance of blocking a kill. Ultimately, I leave the choice up to BB if Darla is a townie, but I thought that he shouldn't be left with a flawed argument as the last he'd heard from me on the subject.

[sthar8]

strife, your post doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain.

B_B is most likely the last scum, and I'm ready for him to die as soon as he's checked in. There is a small possibility that charter is a scum roleblocker pretending to be the doc, or that we have a scum mason, but neither scenario is worth pursuing while we have a claimed jailer whose target died last night. I'll probably vote BB either as soon as he posts, or tomorrow night, whichever comes first.

CWR: If charter had protected WK as well, we would have gained no information from last night, as we wouldn't know if BB was lying about his protective ability. We lost a cop, sure, but since we know our last scum is a roleblocker of some kind, a cop wasn't going to do us much good anyway. Either BB is our last scum, or the remaining scum can both kill and RB.

[sthar8]

Specifically

But why Sthar8? Didn't he claim bulletproof townie? As in, the role that needed protection the least?

I'm not sure what this is in reference to.

[sthar8]

Oh ok, no problem.

Does anybody take issue with killing BB about 28 hours from now if he hasn't posted by then? I would like to hear from him, but I don't want him to hold up the game. I think he's the best lynch today and I can't think of anything that would change my mind.

[sthar8]

Sorry BB, I'm just a little excited to be going again after the long night. In any case, you've posted now, so my ultimatum is meaningless (I just didn't want to be sitting around waiting for you if you'd decided that you were giving up).

I agree with everything strife said, with the exception that there is a very slight possibility that CWR is scum. I'm 95% sure that its BB, but to be safe, we can't really rule anyone out.

[sthar8]

I'll hammer when I get up tomorrow, if no one has any objections and if it hasn't been done by then. (that would be 12-13 hours from now)

[sthar8]

vote: charter

strife, I don't consider you completely cleared, but you are so unlikely as scum that I'm not going to worry about it.

CWR: I'm not even close to sure on you, and I'm not sold on the idea that you wouldn't have bussed Darla, but the setup makes more sense if charter is the scum.

The big point in charter's favor is that he claimed doc day 1, when he couldn't have known that there wasn't another doc in the setup. I think that his claim was intended to bait a real doc out, and give scum some gain from the loss of their roleblocker. When there was no counterclaim, he played along and hoped no one would notice that a claimed doc didn't die for

four consecutive nights

. We might be able to WIFOM some reasoning about hoping that he gets modkilled for the first couple of nights, but in the lategame there is no reason for scum to leave him alive if he's a doctor. In addition, I think the setup actually makes more sense without a doctor than with. strife, you gave the example of a standard cop, doc, vig, mason game, which you said favored the town slightly. If I am scum, that means our town power is cop, doc, JOAT, jailkeeper, masons. Doesn't it make more sense to balance this game by giving the town an underpowered doc (jailkeeper) and a bulletproof townie? The cop+doc combo is very powerful, and with the amount of power we already have I can't help but think the mod would have taken some precaution against it.

I understand that we're in LYLO, but there can't be two scum left, so there's no chance of a quicklynch off of my vote, even if I'm entirely wrong about charter.

[sthar8]

having 2 strikes is a decent explanation

Not really. You think it's reasonable, knowing how powerful a doc is, that scum would

hope

that a claimed doc would get modkilled because he's not active enough? On a night when, if you're correct, 2/3 of the members had no suspicion cast on them yet, so there was no pressing need to kill anywhere else? And you're making assumptions here. Maybe the scum were afraid of whatever power Oman might gain, so they blocked kiwi and killed him. Or maybe killing Oman didn't activate his power and scum targetted me. Or maybe they just no-killed to cause some kind of WIFOM.

Game is perfectly balanced if Oman wasn't pro-town, which I think is true.

The best we can say about Oman's ability at this point is that he

might

have switched alignments at some point. Any idea that he started out as scum is inane, unless you suspect that every other player who has died might have been scum. Even if Oman started as some kind of neutral and our mod didn't tell us that when he died, I fail to see how that balances two reliable doc effects plus a one-shot doc and cop. You

know

about as much about the setup now as you did when you

insisted

there couldn't be any more power roles.

if that's all Sthar8 can muster up

What, exactly were you expecting? You're making random assumptions based on faulty logic using an appeal to authority, then voting based on the flawed conclusions. I've pointed out several times how dangerous it is to make baseless assumptions and try to outguess the mod, but you ignore me and keep doing it anyway. "Our cop is probably insane, guys" "let's not lynch muerrto, guys" "there can't be any more power roles, guys." How many times do you have to be wrong before you see that your approach is flawed?

Look, all game I've made pro-town moves, been transparent with my motives and intent, and answered any questions put to me. No one has expressed any suspicion of anything other than the probability of my role being in this setup, which means I haven't been very scummy. Charter, in contrast, got called out day 1 for mudslinging, WIFOM, and poor logic. If you really need me to specifically address your "case" however:

a) Or, my motives could be exactly what I said they were when

I pointed out that I had breadcrumbed

. It's not like this is some kind of lie that you caught me in. And what am I supposed to say about your "normalcy" argument? I have no idea what you're using as a standard, since the most explaining you've done is say " I have Experience. Because of my Experience, I know that X is Normal. See, here's a game with X. Therefore X is Normal." Regardless, your standard certainly isn't applicable here. I can't really prove that, of course, but I've tried to make you see how dangerous it is to apply some meta ideal to a specific game.

b) Actually, I

had

breadcrumbed cop, doc, and vig on the first day, which you pointed out in your last argument. I didn't softclaim because it was a terrible idea, but my staunch opposal to a massclaim should have written "special role" in glow-in-the-dark paint all over my naked body. Besides, that's yet another false dilemma. I agree that it's most likely that scum tried to kill me, but it could have been that they missed their deadline. Or, I could be wrong about charter, and he could have protected someone. And you can replace my name with

anyone

in that last argument and it still holds water.

Food agreed with me

SURPRISE! No offense to Food, but he has been following you around like a lost puppy all game. And let's not forget that he's the one who suggested that a softclaim was a good idea because it might distract and confuse the scum.

I also find it hilarious that, now that it looks like CWR might agree to lynch me, charter feels the need to point out that he protected

you

, strife. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

So how about instead of quicklynching me because strife doesn't understand why I don't have a night action, you guys think carefully about this before deciding who needs to die.

Regardless, I'd appreciate it if you guys would give me a few more days of life to work something out before murdering me.

[sthar8]

My theory is that you knew that this was coming and knew that the town would have no choice but to lynch the doc. I figured the last scum would use WIFOM right off the bat to try and get me lynched as opposed to actual arguments as to why I'm scummy.

Remember when Oman was talking about misuse of the term WIFOM? Congratulations, you've proved his point. WIFOM is only applicable when there is no dominant course of action for either side. In this case, mafia have a clear, solid advantage if they eliminate the doc right away. Down comes the house of cards. And where do you get the idea that I don't see any scummy behavior from you? I pointed out the day 1 case against you, which was dropped only because you claimed doc. Since then you've laid low and spent most of your time agreeing with strife and picking on minor inconsistancies. We've always had someone scummier to lynch, so there was no need for you to take any risks.

He's trying to sell it, but he doesn't believe in it.

Since no one will actually

think

about this, the only thing I can do is present countercases based on the same faulty logic. I'm showing that even by strife's unsubstantiated norm (you know this is a theme game, right?) his assumptions don't hold.

I'm touched that you all read my case and examined my arguments logically instead of blindly following some insane value judgements to a town loss, and I think it's very protown that you are all going to give me the time that I asked for instead of quicklynching me.

Oh Wait...

[sthar8]

Ok, not WIFOM, but still not arguing as to why I'm scummy

So what is it? Balloon animals?

If you really need more, lets further examine some of your positions since day 1. You were against lynching Muerrto on the day that WK claimed, you expressed no suspicions of darla until almost everyone else had already done so, you tried to push the CWR wagon even once the darla one had gotten underway, but you switched your vote to darla once it was clear she was going down. In contrast to your hesistance to vote for scum, your day 1 play shows no caution with the placement of your vote, and you were willing to vote for CWR and BB right away later in the game. You may bring up the fact that one of your day 1 votes was for darla, but I'll remind you that your vote was the only one on her at the time

and

your reasons were garbage. We have a name for that, and it begins with a D.

I did a reread of CWR outing Darla, if they were scum, he didn't need to out her as he did. So while it's technically possible, I agree with strife that it's so remote as to not worry.

Who are you talking to here? Because I'm pretty sure that strife has expressed this opinion already, and CWR is not going to vote himself. If you're telling

me

these things, and not buddying up to strife, then may I ask what part of my vote for you has you convinced that I think CWR is the scum?

Time you asked for?

Regardless, I'd appreciate it if you guys would give me a few more days of life to work something out before murdering me.

To do what?

Since it doesn't matter now, I'll tell you. When I realized that you have some kind of erotic fixation on me, I realized that the greatest chance for a town victory would be if I were dead. I PM'd the mod to see if I would still win with the town if I intentionally had myself modkilled. I was waiting for his reply. I just received a PM from him that makes it clear that Allah will be offended if I choose that route, so no dice. (I briefly considered doing it anyway, but he'd probably end the day and make scum win, and even if he didn't I'd rather share a loss with you than hand you a win that you don't deserve.)

At this point, it looks to me like we only have one shot at a town win. If CWR is town (which I have to assume at this point) and I can convince him not to vote for me, we can force the no-lynch. If strife is town (which I also have to assume) scum choose between killing CWR and strife. If they kill CWR, I need to somehow deprogram strife and make him realize that charter is scum. If they kill strife, then I need to convince CWR that I'm innocent. Our chances are slim at this point, but I'd really like a win here, so I'm going for it. CWR, if you need any help deciding to vote for charter, just let me know.

[sthar8]

Forcing a no-lynch today would have little to no effect. That said, I am not willing to hammer sthar.

If you die, it might make it easier to convince strife that he's wrong. If strife dies, we have a majority to lynch charter. I can't die, and charter won't kill himself. Since strife seems to have made up his mind, I can't see any other alternative besides the no-lynch.

First of all, I do not need any help with my vote. I'm not going to let anyone manipulate my vote like that.

You know very well that I was asking if you needed any clarification on my arguments. Don't be silly.

Remember to keep your activity up, CWR. You getting modkilled will guarantee a scum win.

[sthar8]

I was hoping no one would suggest to scum that they no-kill, because that makes it exceptionally harder for us to win.

On the plus side, any residual doubt of CWR's alignment is now gone. If he were scum, he would have won already, so I know for sure now that I'm not wasting my time trying to convince him.

[sthar8]

sthar, you seem to be under-estimating the intelligence of the scum which I think is a bad play. We should always assume that the scum are going to make it harder for the town, right?

Ummm, what? Didn't we talk earlier about how we shouldn't give scum advice on their nightactions so that they might possibly screw up? All I'm doing is trying to aim the town at the choices that are most likely to result in a town win.

Bad claim, no kill N2 (when BB jailed him), process of elimination, no play inconsistent with being scum, process of elimination, etc etc

What about my claim was bad, other than your insistance that it can't be part of the setup for some reason?

I've already addressed the N2 kill situation. There are plenty of other explanations for that, and ignoring them doesn't make any of them less likely.

You understand that you should only eliminate options when you're sure, right? "Process of elimination" is invalid unless there are no other options, and it's pretty clear at this point that your evidence isn't really solid. You may be convinced that your reasoning is some kind of flawless masterpiece, but it should be pretty clear to anyone who isn't blindly following faulty logic that you're risking an awful lot on some pretty tenuous assumptions.

And what the hell is "No play inconsistant with being scum?" You're saying that I should be lynched in LYLO because I'm not cleared town? But you can't point to any specific scumtells? And you don't see anything wrong with this?

I'd really like to know what the et cetera is, because I don't see anything that you've presented that isn't covered by the weak points you enumerated.

I'll do a re-read on Charter later tonight and see if I can come up with a defense on why he doesn't make a lot of sense as scum.

Right. Charter won't defend himself, so you should do it for him. That's definitely pro-town. And I like how you're not hunting up reasons that I'm scum, your looking for reasons charter might not be. Good job, carry on.

It's pretty amazing what insane things you can come up with when you don't want to admit that you're wrong.

[sthar8]

Charter did some early day voting on Darla.

If you really need more, lets further examine some of your positions since day 1. You were against lynching Muerrto on the day that WK claimed, you expressed no suspicions of darla until almost everyone else had already done so, you tried to push the CWR wagon even once the darla one had gotten underway, but you switched your vote to darla once it was clear she was going down. In contrast to your hesistance to vote for scum, your day 1 play shows no caution with the placement of your vote, and you were willing to vote for CWR and BB right away later in the game.

You may bring up the fact that one of your day 1 votes was for darla, but I'll remind you that your vote was the only one on her at the time and your reasons were garbage. We have a name for that, and it begins with a D.

Sthar8, why do you think there was no kill N2?

I agree that it's most likely that scum tried to kill me

because

I

had

breadcrumbed cop, doc, and vig on the first day, which you pointed out in your last argument. I didn't softclaim because it was a terrible idea, but my staunch opposal to a massclaim should have written "special role" in glow-in-the-dark paint all over my naked body.

[sthar8]

You have to read all the words. I was basically confirmed to have some kind of power even if they missed all the breadcrumbing, and it was something that would make me oppose a massclaim, meaning something we wouldn't want scum to know about. You, BB, and food, however, announced your desire to out your roles, which should have said to scum that your powers weren't really that dangerous. If you'd been some kind of information role you would have either stayed hidden, or just claimed, and if you were protective, you should have wanted to stay hidden.

And they didn't know I wasn't the doc, because charter isn't. It's conceivable that a doc would not counter in order to be able to protect a claimed cop safely. In fact, that's probably the correct play.

And I'm not sure how it's clear that we didn't have a vig, since someone could have tried to kill Oman to prevent shenanigans, and not to counter kiwi, since he could just kill the impostor later. This is also probably correct play.

See, you keep oversimplifyng the circumstances, so it's no wonder that you think your deductions are the correct ones. You're ignoring competing theories because they don't fit with your preferred explanation for events.


So, I've been thinking about the night actions. I'm going to guess that kiwi was RB'd that night, because he had said that he might target Muerrto if Oman looked scummy. The mafia then killed Oman, because they thought thought that the cop would investigate him and find him innocent, because they wanted to eliminate his potential power, or because Muerrto, having played with Oman before, thought that he'd be able to talk his way out of getting lynched. Kiwi's convenient modkill freed up the RB for N2, and they attempted to kill me because I looked to have a dangerous role, and I'd been casting suspicion on one of their members the previous day. Knowing that the cop was no longer a threat and that the other power roles didn't seem suspicious of them, the mafia could easily afford to ignore the three softclaims and go fishing for any real docs or unclaimed information roles. After massclaim, darla was unfortunate enough to be caught by a lucky guess. Seeing an easy opportunity to get BB lynched, our remaining scum blocked him and killed the now-useless cop. That left no need for roleblocking on Night four, and a choice between CWR, food, and strife for the nk. Not once since day 1 has strife expressed any doubt in the doc claim. Therefore strife was the most likely ally our false doctor could expect coming into today. I don't know why scum decided to kill food over CWR, because CWR had expressed doubt in the doc claim much earlier (though he was shouted down for it by charter and Muerrto, hmmm). Either way, it was mainly irrelevant, because strife had already expressed his confidence that neither food nor CWR could be scum.

[sthar8]

I think it's pretty clear sthar8 that no one else is the doc.

Is there another language that I can type this in that you'd understand? I'm speaking to knowledge of the scum on early days, not our knowledge now. Unless this is a ridiculous straw-man, you need to start thinking before you post. Do you really think that someone could believe, at this point, that someone had fake-claimed during the massclaim,

and

not counterclaimed you in LYLO?

You really think that I'd, as scum, claim doc day 1 and expect not to get countered and then not lynched at some point in the game? Really?

Horse Laugh? No, I think that you, as scum, felt caught by the Day 1 wagon and claimed doc to bait the real doc into counterclaiming so that your team could nightkill him. The fact that there is no doc in this setup means that you got very lucky and have been able to ride that luck out to the endgame. I'm pretty sure I've outlined all this before.

Funny. Food was the only one to explicitly say in thread:

I noticed that too. That actually could be WIFOM, or it could be that charter felt that I would be able to talk food out of lynching me. I'm confident that I could have.

I noticed that I've missed a couple charter posts. I'll address them shortly.

[sthar8]

Softclaimed several different roles, then claimed a different flavor and role after all those got taken.

Are you suggesting that I softclaimed scum in this quote? Clearly you missed the

actual

breadcrumbing I did, which lends credence to the theory that it was my Day 2 behavior that made you want to kill me.

He's playing very cautiously. I consider playing overly cautiously to be a scumtell, as the general reason for it is to avoid all suspicion. Also, did your evaluation of players based on your early seemingly insignificant questions ever happen?

Yeah, it's not like that post was from early day 1 when no one had made any scummy moves yet. And if this is such a scumtell to you, why didn't you bring it up on day 1? You seemed to have no problem attacking anyone

else

for no reason. As for my evaluation of motive, where do you think I got

every suspicion I've expressed in this game

? Just because I say that I use a certain method to scumhunt does not mean I'm promising a gigantic post full of psychoanalysis. And just because I describe one of the tools I use doesn't mean it's the only one.

Has waited quite a bit after I vote Darla to vote me (after several others have found it suspicious). He posted a few times after I vote Darla before he made this one. Why wait until after it's safe to say my actions are suspicious?

I voted you

less than 24 hours

after you voted for her. This is approximately how long it took me to review your actions and decide that they were scummy. And my posts between were addressing other conversations that I was involved with. Futhermore, only

one

person had actually expressed suspicion of that vote, and one other had asked for clarification. I was also waiting for Darla's next post, because I felt that there might be some merit to your "waiting for a case to latch onto" remark, and I was hoping to see her reactions.

Aka, do I need to kill you tonight?

How is it anti-town to want every player to be contributing, and to be transparent with their suspicions?

Do they call you Mr. Fantastic?

This after Kiwi's out of the blue claim. What caused you to "expect" at least two kills per night? I don't see how you infer that from Kiwi's claim, WK's and your own role without intimate knowledge of the scum's roles. Also, you've been doing setup guessing for longer than strife but still remand him for doing it!

Umm, do you remember what my role is? Based on my role and the prequel game, I guessed that we would likely have at least two kills per night. And I continue to

reprimand

strife because there is a fundamental difference between the kind of guess that I made and, for example, an assertion that there could be no more town power. You'll not that I noted a

possibility

in the setup as

part

of my support for deciding whether a claim was believable. I did not gamble anything on my guess, and I was not entirely convinced by speculation. I only noted that I felt it was likely, but that we should test it anyway. What I

didn't

do was come up with a theory based entirely on what I felt would be "balanced" and some vague "norm," then stretch or ignore evidence in order to fit said theory.

Follows me after I question CWR for his repeated speculation.

Now you're just making things up. I'd like to see any evidence you think you have for this, because I remember stressing that I was suspicious of CWR for different reasons, and that yours were very weak. And I'm not sure, but I think my criticism of CWR began on day 1, while yours started on Day 2.

Then also follows after I and strife suggest that we wait until D3 to lynch Meurrto

What? Are you even reading the same thread?

Closest thing I can find would be:

I guess I can deal with the "lynch the second best option today and save Muerrto for tomorrow" plan, even if I don't like it.

What about this makes you think I agreed with your ridiculous plan?

post 530, sthar8 flip flops on massclaim when there's not enough time left before deadline for it to be of any town benefit.

First, how is this scummy? Second, I disagree that it was too late in the day for town benefit. Massclaim actually took slightly more than one day, if you cut through all the irrelevant objections. We still would have had about a week left in day 2 had we not accidentally lynched Muerrto. Six days should have been enough time to process the claims, especially since we'd already decided on the lynch. Third, I "flip flopped" because I had pointed out the town advantages to avoiding massclaim, and some players foolishly decided to strip us of those advantages. There was no reason

not

to massclaim after the softclaim stupidity, so why would it be scummy to advocate it?

BB claims to jail sthar8 in 586. Both N1 and N2, and there was no N2 kill...

You are reading my posts and strife's, right? Weve discussed this at length.

All through day three, you were all for the whole BB jail WK plan, same as I, but since I did it I've 'been going along with the town' as you say.

Tu Quoque? How does agreeing with you once invalidate my claim that you have been playing it safe and following along with strife?

I never came to that conclusion, I didn't see anyone else come to it either. It looks like you're trying to suggest something that sounded plausible since some of us were confused a little.

Again, just because it's not in thread, doesn't mean no one is thinking about it. And if you felt I was so scummy at that point, then why didn't you say anything about it? My conclusion was reasonable from the evidence available, and no one corrected it, which suggests that it was true.

Why wouldn't I pick something reasonably believable and not virtually impossible to continue living while claimed (such as your claim) instead of my instant painting a bulls eye on myself? Fakeclaiming doc DOES NOT make sense, sure you might get the real doc to confess, but a one for one trade is not something that scum usually (if ever) do...

Why would town leave someone with my claimed power alive? There's no way to positively confirm my role, and it's not helpful to town unless the player doesn't look scummy. "Bulletproof" is

not

one of the roles that will save you if claimed when wagoned. Cop was already taken, and scum will trade one for one if they're trading with a doc, especially if they already think they're caught.

You have outlined it before, but I have to keep correcting you because you're wrong.

Actually, this is the first time you've "corrected" me, usually you just strawman me or ignore my points.

[sthar8]

-Strife is more likely than not Town. It wouldn't make much sense to me for him to be a Scum Mason/Roleblocker mixed into one. That's a pretty over-powered role. Plus, why would they kill their mason partner if they could use their partner's vote?

I agree.

-Sthar, you say that you don't understand why scum wouldn't have killed me. It is exactly why you say, I did question the doctor claim. Why, if I was still suspicious of it, would the scum kill me? That doesn't make much sense at all.

Ummm, what? Charter might kill anyone who was suspicious of his claim in order to make the final lynch easier by decreasing suspicion on himself. The real question is, why would charter leave you alive knowing you had been suspicious of his claim? I think maybe he forgot that you had been suspicious of the surviving doc thing (supported by his posts, in which he accuses me of being the first to bring it up) or that he felt it wouldn't matter since I have been so suspicious of you that you would be inclined to vote me.

-I don't see how Charter claiming Doctor would have been a smart idea for a role-blocker to do. The mafia would have been losing more than the town, in my opinion, with a God Father and a Goon left. It seems like an unnecessary risk.

With a cop and vig claimed, the only remaining significant threat to the scum is a doc. If we had had a doc, and said doc had gone unclaimed, scum would be forced to block the cop and hope to get rid of the vig, then hope that the doc would be outed before the rb was lynched. It would, of course, have been optimal to keep the RB hidden, but the town chose him for the next wagon. When their RB fell under suspicion, he needed to get rid of any doc so that his partners would be able to kill the cop on the next night, and be left with only a vig who they couldn't deal with anyway. When he wasn't counterclaimed, he was in a very safe place. The cop would be unlikely to investigate a claimed doc, and no sane vig would shoot at one. If he could keep under the radar, he'd be good at least until LYLO. And look what happened! In short, fakeclaim doc wasn't a dangerous risk, it was a last-ditch attempt to help his buddies. Such a gambit was necessary because of the circumstances; in almost every other situation scum would have still lost their RB, and for less potential gain. No counter was very lucky for charter, and was probably an unexpected bonus.

On a side note, I just realized how unlucky it was for scum that Muerrto was investigated. If WK had not misread Kiwi's intentions, Muerrto might have gone quite a bit longer without being discovered. Since Darla was immune to investigation and Charter was unlikely to be looked at as a claimed doc, and Muerrto was expected to die that night, cop shouldn't have been investigating scum. Therefore, there would be no need to kill the cop, as he would likely investigate Oman, who was marked for death accordingly.

-The interaction between Darla and Sthar is noted.

That's fine, but you should keep in mind that I had no control over her actions. Such a strategy could have been intentionally employed by scum in order to implicate me in the event of her death, or it could be a coincidence. I wasn't particularly suspicious of Darla until the end, and I wasn't scummy enough for her to lynch easily, so there was no need to interact with me.

[sthar8]

I get another month before I'm back. Work seems to suck up the time though.

[sthar8]

Yeah, since there's no power role involved it is a no-advantage game and thus, WIFOM.

I see your point, but I disagree. Your suspicion of his claim was so far back, and hasn't been explicitly continued, that it would likely not be fresh in mind. Thus the real danger is that you remember your suspicion and act on it. Though it may be that the reasoning you propose actually

was

the reason for killing food, as his last post was suspicion of me.

Regardless, the last kill is entirely irrelevant, as I noted previously, and as you pointed out. We could make a case for either charter or I killing either way last night, so it's not evidence for either side. I was speculating on night actions both to document my suspicions for eventual comparison when the game is over, and to prove that there are reasonable explanations for the actions that seem to be puzzling the town when viewed from the charter-as-scum perspective. I have no doubt that someone could devise a reasonable scenario in which I am the scum, but I hope you can see that some of the scum-choices make more sense if charter was involved in the decision-making process.

Also, charter's increasingly scummy behavior certainly helps my points.

[sthar8]

I've already addressed that, strife.

First:

I'm going to guess that kiwi was RB'd that night, because he had said that he might target Muerrto if Oman looked scummy.

I note while reviewing this that it should read "that first night." I'm starting to hate wireless keyboards.

Second:

On a side note, I just realized how unlucky it was for scum that Muerrto was investigated. If WK had not misread Kiwi's intentions, Muerrto might have gone quite a bit longer without being discovered. Since Darla was immune to investigation and Charter was unlikely to be looked at as a claimed doc, and Muerrto was expected to die that night, cop shouldn't have been investigating scum. Therefore, there would be no need to kill the cop, as he would likely investigate Oman, who was marked for death accordingly.

In summary, if the town plan had gone off correctly, WK's investigation would have been wasted on a dead player. It was very unlikely that any member of the scumteam who could have been investigated

would

have, so there was no need to block the cop. In contrast, the SK/vig had announced his intent to shoot the goon that night, so he needed to be RB'd immediately. My guess is that scum then killed Oman because he seemed the most likely target for a cop investigation after his day 1 misplay. This would deny the investigation results to the town. Charter also likely left the cop alive for that day to increase his credibility as a doc. After all, scum could plausibly call for kiwi's lynch the next day and keep WK blocked for the remainder of the game.

Anything else you need me to go over again?

[sthar8]

Oman died because he would have gone from probable lynch to possibly confirmed town had he been investigated. Scum like to keep confirmed townies on the "already dead" list, because someone who is confirmed can be trusted as far as intentions go, which In addition, Oman had speculated that he might gain some kind of power when kiwi "found" him. Better to stop that kind of thing right away, especially since scum had no permanent way to deal with kiwi, if his claim was real. They were already looking at two power roles that needed to be dealt with soon, and I'm sure the prospect of a third was daunting. Finally, I think Muerrto may have been a little wary of Oman from his previous game experiences, and that may have contributed to the kill decision.

The night action record is the weakest evidence we have when attempting to determine who the scum is, since a plausible argument could be made either way. It would have been

slightly

safer for charter to let a cop investigate, but the block elsewhere was pressing either way. I just thought I'd help you work it out while I'm waiting, since this kind of speculation doesn't really occupy much of my time or effort, and it's definitely a good idea to let you know that there are alternative explanations to these actions that don't involve me being scum.

On that note, here's a bit of speculation for you: If I were the roleblocker, we've already seen that I would also be able to kill. This suggests (to me, at least) that Darla should also have been able to send the kill, as it would be a scumteam ability rather than a scumplayer ability, and would be unaffected by her godfather status. Why, then, would I have sent in the kill on night 2? It risks an awful lot to have one scum send in both actions, especially with so many unidentified PR's still in the game. I'm not sure how much of a stretch this argument is, as I know that GF's can't traditionally kill, but neither can RB's, and it's certainly something to think about

What you should really be looking at is charter's day 1 play compared to his other days, and his accusations against me, which have consisted of stretched or made up examples creating the implication of scumminess without any real evidence.

[sthar8]

Confirm Vote: Charter

[sthar8]

I'll reply to charter's post either tonight or tomorrow.

[sthar8]

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't suggest you softclaim scum. I actually meant breadcrumbed, not softclaimed however.

Why would I breadcrumb scum? And if I wasn't, why would I mention scum as a possible role for the flavor you say I was breadcrumbing?

I bring it up on day 1, "Oh hey look, charter's accusing more people! Lynch him!"
No but you use it to justify your actions before, but now it's apparant that you were just saying it then so other's would be happy and not suspect you.

How is this apparent? And where did say that I was playing cautiously, which was suspicious, on day 1? And how was suspecting you cautious?

Real life time has nothing to do with mafia time. Plenty of people posted suspicion of me in that less than 24 hours, and you made several posts yourself.

False. Really, Really False. As I said before, the time was what was required for me to reread your actions and decide that you were scummy. The posts in between required no research, and could be done quickly. Are you honestly suggesting I'm scum because I may have had a busy workday or other plans early in the game?

Kind of like how you wanted Darla to contribute?

Exactly. How is this anti-town?

First it outs all power roles, and gives no advantage to the town that day unless we really got our act together fast, so you'd get to act on it first. Yes, that's a flip flop. I disagree that the softclaims negated advantages, some softclaims are better than actual claims. What was scummy was your flip flopping to always advocate the popular idea.

I've already shown how the numbers do not support you here. And please back up your assertions. I've already explained exactly how the softclaims were bad, all you've said was "sometimes they're good." Can you provide another example that supports your idea that I'm "always" flip-flopping?

Ok, I'll make sure never to repeat something again for anyone.

At least not without adding to the conversation. You were obligated to respond to my objections to the point if you felt it was still relevant.

What?

You're defending against my accusation that you've been following along with strife by accusing me of agreeing with you

once

. This is a logical fallacy known as Tu Quoque. You fail to point out how this "pot-and-kettle" argument negates my assertion. Furthermore, you show

one

example and expect it to undermine my credibility when I am accusing you of

several

instances.

So you can read minds? I don't see how you can know others thought it. Is that why you killed food, so you wouldn't auto lose today?

Horse Laugh. I made no such claim, and my conclusion was reasonable. We've also recently discussed why speculation regarding the last night kill is fruitless.

Bulletproof gives you a reason for never being NK'ed. You weren't acting scummier than myself of kiwi, so you were in no danger of being lynched, and after day one, it was quite obvious who was getting lynched. According to you, you probably should have been NK'ed since you're such a great townie.

Red Herring, ad Hominem. The question was, when you were under suspicion, if you had claimed my role, why would the town have left you alive? Additionally, I don't believe your ad hominem is warranted or effective. I've never claimed anything regarding my own ability, I've only pointed out glaring faults in the reasoning of others.

No, believe me, I know that CWR was consistantly the most suspicious of my claim. That's probably why he's still alive.

Then why did you accuse me of being the first to present the argument against you that he brought up on day 2?

Or there could be the extremely simple explaination that I am in fact the doctor. I'm suprised you haven't tried to attack me based on my flavor.

Why would I attack you based on your flavor? It would be foolish to try to outguess the mod's intentions, as I pointed out early on (in fact, in the same quote in which you accuse me of breadcrumbing scum).

My explanation for your actions is equally as simple as you being the doctor, and, in fact, it weathers the Razor more completely when we question why you are still alive.

Another stretch by sthar8. You seem to like using a whole lot of speculation in your case against me, not a whole lot of fact. Perhaps it's easier because it allows you to say whatever you want, because 'it's plausible'.

Actually, most of the speculation is defending me, since it nicely counters the speculation being used to attack me. And how is it a stretch for me to note that I had no control over Darla's actions, and therefore shouldn't be expected to answer for them?

Actually it's half the risk. No one knew if there was a tracker (or watcher, I always get them confused). If so, having one person send in the kill and RB halves the chance that the scum will get tracked. It actually makes more sense for you to have sent in a kill. Nice try though.

That's an equal risk, at best, since you couldn't have known there was an RB on the town side either. And since BB blocked me night one, If I were scum we would have known the risk of RB was greater than the risk of tracking.

Come to think of it, how do you explain the RB of kiwi if I am scum and was jailed N1?

Oh, so you did know, just trying to play both sides of the argument, eh?

I don't understand what you mean by this. So I did know what? That GF's can't traditionally kill? Where did I express otherwise? Since we know that you can both kill and RB, I think it's worth considering that Darla could, as well.

The fact remains that your case against me is ridiculously faulty, your arguments have relied on fallacious reasoning, and some of your attacks have been completely fictitious. You are clearly more concerned with making CWR believe I am scum than actually proving it. Once again, your flawed attacks support my arguments.

[sthar8]

You're pretending to not understand what I'm saying. I said you breadcrumbed a bunch of roles, then claimed another one once you realized that someone else had all those.

No, I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm just not arguing the same issue as you. You contend that the original quote was me breadcrumbing a loaf of roles (including scum, for some reason) tied to a particular flavor that you think I planned on claiming, despite the fact that Oman had already suggested that it might be his flavor. I have never contested the point that I had intentionally dropped tells several roles, and I even announced it during my claim, even though no one had brought it up sooner. I have also explained that I was attempting to bait a nightkill, which I can't prove and you can't disprove.

I shouldn't need to point out that

that

example is

not

an example of breadcrumbing, because it is in no way believable as such. Just saying a bunch of rolenames in the same sentence is likely to be taken as poor proof at best when using a part of the sentence as support for a claim. In fact, that statement was nothing more than a warning to avoid outguessing the mod on flavor. Since you picked such a poor example, I'd guess that you entirely missed my tells. After I announced them, you went looking to see if there was anything you can use. I likely made the tells too subtle, since I wanted scum to pick up on any

one

of them, but my failing provides evidence that supports my theory that you didn't know that I

wanted

to be targeted, and thus attempted to kill me N2, when you were sure I had some kind of role.

It's apparent because you never did it, when you said you would before. This really isn't a big point against you, so I'm not going to keep going at it.

Because I never did what? I'm saying that I

wasn't

playing particularly cautiously, which according to your other posts, would make me

less

suspicious. I note that you didn't find any examples of you accusing me of playing cautiously, or relate my suspicion of you to cautious play. Now you're ready to drop the point because you can't find any evidence?

No, I'm saying that you waited a while in mafia time to make your mind up, after others had given their opinions.

Less than 24 hours is too long to reread four pages and decide on suspicions during a work day during which I was the only person from my department at the office, shortly after my boss was fired, during the pre-holiday rush of custody disputes and last minute court filings attendant to working at a law office? In the off hours, before you ask, I was occupied with preparing for our Fourth of July party. The posts from me during this time were tossed off in a few spare minutes and my dinner break. In them, I add my brief opinions to matters already under discussion, propose some minor suspicion that required no serious consideration or research, and joked with Oman. There is a reason the post voting you came at 1:00 am my time. Suggesting that I should have been paying more attention to

mafia

during that time is unreasonable, and frankly offensive. I do not judge you based on your personal life, and I would appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy to me.

Darla was scum. You not wanting her to contribute reeks of you not wanting your scumbuddy to contribute so they can continue laying low. Do you honestly not see how town wants scum to post as much as possible? It increases the chances of them slipping up, and gives a lot to go on when their role is revealed.

You accuse me of having wanted darla to post more, I agree that I

did

want her to post more, and you turn around and accuse me of

not

wanting her to contribute? Without searching too hard, I note

nine times

that I asked Darla to clarify something or contribute more. Are you sure you're not reading your own posts, instead of mine? Because with the same amount of effort, I note that you ignored her entirely for Day2, and on Day3 until

after

she fell under suspicion. I'd say that "reeks" of you wanting your scumbuddy to "continue laying low" much more than my actions. (I doubt it's still relevant, but I just noticed that Darla did address me, one time. She was agreeing with my claim order)

Twisting my words again. I don't say you're always flip flopping, I say you flip flopped (not always) so that you were always advocating the popular idea on the massclaim issue.

I was the first to oppose the massclaim idea. I held firm despite several other players were for it, hardly following the popular belief. I was also the first to bring the idea up again after I'd changed my mind, and I only did so after my objections had been rendered moot. Is it the changing my mind with changing circumstances that you find scummy? Because at no point was I following the crowd.

I disagree your conclusion was reasonable.

On what grounds, and how does the conclusion make me scummy? I've already provided my reasoning, and the evidence supports me. The burden is on you to disprove me, so you can either present some evidence or concede the point.

Darla was outed based on her flavor. Muerrto could easily have been as well.

No, Darla was outed by an educated guess fueled by limited process of elimination. The flavor points merely helped everyone feel confident that they were doing the right thing. She could have

easily

been telling the truth regarding her flavor. And Muerrto

could

have been outed by flavor, but you're playing apples and oranges trying to compare scum who claimed vanilla and guessed at the flavor when there was a townie in the setup to scum who claimed PR and either used his actual flavor or just made something up because there was no one to compare it to and if he got counterclaimed he'd be dead anyway.

Well, I still don't know who killed Oman N1, so how do you know that kiwi was RB'ed N1?

I bolded that so CWR sees it and can change his vote in time. I feel like sthar8 just slipped up bigtime. I haven't seen any proof, or anything more than mere speculation as to what happened N1. We don't know who kiwi targetted N1, or if he targetted anyone at all. To speculate myself and answer your question, scum could have not RB'ed kiwi trying to outguess him and RB'ed someone else who they thought might have had a better role.

Are you kidding? We just spent most of a page talking about this. We have the most complete information about night 1, therefore our speculation regarding night one will be the strongest. Unless you think the mafia targetted me (which means you're scum) or targeted a claimed cop with a claimed doc in play (which would be stupid), you have to accept that it is most probable that scum targeted Oman. Kiwi had announced that if Oman looked scummy, he'd target Muerrto. Kiwi's kill did not happen. Therefore, he could have targeted me (which means you're scum), WK (which would have outed and killed him if it worked, and made him suspicious if it hadn't), Oman (which he had announced he did not intend to do) or he could have been RB'd (which means you're scum). Therefore, barring terrible play, you're scum.

When you try to discount someone's speculation through the proposal of an alternate scenario, you should make sure that your scenario is as logically valid as theirs If someone else were RB'd, then why did Kiwi not get a kill? Your answer must be that he killed Oman, but why would Kiwi do that? He was already under significant suspicion, and killing Oman when he'd promised not to would very likely have causd his lynch.

I'm talking about the RB sending in the kill and RB so that if there is a tracker, it halves the risk of scum getting caught.

That still doesn't make sense. I'm saying that it is possible that Darla could kill, and that if she could it would make more sense for scum to split up their abilities. How am I "playing both sides of the argument?" If I were the scum, I would know that there was a protown RB in the setup, and it would make more sense to split up the night actions.

[sthar8]

STRIFE

I'm not sure how I missed it before, but I think I can clear myself logicallly, the same way you and CWR were cleared.

First, here are some facts:
1. WK was a pro-town cop, confirmed by mod reveal.
2. B_B was a pro-town jailkeeper, confirmed by mod reveal.
3. We have one scum remaining, because we have neither lost nor won at this point.

Furthermore, we can assume from the record:
I. WK and BB were playing to fulfill their win condition and did not lie to the town.
II. Our scum is a roleblocker who can also kill, as evidenced by the circumstances surrounding WK's death.
III. The mod is trying to avoid errors that would damage the gamestate
IV. There are no roles with blocking abilities in the setup aside from BB and the scum

From these we can determine:
i. From 1 and I, WK investigated Muerrto on N1
ii. From 1, I, and III, WK was legitimately prevented from using his role N2
iii. From 2 and I, BB blocked sthar8 on N1 and N2

Logically:
A. From ii, II, and IV, scum blocked WK N2
B. From iii, sthar8 originated no night action on N2

Thus we have two logically valid and sound statements, A and B.
Giving us:
IF sthar8 is scum, THEN sthar8 blocked WK
IF sthar8 blocked WK, B is FALSE
B is NOT FALSE

Therefore, sthar8 is NOT SCUM

I don't think I missed anything, which means GG charter.

[sthar8]

You haven't answered the question of why kiwi would kill Oman, or why scum would Nk no one. Neither of those points make sense.

The point is moot anyway since I can't be the RB and therefore can't be scum.

[sthar8]

Kiwi had announced that he would not kill Oman if Liam was town. Oman would've looked really scummy if he'd survived, so his threat of leading a wagon was basically disarmed. It makes no sense for Kiwi to kill Oman, and he would have come under considerable suspicion for it.

Scum no kill is usually a very bad idea, unless they were trying to set up or support a doc claim.

[sthar8]

Note that charter has not responded to my assertion that I cannot logically be the RB. He knows he's dead.

[sthar8]

Aren't we days past the deadline? I'd say we're already getting an extension

If the assumptions on which I based that logic are sound, then the argument itself is as bulletproof as I am. If you're looking for a flaw, I'd start in the assumptions section.

And, charter, that is very close to the simplest way to express a logical argument. It lets you know exactly what each thought is based on so that any flaws should be readily apparent. The way 've expressed it also accounts for much of the weirdness that is possible, like WK not getting a pm because the mod wasn't paying attention or something.

[sthar8]

There is no way BB lied.

Die, Scum, Die.

Vote: charter

Congrats, town!

[sthar8]

EBWOP: minor I-told-you-so about charter, since I had him day1. (minor because I never suspected darla until it was time to kill her, and I was completely wrong on both BB and CWR )

[sthar8]

EBWOTP: Your play post-day1 was very good, charter, at least until lylo. You probably shouldn't have jumped on me so quickly, because you gave CWR the opportunity to clear himself when I still had residual suspicions of him.

Someone get Oman in here so he can explain himself!

And once again, no offense intended to anyone I badmouthed while trying to talk strife down, especially strife himself. I thought you played very well, and at a couple of points I was agreeing with you so much that I was suspicious that you were manipulating me somehow.

[sthar8]

Muerrto, I

brought up

the fact that scum probably blocked kiwi and killed Oman. I knew kiwi wasn't going to kill Oman because he had posted that if Liam flipped town he would target you. I also brought up the idea that scum were hoping to increase the credibility of the doc claim. Strife was the doubtful one

And I'm curious as to why WK targetted Muerrto as well, since Kiwi had announced that Muerrto was his most likely target.

Was I right in thinking that scum tried to kill me night 2?

[sthar8]

Woof.

[sthar8]

I would have, CWR

I forgive you, Oman. It was the mod's fault.

I'd be interested to hear why scum tried to kill me as well.