Mini 619 - Ramen Mafia (Over!)

[sthar8]

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

[ClockworkRuse]

-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.

Wrong. If I had died, then it would have been easier for the town to look at that either way and say "CWR was suspicious of the Doctor claim by Charter. Now he's dead?" And really, it shouldn't matter who's alive or dead, it's way to easy for scum to manipulate that and this entire conversation is way to WIFOM. I believe this is the correct definition, right?

[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.

[strife220]

Good point ahead:

Sthar8, we know you or Charter is a RBer that can also perform kills. Since WK got an investigation off N1, RBer must have used his power on someone else. If Charter is scum, why do you think he didn't RB the cop?

[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?

[strife220]

You're right, that's probably exactly what happened. But the same situation applies to either you or Charter being scum, I believe. Kiwi said something about killing Muerrto of Liam flipped town, so Kiwi would be an obvious role-block target. I still have no idea why Oman died though - cop investigation seems a weird reason given that he already claimed a useless power-role.

[charter]

Daily post, sorry, still don't have time right now to respond.

[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.

[ClockworkRuse]

I'm here. I'm still looking everything over, trying to figure this whole mess out.

[sthar8]

Confirm Vote: Charter

[strife220]

So deadline is in like... 3 or 4 days? Going to need an opinion here CWR...


LA for a few days.

[charter]

Ugh, busy weekend.

[ClockworkRuse]

Trust me, I know we need an opinion.

It's just a little hard because I can still see both cases being plausible.

Strife, why are you so set on Sthar?

[charter]

Apologies, I tried to keep this short. If CWR or strife want me to elaborate I will.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Kind of like how you wanted Darla to contribute?

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.

Ahhh, it did. I misread. Apologies.

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

What? Are you even reading the same thread?

No.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

What?

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.

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?

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.

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.

-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.

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

-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.

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.

-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.

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'.

It risks an awful lot to have one scum send in both actions, especially with so many unidentified PR's still in the game.

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.

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

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

[Flameaxe]

I need my life to be a bit less busy, don't you guys think? (I'll get a VC up shortly)

[Flameaxe]

Votecount #1

Sthar8 [2] (Strife, Charter)
Charter [1] (Sthar8)

Not Voting [1] (ClockworkRuse)

[sthar8]

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

[charter]

Don't want a strike.

[charter]

I also just realized deadline is in about ten hours, though I doubt the day will get closed then.

[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.

[ClockworkRuse]

To be honest, I'm leaning toward charter for scum. With a jailer, JOAT, a cop, and masons, a Doctor would see over powered. We already saw that with the Jailer's role, the name didn't make much sense with the power.

His points so far have been iffy at best, as sthar has already commented, and his amount of active lurking at pseudo-endgame so far has been a little suspicious too. Plus, the way he attacked me when I suggested that something was wrong when the doctor was still alive was odd to, as I still think that is reasonable thinking.

Vote: charter

I have to go with what I think, and I think that charter is more likely to be scum then sthar.

[charter]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

Kind of like how you wanted Darla to contribute?

Exactly. How is this anti-town?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I disagree your conclusion was reasonable.

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

[strife220]

Bah... looks like we'll be going to no lynch. I'll have a chance to argue with you (CWR) hopefully before deadline.

*Just glancing at my games for votes - still v/la

[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.