Mini 680: Portlandia- Game Over!

[bionicchop2]

gogogogogogogogo!

vote: Mr Avacado

because there are too many Misters.

[bionicchop2]

oh crap. I am at L-5. I guess I panic and claim now?

[bionicchop2]

Actually, since I'm at L-4, I'll claim: I'm a miller. I heard it's good practice to claim miller early if you are one.

That is the consensus around these parts. There is no reason not to claim miller if you are one.

[bionicchop2]

Only L-5, but anyway...

I'll admit to never having played a game with a miller before, so I'm not sure what the best course of action is to deal with one. Do we lynch him to clear up possible future complications? Do we let him go? Could he be scum trying to hide behind a miller claim? Anyone experience one the matter would be helpful.

unvote

, at least until the issue has been cleared up to some extent

- minor, but I don't see a reason to remove a random vote here unless you found a better place for it. Just curious as to why you felt the need to unvote just to discuss the issue.

- How to deal with X here depends on if you believe the claim or not. If you believe him, then there is no reason to lynch him. If he acts scummy, we lynch him.

I have seen this done once before and the player claiming was town. What he has basically done is say if he is investigated, he will come up guilty. We currently have no way of knowing if there is a miller in the game or not. He is either telling the truth or he is scum. Either way he would come up guilty if investigated. Beyond that, there is a level of WIFOM involved (although there is far more advantage for town miller to claim this than lying scum). It is not impossible scum would do this, but less likely than the obvious answer which would have X as town miller.

[bionicchop2]

X's claim killed the game before it even had a chance to live!

[bionicchop2]

X's claim killed the game before it even had a chance to live!

So revive it. Who do you think is scum? Why?

Based off of 26 game posts by 9/12 players, I am not sure I have formed enough of an opinion on anybody yet. The only standout items for me right now would be the unvote by Q21 I already commented on (just odd, but I haven't seen a precedent for this to be a scum tell) and post 26 by farkin. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about pressuring a 'lurker' with a FoS just feels off. I personally use FoS's only if I feel my vote is in an important spot, but others may approach it differently. If there was any legit suspicion there, why not move the vote from random (happens to be me) to the lurker?

[bionicchop2]

Well, I don't like this miller claim.

vote X

Please outline the advantages you see for scum claiming miller to start day 1 and what supportive scummy actions you have seen from X to convince you he is lying.

[bionicchop2]

serious? you guys really find it that hard to believe that I voted somebody on an intuitive hunch? (my hunchs- generaly wrong) Fine, suit yourself.

I find it hard to believe anybody can get an intuitive hunch on page 2. Most players I have seen who play by gut consistently don't generally seem to form their opinions this early.

[bionicchop2]

Mod

- Can we get a status update on Blitzer, Mr.Avocado and Young Eric please?

Blitzer is now Knight of Cydonia. Mr. Avacado picked up his prod, but did not reply. YOUNG ERIC has done neither. Seeking replacements for the latter two.

[bionicchop2]

unvote avacado;vote chaz

While I don't agree with Mr_Adam's hunch, I didn't see his vote on X as a scummy action. Out of the people voting for him, Chaz seems to be the most opportunistic.

[bionicchop2]

unvote avacado;vote chaz

While I don't agree with Mr_Adam's hunch, I didn't see his vote on X as a scummy action. Out of the people voting for him, Chaz seems to be the most opportunistic.

Right now, all we have from Mr Adam is that his gut is telling him that he doesn't believe X. It is in the best interest of the town to force Mr Adam to define this further. Therefore, I've asked him

some

questions and backed it up with a vote.

You are misrepresenting the scale of events, both in your response to my vote and in your phrasing of question(s) to him. I have bolded the word 'some' in your quote above. Here is the 'one' question you asked him, which was also your first vote directed at him.

Several

of us have put forth questions to X regarding his claim. I'd like your opinion of each of his answers.

I bolded the word several because it means more than two, but not many. This would imply there was a series of questions and answers with 'X' and others. Here are the 2 questions:

One question for X though: Why wait until you had attracted a couple of votes, albeit random ones, before making the early miller claim? Why not claim miller in your first post?

Here is the first (2 part) question from q21.

Actually, since I'm at L-4, I'll claim: I'm a miller. I heard it's good practice to claim miller early if you are one.

Can you provide the thread where you heard it was good practice to claim miller early?

There was your question, which wasn't much of a question.

Now if you asked me for my opinion on his responses to those 2 questions, I wouldn't have one. Neither were very pressing questions and the answers were equally run of the mill.

Insinnuating that I'm being opportunistic while trying to get infomation is pretty poor, especially given some of the other votes on his wagon. Any reason you called me out on it? Or are you trying to keep Mr. Adams from answering? IGMEOY

Is KoC trying to keep you from answering?

Um... how, exactly? All he saying is that if Adams answers his questions, he'll consider unvoting him. Right now, Adams hasn't answered, so chaz hasn't unvoted...

The other 3 votes against Adam's made sense (regardless of me agreeing / disagreeing with the reasoning). Farkin expressed suspicion and followed it up later with a vote. X was the one being voted by Adam's and there is always a small amount of OMGUS when someone attacks you (if you know a case is false, you suspect the accuser). KoC came across as intentionally trying to increase pressure and the reasoning was based on new information (the unvote) which does look a little odd.

Your vote came with a question. You could have asked the question, then voted if he dodged it, but you chose the guilty until proven innocent route. I said your vote was opportunistic and I think you are trying to blend in. This does not imply your question shouldn't be answered.

[bionicchop2]

The hunch isn't the problem with me. I didn't like how he unvoted immediatly after when some players gave comments regarding Adam's vote against X.

Bionicchop2, what do you think of this?

KoC came across as intentionally trying to increase pressure and the reasoning was based on new information (the unvote) which does look a little odd.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I do think the unvote is odd. From earlier in the game, you can see I am not a big fan of unvoting unless a player is in immediate danger of a lynch which needs to be delayed or there is a better place for a vote. This move does hint of trying to appease the other players. This is his first action I would interpret as a possible scum tell.

[bionicchop2]

And bionicchop2, post 66 is simply manipulating semantics. I don't really find anything convincing in it. This may just be your style, but I wouldn't say it's a clear one. I'm a fan of looking for scummy actions and insinuations, but not preoccupying oneself with word choice.

Call it what you want. I look for the wolf in sheep's clothing trying to fit in. 4 players voted for someone and 3 of them gave legitimate reasons for being there. The semantics of the wording are just a side note to the issue and given to elaborate my reasoning when asked about it.

I saw - vote w/ reason, vote w/ reason, vote w/ question, vote w/ reason. The question itself came across as a thinly veiled attempt to look like he was scum hunting. The vote post had no reason for the vote, just the question. Then the follow up post said he would remove the vote if the question was answered and not dodged. Seems like a flimsy vote just being tucked away on a wagon picking up momentum.

[bionicchop2]

Mod

- can you update the player list in the opening post please? Thanks.

Done. Also, I keep seeing your signature in other threads and think "I'll ask THIS guy to replace in" before I realize that you're already in the game.

[bionicchop2]

you know what would be really funny? is if after all this I turned out to be a jester...

It seems you have taken a few different angles to try and shake votes off you - none of which resemble scum hunting.

unvote chaz;vote Mr_Adams

It is also odd you had to look up what a miller was, but you know the jester role which is used much less frequently.

[bionicchop2]

I happened to be a jester in one of my previous games

You don't have any 'previous' games on this site. Where have you played previously and if you could link to the game where you were jester, it would help.

[bionicchop2]

oh, and conquerclub is a site for online risk, with a very active forum. thelink in my sig will take you to a sign up page if your intrested in a game of risk, I'll happily give you a beating =P

Yeah I have played there for a long time, just never mafia. I am 'A Man's Part' there.

[bionicchop2]

ummm....no...A Mans Part

Also, I read what my eyes would let me of your game there (very brief skim). You were a lover (town I think) but claimed Jester.

Yes, answering questions and linking games when requested is important because they do change people's opinions. Whether town or mafia,you should never just accept a lynch (especially when you only have 4-5 votes).

[bionicchop2]

So, we have Adams at L-1. Are we ready to lynch him? I'm leaning towards dropping the hammer with all the jester speculation. But, if he were actually a jester, he would have hammered, or at least voted himself, at this point.

If we are L-1 (awaiting vote count) then he should claim, but we should not hammer yet.

Replacements have not had time to read.

[bionicchop2]

I forgot the mod updates votes in first post. He should be at 5 votes and it should take 7 to lynch, so only L-2.

[bionicchop2]

Vote Zazier

She has laid low and is voting for X. I think this could be a good way to go.

I like this angle. Is the vote still the random vote?

[bionicchop2]

Bionic, I have just noticed you are voting Adams. Yet you have posted several posts that appear to be against his lynching.

Why are you voting him? Or atleast, why have you not unvoted him since you corroborated "my angle"?

My thoughts against (and vote for) Chaz were based mostly on the assumption Mr_Adams was town. There was a decent case against him, but the vote by Chaz was leaning me against him actually being scum. Since then, Mr_Adams has done a few scummy things - namely conceding to a lynch and lack of scum hunting. I decided to put him closer to a lynch and gauge how he reacted (as well as others).

Now, I had zazier listed as one of my alternate suspects which is why I said I liked that angle. Flying under the radar while trying to appear active is one of my pet peeves. I haven't removed my vote from Adams because I don't feel any need to. I will see how zaz responds to your vote and how the rest of the day proceeds.

Now that we have replacements, the tone of the game is already shifting and I think I will be able to get a slightly better gauge on things.

[bionicchop2]

I kept my vote on him as we don't know his allignment. He can say that he's a miller, while actually being scum and I don't want him out of the spotlight yet.

In response to Mr_Adam's vote on X:

Okay, i didn't like your hunch, but that is just your opinion. I can't change your opinion so i didn't respond to it, although I don't agree with it.

These 2 statements seem to contradict each other.

How am I flying under the radar, bionicchop2?

You are asking a lot of small prodding questions to seem active. You have yet to respond to any responses of your questions. You plant small seeds of suspicion but your posts don't seem to have much conviction to them.

[bionicchop2]

He voted for his hunch while I didn't. I'm doubting, while he voted as if he was sure that X was using this as an excuse to fool the cop.

You are going to need to rewrite this or rephrase it. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Your vote was a random vote and now you are trying to make it sound like it is there for a reason when you have never spoken directly about X's claim or shown any suspicion of it.

unvote Mr_Adams;vote zazier

Please clearly state your opinion of X and his claim of Miller. Also, please identify your top suspects and associated reasons.

[bionicchop2]

Suspects I have right now:
Adams for his unvote.
Bionicchop2 as I didn't like your reason for voting Chaz.
q21 as I don't what to think of those links and his explanation afterwards of which I already gave a comment about.

I guess I am confused as to why you haven't voted any of your top 3 suspects and you are holding dear to your random vote because he might be scum. You said the claim is a null tell, so why did you feel keeping the vote there was more valuable than applying pressure to your suspect?

You also are suspicious of me for my reasons for voting Chaz, but never mentioned it until now. Others asked about it when it first happened - as you normally do when you are suspicious of an action. Would this have ever come up if I didn't press you to list your top suspects and reasons? Why the delay from when it happened to you indicating any suspicion?

[bionicchop2]

Mr_Adams - sometimes you can hit back in your browser and salvage your message. For anything lengthy, you should either use notepad or copy clip the data prior to hitting 'post' so you can paste it if there is an error message.

[bionicchop2]

Riceball - please clarify your vote on Xtoxm. I don't think anybody understands the point you were trying to make.

[bionicchop2]

If I missed any questions please say so.

Yes, you have still missed the question about why you haven't voted for any of your suspects.

[bionicchop2]

Bionicchop2 voted Chaz only because he assumed Adams is town.

This isn't entirely true. My reason for thinking Mr_Adams was town was because I was suspicious of Chaz's vote on him. I voted Chaz because the reasoning given for the vote did not seem solid. This lead me to think Chaz was joining the largest wagon out of convenience. In reality, this could happen if Adams was scum too - if a partner thought they were going to get lynched anyway and wanted to make sure they voted early enough.

[bionicchop2]

Seems like the Mr. Adams wagon is dissipating. That's too bad, cause he needs to die. I can't believe the "poor newbie" strategy is working. Funny how he's not so ready to die anymore - Hallelujah! He's come back to life! Maybe we can find his partner (or partners).

{snip}

And what happened to KOC? Ever since he exhorted us to lynch Adams right quick, he's disappeared. Right now he's my 2nd choice for stringing up. In fact,

unvote, Vote: Knight of Cydonia

. That Adams vote isn't doing anything right now, anyways.

{snip}

Adams is still my top lynch candidate, in case you hadn't guessed, and if anyone else wants to lynch him, I'm there.

I am confused by your post.

- Adam's is top suspect
- KoC is 2nd for wanting to quickly lynch Adams (your top suspect)?

I find it slightly odd you would vote for the person your top suspect is voting for.

If you could outline your reasons for voting KoC, it would be nice. You may have some, but your post doesn't make it very clear what they are.

[bionicchop2]

Mod, can we get an updated vote count?

Adams has 3... that's all I need to know... must get down to 2

So no concern about finding scum? Just your own vote count?

[bionicchop2]

mod

- requesting prod on TSN (hasn't posted in a week).

Done.

Y.C. should also be back from V/LA now, so I expect something from him soon.

[bionicchop2]

Wow, Zazier is the highest for lynch? He really doesn't strike me as scum...

Please enlighten us as to who does then. Start scum hunting. The failure to do such will convince me you rank up there with the worst townies on the site or you are scum. You have moved into my 2nd suspect spot.

[bionicchop2]

This game seems to be leaning towards a game where the most active poster will get voted. It is a good strategy if you are trying to promote scum lurking.

I am not sold on the case against Xtoxm. The only way his defense of Adams would be 'chainsawing' is if they were partners. If that is the case, it makes little sense to unvote off the bigger wagon onto Xtoxm. Now scum sometimes defend town and I could see a case made there, but even that is a null tell since town defend town just as often and sometimes more often. Town even defend scum more than scum defends scum.

My current read on Xtoxm is a townie trying to be active in a lagging game. If the only topic moving is a discussion about Mr?Adams, the only way to stay active is to pick a side or try to generate some conversation about somebody else.

I just don't think a game that is lagging scum would be the ones pushing the pace and posting as frequently. Maybe a newbie would as anxious scum. I think scum would be on the other end of the spectrum - either not active at all (Y.C., TSN) or popping in to say they have been busy (fark, chaz). If scum chose to be active, I would suspect they would have moderate activity and then be waiting to jump on a hyperactive player if they said anything slightly off.

My hunch is we would have 1-2 scum in the 4 I listed above and the rest are playing the scavenger waiting for a some sort of town slip. Yes this is a very wide range, but the main point is I don't think scum would be posting more than they need to be right now. Could the top posters be scum? Sure they could, but I think they are less likely to be scum than others at this stage of the game.

[bionicchop2]

That Xtoxm defended was not my problem. As far as I can tell, his defense has been illogical.

Possibly illogical, but illogical is not a scum tell in my book (unless the intent is clear and the intent is scummy). You can't assume every player knows how to make a logical argument as a skilled debater. This is usually not the case. Most people don't know when their arguments are illogical, or they wouldn't make them.

Since right now I think you are town based on your miller claim (unless future actions convince me otherwise), I don't take issue with your vote on xtoxm. I just think the reasoning is a little off. Doesn't mean he can't be scum, but my current read is town.

[bionicchop2]

Bionic spoke good sense, shame you won't listen to it.

If you buddy up to me I will start to suspect you more. I have a tendency to pick up scum barnacles that cling to me.

[bionicchop2]

Agreeing with someone =/= Being scum.

Agreeing with me usually does

[bionicchop2]

That last one was a joke. The non-joke part is a few posts prior. I do generally get nervous when people are too agreeable with me. In this case though, you are agreeing with me about on my opinion about you, so it isn't really bad.

[bionicchop2]

Even though I disagree with KoC about Xtoxm, he is coming across slightly townie in his scum hunting.

[bionicchop2]

That is a pretty decent case KoC. He has shown suspicions outside of OMGUS in this game I think (TSN), but other similarities are definitely there.

I am going to need to read some town games of him.

I really like my vote on Zaz, but that wagon seems unlikely to move. Will start looking at alternate cases.

[bionicchop2]

I would really love some input from Zazier. Would also like a vote count, but I know the mod is having issues.

[bionicchop2]

lol road rage

[bionicchop2]

Self voting = SCUM.

That is inaccurate. It is definitely bad form, but I would think if a statistical analysis was done, this would be a null tell.

[bionicchop2]

When we get a vote count, I will likely vote Xtoxm. I do recall him turning aggressive and using a similar tone while giving up the last time I saw him as scum.

[bionicchop2]

unvote;vote xtoxm

after the vote count. L-1 and would like a claim. I was thinking town on you most of the day until your angry flip out.

[bionicchop2]

Game has obviously stalled. We seriously need some replacements to keep the game moving along.

[bionicchop2]

actually

unvote

I am not going to support a lynch of anybody while we have so many players severely lacking in their posting.

Y.C. has done nothing. Not to mention, his vote on Xtoxm is still the random vote on Xtoxm's predecessor. (last post on the 10th to announce V/LA from 12-16th)

SPN has done equally as little (last post on 10th)

Riceball is MIA (Last post on 19th)

Zazier disappeared once she voted Xtoxm and got everybody looking that direction. She has averaged 3 posts a day elsewhere on the site since she stopped posting here 7 days ago.

Mr Adams calls out someone for 'lurking' then goes on a 5 day absence finally popping back in to discuss the jester.

vote Zazier

Going back to my original hunch after this disappearing act.

[bionicchop2]

really just not felt like commenting.

This is called lurking. It needs to stop. You need to comment and you need to do it often. Failure to do such helps scum win the game.

[bionicchop2]

For all those wondering why I haven't post much, I want to hear answers to my questions. From that point I can work and start cases.

Or you could make it clear what questions are unanswered and comment on any events since the last time you posted several days ago.

[bionicchop2]

Bionic - if you aren't going to support a lynch of anyone why vote again after unvotin... in the same post?

L-6 isn't exactly in danger of being a lynch. She is also one of the people I am calling out for lack of content posting.

[bionicchop2]

When I go 2 days in between posts, it generally means there is too much lurking going on as I generally find something to respond to in all of my games.

Any new games I join I am implementing a lynch all lurkers policy for d1 and I ask everybody else to start doing it too.

[bionicchop2]

mod - requesting replacement

tired of lurkers and tired of every game I am in the cop is lurking and being scummy.

unvote

good luck.



<---eyerolls are cool

[bionicchop2]

I spoke with Haschel and I am going to stay in the game so I don't add to the inactivity of the game. Sorry about earlier, I am just frustrated. I play for fun and it really is not fun to be in a game like this one has been and I can't grasp the concept of playing a game where you do nothing.

I will look back at the game related stuff later. My intent is to re-vote zazier since Q21 has counter-claimed cop (I will wait for replacements to post). Some moderators are trying to break the meta of games only having 1 cop and putting 2 cops into play, but I thought zazier was scum prior to her claim. Q21 has played pro-town and I support the timing of the immediate counter claim.

[bionicchop2]

Replacements will need to make a quick read and post when they join. I am calling for a hammer to be placed by next Friday when the deadline occurs (since we don't know what 'x' will be).

[bionicchop2]

@Cops, do your PM's imply at all that you are the only cop in town?

No, my PM says I am "a" Cop, not "the" Cop. Doesn't change that I think Zazier's scum.

Q21, I know your not stupid enough to claim cop for no reason. I think your scum trying to make people think your a cop. In fact, I'm pretty well sure of it.

unvote Vote Q21

Read the whole thread and then try again.

[bionicchop2]

Why vote Chaz for being opportunistic at the Adams wagon, but no vote for a different player being opportunistic at the xtoxm and my own wagon?

I never called anybody else opportunistic. If you felt somebody was opportunistic, you should identify who they are and vote them. None of the votes on Xtoxm seemed opportunistic since he he has a play style that is confusing and generally picks up votes in all games I play with him.

Nobody on your wagon is opportunistic because I think you are scum. If something happens to prove this wrong, I will take another look at the people who voted you.

And if someone of you should know that this happened before it's bionicchop2. In another game in which bionnicchop2 and I played, the PM's of the cops said also 'you're a cop' (mini 664 modded by incognito)

Yes, there have also been many games with 1 cop I can link you to. The game you reference had time period which were activated at night and is nothing like this game. Q21 has played protown. You have not. If you are a real cop, then learn to be a more active player in future games.

[bionicchop2]

To put it bluntly - your plan sucks X. Any result on Xtoxm would be WIFOM. To say that Zazier is town if Xtoxm comes up town is very, very, very flawed.

In my experience so far, the counter-claim has been telling the truth 100% of the time in any game I have played. Reasons for Zazier-scum to claim cop are simply to out a real cop on the way out as she was the most likely to be lynched. Also, there is a general tendency to let both claims live when done this early (I have made that mistake before and you are coming up with a plan now which leaves both alive).

What it comes down to is there is no advantage for scum to ever counter claim a cop. Finding the cop is a small victory on its own for scum, and they lose the advantage of knowing the cop if they are just giving up one of their own afterwards.

My vote will be on Zazier before deadline. There is nothing to gain by lynching anybody who didn't claim cop today.

[bionicchop2]

Although, Bio - There can be. There are 3 scum, sometimes it's better to leave conflcting cop claims alive and get results (NOT on each other), and lynch someone else.

I used to agree with this, but no longer do. I think when you can isolate potential scum to a group of 2 people and give yourself a 50% shot of being correct (again barring a 2-cop game) you should always focus there. If there are 2 scum out of the remaining 10 players, you drop your chances to 20%. More importantly, you end up spending 2 days discussing the conflicting claims instead of 1 since you can't just drop the debate and look for 2 different scum and completely forget about the 2 cop claims. Finally, there is always a chance the scum who claimed cop has some sort of scum role where you don't want them to live another day. They could be a role cop, a role blocker, or something else that helps the scum out.

[bionicchop2]

Zazzy is L-1. do we really want him lynched? I'll place the lynching vote if the rest of the town wants it, I just think to little has been said to hammer yet.

We are waiting for replacements to have a chance to join and read. That is the only reason I am holding my vote off. I don't think a replacement is going to have much to say which will impact today's lynch, but it can't hurt to wait a few more days.

[bionicchop2]

Have I been replaced? If you haven't found one, mod, I'm back.

No - and we await your analysis.

I still think ZazieR is scum, but I also want to see answers to her questions.

FoS: bionicchop2, Mr_Adams, Xtoxm

.

You want me to re-answer the question I already answered? Or would you just prefer to do a better job of reading the thread?

[bionicchop2]

I actually don't like either of those questions, especially coming from somebody who I think is scum. I outline my suspects as I see them and have been leaning more towards only stating the top 1 or 2 suspects as to not give scum ideas on who to kill / not kill at night.

As for 'building a case', that is a completely loaded question. The question makes it seem like I am stockpiling quotes waiting until I have enough to frame somebody as scum. When I am suspicious of someone's actions, I state it. If it is based on lack of productive activity, then naturally it would occur later as opposed to sooner.

[bionicchop2]

As for 'building a case', that is a completely loaded question. The question makes it seem like I am stockpiling quotes waiting until I have enough to frame somebody as scum.

You mean, "waiting to build a case," makes it loaded. The way you answer that question is by saying, "I didn't, shown by the fact that I..." (or "I did, because..."). Just because the wording isn't to your liking doesn't prevent you from answering it.

No, I mean 'building a case', which is what I said. Scum build cases on town players IMO.

And yes, if I think a question is really pointless, I certainly can choose not to answer it. I generally will if a person rarely posts, throws out a random question and then disappears for another couple of days.

[bionicchop2]

For some reason I thought it was 5 votes to lynch. Let's build Zazier nice and close to a hammer...

vote: zazier

Also, welcome G-Force. To catch you up to speed, we have 2 cop claims (zazier + Q21) which should be the focus of your reading IMO. We will have a deadline of Friday + x and we are hoping to lynch before Friday so we don't have to worry about x.

[bionicchop2]

zaz - I think all cop PMs say 'a' cop in any game.

G-Force claiming obviously changes things. If there are multiple cops, then we should probably expect varying degrees of sanity. In this case, X's claim becomes more believable since it does become a testing point for sanity.

unvote

Zazier - please stop acting scummy and please participate in the game.

Anybody else who plans on ever claiming cop this game should do it now IMO.

[bionicchop2]

And how does that make Zaz inno at all? It makes her a lot more liekly to be scum.

It makes multiple cops extremely likely. Combined with a miller in the game, I now see this as a game with insane / sane cops and possibly even naive / paranoid.

[bionicchop2]

Xtoxm - nothing in the wiki description of a normal game leads me to believe an insane cop is not considered normal. If anything, the miller would be an outcast as it is a non-standard role.

Both could be classified in this category of roles allowed:

Other (new or otherwise) roles can be included. However, there should be no more than 1-2 of these, and they should be based around the usual game mechanics: Killing, Protecting, Investigating, Voting.

[bionicchop2]

No, it doesn't. There being 2 cops is an outside chance, though it's looking likely now, 3 cops even less so. Town having 2 cops is already very powerful duo, even if there's a miller and a GF. Unless the mod makes it clear that there can be varying sanities in this game, i'm not willing to consider there's any possibility of 3 cops. Even then, I doubt it.

It really depends. If the game is setup with 3 cops (whatever sanity), it is easily balanced out with no doctor and a mafia RB. In the event of all 3 claiming as we have, that could reduce the town to 1 investigation.

I agree the cops are powerful, but adding the doubt of sanity since there are multiple means the town will likely lynch at least one innocent just trying to determine the sanity of each cop.

[bionicchop2]

No, I mean 'building a case', which is what I said. Scum build cases on town players IMO.

Stupid semantics. I'll ask it in a way that you might appreciate better:
Could you explain the brevity of your post 136?

The post was the exact length it needed to be. Are there any other post lengths you would like clarified or any others you felt needed to be longer? If you feel that the post 136 needs clarification, you can check Xtoxm's follow up question(s) in post 142 and my subsequent response in post 144.

As for the semantic part, I have seen many town players mis-lynched for many different mis-phrasings. If something is worded in a way which implies my scumminess, I am going to call it out as such - even if it was unintentional.

[bionicchop2]

So flying under the radar was your problem with it? Okay. But I'm just feeling a little bit of extra pushing coming from you that feels scummy, like you're scared under pressure. Not very. Just a little.

I believe the term you are looking for is "over-defensive" and I get called such often. Expect more of the same

'Flying under the radar' is something I feel is scummy. It is also termed 'active lurking', etc. A general feel of being present while trying not to make waves. Unfortunately there is a strange urge for power roles to follow this same play style.

[bionicchop2]

welcome icemanE!

[bionicchop2]

OK then. Here is the list of players who have not made a claim.

bionicchop2
Knight of Cydonia (replacing Blitzer)
chazworthington
Farkshinsoup
icemanE (replacing TheSweatpantsNinja)
Mr_Adams
Riceballtail (replacing Mr Avacado)
Xtoxm (replacing YOUNG ERIC)

Working under a temporary assumption of truth from the 4 claimers, it is possible there are 3 scum in this group of 8. These players I am going to put into the temporary town bin: chaz (despite my early vote), farkin (was almost leaning scum here a few days ago, but for some reason feel town for now). In addition, I think icemanE should not be lynched today as a replacement.

For me, that leaves a shorter list of KoC, Mr_Adams, RBT and Xtoxm who I would be open to lynching. Meta on RBT and Xtoxm tells me their play is close to a null tell. Xtoxm's response after the 3rd cop claim is striking me as off, but I am not sure it means scummy just yet. I need to read closer on KoC. Adams is a big question mark for me right now.

[bionicchop2]

For me, I don't like to start a bandwagon on someone right as they join. If the case on their predecessor was strong enough, a bandwagon should have already been started. If there was an existing bandwagon when they replaced in, I don't mind pressuring them more. I also know TSN flaked in all his games, so it isn't much of a tell.

[bionicchop2]

mod

- vote count please. If deadline is friday + n we will need to be kept current on votes as much as possible this week. Thanks.

Right now I am going to

vote: Mr_Adams

. Going to reread and see if anything jumps out to me. I agree with whoever said this lynch may be the most informative. I see xtoxm and RBT on equal footing with pretty much no read on either. I remember a few instances where I found KoC scummy, but I can't remember them off the top of my ehad, so that is where I am going to focus my reread.

[bionicchop2]

On a different note, did anybody look into that game that I mentioned?

I looked at it, but didn't see any significance and didn't really understand what looking at it would do. That was a themed game with a serial killer, 2 cops, masons and a vigilante. I don't think it even had a miller in it (could be wrong). Other than having multiple cops, I don't know why it was linked.

[bionicchop2]

Now instead we let them do their own investigations. We still have two dead cops by D3 assuming no doc, but we've got 3 results on potentially 3 different people. We won't know the sanities but its another element to ocnsider when reviewing people later in the game.

Well, if one cop dies n1 we will have 2 results. Then if 1 cop dies the next night, you really only have 1 cop with 2 results since the dead cop with 1 result is useless.

The reality is, we need to try and play this game as if there are no cops until we get something worthwhile. We are going to have to do actual scum hunting this game since one (or more) of the cop claims could still be fake (and they will be able to cater their results to whatever looks pretty). Having multiple cops and a miller is usually intended to minimize the value of the cop role. In most cases it ends up a distraction to the town when they are so focused on the cops and their investigations they forget to play mafia.

No matter what happens, we won't have meaningful reports until day 3. By day 3, you are usually sitting with 8 players and potentially we still have 3 scum.

Forget about what the cops should and shouldn't do. If you are vanilla, play the game as mountainous.

[bionicchop2]

I don't think order matters much here, so whoever is on next should probably just post results along with reasons for investigating that person.

[bionicchop2]

OK, here are our possibilities:

paranoid:paranoid - inconclusive

paranoid:insane - Xtoxm is town

paranoid:sane - Xtoxm is scum

sane:sane - Xtoxm is scum

insane:insane - Xtoxm is town

fake:paranoid - inconclusive

fake:insane - Xtoxm is town

fake:sane - Xtoxm is scum

fake:fake - inconclusive

Statistically, the results give us nothing concrete today with equal possibilities of scum and town. For information, a xtoxm lynch gives us the most. If we lynch wrong today, we likely enter tomorrow with 8 town and 3 scum. If we lynch wrong on Xtoxm, we at least have an idea of the sanity of 1 cop to assist tomorrow. If we lynch wrong on somebody else, we gain no information for what could be an endgame situation.

As for game content, I need to do a closer read on xtoxm now. Most of his actions I read as null tells as they occurred

[bionicchop2]

ice - while the reality is that xtoxm is probably a good lynch today (even if only for learning sanity), your reasoning is flawed. 2 innocent reports have the same likelihood of meaing xtoxm is scum as 2 guilty reports do.

[bionicchop2]

@bio - why are two innocents just as likely to mean Xtoxm is guilty?

Tags fixed.

2 guilties looks like this (posted earlier):

paranoid:paranoid - inconclusive

paranoid:insane - Xtoxm is town

paranoid:sane - Xtoxm is scum

sane:sane - Xtoxm is scum

insane:insane - Xtoxm is town

fake:paranoid - inconclusive

fake:insane - Xtoxm is town

fake:sane - Xtoxm is scum

fake:fake - inconclusive

2 innocents:

naive:naive - inconclusive

naive:insane - Xtoxm is scum

naive:sane - Xtoxm is town

sane:sane - Xtoxm is town

insane:insane - Xtoxm is scum

fake:naive - inconclusive

fake:insane - Xtoxm is scum

fake:sane - Xtoxm is town

fake:fake - inconclusive



Out of 9 possibilities in both cases, exactly 3 point to xtxom being conclusively scum. 3 point to him being conclusively town and 3 are inconclusive.

[bionicchop2]

mod

- please fix my quote tags in post 574. The top quote is by icemanE

So bio, what do you want to do with our cop data then? Throw it out completely?

It is useless today. How we proceed depends if we trust both cops are telling the truth and if we want to spend a day confirming their sanity. Until we confirm their sanity, the results mean nothing (you made a big point about this yesterday). The only way to confirm their sanity is through Xtoxm's death.

If I read the game and think Xtoxm played an exceptional townie game, then I would probably lean towards not worrying about the investigation results and just focusing on scum hunting somewhere else. I doubt that will be the case though. If he falls close enough to the top of my scum list, then it makes sense to lynch him and get any added bonus of figuring out sanities.

[bionicchop2]

Working on my full game reread with post by post analysis. Not moving as fast as normal due to outside distractions (only through 148 posts). I would like to complete that before placing any votes.

I would also like to add that if we think one of the cops is lying, then lynching to confirm sanities will gain us nothing unless we have a doctor.

[bionicchop2]

I can't believe people are actually arguing AGAINST lynching an incredibly scummy player, who has now resorted to lurking and refusing to speak, AND has two cop results of guilty against him.

Please stop adding the guilty reports to your argument as if they have any relevance to Xtoxm's alignment.

I think it would be very helpful if you did a PbPa outlining your suspicions. So far in my reread, you have not made many scummy comments, but there is a repeated theme of you picking someone to vote and then just telling others to vote for them without really giving a lot of reasons why it is the best lynch..

[bionicchop2]

Also, I don't like icemanE pushing the two gulities on Xtomx.

I don't like the way chaz is defending the scummiest player AGAINST TWO GUILTIES.

Please stop adding the guilty reports to your argument as if they have any relevance to Xtoxm's alignment.

Putting it in bold does not make it important.

[bionicchop2]

Putting it in bold does not make it important.

...what's in bold?

I meant CAPS

Clearly some players are trying to get us offtrack here, dismissing cop reports. I don't know, I have a really good feeling in my stomach that the mod isn't going to throw more than two irregular cops into the game.

So your hunch is all 3 were / are sane? Or 2 are sane and one is irregular? Or do you somehow know all 3 were telling the truth? Do you know both alive 'cops' are definitely cops? Q21 could be sane, one of the alive could be insane and the other could be fake.

Dismissing the two reports is just riduculous.

No, using them as any lynch justification is ridiculous and just scummy.

Maybe you would like to explain your complete turn around from this thought process yesterday?

... if we don't figure out whether or not our cops are sane or insane (and I HIGHLY DOUBT all of them are sane), we won't have a useful result EVER!

This is ridiculousness. Are you going to trust anything these cops say unless their sanity is cleared up? If so, why? Are we simply going to lynch whomever they target tomorrow simply to decide whether or not they're sane? Isn't that more of a waste? Why aren't you thinking rationally?

and then even today (nice dramatic sigh BTW):

*sigh*

Sanities are not confirmed. I don't know if I can trust the guilty. We'll see what the other cop has to offer.

=====

Bio, if you don't see why Xtoxm is the scummiest thus far REGARDLESS of the reports, you need to read the game, not have someone lay out a PBPA for YOUR convenience.

I am reading the game (just keeping with the current posts while I do a full analysis of the game which I am halfway through). The PBPA is not for my convenience. I will form my own opinion on if I think Xtoxm is scum. I want to know KoC's reasons so I can form my own opinion on KoC. I think you are confusing asking somebody to give me reasons to vote and asking somebody to justify their own vote.

[bionicchop2]

Sanities are not confirmed. I don't know if I can trust the guilty. We'll see what the other cop has to offer.

That's what I said. Then the other cop said he had a guilty. Ta da.[/quote]

Yes, but the other 'guilty' did not confirm any sanities. Yesterday you were quite clear that the reports were meaningless unless sanities were confirmed (you ignored those 2 quotes).

You really need to clarify why 2 guilties make it any more likely for xtoxm to be scum. I would like your thoughts on the possible roles of Zazier and G-Force with an explanation of why.

[bionicchop2]

I'm not saying "lynch Xtoxm because of cop results". I'm saying, lynch Xtoxm because of scumminess, and along teh way, we should narrow down our (claimed) cop's sanities.

I understand this in your case, but the tag-along comment about the guilty reports implies it is evidence against Xtoxm.


IcemanE on the other hand directly emphasizes the two guilty reports as if they have meaning.

I don't like the way chaz is defending the scummiest player AGAINST TWO GUILTIES.

I agree with a lynch on Xtoxm would help reveal sanity. I don't argue that point. I am mostly pressing iceman for inconsistencies in his statements. He also is asserting Xtoxm as the scummiest player without citing any actual reasons other that Xtoxm giving up. Mr Adams did a similar on D1 when it first looked like he would get lynched earlier in the day.

None of this means Xtoxm isn't scum, just that the reasons for voting have not been solid yet. In my reread I found your meta-case and that explains why you are persistent.

[bionicchop2]

OK. My reread is done and I have a PbPa on all players. I am not going to post my analysis on everybody since I don't think that would accomplish much. I will just post my analysis of my top suspect.

Before I do that, I would like to address the issue with Xtoxm. I hope after the game people see why 3 cops (if all legit) are not good for the town and people need to stop relying on power roles to solve the game. I think we are wrong on this Xtoxm lynch. I am not going to go into a huge defense of him or his play, but I don't agree with the lynch and I don't think solid enough reasons have been given. IMO xtoxm plays more like you would expect town to play when he is scum - he gives more reasons for his actions and doesn't display the snap judgments he does as town (quick to form an opinion on every players alignment). Because his normal play tends to land him votes and suspicion, he seems to consciously move towards a more standard town play when he is scum (no concern for finding actual scum, so he can just point out reasons others might think are scummy).

Xtoxm presented himself for investigated yesterday:

NO. Investigating miller GARANTEES that scum will get the only real cop killed before he gives a useful result.

They should be checking a non-miller non-power-role.

I think this makes myself or Adams the best target. If the 2 living cops come back with the same result of innocent, or same result of guilty, then the real result is amongst that. Other good targets would be KOC (assuming he's not lynched) and Ice.

People who do this are either town or are GF/scum who know their scum group can alter investigations. I think he expected to be an innocent in the eyes of any real cop.

I feel pretty strong that xtoxm is town. The only way I will vote him today is if we are at deadline and my vote will help avoid a no lynch.

===============

Who I will vote for is my top suspect -

vote icemanE

. In reread, TSN had a very high ratio of scummy posts. icemanE replaced and was initially pro-town in my eyes, but I think the front he put up on D1 about concern for verifying sanities unraveled towards the end of the day and completely disappeared today. I think he smells blood in the water and is jumping on this xtoxm lynch.

Post analysis:

Post 20. Restates that claiming on D1 is the best practice. This was something that was already stated by at least one person. This is a fluff post (as much of his were)

27. Again states how claiming miller on day 1 is pro-town, but throws out the statement of how we can't give X a free pass and he could be scum.

70. Misrepresents Adam's reason for voting X (says he voted because he never saw the role before). Claims confusion about Adams. No vote still.

92. Fluff post. Answers an acronym question and then kind of agrees with someone while not exactly committing to anything.

165. Slips in on the Adam's wagon because his 'cases' are all OMGUS after being gone for a while

LARGE GAP - TSN fades away (left site) and delays in replacement. (null tell - just here for info)

504. Comment about no lynches on D1 never being good seems odd - there were enough active people and votes moving to get a lynch. Seems like a way to drop a vote on Adams without any reasons.

561- iceman thinks it would be a waste of time to lynch Xtoxm right now.

565- says Xtoxm is admitting to being scum. Seems to lament his vote. Votes xtoxm

592 - completely contradicts his play from the previous day. Takes the 2 guilty reports and uses them to guide his reasoning

(we debated this point for a while, so I am not identifying every post I disagreed with on the same topic and only counting it as a single scummy action instead of multiple).

==========

Finally, I want to say I am very much against any lynch just to confirm sanities. If both cops are actually town, then we are looking at paranoid / sane or paranoid / insane unless they both have the same sanity which is very rare in multi-cop games.

If 1 is paranoid, that is very dangerous. No matter what Xtoxm shows up as, we won't know the sanity of whatever cop is left alive. Either way, the living cop could be paranoid. The only thing that sheds any light on the situation is if somebody gets an innocent report.

I will say again what I said on Day 1. We need to scum hunt this game. The cops are basically a distraction until there is conclusive evidence of sanity.

[bionicchop2]

I think we are wrong on this Xtoxm lynch. I am not going to go into a huge defense of him or his play, but I don't agree with the lynch and I don't think solid enough reasons have been given. IMO xtoxm plays more like you would expect town to play when he is scum - he gives more reasons for his actions and doesn't display the snap judgments he does as town (quick to form an opinion on every players alignment). Because his normal play tends to land him votes and suspicion, he seems to consciously move towards a more standard town play when he is scum (no concern for finding actual scum, so he can just point out reasons others might think are scummy).

On what are you basing this? Have you been able to go back and read some of his other games, like chaz? Or have you played with him before?

I have completed 2 games with him (I think) and am in 3-4 games with him now. Since I am in my 16th game on the site, that is a high percentage for him to be involved in. If you take away stuff like OMGUS (which I don't think is a scum tell) there isn't much in what he has done in this game which scum is more likely to do than town.

When somebody is close to a lynch or is under the most suspicion, I try to find as many games of theirs as possible and lightning skim their posts for general content, tone and voting. I am not convinced anything he has done this game is scummier than your average townie. This is why I was asking for players to do some kind of analysis and outline on him so I could see if they hadany valid points or anything I am missing.

FoS: anyone who is claiming, or claims in the future, that the Xtoxm lynch is being presented as "just to confirm cop sanities".

I have never said that if you are referring to me. I simply said I won't lynch to confirm sanities. I will only lynch if I am convinced someone is scum or deadline impedes.

[bionicchop2]

I'm not going to waste time defending what TSPN did.

Comment about no lynches on D1 never being good seems odd - there were enough active people and votes moving to get a lynch. Seems like a way to drop a vote on Adams without any reasons.

Yup, that was my main reason for voting him. No-lynches on day one are bad and I wanted to make sure one didn't happen.

You also did not do any scum hunting on day 1. You never gave any indication you thought Adams or anybody else was scum. You spent all of your time debating cop strategies.

561- iceman thinks it would be a waste of time to lynch Xtoxm right now.

Yup, since he said he wasn't going to play anymore. I was pissed that he said that - now he claims he's going to play.

OK, so if he was going to completely not be around and playing, you would want to keep him around? What town motivation would you have for this? Wouldn't scum have more of an advantage leaving around a player who isn''t going to contribute?

565- says Xtoxm is admitting to being scum. Seems to lament his vote. Votes xtoxm

Here's the full post:

I can't believe X(toxm) isn't even attempting to defend against the reports. I think he's basically admitted he's scum without really saying it.

2 guilties is our best bet, clearly. Still kind of pitiful, I say, but if we have a scum,. we have a scum.

vote: Xtoxm

Where do I lament my vote? I think the fact that he said he was quitting when 2 guilties were produced was pitiful play. I don't think a town player would quit instead of defending himself. It's not protown play.

Your post is full of vagueness. I say you seem to lament the vote because you act like you are shocked or care about him not putting up a fight. If you were convinced he was scum and convinced he was admitting it, your post would be a little more assertive. It has an 'oh well, I guess we caught one' feel to it.

592 - completely contradicts his play from the previous day. Takes the 2 guilty reports and uses them to guide his reasoning

Yes, things change, and I've already been over this. Yesterday, if we'd followed what I'd said we'd have verified sanities today. We didn't. Therefore the plan needs to be amended.

Something I've noticed is a general trend site-wide is that people think "contradictions", which are actually amendments due to changing factors, are scumtells. This is totally invalid and I vow from now on to reprimand anyone who does it.

You had already accounted for the changing factors yesterday when you said the reports would be useless if sanities were not confirmed. You outlined all the scenarios. Nothing unexpected happened at night to change this. You can reprimand all you want, but none of the events at night changed the dynamics of the game enough for a complete 180 degree strategy change.

[bionicchop2]

Xtoxm - quit wasting your time on that KoC wagon and join the icemanE party. I am sure you can't argue with a wagon on TSN's replacement.

[bionicchop2]

Loving the not-so-subtle buddying up to Bio, by the way. "For you"? Seriously? Sheesh.

I consider Xtoxm a 'buddy' in any game I play with him. Even when I think he is scum we we have no problems being friendly to each other. I don't know him, but with the frequency we play in the same games it is nice to have friendly banter as a counter to the usual heated debates. I welcome him to 'buddy up' with me in any game we play regardless of our alignments.

[bionicchop2]

...Seriously?

Are you seriously asking me if I was serious?

[bionicchop2]

As for an icemanE wagon, I just don't get it. The only arguments that I have identified against him are that he's bandwagoning Xtoxm and that he has mentioned the guilties while Yesterday he said that Cop results were basically untrustworthy (without a miller investigation). Someone needs to explain this to me better.

You are completely forgetting about TSN who played for half the game before icemanE replaced in.

[bionicchop2]

Btw, if you believe i'm town, Zaz is confirmed scum, so he should be today's lynch if i'm not, really.

What is the logic here? While I am fairly sure G-Force is legit and don't have anything concrete on zazier, I don't think your alignment says anything about hers.

[bionicchop2]

OK, I missed that point.

She could be, but I am not so certain there can't be a paranoid/insane/sane trio.

[bionicchop2]

What Xtoxm is currently discussing about probabilities and such of there being this cop or that cop is what I wanted to avoid by clearing them yesterday.

How would your plan have cleared anybody. A fake cop could claim any result on a miller in this game and nobody would know if they were telling the truth or not.

[bionicchop2]

Still haven't heard an explanation of the icemanE wagon...

Who I will vote for is my top suspect -

vote icemanE

. In reread, TSN had a very high ratio of scummy posts. icemanE replaced and was initially pro-town in my eyes, but I think the front he put up on D1 about concern for verifying sanities unraveled towards the end of the day and completely disappeared today. I think he smells blood in the water and is jumping on this xtoxm lynch.

Post analysis:

Post 20. Restates that claiming on D1 is the best practice. This was something that was already stated by at least one person. This is a fluff post (as much of his were)

27. Again states how claiming miller on day 1 is pro-town, but throws out the statement of how we can't give X a free pass and he could be scum.

70. Misrepresents Adam's reason for voting X (says he voted because he never saw the role before). Claims confusion about Adams. No vote still.

92. Fluff post. Answers an acronym question and then kind of agrees with someone while not exactly committing to anything.

165. Slips in on the Adam's wagon because his 'cases' are all OMGUS after being gone for a while

LARGE GAP - TSN fades away (left site) and delays in replacement. (null tell - just here for info)

504. Comment about no lynches on D1 never being good seems odd - there were enough active people and votes moving to get a lynch. Seems like a way to drop a vote on Adams without any reasons.

561- iceman thinks it would be a waste of time to lynch Xtoxm right now.

565- says Xtoxm is admitting to being scum. Seems to lament his vote. Votes xtoxm

592 - completely contradicts his play from the previous day. Takes the 2 guilty reports and uses them to guide his reasoning

(we debated this point for a while, so I am not identifying every post I disagreed with on the same topic and only counting it as a single scummy action instead of multiple).

Not sure what you are looking for really. As I said, I didn't point out every post because I don't highlight multiple items covering which are generally the same action I feel is scummy. There is no case against Xtoxm, but you aren't questioning that wagon. If anybody wants to back their vote up with a PbPa, it would definitely help.

[bionicchop2]

I don't buy it as reason enough to lynch him.

Maybe you don't, but I haven't seen better reasons to lynch anybody else, making these the best reasons I can see right now. This makes him the most likely to be scum in my eyes, which is all I can go on.

[bionicchop2]

2. That because the town decided that it would be a waste to confirm sanities D1, he started thinking along the lines of, "Well, we can't confirm them, so this is as accurate as we're going to get."

What was done last night was the equivalent of what he was asking for. If you would have been investigated, we would have the same information we have now because nobody can confirm you as a miller.

Until a cop has 1 guilty and 1 innocent report, it is very hard to gain any clarity on what the reports mean.

I think the reports are nothing but a distraction at this point.

[bionicchop2]

1. Does anybody think a player outside of Xtoxm / iceman should be lynched today? If not, we should focus there.

2. If we do focus there, the players not voting need to express which of those 2 players they think is scum.

I request this because there is a stagnation setting in. We should progress closer to a lynch and discuss the options in detail.

[bionicchop2]

3-3 in the voting, wth... how long to go now?

We have at least 11 days now (deadline in 1st post). This fell to the bottom of my watched list below 2 completed games. Holiday ending, so will get caught up soon.

[bionicchop2]

Anyone else think that's sad? (Besides, obviously, bionicchop2.)

I actually didn't expect much posting over the last 4 days, so I don't think it is that bad. We will see how quick everybody gets back into the swing of things.

[bionicchop2]

I find RBT's vote on a player who is no longer a part of this game very interesting. Votes on players who won't defend themselves or respond to the vote always catch my attention.

[bionicchop2]

And her post 411 in this thread is scummy as can be, assuming a mafia roleblocker is in play.

I would imagine there is no mafia role blocker based on the information we have.

Both claimed cops have investigation results. I would imagine one would be blocked if there was a RB.

[bionicchop2]

And her post 411 in this thread is scummy as can be, assuming a mafia roleblocker is in play.

I would imagine there is no mafia role blocker based on the information we have.

Both claimed cops have investigation results. I would imagine one would be blocked if there was a RB.

My post was worded poorly. I meant that Zaz was using the assumption of a mafia roleblocker in post 411.

I wasn't overly concerned with who said it, just pointing it out really. I didn't think the comment was scummy, but I wanted to address the line of thinking that there may be a role blocker.

[bionicchop2]

I wasn't overly concerned with who said it, just pointing it out really. I didn't think the comment was scummy, but I wanted to address the line of thinking that there may be a role blocker.

Why is that?

I guess I don't have a concrete reason for that. I generally like setup speculation to be confined to information that might help find scum. When I see speculation and I feel it doesn't apply, I like to point out why it is not likely. Sometimes they end up meaningless, but other times I can use some end-game deduction piecing together conclusions I come to throughout the game. This particular instance probably fits more into the 'meaningless' category.

[bionicchop2]

I wasn't overly concerned with who said it, just pointing it out really. I didn't think the comment was scummy, but I wanted to address the line of thinking that there may be a role blocker.

Why is that?

I guess I don't have a concrete reason for that. I generally like setup speculation to be confined to information that might help find scum. When I see speculation and I feel it doesn't apply, I like to point out why it is not likely. Sometimes they end up meaningless, but other times I can use some end-game deduction piecing together conclusions I come to throughout the game. This particular instance probably fits more into the 'meaningless' category.

But it wasn't meaningless: Zaz was asking the thread to assume there was a mafia roleblocker to avoid being lynched D1 when we had q21 and Zaz as the only two cops. Between this post and your comments on my previous posts, its starting to feel like you're trying to draw attention away from that point.

I am trying to draw attention away from something Zazier said by commenting that I don't think there is a role blocker? How does that work exactly? Wouldn't the simple act of quoting and commenting be counterproductive to this end goal of distracting from it? Why again would I care if people remember Zazier asking the thread to assume there was a mafia roleblocker? I can add it to the bottom of every post I make if you feel it is somehow critical to the progress of the game.

[bionicchop2]

Oh, darn. Xtoxm, by being a pain, has made himself impossible to read. I read the three games that Fark read, and his meta is the same style in all three.

Not sure I agree here. Xtoxm is much friendlier as scum than he is as town. He always has his 'I believe ____ is town' assertions, but as scum I have yet to see him assert himself in the opposite manner ('_____ is definitely scum').

[bionicchop2]

Xtoxm is much friendlier as scum than he is as town. He always has his 'I believe ____ is town' assertions, but as scum I have yet to see him assert himself in the opposite manner ('_____ is definitely scum').

Are you implying that players in general, and Xtoxm in particular, are incapable of altering their play in a game based on their own knowledge of how they appear to others?It seems as if you have decided to discard most of Xtoxm's play in this game as one big null tell, and base your assessment of him on your admittedly extensive knowledge of his play style.

Not in general, but Xtoxm in particular. Not that he is incapable, but he has not changed it as of yet. He may very well change it after this game.

In case you missed it, this was from my larger PBPA from a couple of pages back.

Xtoxm, when he replaced in, must have recognized immediately that he has played with several of the players in this game, including bionic, who knows him well enough to say this:

I have completed 2 games with him (I think) and am in 3-4 games with him now. Since I am in my 16th game on the site, that is a high percentage for him to be involved in.

He also has a distinctive play style, so he would know that if he was scum, he couldn't just fly under the radar. He said this:

I haven't been watching my own meta as such, I am simply aware of it

and this:

I haven't played anything like my fucking scum meta, this is the most fucking pro-town i've been in ages.

You are idiots.

Yes, I read this and I do not agree. It is not that he is incapable of change, it is that he had no incentive to change up until this point. He may be aware of his meta, but I don't think he was aware of the subtle differences in his meta when town / scum. Xtoxm is a convenience player from my perspective. What I mean by that is he doesn't strive to be the top scum hunter or best scum. He has fun socializing and playing, but I don't see him as a player who will make great efforts to fix any leaks in his game. He has been on this site for over a year now. His play style has not really changed much at all during that time. What convinces you it would instantly change for this one game?

[bionicchop2]

It has nothing to do with smart and more to do with lazy. Every game Xtoxm plays in has several players who know him. He plays many games and has been around for a while.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I have my reasons for believing the way I do. I will not be voting for Xtoxm today.

[bionicchop2]

Are you going to say why, or not?

Did I not say I don't believe he is scum? I could have sworn I made that point obvious.

[bionicchop2]

Please refresh my interest in this game by telling me why I'm scum.

^^^^^fluff post

I will continue to mark these as they occur. They far outweigh your posts which contribute anything to the game.

[bionicchop2]

I guess we have different ideas as to what constitutes content. I didn't think your last post added anything you hadn't already stated - which is you think Xtoxm is scum. You still haven't provided any kind of outlined case on his scummy actions which has been requested by both Chaz and myself.

[bionicchop2]

You responded to my initial posting about Zaz and a roleblocker by saying you didn't think there was a roleblocker. I recognized my sentence as poorly constructed and said that Zaz was making an assumption of a roleblocker in 411. What I'm trying to say here is that she had to assume a roleblocker to find a reason for people not to vote for her. And that's a stretch. Your response to that is you weren't concerned about the roleblocker comment.

Am I missing your point? Are you missing mine? Do you think Zaz's mentioning of a mafia roleblocker in 411 is fine? Because I'm saying its not, and that's the point I'm trying to make.

OK, Ikind of see what you were questioning me about. When I was making my initial point, I didn't realize you were critiquing the mention of the role blocker. When I said "I didn't think the comment was scummy" I meant I wasn't accusing you of making a scummy comment.

As far as your statement - now that it is clearer what you are saying - I actually did not find that aspect of Zazier's play particularly scummy. I could easily see a town player saying that. My interpretation of that post 411 reads more like an if/then statement. I have used an assumption to discuss a hypothetical result from that assumption in games before. I would find it scummier if she said something implying there was a mafia role blocker and then evidence of one actually showed up (like G-force was blocked). The comment she made was definitely self-preservation driven and scum definitely have that incentive. You have to ask yourself - if you were a cop in her situation, what would you do?

[bionicchop2]

your suspicions are noted. False, but noted.

[bionicchop2]

Also, so I am clear - you suspect Xtoxm and I are scum partners, yet instead of voting the person who is closer to a lynch and has 3 votes (xtoxm) you vote for the person with zero votes? That is just slightly flawed. Now if you were to say you think xtoxm was town and you thought I was overly buddying him for townie points, I would say you make a good point. Still wrong, but it would be a valid suspicion paired with your vote.

[bionicchop2]

> Deadline

December 11 + x.

Just a heads up for everybody.

mod

we really need an updated vote count to effectively deal with the approaching deadline.

[bionicchop2]

mod

we really need an updated vote count to effectively deal with the approaching deadline.

Ignore this obviously. I forgot you added it to the post above.

[bionicchop2]

I hope that is you admitting guilt and not you giving up as town.

[bionicchop2]

Let's keep the personal bashing of play styles out of the game thread gentlemen.

[bionicchop2]

afatchic - post night results ASAP

[bionicchop2]

a 4th cop should have claimed d1. Not buying that.

[bionicchop2]

I mean, I doubt we have a 4th.

[bionicchop2]

afatchic - since you didn't read the thread, why did you investigate RBT?

[bionicchop2]

And by that I mean your predecessor claimed cop. We have two cops verified and I'm not going to speak for everyone but I'm a little iffy on there being three cops.

ice - why did you tell him what his predecessor claimed?

[bionicchop2]

ice - why did you tell him what his predecessor claimed?

Guess I didn't think it all the way through - but it's not like I was the first to say something about it:

afatchic - post night results ASAP

So, IMO, you shouldn't be asking.

I think it was the way you spelled it out that caught my attention. I am trying to decide if I think it was scummy or not, but figured I should ask you about it either way. My current thought is that iceman-scum would not in-thread coach afatchic-scum. If both were scum there was time for that to be handled at night. My initial reaction was the opposite though.

[bionicchop2]

vote no lynch

I think an additional night phase is needed right now (without us discussing what may or may not happen at night and giving ideas to people).

[bionicchop2]

RBT - why are you leaning more towards scum with an investigation modifier than afatchic being scum?

If a mod is putting in 3 cops of varying sanities, a miller and some kind of modifier for scum, then town has no chance.

[bionicchop2]

The only discussion I am against is night phase speculation. Your cases against the top 3 will be very valuable should you turn up dead and proven to be a cop.

[bionicchop2]

And I'm sorry, I don't have time to make a case for Ice right now, but I did suspect him on Day 2 before I did my reread and became convinced that Xtoxm was obvscum.

Who turned out townie... maybe your "scumdar" is a little off

What is this suppose to mean? Everybody is wrong more than they are right in the game of mafia.

[bionicchop2]

I've been playing my whole game based on cops so it shouldn't seem like something new.

???

you said you lynched yesterday because xtox was scummy. No cop sanities were known, so how were you basing your gae on cops yesterday?

[bionicchop2]

I stick by the nl vote for right now, ostly because I can't read posts in isolation on my phone and can't really bounce fro page to page for a good reread. Once I a back home I can read ice's day 1 again.

Not sure why you claimed today though. We could have nl'd, and then only if fat was close to lynch would you have had to claim.

[bionicchop2]

ok. I think I a willing to

unvote no lynch,vote RBT

. A lot of iceman's posts make more sense when read with the idea of him being cop. I would prefer to save thr no lynch we have available until later I think.

If we believe X as miller (really fits the setup) and fat/ice as cops, it would leave RBT,myself,chaz, KOC and fark as potential scu (with RBT as def scum). if we investigate in that group, good odds to catch another.

[bionicchop2]

I am back. Nothing to add today really.

Quick question for ice - since you have opposing results on fat and RBT, what convinces you that RBT is the scum out of the pair? I think that is the case, but it would be nice to hear your reasoning.

@X - I wouldn't hate a nl here, but I think with the new information / claim we have that a lynch of RBT is in order.

[bionicchop2]

I'm just checking in again, I'll have more time after the weekend. Ice is a cop? And so is Afatchic? No way, someone is lying. My money's on Ice as lying scum. Is the reason that we're now leaning towards lynching RBT instead of no lynch because we believe Ice's claim? Why not keep the no lynch? I'm seriously asking, I don't have time right now to work out all the implications of these 2 options, not sure which one is best.

unvote

Basically what afatchic said. You either think they are both lying, or RBT is scum.

[bionicchop2]

RBT, you make no sense.

afatchic claims to be an insane cop. If you are town, you can be 100% sure he is scum, yet you play the confused card (how could he get different results on two vanillas????) and try to throw suspicion in other directions.

Either afatchic is lying scum or you are.

[bionicchop2]

RBT, you make no sense.

afatchic claims to be an insane cop. If you are town, you can be 100% sure he is scum, yet you play the confused card (how could he get different results on two vanillas????) and try to throw suspicion in other directions.

Either afatchic is lying scum or you are.

BINGO!

I thought I said this already...

You probably did and I think I did at one point prior to this too. Sometimes things need to be said multiple times when the obvious doesn't sink in.

[bionicchop2]

mic check. mic check.

All players not voting for RBT (not scummy to not be voting), please explain your current thoughts. There appears to be 3 options: vote RBT, vote afatchic, vote no lynch. One of those should be chosen (deadline is today + x) and a reason stated for the choice.

mod

- Please extend deadline through the weekend (+x) to account for site crash.

[bionicchop2]

I think KoC gave his thoughts on everything.

I don't think a Player analysis really benefits anybody at this point. Listing suspects today IMO would just give scum something to strategize about at night.

I would prefer everybody today to focus their energy on making the right decision regarding afatchic vs. RBT. Since I am voting RBT, that shows I am now comfortable with the cop claims that have been made. If RBT turns scum and I believe the cop claims (no double bus as KoC suggests) this leaves me with 4 players as suspects tomorrow by process of elimination. At least 1 cop will be alive and that field should be narrowed down.

[bionicchop2]

surprised afatchic was killed. I was convinced he was scum based on your results on him / RBT.

You can't be naive though since you had one 'guilty' report. Naive would always get an innocent even if somebody was framed.

[bionicchop2]

Naive would always get an innocent even if somebody was framed.

Are you sure? Should we check with the mod on that?

In reality, I don't think it matters. I think your result should pretty much be tossed and we should get down to basic scum hunting. I think we got all we are going to get out of the cops and we probably won't get any more results from you since odds are against there being a doctor.

My focus is on KoC, Chaz and Fark. I think 2/3 are scum since I stand by my original belief of the Miller claim and my statement yesterday that your actions (which I viewed as scummy) made sense with your cop claim.

[bionicchop2]

Let's start the voting today with a

vote KoC

.

The double-bus theory sticks out to me as a way to spread suspicion to others when it was starting to look like we could narrow down suspects to Rice as pretty certain scum and then 2/4 from the remaining (KoC / Chaz / Fark / Myself) with one of them (minimum) getting investigated. Doesn't quite line up with afatchic getting killed at night, but that may be intentional.

I would like KoC to list his top suspects for today.

[bionicchop2]

I have no idea what icemanE's sanity is. Fake is quite the possibility. Guilty on RBT (Godfather), innocent on Xtoxm (VT), and innocent on Bionicchop2.

Minor point, but his other innocent was on afatchic.

The double-bus theory sticks out to me as a way to spread suspicion to others when it was starting to look like we could narrow down suspects to Rice as pretty certain scum and then 2/4 from the remaining (KoC / Chaz / Fark / Myself) with one of them (minimum) getting investigated.

Call me stupid, but I really don't know what you just said.

Not sure which part is throwing you off, but I will attempt to clarify.

Players remaining were:

Ice
afatchic
RBT
KoC
Chaz
Fark
bionicchop2

After the reports, the simplest theory is Ice + afatchic as town with RBT as scum. Any mix of 1-2 of the 3 as scum is fairly plausible. All 3 as scum is the most extreme and least likely. This avenue would be more likely pursued by someone trying to push suspicion as far away from them self and any partners. If there are 2 scum in the group of 4 (KoC, Chaz, Fark, me) then scum would know there would be one more cop report that could incriminate / clear somebody.

KoC throwing suspicion at afatchic and ice expands the realm of suspects so it isn't narrowed down to a group including him. Now if eh suspected them and made a case for each player, I would be less suspicious of the action. Where was he when I was voting for iceman earlier that day or the day before?

[bionicchop2]

So your criticism is basically that icemanE + afatchic + RBT as the scumteam was a radical proposition, and KoC didn't properly develop the proposition to seem viable or like an honest conclusion.

Yes, that would be a fairly good way of simplifying it. My initial reaction was that it was an attempt to plant a seed of doubt as far away from him as possible. This is not my sole reason to vote since I had suspicions of him previously (though I would have to look over the earlier game with a focus on KoC to properly recall my earlier thoughts).

[bionicchop2]

and....go!

[bionicchop2]

1st step is to admit you are scum. We'll take care of the rest.

[bionicchop2]

- I always assume 3 scum in minis, then get pleasantly surprised if there is less.
- no lynching doesn't gain us anything IMO since I believe we have 'non-suspects' (no real chance of being lynched today) that can be killed at night without helping narrow things down. I think this is kind of what you are saying about them mowing down cops. I would rather save a no lynch for a time with 1 scum / 3 suspicious town if that occurs.

[bionicchop2]

Interesting read Casey. A few things I take issue with (but since we both seem to think Ice is cop despite early suspicions don't matter much).

You say AFC was paranoid, but he got an innocent. You say Ice is naive, but he got a guilty. Obv, I can't read the mod's miind, but that usually isn't how it works. Mod decides how everything works, but those two by definition will always get guilty or always get innocent.

I am more inclined to think we have someone who was Godfather by name only - which would be enforced by RBT pushing the "good luck figuring out your sanities". This would lead me to have:

ice: sane
AFC: insane
G-Force: Paranoid
Q-21: Naive (only by deduction and assumption of 4 standard cop roles).

This only becomes relevant if we gain another investigation or if somebody wishes to pursue me as a top suspect.

I was totally convinced Ice was scum, even after he claimed cop. I wasn't excepting there to be one of each, rather there being a gang of cops that couldn't do their jobs right, lol!

One problem I am having is figuring out your 180 on ice to where you believe the cop claim. I know I made a similar change, but I didn't know he was cop until he claimed. You had the advantage of knowing he was cop while you were reading and could interpret what he was saying with that idea. I personally tend to view cops as scummy (and many walk the razor's edge). Looking back on many of Ice's scummy actions, they really seemed to fit with how a cop might play (not me personally, but certainly valid play as a cop).

-He was overly concerned with who the cops were going to investigate. Seemed to be directing them. Looks scummy. Read with the idea he is cop, it makes sense.
-Pushing to lynch xtoxm. Looked scummy to me. I think he wanted to learn sanities more than he let on since it would also give him some information about himself and the results he got.

I guess I am curious to know what convinced you at the end of your read to list him as pretty much confirmed.

[bionicchop2]

As for the mass claim, I don't think it helps us right now and could hurt us.

If by chance we have another power role besides Ice, I would think we would want that kept hidden. If we had a doctor who by some chance managed to guess wrong on all the cop deaths, we definitely don't want scum to know - especially on mylo (small percentage to not lose if we mislynch). Also, if we had a vigilante we would need that player hidden in case of a mislynch (could extend the game another day).

I would support MC in many situations, but I think town has revealed a lot about themselves so far in this game and I think we should reserve some mystery.

[bionicchop2]

OK, with what the mod said about the godfather, I need to look at sanities again.

Afatchic gets guilty on Xtoxm n1 (wrong) and inno on RBT (correct)
Ice gets guilty on RBT (incorrect) inno on afatchic (correct) innocent on me (correct from my perspective)

My instinct would be that Xtoxm was framed n1 and afatchic would be sane. I am not sure why RBT would get framed or anybody would alter the status of their godfather. This leads me to think Ice is insane to get a guilty on RBT. Then he should have had guilty results on afatchic and me.

So, if we think 'framer', then there would have to be some framer luck involved to frame 3 people who got investigated (Xtoxm, afatchic and myself - last 2 actually flip to innocent in an ironic twist)

There has to be somebody who can alter investigation results in order for afatchic to have the results he did.

Since afatchic is confirmed, we know that n1, either xtoxm was framed or afatchic was targeted with some kind of mechanism that messed with his results. This makes Ice's n1 invest on RBT put him as insane.

I don't think I can make a solid conclusion about anybody based on this. All it does for me right now is increase the chance Ice could be scum running a gambit.

With 6 players alive and probable 2 scum, I am now in the mind frame to

unvote KoC; vote no lynch

.

[bionicchop2]

2) If you believe Xtoxm was framed night 1: Mafia framed AFC night 2. Ice is insane cop. BC2 is scum

If you go the route of Xtoxm framed (for afatchic's guilty) , afatchic framed (for Ice's innocent), the logical conclusion is NOT me as scum (though it is a possibility from the investigations).

There were 4 suspects going into night (chaz/casey, myself, fark, KoC). 2 of them are scum. That leaves 2 people to frame if a framer exists. This means ice would get an innocent (guilty in reality) on half of the town players.

To conclude that I am scum based on an investigation where we are starting to think there is a framer is not very wise.

BC2, I am surprised at your no-lynch vote. You know that doesn't help the town at all at this point. It would just mean that one misvote tomorrow would spell game over.

If you find a game where scum manages to do a quick double vote and hammer after one town vote for the win, I will concern myself with that. There are WIFOM reasons I think a night might help us.

[bionicchop2]

Framer is MD

Framer on wiki

My inclination is to go with the idea that framing occurs before investigation. The nature of framing is to plant evidence, etc. An insane cop would sot come in and get a guilty report on a framed innocent IMO (this would hurt the framer role by clearing a player)

It is painfully obvious that this game was designed to negate the powers of the cops and prevent blind cop following. We already know there was a GF, there is a claimed miller and we suspect a framer (or similar role which has produced different results on two 'innocent' players when investigated by the same cop).

I don't see why we should continue to try and guess what happened and who might have been framed. Look for scummy actions and make a case.

unvote no lynch

. I was starting to question my confidence in Ice-town which was my initial reason to think NL as an option (dead ice would obviously confirm him). I am back to seeing him as pretty solid town (4 cops fits the setup IMO) and the night would not clarify anything for me.

[bionicchop2]

1st thing that pops out to me is RBT only voted 5 times on 4 people over the course of 3 days. 2 of those were for the player eventually lynched and the popular vote at the time (Adams D1, Xtoxm D2). Mixed in were 2 votes on afatchic (one when it was Zazier since it was D1) and 1 vote for X. 3 of the players who she voted for are confirmed town. It stands to reason that X is also town as she did not show signs of distancing with any votes.

I will look to see who has similar voting patterns. I got hooked on looking at voting for a span of a few games, but the end results were leaning towards inconsistent. I still think the scum tendency is to change votes less frequently and vote for fewer people (harder to read in later days).

[bionicchop2]

Did the game end or did everybody run out of thoughts?

vote KoC

There is something to discuss. Enjoy.

Vote Count as of post 1000

(1)Knight of Cydonia: bionicchop2

Not Voting: Knight of Cydonia, Casey, Farkshinsoup, icemanE, X
4 votes to lynch.

[bionicchop2]

After everything I wrote, I'm a little disappointed that this is all I got in return, so whatever.

To be honest, I had already gone over sanity scenarios in my head which is why I thought the GF was in name only. Once it became obvious there was something altering reports, it because useless to take it any further.

Re:Casey, I'm not sure if all of that was meant to clarify things for us or muddy the waters even more.

This might be on the minds of a few of us since I had a similar thought when it was posted. I could see a town player trying to figure it out, but I could also see a scum player who knew why the results were that way trying to throw out scenarios that point to a town player being scum.

You never even responded to my response(s) where I point out that me as scum is not the only possibility of one of your scenarios. You have made a few glaring errors in your analysis since you entered the game.

Moreover, it increases the chance that you are scum. Saying you're confused instead of asking the mod for clarification also shows a reluctance to solve the game.

Point to where I said I was 'confused'. That is just a twist of words. I said:

I don't think I can make a solid conclusion about anybody based on this. All it does for me right now is increase the chance Ice could be scum running a gambit.

There is no confusion even implied. I just refuse to guess who scum might have framed. I am not confused at all. I understand the basics of the framer role from Epic Mafia and am working with those concepts which would have any framing done prior to an investigation (basically that player becomes a miller) and then cop sanities work as normal.

Now back to:

After everything I wrote, I'm a little disappointed that this is all I got in return, so whatever.

Don't you think X deserved some sort of response for his voting analysis post? I responded and then the game sat for over 24 hours with nobody saying anything. I don't know if you have ever gone through a game and logged every vote, but I have before. Trust me, it takes quite a bit of time and it does more in the way of scum hunting than trying to guess who got framed.

[bionicchop2]

I started a rework of X's analysis the other day, but didn't have a chance to finish it. Here it is now. His analysis shows the flow of players jumping on wagons. This chart shows them in isolation by each player to see the full body of a player's votes.

Vote Analysis

BC2 =>

RBT

BC2 => Casey
BC2 =>

Adams

BC2 =>

afatchic

BC2 =>

Xtoxm

BC2 =>

afatchic

BC2 => 0
BC2 =>

afatchic

BC2 => 0
BC2 =>

Adams

End of D1

Start of D2

BC2 => icemanE

End of D2

Start of D3

BC2 => NL
BC2 =>

RBT

End of D3

Start of D4

============
X =>

afatchic

X =>

Adams

X =>

afatchic

X =>

Xtoxm

X => 0
X =>

Xtoxm

X =>

afatchic

X => 0
X =>

Adams

End of D1

Start of D2

X =>

RBT

X => BC2

End of D2

Start of D3

X => NL
X =>

RBT

X => 0
X =>

RBT

End of D3

Start of D4

============

Adams

=> BC2

Adams

=> X

Adams

=> 0

Adams

=> KoC

Adams

=>

RBT

Adams

=> 0

Adams

=>

q21

Adams

=> 0

Adams

=> icemanE

Adams

=> 0

Adams

=> KoC

End of D1

Start of D2

============
FIS => BC2
FIS =>

Adams

FIS => KoC
FIS =>

Xtoxm

FIS => 0
FIS =>

afatchic

FIS => 0

End of D1

Start of D2

FIS =>

Xtoxm

FIS => 0
FIS => icemanE
FIS => 0
FIS =>

Xtoxm

End of D2

Start of D3

FIS => NL
FIS => 0
FIS =>

RBT

End of D3

Start of D4

============
icemanE => Casey
icemanE =>

Adams

icemanE => 0
icemanE =>

Adams

End of D1

Start of D2

icemanE =>

Xtoxm

End of D2

Start of D3

icemanE =>

RBT

icemanE => 0
icemanE =>

RBT

End of D3

Start of D4

============
Casey => FIS
Casey =>

Adams

Casey => icemanE
Casey =>

afatchic

Casey => 0
Casey => 0
Casey =>

RBT

Casey =>

Adams

End of D1

Start of D2

Casey => icemanE

End of D2

Start of D3

End of D3

Start of D4

============

q21

=> X

q21

=> 0

q21

=>

G-Force

q21

=>

RBT

q21

=>

afatchic

q21

=>

Xtoxm

q21

=>

afatchic

q21

=> 0

q21

=>

Adams

End of D1

Start of D2

End of D2

Start of D3

============

G-Force

=>

Xtoxm

G-Force

=> 0

G-Force

=> X

G-Force

=> 0

G-Force

=>

Adams

End of D1

Start of D2

============

afatchic

=> X

afatchic

=>

Xtoxm

End of D1

Start of D2

afatchic

=>

Xtoxm

End of D2

Start of D3

afatchic

=>

RBT

afatchic

=> NL

afatchic

=>

RBT

End of D3

Start of D4

============
KoC =>

Adams

KoC =>

Xtoxm

KoC =>

Xtoxm

KoC =>

Xtoxm

End of D1

Start of D2

KoC =>

Xtoxm

End of D2

Start of D3

End of D3

Start of D4

============

Xtoxm

=>

afatchic

Xtoxm

=>

Xtoxm

Xtoxm

=> 0

Xtoxm

=> icemanE

Xtoxm

=>

afatchic

Xtoxm

=> 0

Xtoxm

=>

afatchic

Xtoxm

=> KoC

End of D1

Start of D2

Xtoxm

=> KoC

Xtoxm

=> icemanE

Xtoxm

=>

Xtoxm

End of D2

Start of D3

============

RBT

=>

afatchic

RBT

=>

Adams

End of D1

Start of D2

RBT

=>

afatchic

RBT

=>

Xtoxm

End of D2

Start of D3

RBT

=> X

End of D3

Start of D4

1. Cops don't fit the profile of a standard town player. I generally have them on the scummy side of my reads. They have more information than others and play secretive. I think the voting of the cops is more conservative.

2. My theory has always been that scum vote for less people and try to avoid direct conflicts. They pick a target and stick with it. Sometimes this gives a false scum read on town depending on the player.

3. KoC's voting most closely resembles that of RBT and fits how I would see scum vote. Look at how many times in a row he voted for Xtoxm when his vote was already there. Compare this voting pattern with RBT. RBT voted afatchic, adams and xtoxm. KoC focused on xtoxm and adams. Also of note is no voting during the lynch of RBT (same for Casey).

KoC =>

Adams

KoC =>

Xtoxm

KoC =>

Xtoxm

KoC =>

Xtoxm

End of D1

Start of D2

KoC =>

Xtoxm

End of D2

Start of D3

End of D3

Start of D4

[bionicchop2]

Heaven forbid a forum mafia game has words in it and you are forced to read. How painful that must be.

Start scum hunting.

[bionicchop2]

Bio and X: how certain are you that KoC is scum?

How certain can anybody ever be about who is scum? I feel fairly solid that ice and X are town - as I have stated.

This leaves 3 players and the assumed 2 remaining scum. The town player out of that group is either going to be you / Casey IMO since I have seen what appears to be scum hunting from both today. Further more, KoC has been at L-2 with both you and Casey not piling on (also ice did not add a vote) - which convinces me Fark/Casey cannot be a scum pair. Unless X is scum (I don't believe so) enough voting opportunities have popped up to convince me the only reason KoC has not been lynched yet is because he is scum.

[bionicchop2]

Anyone who hammers before KoC has a chance to respond should die a flaming death tomorrow.

Well, since we are at mylo, this is the end unless he is scum. Again, since there was no quicklynch of him when you and Casey were on, then I can be pretty sure both of you can't be scum.

[bionicchop2]

gg ice. My inability to tell cops and scum apart has been killing me. Your play won the game and you did it with me hounding you for 2-3 days.

[bionicchop2]

And how did G-Force get a Guilty on Xtoxm if he was Naive?

Apparently framing trumps sanities.

This game should be a strong lesson about following cops. Ice being a framer also tells us more about why he was concerned about who is investigating who.

[bionicchop2]

This game was very imbalanced, and we had a number of VTs that were uh... anti-town in their playstyle.

VT is the most powerful town player - if only everybody would treat it that way.

The only lynch I really hated was the Xtoxm lynch.

[bionicchop2]

Here are my notes through the midway point of the game if anybody is interested. I can't find consistency when I make lists, which is why I didn't trust it, but surprisingly this one ended up accurate.

Portlandia (through post # 615)
=======================
KoC (repl Blitzer) (-2) (47 posts) (-4.25 rating)

61. Vote Mr.Adams OK reasons.
64. Defends Chaz (-1)
74. Seems to subtly push for a quick lynch of Adams (-1)
208. Votes Xtoxm
250 Votes Xtoxm again. Says he fits his scum meta from a previous game.
276. Good meta case on Xtoxm (+1)
508. Seems to be against confirming sanities (-1)




==============
Chaz (-1) (43 posts) (-2.33)

53. Vote Adams.Opportunistic vote on Adams paired with a question (-1)
65. Decent reponse to my vote.
198. Vote SPN. Good post. (+1)
518. will 'reluctantly' hammer. Also sides with not confirming sanities. (-1)


==============
Fark (-5.25) (48 posts) (-10.94)

18. Says we can lynch X later if he starts dropping scum tells, but not to lynch him yet.
26. Agrees with X about Q21 unvoting (originally stated by me). Brings attention to 2 lurkers (FOS on young eric). Comes across as fluff (-1)
33. Jumps on Adams for not believing the miller claim. (-.25)
45. Vote MrAdams. Says he has no evidence to think he is scum (-1)
79. Role fishing? Asking Y.C. what he means by 'further investigating'
203. Votes KoC. Slightly odd since he wants to lynch Adams and this is who Adams is voting for. Says he is his 2nd suspect. Says Xtoxm has not dropped any scum tells (see if this changes)
206 - quick response to my question
256. Best case against Xtoxm so far (+1)
281. Very odd post about not having time to read Xtoxm's other games (nobody asked him to).
285. Says his case on Xtoxm is mostly based on assumption of Adam's being town
288. Bad post. Tells new players that self-voting = scum (false). Rushes town to 'finish him off'. (-2)
291. Says Xtoxm is too experienced to get rattled so easily as town (wouldn't that mean he wouldn't get rattled as scum too??)
431 - Very aggressive tone. Can't tell if he is aggressive town.
514 - also against confirming sanities (-1)
551 - Wants to hear G-Forces results before voting, but indicates he will likely vote Xtoxm. 'We are in no hurry'. Odd statement sicne nobody was rushing (-1)
569 - says Xtoxm would be the best lynch even without investigations (then why wait until you heard G-Force's results before voting?)

==============
G-Force (repl Y.C.)(cop claim) (-1) (19 posts) (-5.26)

44 - Says he hasn't been posting because everything he is thinking has already been said. (-1)
75 - appears to be a cop breadcrub. 'evidence' and 'investigation' used.
171. Again says he hasn't posted because his thoughts have been posted by others (-1)
429 - strong indication he is legit with his cop claim. (+1)

==============
icemanE (repl TSN) (-8) (43 posts) (-18.6)

20. Restates that claiming on D1 is the best practice. (-1)
27. Again states how claiming miller on day 1 is pro-town, but throws out the statement of how we can't give X a free pass and he could be scum. (-1)
70. Misrepresents Adam's reason for voting X. Claims confusion about Adams. No vote still.
92. Fluff post. Answers an acronym question and then agrees with someone (-1)
165. Slips in on the Adam's wagon because his 'cases' are all OMGUS after being gone for a while (-1)
504. Comment about no lynches on D1 never being good seems odd - there were enough active people and votes moving to get a lynch. Seems like a way to drop a vote on Adams without any reasons (-1)
561- iceman thinks it would be a waste of time to lynch Xtoxm right now.
565- says Xtoxm is admitting to being scum. Seems to lament his vote. Votes xtoxm (-1)
592 - completely contradicts his play from the previous day. Takes the 2 guilty reports and uses them to guide his reasoning (-2)


==============
RBT (repl Mr.Avacado) (-3)(18 posts)(-16.7)

94 - First post. Game only 4 pages long, but she claims it hurts her brain. (-1)
117 - ready to drop the hammer on Adams, but hasn't commented on anything else or why she would lynch adams. (-1)
194 - Not sure why she answers for Zazier here. (-1)
344 - votes for Zazier.
417. Just pops in to say she doesn't like the idea of 2 cops in a normal. (-1)
614 - shocking good post. Doesn't want to lynch solely to confirm sanities. (+1)

==============
X (miller claim)

14. Claims miller (+1)
52. Vote adams.
160. Vote Zazier for inconsistancy

==============
Xtoxm (repl young eric)(110 posts)(-3)(-2.73)

129. vote zazier
170. Does not want Adam's lynched. Prefers Zazier or TSN (agree).
197. Wants people to place votes and speed the game up (-.5)
Is over-defending Adams in general (not sure what it means).
256. (fark post - good points against Xtoxm) (-1)
267. "If I was scum..." (-1)
286. Self-vote with lash out at others (-2) (Chaz shows examples of Xtoxm self-voting as town)(+1)
521. Volunteers for investigation (godfather or town) (+.5)

==============
Zazier (cop claim) (-1)(27 posts)(-3.7)

147 - contradicts herself on opinion of X's claim (see my post 148) (-1)
201. Decent post with reasons for being suspicious of Xtoxm. I disagree with most of her opinions and think my trouble understanding her posts had me thinking she was scummy early.

==============
Dead:
Mr. Adams - Vanilla
Q21 - cop