Mini 775 - Hammersmouth Is Under Attack! (Game over)

[Artem]

Insert reference to previous game and/or some unappealing aspect of your physical features at your own discretion.

<Insert a witty debunk of the said reference and/or unappealing aspect of my physical appearance (kittens don't have any )>

Vote: iamausername

for trying to abstract the content of this game.

[Artem]

@iamausername and Farkshinsoup: You're voting Psycho for over-generalizing his suspicion to the whole town, but you're ignoring the fact that he's right. Percy's removal of the vote from somebody he FoSed is unusual. Why are you ignoring Psycho's point?

For the record, I disagree with the statement:

I think we all agree that Percy = first real suspicious guy for the Day.

I find it strange that CJMiller pointed out Percy being at 3 votes, but not me, even though I got there first. Chronologically, CJMiller is my first suspicion of the Day, Percy being the second.

[Artem]

@Percy:

What information do you hope to gather from the RVS that you can't after leaving it?

In my opinion, a lurker will be more inclined to reply to a direct pressure vote outside of the RVS, than to a vote placed on him/her for some silly random reason.

I don't think the entirety of our playerbase is stupid enough to tunnel-vision on 3/12 of the players, without calling out lurkers. The only thing your RVS votes are doing thus far are creating confusion, as per Pablo's reaction:

And I quote: "Care to enlighten us?" Or are you just fishing for reactions now?

I don't understand your (Percy's) vote on Pablo and I don't understand what reaction you're expecting from Pablo that will magically give you a scum/town read on him.

FoS: Percy

because I think you're being anti-town at the moment.

@Fark:

It might seem like I'm ignoring his point, but I'm not. I'm waiting to hear Percy's response before I pass judgement.

I want to see the follow-up to this now that Percy's replied.

@CJMiller: You just got lynched in a newbie game for playing like you do here. You should try to be a little more clear about your motivations/intentions/actions. Your puzzles are not helping the town.

[Artem]

@Percy:

I still disagree. Even if we have one/two cases that everybody is honed in on, we can still analyze all of the players:
-A lurker avoiding participation in the case discussion is more suspicious, in my opinion, than a lurker avoiding participation in the RVS;
-A mafia is given more opportunities to manufacture scum-tells when we're honed in on a case, thereby giving us more information to work with than we would have in the RVS;

Just look at Kabenon and Kirr. Players are suspicious of them because of the case on you, not because of the RVS. While the focus started out on you, we've expanded to more players as the case unfolded.

Like I said, I find you anti-town, but that's mostly because I disagree with your playstyle. I don't think you're scummy.

---------------------------------

@Kabe:

Wagons are used to lynch. Getting on them serves the town. I jumped on as vote four. If you're going to get pissed at someone for a wagon, go after the ones who put him at -2 and -1.

Scum would like to be on the wagon early, wouldn't they?

I jumped on because I believed at that moment that Percy was the scummiest, therefore my vote would rest with him. I witheld my reasons for reactions, which I got.

Care to share with us the conclusions you've reached from the reactions you got?

---------------------------

@Kirr:

Oh! I see. Thanks for clearing it up. I felt it suspicious because I thought RVS was over, and yet Percy voted for someone without any reason at all and the person whom he voted for was the person who showed a tiny bit of suspicion of me at that time, so I thought he was trying to buddy up. Sorry, I'm a bit paranoid. ^^;

This is your response to Pablo, who pointed out that Percy voted for him because of the want-more-RVS reasons, and not buddying. This caused you to unvote.

Yet, Percy explained the exact same thing two posts above Pablo's

. Why is that Pablo's word has more weigh to you than Percy's?

Unvote;

FoS: Kirr

Agree with iamausername on Kirr's vibe.

--------------------------------

Now, I'm going to switch gears and talk about my role.

After spending some time thinking about it, I think I'm going to claim, because otherwise I don't see how my role is useful.

I'm a

Self-Watcher

, which means that (unless blocked or jailed) I get a list of players night-targeting me at the beginning of each day.

From what I understand, this is a doubly-edged sword. On the one hand, other than a potential doctor protection, the mafia has no night ability that would not kill or block me. That means that anybody who appears on my list at the beginning of the day is either town or a mafia doctor.

On the other hand, if I reveal my "investigation" results, I would be outing the town's power roles.

I'm still trying to figure out the best play for town with this information, but the reason I claimed is that my role requires others to target me at night, and outside of me being purposefully scummy or a stellar scum-hunter, it's not likely to happen.

[Artem]

And I really, really have no idea how to react to Artem's roleclaim out of the blue. I guess we see on day 2? This either sets you up to be NKed later, be protected, or launch a grand lie. I don't exactly like telegraphing a role in trying to draw out/dictate the doc's protection.

Considering, we don't even know there's a doc, I'm hardly dictating what the doc should do.

From what I understand, my role is to confirm other claims. If, say, another watcher or a tracker comes out later in the game and claims their role, I can confirm them if they've targeted me in the past. (assuming I'm still alive at that point, etc.)

I've decided to claim before any other role information was revealed, because in my head it would be more risky for scum to lie at this point. (In other words, you don't know whether or not I'm telling the truth, so I'm setting myself up for higher scum-risk, because I'm confident in the truth of my claim.).... (Yea, yea, I know - borders on WIFOM.)

In the worse case, I'll just soak up an NK or a roleblock, which is not too bad as my role is not as powerful as others may be.

[Artem]

However, I think you should have waited to claim until after the first claimed power role. This could have possibly caught a fake-claim in the act or helped prove someone innocent who claims a power role. A town power role isn’t going to fake claim, so this does not really affect their actions any aside from choosing you as a target during the nights; but if they do that because of your claim, then they could be wasting a night when they could have used their ability in a more beneficial way. Additionally, scum are now aware of a situation that they were not aware of before.

I can't prove somebody innocent unless they appear on my list at the beginning of the day. By claiming early, I'm maximizing the utility of my role, because now every other power role can choose to target me... or they may choose not to (to avoid wasting their power). In either case, they are more aware of the consequences of their move and can plan accordingly. I'm not advocating any roles behaving a certain way, I'm simply providing options.

Yes, the mafia is now aware of a situation they weren't aware of in the past. But now they have to choose between allowing me to have investigation results or to waste their NK (or potentially a role-block) on me, allowing other, more powerful, roles to go uninterrupted.

Claiming day 2 or later makes less sense for me as I would have wasted the first night with nobody targeting me (or I would have to bet on a chance that somebody targets me).

A self-watcher is a lot like a miller, in the sense that my role is inherent to my existence rather than to my actions. As such, claiming early is the correct move.

(The only thing we've lost is a chance of a mafia claiming a self-watcher and me counter-claiming, but I think that chance is pretty slim because such a fake-claim would be pretty hard for the mafia to execute since they know our alignment but not roles.)

[Artem]

I just realized that if there's a watcher in the game, they can watch me the next night and if I die or get blocked, they will know the name of a mafia.

[Artem]

...unless they are ninja. Nevermind. :-/

[Artem]

@Kirr:

Can you please answer my question?

----------------------------
@Wulfy

@artem:
...
*growls angrily*
I don't care if its cute now...
*kills the fucking cat*
You're a complete idiot. You do realize this game is open thus making you far more valuable to just shut the hell up and say nothing?

Semioldguy is right by the book, and you failure to recognize ninja just proves:

1. You're town almost irrefutably
2. You're an idiot. Almost irrefutably. [/sarcasm]

You've obviously made your point with the emotes, the name-calling and a complete lack of content in the entire paragraph. [/sarcasm]

You're welcome to try again and explain why you think I should not have claimed. Until then, I stand by my reasoning.

[Artem]

And about the "emphasizing" and the "unresolving" bit... can you help me quote some of the posts which I made that made me appear so? I looked through all my posts and I believed that I had been answering the questions to my full ability.

I happen to agree with the sentiment that you're trying too hard to appear townie, so I'm going to answer this question with an example:

Okay, purely defending myself isn't going to let the Town go anywhere. I've read through all the posts, so I should post a bit on what I think about the players here so far.

[Artem]

To clarify, rather than simply doing something pro-town, you are explaining that what you're about to do is pro-town. This, to me, is trying to appear too townie.

[Artem]

@Kirrhoa:

I should probably rephrase it better. I don't think you're

too townie

. In fact, quite the opposite: I find you scummy, because you are

trying too hard to appear townie

.

Of course it is necessary. You have been picking the things I had done and throwing them at me even though they are pro-town actions. Thus, I have to explain to you that it is pro-town. Like for example, you said, "Why are you being so defensive? If you're Town you shouldn't care much" (it's not the exact quote, I am too lazy to find the original, but he asked something along those lines) and of course, I have to answer that what I was doing (aka defending myself) is considered pro-town.

So, why was it necessary to explain that just defending yourself wasn't going to get the town anywhere? As far as I remember, nobody was saying that you're just defending and not attacking at that point in the game:

Okay, purely defending myself isn't going to let the Town go anywhere. I've read through all the posts, so I should post a bit on what I think about the players here so far.

This is not a response to somebody "picking up things that you have been doing and throwing them back at you". This is an explanation that what you're about to do is what a good townie should do. I'm with the semioldguy: a townie should let their actions speak for themselves.

This is why I'm attacking you with such intensity. I believe you are scum. And like what I said, prove me otherwise.

Frankly, I don't feel the intensity. In the entire post, I couldn't find a single point of accusation, besides "You're scum. Prove otherwise."

[Artem]

That last bit is what sold me on it. Scum don't read the thread fully. They can afford to just skim it because they don't need to search the thread carefully for clues as to who the scum are because they aren't searching for scum.

I would argue that scum have to read the thread just as carefully to avoid inadvertent scum-slips.

[Artem]

I don't like that CJMiller accumulated so many votes in such a short period of time. It feels like scum are opportunistically jumping on an easy target. I think I have a slightly different view of him, because I was recently in a newbie game where CJMiller got lynched for the exact same playstyle and flipped town. I really don't want him in the endgame though.

I'm letting my actions speak for themselves, but obviously they failed to speak for themselves. That is why I explained. Clear enough?

Like I said earlier, the quote I gave was not your response to somebody "picking thing up and throwing them back at you". It was not a clarification of your actions that somebody thought were scummy. It was an unprecedented statement explaining that what you are about to do is pro-town. I also believe that it was before everybody started pointing out that you're trying too hard to be pro-town. Your unwillingness to understand this point is just mind-boggling.

Vote: Kirr

Also, you've pretty much soft-claimed so the mafia knows you are

a

power-role, which makes you just as much of a potential night target as a full claim. (But I'm leaning towards you being scum and trying to dissuade the town from pursuing you through a soft claim) In case you are town, my stance is that you should

not

claim. If the mafia want to know what your role is, they would have to NK you, freeing the town from spending a lynch on a scummy player.

Everyone puts in their random votes with a small phrase behind or in front, and acts quite eager for the game. But CJ just pops in and says he "needs no stinkin' reason". Either he is just trying to be humorous or he is simply getting bored and thinks that the Day phase isn't very interesting (waiting for Night phase?).

This is a real stretch. How can you possibly derive boredom with the day phase from the player's first post? The fact that you say that "before it's used against me... This is not yet counted as proof" means that you understand the ridiculousness of your argument as you're making it.

Your arguments against CJ are no better than the "You're scum. Prove otherwise." case against Kabe. You're not scum-hunting, you're trying to justify your spot on a convenient bandwagon.

I guess I'm fine with a CJ lynch, because if he flips town, Kirr's opportunistic vote-hop has already been pointed out and can be pursued the next day. But I'm keeping my vote on who I think is the scummiest.

--------------------------------

Question to both Kirr and CJMiller: What do you think of my claim? I believe you both ignored it entirely thus far. Why?

[Artem]

If we knew that CJMiller was a 100% confirmed townie, which he is not but let's say he is for the purpose of this question, what do you think would be the best course of action for the town to take under the assumption that his style of posting and voting does not change?

Ignore him and hunt for scum in the remaining n-1 players.

[Artem]

Why do you think Percy is anti town and not out right scummy?

Because I think his RVS playstyle is hurtful to the town, but I don't think he had a malicious motivation for it (due to his arguing, I got the feeling that he didn't realize that it's hurtful).

He's not even willing to claim at L-1.

I believe he claimed vanilla when he answered my question about what he thinks of my claim.

Unvote, Vote: kirroha

L-1, I believe.

----------------

Agree with Sotty on a CJ-vig-fodder point.

[Artem]

Well, since I'm at L-1, I guess I might as well claim. I am a Vigilante. The number of shots I possess is not very important at this current moment. Sure, you all might think I'm just an SK who is pretending to be a Vig to prevent my own lynch, but this is not the case. I don't know if you all would believe me or not, but yes, I'm a Vig.

How is the number of bullets not important??! We need to know whether or not you're capable of doing anything at night.

I still am not convinced on the case against her - she's clearly been nervous and going to great lengths to prove her townieness, but I don't see her as a good lynch (compared to CJMiller, for example).

I say we let her live tonight. If she's scum, she'll get vigged*. If she's not, someone else will die, and we'll have verified her claim. If a scum gets shot, hooray! If town gets shot and there is no other kill, we lynch kirroha tomorrow as scum. If two town get shot, then kirroha will have to state her reasoning behind her kill exceptionally well tomorrow to avoid a lynch.

* - in the case where there is no town vig or there is a mafia doctor to protect her from the town vig, the fact that there is only one NK and she's alive the next day will immediately disprove her claim.

If she gets NKed and she's scum, we celebrate. If she gets NKed and she's town, we cry (but the result would have been the same if we lynch her today).

I think the proposal that she shoot herself is worthy of consideration. I think we should leave that up to kirroha's unfortunate replacement.

I like the lines of thinking, but it's not a foolproof plan as it doesn't account for a serial killer (which would give two night kills) or a mafia role-blocker.

Kirroha (or replacement) may claim to have been role-blocked to explain away a single night kill while being a mafia. Or Kirroha may really be a vig and gets role-blocked, causing us to waste a day 2 lynch on her. On the other hand, if I get targeted and not get a list in the morning, it's possible to disprove the "role-blocked" fake-claim (since the block would have landed on me), but it would require a collective effort as I won't know if I got no results due to nobody targeting me or due to a role-block.

The replacement should tell us the number of shots.

In terms of the big picture, I don't like the cases on CJ or on Kabe. So, if Kirr really is a vig, I'm somewhat stumped in terms of who else could be scum. All of the active players are giving off townie vibes. That may also mean that scum are hiding among the less-active players.

Unvote

while we're thinking of a good strategy to deal with the vig claim. I'm not completely happy with any of the ones proposed, and I think a Kirr lynch may still be a viable play.

[Artem]

Side note: I know that IAAUN vote weird. If it wasn't the reactions wouldn't have been helpful, now would it? Also, I will never pressure vote anyone beyond L-4 unless there is a legitimate case and I want a claim. As for reactions: I mix this kind of vote in with serious and randomly admit it to be a reaction depending on if I think it is relevant information.

What is it with all the "I did it for reactions" nonsense? Doing random crap just for the heck of it is not useful, especially if you don't know what to derive from the reactions you get. If you're town betting on the fact that somebody is going to do something scummy (but you don't have the slightest idea what), doing some random stuff and not getting the scummy reactions you expected, then the only thing you're going to do is appear scummy and distract the town from scum-hunting by making them focus on you - a townie.

FoS: Wulfy

for anti-town play.

kirroha has asked for replacement due to vacation/parents/time issues saying that she won't be able to post. She is in at least two other games currently with no mention of her vacation and no replacement requests there. She has even posted in one of those games within the last six hours and at multiple different times of day over the past three days and it appears that she intends on being active there.

Confirmed. There's a handful of posts from today.

------------------------------------------

Game theory about Kirr:

First things first. Wulfy is right: a scummy vigilante shooting self is the correct play. Unfortunately, vigs in this game are not allowed to commit suicide.

I think there are either 2 or 3 (more likely) scum in the game.
If there are 2 scum in the game, we get 4 attempts at a successful lynch (Day 1 - with 12, Day 2 - with 10, Day 3 - with 8, Day 4 - soft LyLo with 6) assuming 1 NK/night.
If there are 3 scum in the game, we get 3 attempts at a successful lynch (Day 1 - with 12, Day 2 - with 10, Day 3 - soft LyLo with 8).

Because we have an even number of players, we have the leisure of losing two townies in one night or get a 'free' night phase by choosing a no-lynch at some point.

That means that leaving Kirr alive and asking her (or replacement) to shoot somebody (i.e., Percy's idea) is the best play. At worst we use up our "freebie" of losing an extra townie during the night phase. The advantage is that we will know for sure that Kirr is

not

a mafia if there are two kills. The two issues that we have to deal with are Kirr being an SK and/or getting role-blocked.

Two night-kills will tell us for sure that Kirr is not mafia. The correct play for the mafia is to NK Kirr at some point in the game to prevent a confirmed non-scum from reaching the endgame. That takes care of the SK issue.

If Kirr gets role-blocked, it means that I will get a list of people targeting me (I highly doubt there are two mafia RBers). In this case, we can simply lynch Kirr tomorrow. We will not have lost any additional townies and we gain information from my "investigation".

The absolute worst that can happen is me getting NKd and Kirr getting role-blocked. But even in that case, you're only delaying Kirr's lynch by one day and when/if she flips town (vig), you will have a pretty good idea of the mafia setup by Day 3 (especially if there was a watcher on me on Night 1).

Another advantage with leaving Kirr alive is that after her replacement claims the number of bullets, there's a way of dealing with a fake-claim. If Kirr is mafia and claims a 1-vig, the real 1-vig (assuming there is one) can shoot her during the night, preventing us from wasting one of our lynch attempts.

[Artem]

You are a Serial Killer. Each night you may attempt to kill another player. You cannot target yourself. You will appear innocent to Cop investigations and you have immunity for nightkills

Ok, scratch the paragraph above about the mafia NKing the SK.

[Artem]

Although, mafia targeting Kirr-SK and not getting a night kill would be a pretty good indication of Kirr being the SK.

[Artem]

I got no list which means that either nobody targeted me or I was role-blocked.

If there is a watcher that watched me last night, you now know the name of the role-blocker.

[Artem]

I don't think either _over or Percy are the right people to pursue.

_over actually expressed his desire to vote Kirroha before semioldguy found Kirr posting elsewhere as well as before my analysis of the game theory. It's just that his vote didn't count because of the lack of the unvote. Granted, this doesn't excuse his hammer that ended discussion, but his "I like to take risks" argument seems sincere.

Not only that, _over correcting his lack of unvote is exactly what we grilled Percy for early in the game (when Percy forgot to unvote on a random vote). So, it seems a bit hypocritical for Percy to jump on _over for doing the exact same thing.

Now,

Unvote
Vote: _over9000

ENTIRE HAND OF SUSPICION: _over9000

No replacement could answer for everything she's done? Are you kidding?

You may have just cost the town their vigilante. And you waited.... a full 7 minutes after Wulfy's post to hammer! And just after Artem is discussing optimal town strategy to deal with this situation as well.

That is the scummiest quickhammer I've seen in a very long time.

I just don't see somebody who knew Kirr's alignment making a post like that. It reads like Percy was really concerned that a townie just got pre-maturely lynched. I think that it actually buys Percy some townie points.

There's a good line of thought, however. The hammer happened before we finished talking about the theoretically best play. But Percy is going after the wrong person.

Wulfy, who has been constantly telling people what to do "by the book", did not as much as put a single thought into my analysis and what the right thing to do with a scummy player who claimed Vig is. And no, lynching a player who claimed V/LA and then posted somewhere on the site is not "by the book". For one, we didn't know for certain if Kirr was lying. Circumstances may have changed and what she originally thought was a lack of internet access really wasn't (parents were convinced to let her spend time at the internet cafe, she found a different way of accessing the internet, etc.).

Not only that, Wulfy is still hunting for 3-4 scum:

There was 1-2 scum on Kirr (the lynch)

1 scum on CJ

1 scum not voting.

which tells me that he's not even paying attention to what's going on in the game. This is the feeling that I've been getting throughout Day 1 as well. I don't understand the merit of "Let's vote for somebody and see what happens, while I'm not even going to tell you who I really suspect". Or take his current case:

I am maintaining my vote on Sotty due to his reaction of my vote analysis. It wasn't inherently scummy, but it failed to scream town. Therefore, I've decided to keep it there until something scummy happens again.

"You're scum until you prove otherwise" is not how we play this game.

Vote: Wulfy

[Artem]

Artem: You can't really control how I play the game. However, I am interested, are you genuinely concerned that Sotty will be lynched at L-4? With a Godfather dead? Despite the fact his character has shown virtually zero threat to the mafia? (Sotty, this isn't to say you weren't trying, but the person you replaced was generally absent day 1, and thus, you haven't done too much yet...Except be a little crazy and controlling.)

I'm not concerned with Sotty getting lynched. I'm concerned with your poor scum-hunting.

Side note: I know that IAAUN vote weird. If it wasn't the reactions wouldn't have been helpful, now would it?

On Day 1, you voted for IAAUN for no reason other than to fish for reactions. You didn't know what reactions to expect, you didn't analyze any of the reactions you got. What a great way to appear scumhunting without doing any actual work.

Odds for final vote count:

There was 1-2 scum on Kirr (the lynch)

1 scum on CJ

1 scum not voting.

Another example of trying to be useful. Assuming this game is balanced (and there's no reason to think otherwise), there are at most 3 scum. With 1 lynched, at most 2 are left. That means that your wagon analysis is useless and your Sotty vote based on it even more so.

You weren't happy with Sotty's defense (which was as good as defense to a bad case can be), but you're parking vote on her anyway, because in your opinion, nothing scummy is happening.

[Artem]

And if we have a Vig, they should probably shoot CJ. The guy deserves to die, but I don't think he's worth wasting a lynch on.

[Artem]

If this was going to happen, it probably would have done last night. And even if CJ turned out to be town, I'm not sure I'd call his lynch a 'waste'.

True, but at beginning of Day 2 a lot of people agreed that CJ gained a few townie points when Kirr flipped scum. This may have dissuaded the vig (assuming there is one) from shooting CJ last night.

I still like my vote on Wulfy.

I like the Percy attacking everyone theory better.

What theory?

[Artem]

I have one name on my list.

[Artem]

I wouldn't mind IAUN or Fark being among the first to claim.

I also don't think Xtox should claim the results right now, because if he has a positive, that may tip off a scum about whether they should claim vanilla or a fake-power-role.

[Artem]

AKA Mafia Roleblocker

There's a good chance the role-blocker targeted me the first night.

We'll have a better idea if somebody claims to have targeted me on night 1.

Also, we can easily test xtox's claim the following night, by asking him to track one of the claimed power-roles and having the role confirm whether they used their action or not.

On the flip side, if xtox has a positive result on scum, the scum now knows that they can't get away with e.g. a vanilla or a miller claim.

Fark, I would like to see you claim next.

[Artem]

Notice how Iam is the only one who hasn't claimed a weakened power (out of the power claims)

Self wathcer - Weakened watcher
Weak Tracker - Obv.
Gunsmith - Weakened cop

I don't see how that makes him scum.

If anything, it's more scum risk to claim a strong role, since Fark and Sotty can easily catch him in a lie by claiming to have results from the night they got jailed.

Also, based on the overall play, IAUN has more townie points than your predecessor _over9000 from my point of view.

[Artem]

Iam is scum, his claim makes no sense. If he was town he would have blocked me. Clearly he has stated extreme suspicion of me, and blocking me would test me.

Also, I disagree with this.

If you're a jailkeeper, jailing a claimed weak tracker

a) prevents the town from potentially gathering information if the tracker claim is thruthful;
b) prevents a potential vig kill against a scummy player who claimed weak tracker;

Both of which seem anti-town and can't be justified by "testing" the claim.

[Artem]

Percy was the one who visited me last night.

[Artem]

The fact that both Fark and I got no results on Night 1 makes me believe IAM's claim. (Unless both are scum.)

The only thing that worries me about Sotty is that semioldguy (Sotty's predecessor) went to great length to bus his partner Kirrhoa by looking up her activity. It's WIFOM, but that move bought semioldguy/Sotty quite a few townie points.

One more plausible scenario which we haven't considered yet is Percy being a mafia doctor who used his protection (but not kill) on me.

The thing that baffles me is Wulfy being a night kill. Why Wulfy? He was far from the most townie player (at least in my opinion). His scum-hunting was all over the place and not very strong. He voted for Sotty and Percy on Day 2 and I guess one of them didn't like that.

Also, here are the votecounts for reference:

9th And Final Vote Count of Day 1
7 - kirroha (semioldguy, kabenon007, CJMiller, Sotty7, iamausername, Wulfy, _over9000)
4 - CJMiller (Percy, Farkshinsoup, Pablo Molinero, kirroha)

1 - Not voting (Artem)

4th And Final Vote Count of Day 2
6 - CJMiller (iamausername, Percy, Pablo Molinero, kabenon007, Farkshinsoup, Xtoxm)
2 - Xtoxm (Sotty7, CJMiller)
1 - Percy (Wulfy)
1 - Wulfy (Artem)

semioldguy was sitting on Kirrhoa for a very long time and Sotty wasn't on CJ's wagon. Brilliant play from both players if semioldguy/Sotty is scum.

Fark, Percy, PM target Artem. Iam Jails Kab/Sotty, lynch the other. If there is no kill, and they all target Artem, PM is confirmed town, and town aren't down any. Obviously if anyone fails to target Artem they are scum. If there is a kill, and they do all target Artem, Iam is scum.

Thoughts? Does that work?

The problem is that a mafia doctor may use their protection on me but no the kill. But then, we lose no townies, so it's a plausible scenario. My money is on lynch Kabe, jail Sotty though.

Vote: Kabe

[Artem]

*facepalm*
You're right.

Unvote; Vote: Sotty

Fits in with the Wulfy kill better too.

[Artem]

What is Xtox doing?

One idea is to have him track kabe. Failure to obtain a result will confirm IAM's claim.

[Artem]

Oh, i'd get that he visited no one if Iam was Maf RB. So yeh, I can do something. But still, the double block thing sounds confirming to me. Unless Fark and Iam are scum together. But if they are, our night plan would reveal that. I'd either get a result on Kab, or die. That would mean Iam was scum, and in turn, Fark is his buddy. Doubt it though.

Well, the final votecounts do look a little funky. Either scums bussed Kirr pretty hard or they weren't on her wagon at all. For this reason, we want to confirm as many players as possible.

Based on the votecounts and Pablo's claim, I'm starting to think that he may be the mafia doctor. How about:

kabe lynch today, Percy gives a bullet to sotty, sotty shoots me and Pablo protects me. If both are who they say they are, both will be dead and we get their cardflips.

If PM and I are alive and Sotty's dead, PM is the mafia doc.

IAM targets fark, Xtox targets IAM. If Xtox gets no result, IAM is confirmed.

We're then left with me, IAM, fark, xtox and Percy tomorrow.

[Artem]

Xtox targets IAM

Make that xtox targets fark.

[Artem]

Ok, you're right. Also, the mafia role-blocker will throw a wrench into any potential plan we come up with, so I think we have to lynch either IAM or Sotty today, since these are the only real candidates for a mafia RBer.

The fact that we had two blocks on Night 1 and only one block on Night 2 means that either
A) The second blocker didn't use their ability. Seeing as they had no good information about the setup, it seems unlikely.
B) One blocker blocked the second blocker, and from the claims it looks like IAM-jailer blocked Sotty-mafia-RB.

Mod: If a bulletsmith gives a bullet to a gunsmith, will the gunsmith be able to make vigilante kills?

If the answer to this question is yes, then we should have Percy target Fark tonight.

If Sotty flips a mafia RBer that more or less confirms IAM, but I think we should still have him jail Kabe and Xtox should target Kabe to make sure he gets no result. This would confirm IAM even further, which in turn will confirm Fark, which in turn will confirm Xtox.

Fark and Pablo should target me, as per Xtox's plan.

Yep, I think that's the best play, also considering the fact that Sotty both agrees with your plan and resists the lynch in the same post (even though lynching her or Kabe

is

the plan).

(Based on my own past experiences, I'm leaning towards IAM, Xtox and Fark all being townies. Percy has given off townie vibes throughout the game, but it could also be a skilled mafia playing very well. Kabe, Sotty and Pablo I'm least sure about.)

[Artem]

Xtomx can confirm that Fark used an ability.

He's already done it last night. Xtox should target Kabe to make sure that he gets no result, thus confirming that IAM is a jailer.

If Fark gets a guilty on Pablo, we lynch Pablo.

Bodyguards carry guns, so Fark-townie will get a guilty on Pablo-townie. Fark should target me.

[Artem]

Sorry, both quotes are from percy.

[Artem]

Xtomx tracks kabe

Kabe could be a ninja. That's the only flaw. Other than that, I say the plan is good.

[Artem]

Regarding breadcrumbs:

Sotty-scum could have decided to claim Vig-0 from the moment she replaced, so she's been breadcrumbing since. I don't think it's any indication she's actually town. In fact, based on her reaction to Xtox's first plan and the fact that she's lurking right now, I'm inclined to think she's scum.

Then again, Kabe is not putting any thought into planning either, so my money is on Sotty/Kabe.

Unvote; Vote: Kabe

We going with Xtox's plan or Percy's plan? It would be pretty bad if half the town decided to go with one and the other half with the other.

Xtox: What's wrong with Percy's plan? Why did you propose a new one?

[Artem]

I still don't understand why Percy and X thought it would be a good idea to let Sotty (the most suspicious player at the time) roam unblocked at night. By the time I noticed the latest "plan", Day 3 was already over and I was NKd to say anything since.

IAM should have jailed Sotty and X should have tracked Sotty to confirm IAM.

Also, I find that townies are more impatient to claim (I think due to their eagerness to prove that they are town) during a Mass Claim. So, Fark's

Iam, you should claim, or I'm happy to.

was a good indication that he was town. I guess I should have spoken up when I was alive.