Mini 737 - Hack Poetry Mafia (Game Over)

[Goatrevolt]

Vote:Goatrevolt

Your name is too strange for any ordinary townie

Au contrare. Swing and a miss.
Certainly less strange than Lynx the Antithesis.

Fetch the rum...you scurvy wench
It's time we moved Springlullaby to the bench

vote springlullaby

This time you die!

[Goatrevolt]

Poetry? I shall not rhyme.
Look, a wind chime!

You lying scoundrel.
I don't see a wind chime anywhere...

[Goatrevolt]

Budja, why would you vote for someone in expectation of seeing scumtells later from them? Isn't that a bit backwards?

[Goatrevolt]

Missed the thread, but two pages in and my head already is aching. I refuse to scumhunt if the level of coherence isn't raised. For instance, please do try to make clear what is jest and what is genuine inquest.

I'll second this request. Sorry to be a pest, but trying to decipher the intent of some posts is quite the test.

For example, I take it don_johnson's vote is legit, but I don't really understand the reasons behind it. Could you hit me with the recap in prose form?

[Goatrevolt]

I added a third vote to provoke proper discussion. It did .

What kind of discussion did you think would be generated? What kind of "scummy signs" did you think would appear by placing a 3rd vote on Wolf?

When you voted, you said you did so essentially in hopes of catching something scummy from Wolf. Now you're saying it was merely to spark discussion. Those don't seem to be the same thing. Care to clarify?

[Goatrevolt]

I don't see how Budja was piggybacking off of Ice. It looks like they voted for entirely different reasons. Clarification?

I'll buy Budja's explanation that he was trying to segue out of the random phase. It seems consistent, and he mentioned that when he dropped the vote. Trying to make a move out of the random phase is pro-town, however I'm a bit iffy on the manner he went about it. The things I'm suspicious of are:

1. That he voted a target in expectation of

later

seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy.
2. When I questioned him on 1, he responded that he was just trying to spark discussion, which is completely different reasoning than above.

So, Budja: What kind of later scumtells did you expect to see, and why would you vote for someone expecting to later see them do something scummy. Again, isn't that a bit backwards? Secondly, what kind of discussion did you anticipate your vote would spark?

[Goatrevolt]

Furthermore: Isn't a bit counterproductive to tell someone you're voting them just create a bandwagon and that you have no legitimate suspicions of them? If the point of bandwagoning like that is to gauge a response to pressure, why would you tell them your vote has no real pressure?

[Goatrevolt]

I really don't see this big difference you keep talking about. If there's more discussion taking place then there's more opportunity for scum to slip up, so prompting discussion is more likely to lead to a scumtell than not doing so (as you said yourself, drawing town out of the random phase is essentially pro-town).

This depends entirely on the type of discussion. Discussion of the wrong things can actually harm scum hunting. For example, have you ever seen two townies go at it with each other for 3 pages over minor things? I would argue that isn't helpful discussion. All it does is muddy the waters and make it difficult to pick out who the real scum are.

Anyway, to answer your question, I do feel there is a difference in his two answers. His original reasons were to create a situation where Wolf might provide some scumtells. Later on he mentions that it was to spark discussion. Sparking discussion can mean any number of things, including but not limited to Wolf providing those scumtells. So, in essence, he broadened his reasoning from the specific: "getting Wolf to screw up" to the more general: "generating discussion."

So, to be more specific on my reasoning:

1.

"That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy.

" To go with what I said above, I think this can generate the wrong kind of discussion. Sure, it might generate discussion, but I don't think we'll be any closer to catching scum if everyone votes like this.

2.

"When I questioned him on 1, he responded that he was just trying to spark discussion, which is completely different reasoning than above."

His original reasons were specific: To pressure wolf into making scumtells. When I asked him about that, he backed off into the more general: "just trying to spark discussion." To me, that rings of him knowing his original reasons were bogus and so he fell back to "trying to generate discussion" which has the connotation of being a pro-town play. In reality, generating discussion is only pro-town if the discussion has any useful merits in catching scum. So while getting out of the random phase is pro-town, getting out of the random phase via discussion that is unlikely to actually lead to catching scum isn't so much.

The only thing which really bothered me was the fact that Budja's announcement of his intentions was indeed counter-productive, and despite this move being anti-town it doesn't exactly follow that it was a

scummy

move.

I agree. Announcing intentions isn't helpful, but it's not necessarily scummy

Frankly, I'd expect scum to take more care in avoiding this.

Why, exactly?

Secondly, what kind of discussion did you anticipate your vote would spark?

I'm not sure that this is a fair question. When trying to provoke discussion, it's impossible to determine exactly

what

sort of discussion is going to arise (particularly so in a game where everyone is second-guessing themselves/others, and scum are waiting to pounce on any careless townie).

In order to answer your question, Budja would have to blindly speculate about what

might

arise from a provocative vote, and such speculation would be easy to criticise. I mean, what answer could Budja give you here which you would even accept as valid?

Basically, he voted Wolf, admitted Wolf hadn't done anything wrong, and then said that his vote was specifically to get out of the random phase. By explaining the motivation behind why he did everything and admitting his vote wasn't based on anything, I feel like he shut off meaningful responses. I wanted to know what meaningful responses could even be possibly generated from such a vote. My question was basically a "what did you expect to gain from your actions" kind of question. While he certainly can't predict exactly how people are going to respond to it, I would expect he at least has some general idea of how it could be helpful to the town.

[Goatrevolt]

"That he voted a target in expectation of later seeing scum tells rather than based off of something he thought was scummy."

I don't see anything wrong with this, this is no worse than a random vote.

Yes, but random votes aren't also dressed up and used as pressure votes.

But since he was called out before the discussion had a chance to start, it's impossible to know what the nature of the resulting discussion would have been. How can you judge the usefulness of a discussion which never took place?

Obviously, I have no way of knowing what could possibly result. However, I will say that anything useful that would come of that discussion is not going to come from the pressure of the vote itself. In other words, a vote on someone that isn't based on any perceived existing scumtells is not going to generate any useful information.

For example: I vote you and say "I don't think you've done anything scummy, but I'm just voting you to see if you react in a scummy manner to the pressure." Your response is going to be "there is no pressure on me, I have nothing to react to." There's no useful discussion there. The only useful discussion that could possibly arise is people attacking me for using poor reasoning to place votes, etc. (basically the type of discussion that we're seeing here). On the other hand, if I attack you and say "I don't like the way you went about doing X. I think the way you did it is scummy" then you can respond in a variety of ways that tells us something about you: "That's BS, you're scum for pushing that" or "No, it's not scummy because of Y" or "You're right, my bad" etc.

The broader explanation doesn't exactly contradict the more specific one, either.

It doesn't contradict it, no. However, instead of addressing the specific reasoning, he immediately defaulted back to the broader one. My issue entirely stems from the fact that he didn't even make a move to defend his stated reasons for the vote and immediately went for the more broader reasoning (and reasoning that I don't consider to be inherently pro-town. That's why I want to know what kind of discussion he wanted to generate, because I don't think discussion itself is inherently pro-town).

I see where you're coming from, but I'm getting mixed messages from the emphasised part. Since it is true that he "shut off meaningful responses" by revealing his motives, how could he possibly validate what he did?

He really can't validate it. However, he can give reasons why he thought it was a good play in the first place, etc. which is ultimately more important. The mindset behind why people do things is more important than what they actually do. Hence why I wanted to know "what did you think your actions would achieve." Or in other words "What is the pro-town mindset behind doing this?"

[Goatrevolt]

Again, it's arguable either way really... but something tells me Budja saw an opportunity to be the infamous 3rd vote, putting Wolf at L-2, while saving himself an out for later by claiming, "Oh, lol, thought it was still random ".

I don't see how he could possibly make this claim, considering he stated (more or less) when he voted that it wasn't random.

I'll take that back. He could

possibly

make this claim, but I'd assume we'd just lynch him immediately afterward for blatantly lying.

What's more, one could make the argument that Budja didn't even necessarily find the comment that Ice9 is upset about all that scummy when he said,

Wolf's statement seems to be a joke,
cast in the spirit of a random vote.

That's why I was confused about your claim that Budja was piggybacking off of Ice's suspicion, considering Budja didn't even vote for the same reasons. I think the difference was our definitions of piggybacking. You were using piggybacking as hopping on the same target, whereas I took it to mean hopping on the same reasoning.

At any rate, why is piggybacking (under either definition) scummy?

------

I'm going to keep/upgrade my random vote on Springlullaby, because I know she's posting in other games, but she's avoided this one. I feel like I'm getting bogged down in the minor details with Budja. I need to step back and assess the big picture and see if his actions really make him likely to be scum or not.

[Goatrevolt]

...speaking of which, if he IS the scapegoat, I find it interesting that Goatrevolt is pushing him the hardest. It by no means is a scumtell, but if Budja just made a mistake (and taking Spolium's word for it, not for the first time), your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum.

I think the ones we should be looking at, are the lurkers. If we are just townies fighting among ourselves, the ones winning is scum lurking and waiting for us to string up one of our own.

Unvote, Vote fhqwhgads

1. I don't like the implications of your first paragraph. You seem to be saying that pressuring mistakes is a bad thing because it could possibly result in a mislynch or misdirection. Sure it could. It could also possibly result in catching and lynching scum. I don't like how you attempt to shut down scum hunting because of the possibility for error.

2. How do you know "we are just townies fighting among ourselves?"

[Goatrevolt]

Your hesitance to pull the trigger on your, in my opinion, well thought out and presented Budja case has me a bit confused. After all the effort you went through, debating with Budja and Spolium, you'd really rather go on a lurker hunt? Am I missing something here?

I should have voted him originally, to add some pressure to my case. At this point, I'm no longer sure if I'm even on the right track, or just suffering from tunnelvision. I need to step back and reassess.

As for springlullaby, I've played with her where she was scum, and she tended to lurk through some of the more critical periods of the game. Considering she's posting in other games, but hasn't posted here during that same period, I'm suspicious.

[Goatrevolt]

vote: springlullaby

for active lurking. get in here.

Got anything to say about the rest of the game?

Surely you dolt, I'm not active lurking. I'm lurking lurking, which is not the same thing. I don't feel strongly one way or another about the things that are discussed, so I'm content with settling back and watching. I'm a patient person, and I like testing others patience.

How pro-town of you...

Lurking, and testing the patience of others are generally the first two virtues I look for when identifying townies, and I'm glad to see springlullaby is willing to unashamedly display both early on. My only disappointment is the lack of a bandwagon vote with weak or nonexistant reasoning. Then she would have been practically confirmed town.

In all seriousness, though, you literally have no opinions on anything that's happened so far? I'm having a hard time buying that. What's keeping you from promoting a different line of discussion?

FoS Springlullaby

[Goatrevolt]

Spring really needs to step it up, however I can't help but feel that she's just an easy scapegoat for people who are otherwise unwilling to participate in the larger debate going on around them. Primarily don_johnson and Azhrei seem to be guilty of this.

Based on the number of people coming out of the woodworks to vote/fos springlullaby for something they are equally as guilty of (but not willing to openly admit) I'd have to agree here. I'm bothered by the people willing to jump on Spring's post, but yet unwilling to soil their hands with the other discussion.

So you admit to lurking? You admit to sitting here, watching the discussion and not contributing? Come on. How is that pro-town in any way? I don't see it to be.

You've lurked through the entirety of the discussion as well. How is SL's play scummier than your own simply by virtue of her admitting it willingly?

Look at all the comments and suspicions flying on the previous page Springlullaby, if you have no opinion you are either have to be lying or haven't read the thread properly.

Ice nailed the hypocrisy here.

[Goatrevolt]

Actually, it looks like Azhrei hadn't posted at all on mafiascum between his two posts in this thread, which makes his post less hypocritical.

At any rate, I'd like to see him take a more solid stance on Budja/fhq.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm considering what both scum and town would do in this situation, as I do anything which appears anti-town. If anything, I find myself wondering why you're so quick to call out WIFOM.

On a side/theory note I agree. WIFOM is highly overrated.

FHQ: I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat: We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is

giving potential scum an easy ride.

The bolded section is wrong, and that's where your hypocrisy case breaks down. It has nothing to do with "giving potential scum an easy ride." It has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy. Huge difference. I'll break it down even further:

1. We both considered the attacked in question to be a scapegoat. Check
2. We both raised suspicion against those attacking the "scapegoat". Check

Up to this point you're right. The flaw comes after this, though:

In my case against fhq, I attack him on the basis of "shutting down scumhunting" because he presents the idea that pressuring mistakes could lead to someone being wrongly accused and construes that as possibly scummy. This is completely different than the situation with SL. In the case of SL, I attack people jumping on SL,

not because they could be wrong about SL and lead to SL getting wrongly lynched

but because they jumped on SL but subsequently ignored other nearby discussion. Do you see the distinction? My idea that SL is a scapegoat comes after this fact, based on my interpretation that the votes on her are scummy, thus she is less likely to be scum.

Goat also called FHQ out on "If we are just townies fighting among ourselves" (except, of course, with the "if" removed... taking the statement entirely out of context). Ice9 apparently agrees.

Does the context really change with or without the if? Can you honestly read that post and not get the general impression that fhq thinks we're just townies arguing amongst ourselves, even though he says "if"? The fact that he then suggests we pressure a lurker instead agrees with my interpretation.

I also want to add to my suspicion of Fhq the fact that his post prior to the one I jumped on was him first saying that the "biggest thing for him was Budja's 3rd vote" and following it up by basically coaching Budja in what he should do next. Biggest thing for him is Budja's 3rd vote implies suspicion. Coaching does not imply suspicion, as why would you ever want to coach someone you think is scum? I consider this to be a pretty big point.

Suspicious hypocrisy - check.

Addressed above.

Possible buddying - check.

I assume you mean my agreement with Ice's take on the SL situation means we are buddying? Since when is simple agreement buddying, and is buddying a legitimate tell prior to knowing the alignment of either of the players in question?

@Ice: Why do you want to know who SL thinks is town? I disagree with Spolium on the idea that this is a veiled attempt at asking her who she thinks is scum, however I don't see how SL throwing out someone she thinks is town is useful information at all.

[Goatrevolt]

I'd really like to hear more of Ic9, Goat, and fhq's takes on this theory.

I gave my take already in my last post. Thoughts on it? To my knowledge, ice hasn't responded, and fhq hasted posted on the site since the one I nailed him for.

I'd like more people to give their opinion on my fhq case, which at this point includes my original voting reasons followed by the additional reasoning I pointed out in my last post. I think this is a strong case, and I'm surprised by the lack of support.

[Goatrevolt]

FHQ: I have a feeling Budja may be a scapegoat. That Goatrevolt is pushing the case on him seems noteworthy in that mistaken judgement on his part is bolstering a case for scum to push.

Ice9/Goat: We have a feeling Spring may be a scapegoat. That some players are pushing the case on her seems noteworthy since their negation of the larger debate is

giving potential scum an easy ride.

The bolded section is wrong, and that's where your hypocrisy case breaks down. It has nothing to do with "giving potential scum an easy ride." It has everything to do with the players attacking SL jumping on her, but ignoring the other discussion at hand and that being scummy.

Okay, so amend the enboldened text to read

a sign of scum trying to shift emphasis from the larger debate

. My point still stands.

No, it doesn't. The bolded section is still wrong. You're still missing the point entirely. It had absolutely nothing to do with "shifting emphasis" or anything else you have proposed. It had entirely to do with people attacking springlullaby for lurking, when they had avoided discussion themselves (aka, hypocrisy).

Again, to state this as clear as I possibly can: I had no problem shifting attention to springlullaby. I myself did the same thing. I have a problem with people attacking springlullaby for lurking, when they completely avoided the Budja/fhq discussion themselves. These are two vastly different concepts.

In my case against fhq, I attack him on the basis of "shutting down scumhunting" because he presents the idea that pressuring mistakes could lead to someone being wrongly accused and construes that as possibly scummy.

I would disagree. While it's true to say that his statement "

if Budja just made a mistake [..] your case on him can be used as a misdirection by scum

" is a platitude and therefore not particularly helpful, it is not particularly scummy either.

Do you remember what preceded FHQ's "

if Budja just made a mistake

", and was in direct reference to his his comment about you pushing Budja the hardest? No need to look, I'll tell you - it was "

it by no means is a scumtell

". With this in mind, why are you now claiming that he "

construes [pressuring mistakes] as possibly scummy

"?

"It is by no means a scumtell, but hey guys, if Budja flips town, Goat is to blame. Just pointing that out. Lurker anyone?" The rest of that clearly suggests the opposite. Actions louder than words. This also strikes me as curiously similar to the "if" thing below. He says if, but he obviously doesn't mean if, because the rest of his post reads as though he's already accepted the text after the "if" part.

As I noted previously, I see a distinction in terms of how each scapegoat argument was presented, but not in the

implications

of those arguments.

So you think that the votes on her are scummy, therefore she seems less scummy to you and likely a scapegoat. Now look back at FHQ's post - he stated that he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, so Budja seemed less scummy to him and likely a scapegoat. It doesn't look like he decided Budja was a scapegoat and accepted his retraction on that basis (at least, there's nothing to imply this), so with regard to your own words above I don't see an enormous distinction.

Look. I agree with you. The situations are similar in that they both involve copious amounts of scapegoatery (all possible puns intended). The situations are completely different in

why

the scapegoats/scapegoated are being accused.

Fhq: Attacking Budja could lead to him being wrongly accused. If he is wrongly accused, Goat is the one pushing the case. Hint, hint.

Me, about SL: People attacking springlullaby are not necessarily wrong in attacking SL, because she has legitimately been scummy. However, I am put off by the large amount of hypocrisy present in attacking SL for something they are just as guilty of. Based on the nature of the votes on SL being scummier than she herself is, I consider her a scapegoat.

So yes, you are right. Both are similar, and have similar storylines about scapegoating. The reasons, are entirely different, and the reasons why people do stuff is so much more important than what is actually done.

Does the context really change with or without the if? Can you honestly read that post and not get the general impression that fhq thinks we're just townies arguing amongst ourselves, even though he says "if"? The fact that he then suggests we pressure a lurker instead agrees with my interpretation.

The context shifts substantially without the "if" since he never claimed to know that "

we are just townies fighting among ourselves

" and I don't see any insinuation of this; just that he posited a possible setback for town in the event that the scum are lurking, and expressed a desire to pressure the lurkers. He arguably stated the obvious, but he wasn't exactly wrong either.

He never outright claimed that "we are just townies fighting among ourselves." You're absolutely right. He put an "if" in front of it. However, he then goes on to ignore everyone in that group and push for lurkers. That means that he DOES think we are just townies fighting among ourselves. Actions...louder than words.

His suggestion that lurkers be pressured is hardly an uncommon sentiment.

Nope, and I've never attacked him specifically because he did attack lurkers. I myself attacked SL who was lurking. I'm pressuring him for what I believe to be a scum slip in revealing that he knows certain people are townies. I believe this is emphasized by what I pointed out regarding the suspicion + coaching inherent in the previous post.

Presumably you're referring to FHQ's "

now you gotta follow through buddy

" when you say "coaching".

Tell me: how is this "coaching" any more than you or Ice9 telling Budja that he needs to explain himself?

I don't see "now you gotta follow through buddy" as at all the same as "explain yourself, Budja". The first implies that Budja has gotten the attention of the world, and now needs to do something to satisfy us, i.e. "Ok Budja, you've gotten attention. Now follow through and tell us what you've learned or how it was pro-town, etc." The second is us asking Budja to tell him why he did what he did, i.e. "This is what you did. Why was it pro-town?"

Do you see the difference. What fhq said was "here's what you need to do to look pro-town." What I did was "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives." Large difference there.

In case this gets brought up, here's a diatribe on coaching and the mafia experience. Coaching by itself is not necessarily a scumtell. If you think someone is town, then you might be inclined to coach them so that they play better, help catch scum, and are deemed less suspicious by others. I don't have an issue with that. Where I do have an issue is where you "coach" someone who you are suspicious of. It suggests that you are entirely insincere in your suspicion. If you are legitimately suspicious of someone, you want them to slip up so that you can lynch them. You want them to be scummy so that they get caught. It's scumhunting. When you coach them, you are telling them what they need to do to get your suspicion off them. That is not what you do to people you are suspicious of.

So when I see fhq say "the biggest thing for me is Budja's 3rd vote" I see him saying "I'm suspicious of Budja's 3rd vote." Then, when he goes on to say "Hey, follow through, this is what you need to do next" I'm highly suspicious. That statement doesn't imply suspicion of Budja. In fact, it suggests his prior suspicion is entirely insincere.

Why is it that all you ever seem to be doing is trying to shut down other people's attempts to scumhunt?

Along this same vein. Why are you providing answers for fhq? A simple: I disagree with your case, but I'll let fhq defend himself so we can get a better read on his alignment would have sufficed. I don't really think you're all that scummy Spolium, but you gotta cut that out. Letting people answer for themselves gives them a chance to slip-up and out themselves as scum.

Open Question:

Would you consider Ice9's continued evasion of my extended case against him to be a subtle attempt to shut down my own attempts to scumhunt? Please elaborate further if you do not think this is the case, preferably with reference to his claims that I am doing so to him.

At this point, I think Ice should address your extended case. Originally, I didn't have a problem with him avoiding it because he was absolutely correct in that it was a back and forth between the two of you and everyone was staying out of it. Now that others have stepped into the mix, we should hear it. I also want ice to answer my question about his question to SL.

[Goatrevolt]

(that those attacking the scapegoat appear to be acting scummy, and that we should question the case on the "scapegoat" on this basis).

This is the cause of the problem in the most simplified form. And this is a flawed argument.

You seem to think that when the word "scapegoat" is used it implies the situations are identical. You seem to think that when someone claims another person is a scapegoat I am supposed to immediately perceive that the situations are identical and respond in exactly the same manner. That is a ridiculous assertion. The reasons why someone is called a scapegoat or how someone went about calling another person a scapegoat or the implications behind calling someone a scapegoat are what is important here. Calling someone a scapegoat by itself is meaningless, and there's really no reason or precedent for treating each scenario equally when each scenario involves radically different ideas.

You're trying to say that it only matters that someone called another person a scapegoat, and that the "why" is irrelevant. That could not be farther from the truth. Why they called the other person a scapegoat, how they went about doing it, the implications behind it, are the ENTIRE point.

Look at these two situations without the word scapegoat:

I think Fhq is scummy because he implied that if Budja is town, I am scummy for having pressured him. In doing so, he establishes the precedent that "if you attack someone and they are town, then you are scummy for having attacked them" which is a deterrence to scumhunting.

I think the people attacking spring are scummy because they attacked her for lurking when they are just as guilty of lurking, having avoided the discussion of Budja/fhq. The hypocrisy present is scummy

What you are trying to do is add in the word scapegoat, then say that since both situations contain the word scapegoat they must therefore be identical, and since I am responding differently to two identical situations I am therefore scummy. You could not be more wrong.

Real life example: A man goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves. That is wrong. A cop goes into a store and takes an item without paying for it and leaves, but immediately outside the store uses that item to save another person's life. That's not wrong. Just because both people took an item from the store doesn't mean both situations are identical and should be treated the same way. The "Why" behind them taking an item is what is ultimately important here and what is relevant in whether or not they are justified or wrong in stealing.

Similarly, I have said Springlullaby is a scapegoat for X reasons. Fhq has said Budja is a scapegoat for Y reasons. You are saying I should accept Fhq calling Budja a scapegoat regardless of what Y is, because I myself have called someone else a scapegoat using X. That is flawed. Me saying someone is a scapegoat does not mean that it is all of a sudden acceptable and I cannot be suspicious of anyone else calling a player a scapegoat. This is just a simple example of how your logic is flawed, and that's not even considering the fact that

my reasons for suspecting Fhq are not based on him calling Budja a scapegoat.

Example: player A claims to be a cop. Player B votes for player A afterward. I vote for player B because I'm suspicious of him voting a claimed cop. You attack me because player C had random voted for player A early on in the game and I'm not treating the two situations (people voting for A) the same way. Under your logic, I should also be suspicious of C.

I have summed up the above situation as clearly as I possibly can and expressed it in a variety of fashions. If you still don't get it after this point, there is literally nothing more I can say.

He never outright claimed that "we are just townies fighting among ourselves." You're absolutely right. He put an "if" in front of it. However, he then goes on to ignore everyone in that group and push for lurkers. That means that he DOES think we are just townies fighting among ourselves. Actions...louder than words.

So basically he said "if we are townies fighting among ourselves then lurking scum are getting off light" and proceeded to state that there should be more pressure on lurkers.

Why is this suspicious again? His actions follow logically from his statement, and I'm yet to see how either of those implies that he knows who the townies are. Assuming FHQ is town for a moment, if he was willing to accept Budja's retraction, an expected consequence of this would be the realisation that in pushing Budja hard you were building a case which could benefit scum, who wouldn't need to be a part of the debate in order to benefit. Were I in his position, my thoughts may also have turned to lurkers.

What you have done above is point out a scenario where Fhq could be town and his actions make sense from a town perspective. That doesn't mean he is town or that the above actually was his mentality. If Fhq had come in and said exactly what you said above, I might have given him the benefit of the doubt, because that is a plausible explanation for his mindset. I would have at least asked him more questions and tried to get a better feel for it.

Sure, you present it in a different way to FHQ, but the implication of both statements is the same - that Budja needs to explain himself.

Take a look at your own interpretation of the prompts to Budja:

FHQ - "here's what you need to do to look pro-town"
Goat - "here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives"

If we assume either of you are scum, BOTH of these become examples of coaching. The only difference is that you were less overt.

Wrong. Coaching involves telling someone how to do something to perform better. That is entirely in the future tense. "This is what you need to do to appear pro-town." That is coaching. "This is what you failed at, explain yourself" is not coaching, unless you are only asking expressly for the purpose of later on saying "so now this is what you need to do". What I did was investigating, scumhunting, etc. It's asking someone to explain what their actions in the past tense for the purpose of divining their alignment. Telling someone what to do in the future tense to play correctly is coaching.

So yes, what Fhq did was coaching. "Now you gotta follow through buddy" is telling Budja "this is what you now need to do after the actions you have taken." That is not how someone interacts with a player they deem suspicious.

You trying to paint my scumhunting as coaching based on literally no logic whatsoever is scummy. All you are doing is placing the two side by side and saying they are the same without explaining why.

In your response to my case, you started bringing up specific elements of your case on FHQ, putting me into a position where I had to touch upon them to help clarify my point. However, given that FHQ hadn't posted anywhere since the 4th, by that point (the 8th) I considered it likely that he would be up for replacement soon anyway. Frankly, that will cause more problems for your hunt on FHQ's slot than if I had answered everything you threw at it since then.

Fair enough.

To rephrase: now that others are "stepping into the mix", thereby negating Ice9's reason for casually disregarding my extended case, do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading. The reason I find it misleading is that it suggests that Ice has acknowledged that others want to hear his response and has still declined to answer. To my knowledge that has not happened. If after this point, he reads these posts and continues to evade it, then yes I would consider that scummy.

I have to say I don't really like the fhq case.
Fhq said that he considered me a scapegoat after I had stated my actions.
I think he was just trying to stop the town becoming too tunnel-visioned, not that that was a problem in this case. A few people have also at least partly accepted my explanation (e.g Spolium,Lynx). I don't see why fhq should be singled out here.

I missed this last night.

FoS Budja

.

Those are not my reasons at all for suspecting Fhq and I don't see how you could possibly have missed that if you were actually reading my posts and reading the reasons I am suspicious of Fhq. Dismissing the Fhq case without even a reasonable grasp on the situation is scummy.

[Goatrevolt]

Just out of curiosity, what has my use of the term "continued evasion" got to do with whether or not Ice9 is scum?

Absolutely nothing, and I never implied it did. That has more to do with my own perception of you. You are exaggerating the situation. I didn't find Ice's original reasons for avoiding debate with you scummy at all. After that, people called for him to answer your post. That call from others right there marks the starting point from which you can legitimately accuse him of "evasion." He has posted once since then, and it was a 1-line post.

Your term "continued evasion" insinuates that this is a repeated offense than has gone unchecked. In reality, it's one post, and that single post was a 1-line post. Ice didn't address my question to him or a variety of other issues in that post as well. What you are labeling as evasion, and not even evasion but "continued evasion," would in reality be much more aptly labeled as "hasn't gotten around to it yet." I'm suspicious of the hyperbole here and how you are making this into something larger than it actually is.

I thought I had explained the "why", but I can try again.

Goat - "

here's where you didn't look pro-town, what gives

"

Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that your comment does not constitute coaching because you are pointing out where Budja is not looking pro-town, and requesting an explanation (as opposed to making an explicit suggestion, which you say is the case with FHQ). That FHQ was coaching Budja despite implied suspicion is, in your eyes, an important factor in your case for FHQ being scummy; it then follows that the accusation of coaching on FHQ's part must be considered within the context of FHQ being scum.

It would also be necessary to evaluate the counter-example of Goat coaching Budja in the same way

, and

that

is where we find the similarity.

Imagine for a moment scum1 and scum2 are scumbuddies, scum1 has started to draw attention and scum2 decides it best to help him out of it by prompting an explanation from scum1. He proceeds to openly criticise scum1 for actions which didn't look pro-town.

Now put yourself in scum1's position in the above scenario. You know that scum2 is your scumbuddy, yet he has accused you of not acting very pro-town and requested an explanation. What do you do? The answer is obvious. Since it's clear that scum2 is not actually trying to get you lynched, the logical conclusion is that he is prompting a response to which he (and others) can respond more positively.

From a townie perspective, the two questions can be easily interpreted to have different motives. However, to scum who enjoy the benefits of mutual recognition and a more clearly defined goal, they suddenly appear to share a similar semantic function.

This is absolutely absurd. You skirt the real issue and use ridiculous reasoning and assumptions to ignore the facts.

FoS Spolium

Do you think a player coaching someone they think is scum is scummy? I want you to directly answer that question.

Secondly, the problem with your quote is very simple:

1. To assume I'm coaching Budja, you have to start from the base assumption that both myself and Budja are scum. That accusation is absurd: You're trying to prove your point by starting from the conclusion. Your conclusion is that I'm scum for coaching Budja. Your base assumption is that...I'm scum, and therefore my scumhunting is actually coaching?????

2. To assume Fhq is coaching Budja you have to make zero assumptions. The evidence is clearly laid out in the thread already. I don't have to assume anything about Fhq's alignment whatsoever to see that he is coaching Budja. I infer that Fhq's alignment is scum after the fact, by noting the inconsistency in him coaching someone he thinks is scum.

3. Your arguments are entirely in trying to prove that my actions were also coaching. None of your arguments deal directly with Fhq's coaching and whether or not it was actually scummy. You're avoiding the point and trying to deflect from the heart of the matter with flawed reasoning.

----

In other news, there is by far enough information in the thread right now for springlullaby to form opinions.

[Goatrevolt]

Weird. I could've sworn that this exchange took place:

Spolium - "

do you think Ice9's continued evasion of said case is scummy? If not, why not?

"
Goat - "

As of right now, no. The reason is that I think your term "continued evasion" is misleading.

"

I asked "

do you think the evasion is scummy

" and you replied "

no, the reason is that I think the term you're using is misleading

". If you don't think the term is fair then that's fine, but I got the impression that you cited your problem with the comment as your reason.

Fair enough. I can see how you draw that conclusion. At any rate, my last post gave a clearer explanation.

Try to understand that I'm not assuming a conclusion, but

analysing both comments in the same context

. I'm not saying that your accusation of Budja was inherently scummy, but that if I look at FHQ's comment and think "

if he is scum speaking to his scumbuddy, what is he trying to do?

" then I do the same with your comment, the result is the same.

The fact of the matter is, whether scum were to say "

you need to follow up on that

" or "

hey, that doesn't look pro-town, explain yourself

" to their scumbuddy, it would achieve the same results for the scum.

There's the issue then. You're assuming I'm comparing them as two scum buddies, and then you're showing how me and Budja as two scum buddies would be similar. I now understand your point, and the disconnect is that you are wrongly assuming that I think Fhq/Budja are necessarily scum buddies. I think the evidence suggests that it's scum-to-town, but I need to rethink this when I'm not as tired.

[Goatrevolt]

Can you explain why you think the evidence suggests scum-to-town, and speculate briefly on how scum-FHQ might benefit from coaching town-Budja?

My thoughts of scum-to-town are based on my idea that fhq slipped up in revealing knowledge of Budja-town.

As for why he would do it, I don't actually know, but I can wager a guess. I've been called out for coaching before when I was scum and it was a very valid point against me, so it's one of those personal tells I pay attention to. I think it's very meaningful. Have you noticed that people generally address those they consider town in more of a nice, friendly manner, and address those they consider scum in a more hostile fashion? Coaching involves being nice and helpful to someone by explaining what they should do. People with legitimate suspicion do not act this way to those they are suspicious of, hence it reflects insincerity.

As for my own personal example, I was scum, and the other player was town. I was "coaching" him because I thought being helpful and telling other people how to play a better game made me look more pro-town. In reality it was a beacon of how insincere my suspicion really was.

@Goat

- In #66, you said you were going to "

keep/upgrade

" your random vote on Spring as she was posting in other games but ignoring this one. Why did you have nothing to say about magisterrain, who had been doing (and is still doing) exactly the same thing?

I knew springlullaby was posting in other games (I'm playing in another game with her right now), but yet she had avoided posting in this game. I considered that scummy. She had an opportunity to post in this game but was not doing so.

I didn't address other lurkers (such as magi) because I had no idea whether they were lurking, merely absent from the site, or had completely flaked. At this point, I would guess magi probably flaked entirely, although I haven't looked at his posting history to verify. If he did flake, it's not really an alignment tell, thus not worth making waves over.

[Goatrevolt]

Fhq - Why are you sorry that I interpreted your post as placing suspicion on me? If you had to vote someone right now, who would it be, and why?

[Goatrevolt]

I'm not sure how to take that replacement comment. Don't you want to see if I lurk all the the way?

Why are you lurking?

[Goatrevolt]

EP: Oh, and

Vote: Springlullaby

The reasoning should be obvious.

Oh, I'm sure the reasoning of why you're suspicious of SL is obvious enough. The reason why you decided to vote "anti-town town" over "scum" isn't.

If she doesn't think this game is interesting enough to comment on, or whatever her exact terminology was, then she should excuse herself. I mean that in as inoffensive and as impersonal way as possible.

I agree. Seriously, if you're going to keep up with prods but have no intention of actually playing, you might as well just replace out.

[Goatrevolt]

Having people upset with you is one thing. Being at L-1 is quite another. If she doesn't talk then, she deserves to be lynched or replaced.

FoS: Jebus

, for suggesting putting a lurker at L-1. even on day one, this could be a dangerous move.

What's wrong with it? When is it an acceptable time to put a lurker at L-1?

[Goatrevolt]

well, for starters, we have no idea who SL is yet. we may as well have skipped the rvs and bandwagoned the last player to confirm. putting a lurker who is "busy atm" at L-1 is poor play.

we have no idea what roles are out there(no i am not talking jester). so placing someone indiscriminately in danger of being lynched is a gamble. you are gambling that every town player is smart enough not to hammer, and that scum are not that brazen. we have no idea of game balance or special roles, etc. if you are upset with SL then demand a replacement, don't put her in position to be lynched.

Fair enough.

On the topic of jesters, it's not really a consideration. A jester is not going to be in a normal game. I highly doubt Jester would even be in a theme game, unless expressly stated beforehand. Fearmongering about jesters just leads to hesitance to lynch scummy players, which is not pro-town.

SL: Epiphany or not, you certainly have some opinions on the game. And what do you expect to gain by "being contrary?"

[Goatrevolt]

SL: Why no vote? You call out people for "milky" play, but then exhibit that exact behavior by not placing a vote 6 days out from deadline and listing four players you are willing to lynch but no order of preference.

Budja: You're voting WolfBlitzer. Why?

Don_Johnson: You FoS RedCoyote, but aren't voting anyone right now. Why a FoS? Where's your vote? Looking back I see you FoS Jebus earlier but no vote as well there. Are you afraid to vote?

Fhq: I'd suggest you re-evaluate now.

[Goatrevolt]

I guess Lynx had the same idea. I agree with everything he said minus:

Though it comes off as pro-town posting a huge analysis like you've done, you've evaded any read on interactions with other players.

I don't consider huge analysis posts to be inherently pro-town.

[Goatrevolt]

SL: Why no vote? You call out people for "milky" play, but then exhibit that exact behavior by not placing a vote 6 days out from deadline and listing four players you are willing to lynch but no order of preference.

See answer to Lynx.

Beside, I stated my willingness to lynch 3 persons, what is soft in that?

The lack of follow through.

[Goatrevolt]

Do you seriously want to argue this point?

I may not be voting, but I'm also not committing anykind of vague vote which can be retracted to be 'pressure' or 'reaction' or whatever later on. What I give you is written words stating clearly that at this point in the game, I find gad, don, and budja scummy enough to lynch either.

What are you talking about? You listed 3 players that you are fine lynching. Why would you be placing a vote for pressure or reactions at this point in time? I'm not calling you out for failure to place a pressure vote, I'm calling you out for failure to follow through by placing a vote

to lynch

.

I also understand that you have given us written word that you would be willing to lynch any of those 3. However, there is a large difference in willingness to lynch, and actually voting someone to move towards a lynch. Saying you're willing to lynch people is pretty meaningless without actually making any effort to do so.

i just found it suspicious that RC again brought up the point. i thought we had already discussed it.

I don't understand. You express distaste of policy lynching so it's somehow scummy for RC to bring it up?

i suggest people double check Spring's analysis of themselves.

Most of the analysis on me is "ok." That's her reply to most of my posts, and that's similarly my feeling about her analysis on me. Couple things:

114. reply spolium; the first part is ok; good comeback; a little prod to me - hmm wanna shift suss on me that you feel a little heat? overall TR though

Am I forbidden from attacking players while someone is suspicious of me?

119. very nice and civil conclusion to headbutt with spolium it seems - scumlink to watch

Originally I thought he was really reaching in his defense of Fhq. In that post I finally realized that we were clashing heads because he misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I doubt it was intentional, so it nullified a large part of my suspicion.

120. tidy reply to spolium. well this kinda post raise my hackles, very undergoggy

I have no idea what you're talking about.

where did i say that i had no intention of playing?

Nowhere, and I never said you did. I said

if

you have no intentions of playing--as in, if you were lurking but didn't intend on actually contributing at any relevant point--then you should just replace.

168. seems to find putting lurker at L1 acceptable; would it means you'd go along with a lurker lynch

Lurking is a viable strategy for scum if you allow people to lurk and are timid about pressuring them. I was mainly asking that question to gauge don-johnson's reaction, but yeah, I don't have a problem with lynching lurkers, although I'd rather lynch a good suspect.

Budja: You're voting WolfBlitzer. Why?

That was my random vote initially. I will remove it now as it serves no purpose and I don't believe Jebus worthy of a vote.

unvote

So who is worthy of a vote?

On a first glance yesterday, your post appeared to be fairly insightful to me but when I read it more closely it simply appears to be a summary of the actions so far, impressive but with little actual argument over any of your claims.

I'm highly suspicious of this backtrack. The flow of events goes something like this: You say her analysis was insightful. Other people express suspicion of her analysis post. Now, her analysis is somehow no longer insightful, and instead was rather uninspired (just a summary).

My interpretation: Spring made a long, pro-town seeming post. You expressed how pro-town and insightful it was, assuming others would agree. Other people expressed how they were not necessarily impressed. You realized that it was now possible to place suspicion on spring for that "pro-town seeming post." You edit your stance accordingly. Fair interpretation?

spring has indeed been paying attention to the game, and I'm sorry for ever having doubted her. Her conclusions are generally refreshing, notably this one on Budja.

Eh? I'm suspicious of the sucking up to spring done in this post. One lengthy analysis is somehow enough to make up for her lurking? What was refreshing about her calling a large portion of the game "milky?" Why are you apologizing for doubting her?

spring kept up with the game, which is great

Based on the way you repeat this, I'm guessing you're working under the assumption that spring was following the game and collecting evidence all along, and just chose to drop it all on us now.

Why do you assume this is the case rather than the also plausible (and I would argue more likely) assumption that she just went back and read the game?

Why would keeping up with the game but not contributing to it while doing so be pro-town? Especially in regards to the looming deadline?

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

I'm not sure whether or not I'd rather lynch Budja or Fhq at this point. Both have pretty much avoided taking definitive stances on anything. I'm not interested in lynching don_johnson after his posts on this page. I'll vote SL to avoid a no lynch, but would rather see Budja/Fhq hang.

[Goatrevolt]

Generally I consider lurking to be frustratingly anti-town. Lynx's post (#204)

scums

up my own feelings on you at the moment, though in itself your slightly bizarre approach is a null tell.

Hahahaha. Freudian slip?

My interpretation: Spring made a long, pro-town seeming post. You expressed how pro-town and insightful it was, assuming others would agree. Other people expressed how they were not necessarily impressed. You realized that it was now possible to place suspicion on spring for that "pro-town seeming post." You edit your stance accordingly. Fair interpretation?

Or as the case was I had limited time at that moment so I skimmed the thread and make a quick post. I later reread more clearly and change my initial position.

Why call it insightful if you merely skimmed it?

[Goatrevolt]

Spring: Did you compile those notes during the course of the game, or did you go back and read through and make that post after the fact?

RedCoyote: How is it scummy for me to pressure Spring on that post? All of my pressure has been based on entirely valid points. Also, I thought you were "interested in seeing how my pressure on spring turned out." Apparently not?

I will agree, however, that don_johnson is reaching a bit. I don't see how he can expect Spring to have a completely perfect representation of the entire game in 1 post. There are bound to be mistakes. I'd highly doubt any of her misreps were done intentionally.

-----------

Unvote, Vote Budja

[Goatrevolt]

RedCoyote: How is it scummy for me to pressure Spring on that post? All of my pressure has been based on entirely valid points. Also, I thought you were "interested in seeing how my pressure on spring turned out." Apparently not?

Perhaps I am unfairly lumping you together with don and Spolium, but generally I do not see the helpfulness behind the pressure spring is getting. The actual quote is not as warm to the suggestion as you make it appear,

If Goat or Lynx want to continue pushing her on that point, then I will await and see how much else they'll learn from it, but I don't think she's scum at the moment.

Why is it unhelpful for me to pressure Spring about lack of solid stances/lack of vote, but yet you have no problem with me pressuring Budja/Fhq/don_johnson on the same?

[Goatrevolt]

What makes you think she doesn't have solid stances? And when did I say don didn't have solid stances/lack of vote?

Her post called about 50% of the game "milky" and she listed 1/3 of the game as players she would be willing to lynch but made no effort to do so.

I never said anything about you and don. You're misreading that. I'm saying that I called out spring for a lack of solid stances, and in much the same fashion I have called out Fhq/Budja/Don. You had no problem when I did that to the other 3, but you find it suspicious when I attack spring in much the same fashion. What's the difference?

This is the same point I addressed with Spolium, do you mean to say that you thought that spring would

not

vote before the deadline? If so, what gave you that impression?

I have no idea whether she would have voted or not. I certainly have suspicions that she wouldn't have, based on her precedent set in this game and my experiences with her from others. That's not really a relevant point, though.

Regardless of precedent, or whether or not I actually believed that she was going to place the vote, there's nothing wrong with me pressuring her to do so. I'm forcing her to make a commitment to one of her stances, and ensuring that she isn't going to simply lurk out the rest of the day and then come around tomorrow with something like "I was willing to lynch X, but I just didn't get around to it before the deadline."

Sitting on no vote is a perfect place for scum to be. they can lurk out the day and contribute to a no lynch if applicable. They can wait and see what happens and pick and choose what wagon they want if applicable. Getting people to commit to a vote now is a good thing for a variety of reasons.

spring expressed herself and her suspicions very clearly and completely. Budja, Fhq, Plonky, Ice9... these players have votes in limbo and haven't made any current contributions to the game (with the exception of Fhq, he's on that list for other reasons).

I've said this before, but there is a huge difference between expressing willingness to lynch and actually doing something to achieve that. Secondly, I have pressured many of those same players for the exact same thing, which is not placing a vote or making any effort to achieve a lynch before deadline.

I think you're generalizing quite a few of my points Goat, and that doesn't bode well for my opinion of you.

Back this up. Where have I generalized any of your points? You are suspicious of the pressure I put on spring. My pressure on Spring was based around her lack of a vote. I have also pressured fhq/Budja/don on that very same thing. Why is Spring a special case?

[Goatrevolt]

don's walls are not aiding the situation at all because I'm not convinced spring's post was artifical, which is the foundation for which all of Goat/don/Spolium/fhq's arguments rest on.

I missed this from before. I'm not arguing that spring's post was artificial. I don't think she was faking anything or intentionally misrepresenting anyone. I agree with you that it makes little sense for scum to do that. However, I know for a fact that posts like that are not hard to make as scum, and what stuck out to me the most was the lack of a vote/lack of a lynch preference. If she is town, then it stands to reason she has a preference to who she wanted to lynch most, and she should be voting that player. If she's scum, then she should be forced into making an early stance she might not be as comfortable with.

At any rate, she's put down a vote, so I'm satisfied for the time being.

[Goatrevolt]

Her post called about 50% of the game "milky" and she listed 1/3 of the game as players she would be willing to lynch but made no effort to do so.

I think we have an honest disagreement here. Personally I think spring was attempting to let people know that she had been following the game and was telling us where she stood currently. I do not contend that she

specifically

shyed away from voting a player because she didn't have a solid stance but rather because she was prepared to deal with the rush of responses that rightfully followed.

I don't know the reason why she didn't place a vote. I'd argue it's because she wanted to wait and see what developed before making a decision. I wanted to know specifically who she thought was most likely to be scum right then, before waiting and see what transpired first.

She made it clear who she wanted to vote, and nothing indicated that she wasn't going to cast a vote in a reasonable time after that (which she did).

She didn't make it clear who she

wanted

to vote. She made it clear who she was

willing

to vote. And your statement about her placing a vote in a reasonable time is kind of funny, considering my pressure was what led to that. Top of Post 241.

You had no problem when I did that to the other 3, but you find it suspicious when I attack spring in much the same fashion. What's the difference?

fhq and Budja hadn't made a solid stance since the beginning of this game, much moreso in the case of Budja than fhq, but a majority of their posts are defensively oriented, so I agree with you there and there's no sense in arguing the point.

I disgaree with the same suggestions as they apply to spring.

Really? How is it different? Spring hadn't made a solid stance (read: vote) since the beginning of the game either. Just because she lurked throughout and then dropped a huge post, whereas they kept along but didn't make a stance doesn't mean hers is somehow more acceptable.

What frustrates me is that spring's post came off as anticipatory and rightfully so. She knew she was going to get several responses from everyone after she made it, and so for her to say who her top suspects were gave us the opportunity to say, "Ok, I think this one is good, but not this one" in order to persuade her. It was more or less a formality that she vote Budja, given the fact that Budja hasn't been particularly interested in scumhunting or helping the town. If she had voted Budja a few posts before she did, I don't see how it would've made much of a difference in this case. She made it clear that she suspected him, she made it clear that her vote would likely go that way on account of the deadline, everything she did was indicative of where the vote was going.

I had no idea where her vote was going until she placed it. I could have seen her vote for don, Budja, or Fhq and it would not have surprised me. There are two issues with waiting it out. First of all, if everyone sits back and waits to see how things develop, then we'll never actually arrive at a lynch. For example: Fhq. Plenty of players expressed willingness to lynch him. I was the only one on his wagon. His wagon never even got any momentum towards a lynch, whatsoever, despite there being at least 5 people willing to lynch him. If those people had backed up their suspicion with a vote, then things would have moved along. Secondly, by sitting back and waiting, scum get a chance to pick and choose where they want to vote based on current discussion and what would be the best for them.

So it frustrates me that you would challenge her on this point, knowing the position she was in with, like I said, an anticipatory post like hers.

I'm sorry, am I supposed to give her a free pass to do whatever she wants because she dropped a big post on us? You're getting ridiculous here in your defense of her. You expected people to challenge her on her post (anticipatory), but then you have a problem when they do?

I've said this before, but there is a huge difference between expressing willingness to lynch and actually doing something to achieve that.

You don't think by puting "Note: so and so would be a good lynch candidate" in her notes is doing something to achieve a lynch when she posts it for everyone to see?

No, it's not. I gave an example above. Numerous people "noted" that they were willing to lynch Fhq. Nothing came of it. If everyone notes that they are willing to do something, but nobody actually bothers to carry through, then nothing happens.

Secondly, I have pressured many of those same players for the exact same thing, which is not placing a vote or making any effort to achieve a lynch before deadline.

Absolutely, but what makes spring worse to you than the others seems ingenuine to me.

Um...what? I never said Spring was worse. I'm voting for Budja right now, not her. I've attacked others on that same point (not having a vote).

Why are you so afraid of pressure on spring? Don't think she can handle it herself? I mean, seriously, you're going so far as to misrepresent me and amplify my pressure as much more than it actually was.

Where have I generalized any of your points?

When you said this,

Also, I thought [RC was] "interested in seeing how my pressure on spring turned out."

knowing that the context of that statement was not as positive as you made it appear.

First of all, I did not "know" that. I didn't go back and check, I just remembered that you had posted something along the lines of "I'll wait and see what results from this." Secondly, even after going back and reading it, I don't think I "generalized" it at all. Yes, your context was more negative than I remembered, but you still asserted that you wanted to see what resulted from the discussion, which is obviously not the case, since you went on to attack me for it.

Additionally, you're trying to frame me in such a way that I would have an equal level of suspicions of spring that I would have of Budja/fhq/don, which has not been the case.

I'm not trying to frame this on you at all. Stop misrepresenting me. I never said your suspicions were equal or that they should be. Go back and point out exactly where I said this.

What I've said is that you're suspicious of

me

for pressuring spring on a lack of a vote, but you were not suspicious of

me

pressuring budja/dj/fhq on a lack of a vote. The situations are no different. None of them had a vote on near deadline, and all had avoided taking solid stances throughout the game (via lurking or active lurking). I want to know specifically why you went out of your way to defend spring, but have not done so for the other 3, when my attacks on them were for

the exact same point

. It seems entirely inconsistent.

I do not retract my argument from earlier, don is still in the group with Goat and fhq.

Did you miss post 258, or are you willfully ignoring it?

RC: You continue to misrep me regarding my pressure on Spring. You are so adamant about defending spring that you are unable to reasonably assess the situation. The fact that you are accusing me of saying "spring is more in the wrong than Budja/fhq/don" despite my vote being on Budja and me never saying that at all is proof. So what is it? Why are you afraid of pressure on Spring?

[Goatrevolt]

I disagree with that interpretation (that she made it up after the fact) because that interpretation necessarily means that she hasn't been paying attention which is, arguably, one of the surest signs of scum (i.e. scum don't have to hunt/pay close attention).

In other words, you disagree with this argument purely because it leads to the assumption that Spring is scum, and not based on the merits of it in and of itself. Why are you letting your opinion on spring skew your interpretation of the information?

I directly questioned spring on that point. She did not give a response.

Spring: Again, did you compile those notes throughout the course of the game, or did you decide to simply go back and read the game and make a summary after the fact?

A note on Spolium and Goat, I have them at low danger but in actuality, if they do look good comparatively, I haven't been a fan of their play before my notes. It was long winded and nitpicky from both of them, and they have been very shy of making strong statements. Right now I'm explaining this with the fact that this is a difficult town with what I sense to be high error margin, and that they have been on the reserve, but frankly, I expect better.

What? I'll give you long winded, but that's how I always play. All of my long winded posts were in response to long winded Spolium attacks on my scumhunting, at any rate. Shying away from making strong statements? How so? My early pressure on Budja wasn't shy. My attack on Fhq wasn't shy. I didn't shy away from pressuring you. So where are you getting this notion?

"Been on the reserve" is relative. I'm limited in what I can attack based on what has been given to me. If 60% of the game is lurking, there's definitively less information for me to generate opinions on. What you might call "nitpicking" I call the best lead based on available information. If you thought my leads were nitpicking or poor, you could have stepped out and said so. I find it intensely hypocritical that you are calling me out for this when you are a source of the problem.

[Goatrevolt]

RC, my problem with your play is mostly based around your misrepresentation of my stances. You continue to "shoot down" or argue against positions that I have not taken.

Example: I've never said Spring's long post wasn't genuine. You argued that I was of that opinion. I think those points were her genuine take on the game. However, I simply don't feel that it's difficult as scum to make that post, and was suspicious of the lack of vote, or at the very least ordered list of preferred lynch targets.

Example: You argue that I find spring's lurking worse than Budja/Fhq/etc. This is false, because I am not voting, nor have I voted for Spring since her long post, and instead my votes have been on...fhq and budja.

Example: You argue that I said you should be equally suspicious of Budja/Fhq/spring, when I did not argue or suggest anything like that. I am not equally suspicious of those 3, why would you assume I'm telling you that you should be?

[Goatrevolt]

Goat is also requested to state what he makes of my answer since he has made a show of asking about my note taking.

It's a plausible response. I don't really know what to say about it, because I can't really prove anything one way or another. I think it's less likely that you compiled notes throughout the game, but deliberately chose not to post them, especially because your note post seems fluid, not choppy from multiple additions and compilations. It's not a big enough point for me to act on, though.

[Goatrevolt]

Unvote

for now.

[Goatrevolt]

I need to reread in order to decide whether or not Budja's claim is enough to outweigh his scummy play, and whether or not his play fits his claimed role.

[Goatrevolt]

Is there a reason we need to wait to hear from everyone prior to hammering? I don't see the point of needlessly extending the day.

I'm voting him tonight unless I hear a compelling reason not to.

[Goatrevolt]

Is there a reason we need to wait to hear from everyone prior to hammering? I don't see the point of needlessly extending the day.

I'm voting him tonight unless I hear a compelling reason not to.

Fos: Goatrevolt

discussion only helps. the fact budja is scum entirely changes the look of the bandwagon and those not on it. we are not guaranteed in being able to hear from everyone tomorrow, so cutting off discussion seems like an awfully bad idea.

Anyone who has a suspect stance on Budja is either going to be around tomorrow to discuss it, or is going to be dead, and thus it doesn't matter.

At this point we're essentially just waiting for a couple of lurkers/replacements to come in and say something along the lines of "well, looks like Budja claimed scum" and then we're going to end the day.

Note that in #327 Budja dropped his vote on himself; perhaps he intended to self-hammer in order to deny further discussion, reflecting the intentions of scum (which does indeed draw a question mark over Goat and Lynx, as don noted above).

If he intended to self-hammer, then he failed pretty hard by not checking the vote count first. Or maybe he just voted himself because it's obvious he's going to get lynched after claiming scum.

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

I'll wait to place my vote until tomorrow then. I do think holding off is a bit of a pointless exercise, though.

[Goatrevolt]

There's nothing wrong with defending a player, but trying to use semantics to spin it as something else is.

Whether or not you will choose to admit it, you were defending Spring. Your overstated defense was a little fishy, but what strikes me as even more so is your unwillingness to admit to even defending her at all. Why are you worried about being viewed as having defended her?

Stating an opinion of Spring: "I think spring is town."
Defending Spring: "Why are you guys attacking Spring over X, Y, Z? I thought it was clear from her opening post that she was going to do Q, etc."

------

Jebus: Your opening post had Spolium and RC as your top two suspects. You never followed up on that. Why?

[Goatrevolt]

If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?

Tell you to wait in line.

[Goatrevolt]

Vote Jebus

He responds to Post 334, with the following:

I'm very prepared to hammer, I just wasn't voting budja before because

we still had a week or so of deadline to go

after someone who wasn't already obvscum.

If he was so obvscum you should have had your vote on him earlier. This post comes off pretty scummy to me.

Obvscum after believing he was hammered and wishing his scumbuddies luck, which was pretty recent.

I didn't hammer before because we still had

half a week

to look into other people ahead of time, so I thought I'd try that.

I don't expect to be able to post again within the 1 day deadline

(which wow, that was faster than I thought), so

unvote, vote: Budja

I didn't pick up on this at first, but there are some serious contradictions here. Note the bolded sections and the time line associated with them. His first post answers Spring's original question, in a really scummy manner. When you look at it in context of the 2nd post it is distinctly less scummy, because it looks like he didn't actually understand the intent of Spring's post (to question people who weren't on the pre-claim Budja wagon). However, the timeline in his first reply doesn't fit with the timeline in the 2nd post. My guess is that his first post was an actual answer to the original question (context and all) and his second post just covers it up by throwing in the "after the claim" clause. The time line in his first post matches with the question spring asked. The timeline in his reply to Lynx does not match with the timeline in his first post.

The biggest point for me, though, is his stances. In his first post, Post 141, he lists Spolium/RC as his top two in likelihood to be scum. He votes SL....ok, I can buy his follow the lurker explanation and it's consistent with his unvote once SL provided content. The real issue is in Post 289. In that post he states that Coyote hasn't pinged his scumdar thus far and neither had Spolium. What? They were his number 1 and number 2 targets in his original post. He never followed up on them, and now he states that they never pinged his scumdar? So why were they originally suspicious? The worst part, though, is that he votes RC in this very same post where he states RC never pinged his scumdar. He doesn't even address RC at all in that post.

Instead of voting for Budja, he votes RC, whom he states hasn't pinged his scumdar

earlier in the same post

. His reasoning on RC? Dependent scum tells based on others flips. Whose flips, and why wouldn't you want to lynch the player he depends on first?

The fact that Jebus labeled Budja as scum, but decided to instead go for the "dependent scum tell" wagon on RC is quite telling here.

[Goatrevolt]

Hmm. Either I succeeded in my protect. Either there wthe as no kill/ delayed kill/ some other kind of screw.

Option 3: you are scum, there is no doctor and you orchestrated the doc claim/counter claim and the subsequent no kill to throw people off the scent.

Seriously? This is a highly complicated gambit that is both extremely unlikely and has a huge chance to fail. What if there was a real doc, who counterclaimed both of them? Besides the fact that it would be hilarious for two scum to out themselves in a unnecessarily complicated failing gambit day 1, the chances of them actually attempting to coordinate something like this is pretty much zero.

I'm pretty suspicious of this here. Resistance to confirming innocents is scummy.

[Goatrevolt]

who's to say that the scum didn't go into the game with this plan in mind?

Sample pre-game discussion:

Budja: Hey, I've got this great idea. I'm going to act really scummy, and you're going to lurk hard.
Spring: I like where your head is at. But what would we stand to gain from doing this.
Budja: Ah yes, that is where my diabolical plot comes to fruition. The town, seeing me act scummy, will attack me for acting scummy.
Spring: Your skills at logical deduction are truly staggering. When this comes to pass, what then?
Budja: That is the great part. Then I will claim to be the doctor.
Spring: But if you claim to be the doctor, it might cause them to unvote you. That seems unproductive.
Budja: Not if you counterclaim me!
Spring: Wow! Good thinking.
Budja: Yes, don't you see. You'll throw me, a mafia roleblocker, away for small personal gain, and there is even a chance a real townie doc counterclaims us both, effectively screwing us over for the entire game.
Spring: High risk, low reward. The town will never expect it. Let's do this.
Scum3: Excellent suggestions all around. May I also propose I attempt to bus Spring day 2? If Spring looks town for counterclaiming scum in a doctor claim, then I will look

extra

town for busing such a town-looking player. I will skate unscathed to victory!

[Goatrevolt]

In meantime be assured that I will not lift a single finger to defend against crappy accusation. Not that I can't. I just won't. They pisses me off.

This is dumb. If they are such crappy accusations, then you should be able to very easily dispel them with minimal effort. Rather than take the time to state that you are going to refuse to defend yourself you could have simply done so. Is there a point to this, or are you just going out of your way to make a fuss?

-------

I didn't say RC and Spolium hadn't pinged my scumdar at all, I said that they hadn't pinged my scumdar much since my first re-read

This is the quote:

Coyote hasn't pinged my scumdar

thus far

, same for Spolium.

Does "thus far" not mean what I think it does?

--------

- refusal to concede that he was defending Spring

I still refuse to concede that. A townie having an opinion on another player does not necessarily have to always mean a defensive/offensive position. My intentions were clear, I thought spring seemed more likely town than other candidates, but, based on policy, I would accept her lynch.

If that's defending someone, that's an awfully milky defense (pun intended)

Um...no. Your defense of spring wasn't milky at all. Your stance on her was. If saying the attacks on spring are bad, and then throwing suspicion on the people making the attacks isn't a defense of spring, then please explain what would constitute a defense.

I'm totally lost when it comes to the "he hated on my WIFOM but used a WIFOMy defense himself" argument. I highly doubt either situation is actually WIFOM but I'd like to hear a summary of this nonetheless.

-----------

I disagree with Goat in that I don't think that it would be a complicated strategy and I'm not entirely convinced that scum would avoid doing so altogether, but I can't deny that it would be very risky and most likely did not happen. Even if it did, there's no strong evidence for it; the case would be a dead-end until further information is available.

Complicated may not have been the right word. I wasn't trying to say that the plan was somehow difficult to wrap your mind around, but rather than it was a convoluted scenario to accomplish a simple goal. I meant that it was an extremely roundabout and risky play for minimal reward. The reward in this case being an attempt to confirm a player by handing the noose to another. Occam's razor is a good way to describe it. Which is more likely, Spring is the doc, or this convoluted "you claim doc, and I'll counterclaim it" scenario?

I also disagree with the comment in 374 about resistance to confirming innocents being scummy. I'm not sure how this is the case - surely a degree of scepticism is vital when it comes to claims?

There's a difference between "a degree of skepticism" and what you did. The last part of your post 373 reads exactly like you believe Option 3 to be the truth, right down to the part where you ask her for her target and reasoning. Since then, you've been wishy-washy on it, eventually settling to Spring not a top suspect but you're still suspicious.

I find the presence of "scum3" in Goat's "sample" pro-game dialogue noteworthy - I get that it's supposed to be satirical, but is it actually likely for there to be a third scum?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Budja "good luck to my scumbuddy" post, suggesting a 2-man team based on the singular word choice? I'm not putting much weight in it. I think it would have been a valid consideration if we had seen two night kills or something last night, suggesting multiple scum groups, but the lack of any would suggest a singular killing faction.

When you say it was noteworthy, what are you implying?

Here's a question for you. You are under the impression of a 2 man scum team. Wouldn't a 2 man scum team make it less likely that spring as scum would throw away Budja like that?

Incidently. what does everyone think of millar13's "

If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?

" from the end of D1? There's been no mention of it so far, but it seems pretty relevant. The only context in which the comment makes sense to me is that he's scum and can't be bothered to play the game, which could explain the lack of nightkill (however, I'm not sure if there are roles common to mini normals which benefit from an attempted lynch, so if anyone can clarify it'd be appreciated).

I have no clue how to read that post at all. Your speculation is plausible under the 2 man scum team idea, but not really something I would throw any weight behind for a variety of reasons.

Millar: What was the point of that question?

[Goatrevolt]

I'm not implying anything - the mention of a third scum just stands out to me. It could suggest that you consider it likely for there to be a third scum, or perhaps you have special information which leads you to believe it. Maybe you just threw it in there to imply that anyone casting suspicion on Spring could be a third scum, or maybe you were trying to highlight what you saw to be a ridiculous situation.

As it stands I can only speculate, but if you have any further comment on it I'm all ears.

I'm not implying that anyone casting suspicion on Spring is the mysterious scum3, because I don't actually believe the premise of my satire.

The reason I put in that scum3 bit was to finish my little story with added hyperbole to highlight the absurdity of the situation. In fact, I do believe that it is more likely that there are 3 scum, rather than two, but I didn't add in the 3rd scum bit specifically to make that point. I don't have any special information to make this claim, I'm basing it entirely on what I would guess is the most likely setup.

Incidently. what does everyone think of millar13's "

If i said i was mafia and wanted you all dead...what would you do to me?

" from the end of D1? There's been no mention of it so far, but it seems pretty relevant. The only context in which the comment makes sense to me is that he's scum and can't be bothered to play the game, which could explain the lack of nightkill (however, I'm not sure if there are roles common to mini normals which benefit from an attempted lynch, so if anyone can clarify it'd be appreciated).

I have no clue how to read that post at all. Your speculation is plausible under the 2 man scum team idea, but not really something I would throw any weight behind for a variety of reasons.

Can you elaborate on these reasons?

Sure. First of all, your speculation that millar is scum based on the lack of a nightkill relies on the theory that there are only two scum, i.e. he gave up yesterday and just didn't bother to submit a night kill. If there is a scum group larger than 2 players, then the other scum could have just submitted the kill, even if millar gave up. Since we don't have any information on how many scum there are, this point is based on ungrounded speculation.

Secondly, the lack of a nightkill could be explained by other reasons as well, such as Spring making a successful protect, or the scum deliberately choosing not to kill, or another role somehow preventing it, etc. There's no evidence to support Millar as scum choosing not to make a night kill is any more likely than the above.

So basically, your speculation here is a possibility, but it's not something I would put any weight behind because it's entirely speculation without evidence with a lot of other possible explanations.

I want to know more about the liklihood that millar13 stands to benefit from being lynched. I recall someone dismissing a jester role as a likely possibility in this game, but what about lynchproof?

I dismissed jester as a possibility. I'll also dismiss lynchproof. Neither or those would be normal roles by any stretch, and are highly unlikely to appear in this game.

There are a few roles that activate upon being lynched or killed that I could possibly see in a normal game, such as the role that gets to vig a player when lynched, or the role that kills the person who hammers. Those roles are somewhat more likely than jester/lynchproof, but are still not very likely of appearing in a mini normal.

All in all, the chance that millar stands to gain from being lynched is pretty much null. It should not be a deterring factor from lynching him or anyone else.

[Goatrevolt]

So who do you think is scum, then?

[Goatrevolt]

RC, I spent more time debating my attack on Spring with you than I did actually pressuring spring.

I'd also still like a summarizing of the WIFOM argument between you and Spolium. Either of you are welcome to provide it.

[Goatrevolt]

I've fallen behind a bit. Busy week last week and busy weekend. I should have time to catch back up within the next couple of days, though.

[Goatrevolt]

Spolium, do you think RC's interaction in regards to Spring was really any different than the way you interacted with Budja?

[Goatrevolt]

Tonight...or tomorrow I shall be caught up again.

[Goatrevolt]

I believe your claim, Don. Your post sounds pretty sincere about your confusion regarding the results. Does anybody know if scum get a watcher sometimes? I don't think they'd have another power role considering that they had a role blocker.

Scum can have watchers. However, I agree that I think Don's claim sounded sincere. Scum generally are not interested in claiming unless they need to, and his claim reads to me of townie annoyance and desire to put an end to the wagon on him.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the scum can only have 1 power role thing, however. That all depends on the overall setup, which we don't really know much about yet.

------

And, I have to leave now. Rest of my catching up to proceed later.

[Goatrevolt]

Unvote

I think Jebus is town here. I'm dubious of the double doc, but for Jebus to be scum, that means he threw away a NK and threw away himself in a 1-1 trade for Spring in order to set up his doc claim today. There's no way he does this when the simpler and more effective alternative would be to simply kill Spring. I'd be surprised if he's scum.

SL could possible be scum. Looking back through her interaction with Budja in regards to the claim, I could see that as plausible. She hesitated to vote for Budja prior to me pressuring her to lay down a vote, and then Budja immediately gave up without any fight after the counterclaim. I still think the abrupt counterclaim is a point in her favor, though. It makes more sense for scum running a gambit to hesitate and wait for a legit counter before faking one.

Spring: Why did you target Spolium last night?

RC: My lurking is not alignment relevant. I simply have not had time for mafia as of late. You can see my post rate has decreased everywhere on the site, and on other sites where I play mafia as well. As for the pushing Spring/you over Budja argument, I can kind of see how you would arrive at that, but it's really not true. I argued with you because you were attacking my pressure on Spring. I was not the one instigating that, I was merely responding to you. I pressured Spring on one (two, if you want to count the reread v. compile notes as you go) single point that ended up spreading to many posts. I spent most of my time trying to defend my single point of pressure on Spring than I did actually pressuring her. I attacked Budja on far more points than that throughout the thread.

As for the "if someone killed Spolium, it was me" argument, that's pretty weak, considering we don't know if Spolium was the target of a night kill definitively, and I was not his top target at all yesterday. If you're looking for the most likely to kill Spolium based on the criteria "Who Spolium was on to", why would you pick me over Ice or yourself?

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

One possibility that hasn't been brought up is a mafia doctor. I've seen the role before, and it's possible one of the two docs is a mafia doc. That could explain Spring's quick counterclaim, if she is a mafia doc and thought she was the only doc. I'm still not sure why she would even bother to counter there, though.

Looking strictly at the lack of a kill, there are 3 options, really:

1. SL was the target. This would mean she is most likely town, and would also suggest Jebus is town, as he would have little motivation to not just kill her there.

2. Spolium was the target. This would mean SL is town. Doesn't affect Jebus' alignment.

3. The scum no killed to validate a doc claim.

----------

If both docs are sane and town, they can protect chain each other for the rest of the game for the win, barring external circumstances. Budja being a dead RB means one such external is out of the picture. Somehow I doubt we're looking at two sane town docs, though. Either one is scum or one is not sane. If one is scum, my money is on SL. If one is not sane, I have no idea.

I don't think mass claim is a terrible idea, but I'd rather hold off another day, yet.

I'm hoping to have time to get a reread on at least day 2, possibly the entire game, today or tomorrow. With all the info in the thread, I think we should be able to fairly accurately narrow down suspects and decide on a good lynch.

[Goatrevolt]

HoHum, null tell.

Ice9 rang town

, millar13's provocative comment about being scum is still ringing in my ears, HoHum is yet to post.

Really? On what basis? I seem to recall you being fairly suspicious of him.

If you're looking for the most likely to kill Spolium based on the criteria "Who Spolium was on to", why would you pick me over Ice or yourself?

Regardless of whether it is valid or not, why the heck would I argue that

I

would be the most likely to shoot Spolium?

And, erm, Ice has long since left this game. I don't think Plonky/DO acted like Ice did at all.

In other words, I don't get this comment of yours at all.

The point of that comment was that Spolium wasn't really gunning for me at all yesterday. Your argument was that I would kill Spolium to escape his pressure, and my retort is essentially "what pressure?" You're correct in that you killing him wouldn't make sense from your own perspective, but from my perspective, I see a couple of targets who would be more likely to make that kill than myself. Also, Plonky/DO replaced Magisterrain, not Ice. Ice's replacement is Millar/Hohum.

Question: theoretically, if there were two killing parties and they both shot the same person that was being protected (e.g. spring) would a Doctor protect against both kills?

Typically, no. Generally a doctor prevents 1 kill attempt, and multiple kill attempts on that target will result in one protected, and one successful.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm also suspicious of everyone who wasn't voting for Budja, since budja was a scum PR - don, fhq, plonky, and Goat. Goat stuck out to me because he was advocating wanting to vote, and didn't see the merit in discussion until deadline. It seemed the reason he didn't vote was because he didn't want to do anything to spotlight himself the next day (like hammering when the town wanted to continue discussion.)

Calling me out for not being on Budja when he was hammered is pretty weak. For all intensive purposes my vote was on him. I didn't see the merit in additional discussion; however, I wasn't going to hammer him if the rest of the game wanted to discuss. I distinctly remember saying that I was going to hold off for X period of time and allow for discussion, and then I would hammer at that point, to avoid any possible no lynchings due to waiting around. If I didn't want to spotlight myself, I wouldn't have said that I think we should just lynch Budja and end the day in the first place. That was contrary to popular opinion and drew me some negative attention as it was.

Rhinox, it looks like you are just going back and looking at the vote count at the end of the day and basing your suspicion off of that. You're missing a lot of the context. The end of the day votecount is pretty meaningless, considering Budja claimed scum prior to that point. What's more important is the vote count prior to his claim.

Ice9 rang town

Really? On what basis? I seem to recall you being fairly suspicious of him.

I was, but in retrospect I think I overreacted. Reading him in the context of Budja's flip makes a big difference too.

Ice9 "rang" town implies past tense. Reading that gives the distinct impression that you believed him to be town back then, as in, Ice9's posts themselves made you believe he was town at the time. Changing your mind on Budja's flip is reasonable, but that wouldn't make him have "rung town" to you. I would expect you to say something like "Based on Budja's flip I believe Ice to be town" or "rereading Ice I was less suspicious of him" etc. The way you said it is deceptive.

----------

I'm suspicious of Spolium, based on day 1 stances, his stances on Spring's claim today, and the bit I posted above, but I think it would be best to hold off on him until we clear up the doc business, in case Spring did successfully protect a kill attempt on him.

I think our best bet is holding off on lynching a claimed doc as well as don for today. Give it at least a night, and see what info results from it and make a more educated decision then.

sekinj, Rhinox, and fhq would be my top 3 choices for a lynch at this point. I'll review each and decide this weekend sometime.

[Goatrevolt]

A jailkeeper would probably know they are one, because it's a separate role from doc.

Regarding whether or not we have the claimed roles decide on targets ahead of time or not, I can see benefits to doing so or not doing so. The benefit to setting up a triangle of watch/doc/doc is that if any of those 3 are scum, they would have to trade themselves 1-1 to kill off another scum in the mix. The downside is that scum have perfect information on what power roles are doing what at night and can play around it.

The benefit to not calling it out ahead of time is the potential to catch scum who have no clue who the town power roles are going to target. The downside is the possibility that the scum get a kill off on a claimed role without repercussion. Higher risk, higher reward.

I'm leaning on doing the 2nd option. The first option kind of just preserves the status quo, whereas the second one gives us more of a chance of learning some useful information, albeit at greater risk.

---

The only thing lynching Spolium would clear up is possibilities of SL's sanity. That would be an extremely weak reason to lynch someone.

My player analysis will come later. Apologies on the delay.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm caught up.

Vote Spolium

There is a chance a kill N1 was stopped on him, but with Jebus confirmed, I think the more likely explanation is that a kill attempt on Spring was stopped night 1.

I'll flesh out a case here, but he is my top scumspect right now. I'm getting mixed reads on Sekinj, but she would be my number 2 choice for lack of a more solid suspect.

Spring: Why would you even suggest a lynch on yourself, even though you called it stupid? I would have expected you as town to try to tote yourself as cleared based on Jebus being confirmed, thus it's more likely you were protected night 1. Color me surprised. Furthermore, why would you protect Spolium last night? Can you explain that rationale? Why not protect Jebus? From your posting yesterday, I was under the impression you believed his claim.

I'm not seeing an issue with Don targeting Spring. It doesn't clear him, but at least it is consistent with a pro-town mentality. I would expect him as town to target one of the two doc claims.

Inactive =/= lurker. Not having much time to dedicate to the game doesn't make me scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I protected spolium because my sanity is in doubt and N1 protection had no adverse effect. That's the correct play for doubtful sanity doc. I certainly wouldn't have protected Jebus in case i'm a quack, killing the doc and framing myself in the process.

How would targeting Spolium a 2nd time tell you anything? Or are you saying you deliberately were uninterested in learning more? If you were worried about your doc save killing someone, why not target Lynx?

Goat, I don't understand why spolium. He is like 50/50 to me, and lynx is much scummier in my book.

Lynx was one of my "most likely to be town" players at the end of day 1. I don't remember much of his day 2 play, but it wasn't anything that struck me as outright scummy. I'll take a look back at his play, regardless.

I'm considering a me lynch because 1. seeing my sanity flip might be helpful 2. i'm VLA 6th to 17 april.

How would seeing your sanity flip be helpful? What info would that give us?

Goat, whenever you get the chance, don't forget about your promise to show us why Spolium is your number one target.

Yep, coming tonight.

Actually no.

MOD:

I demand modkill of sekinj.

I hope you don't keep the same playstyle if I am in a future game with you.

This kind of comments are against the rule about no vendettas, and no bringing games outside of the game spirit. It is also blatantly antigame and it intervenes after you have warned her once.

I demand modkill.

????

That's quite a stretch. Hoping you don't maintain the same playstyle is a far cry from a vendetta.

Firstly, neither Spolium or SL should be the lynch choice today - 1 of them was successfully protected N1, and with more than 1 scum remaining it seems like smart play to hunt for other scum, even IF one of spolium or SL are scum. I think its very likely SL was protected.

I think Spolium should be on the table. I don't see how we will ever know for sure who was successfully protected night 1, but if we are to assume a successful save was made, then I would hedge bets on it being Spring saved, not Spolium.

It's either, Spring was shot, Spolium was shot, or the scum no-killed. If Spring is town, I don't think Spolium would have been shot at over her. If Spring is scum, then there wouldn't have been a failed kill attempt on Spolium, because Spring's claim to protect Spolium would either coincide with a scum kill on a different target or a no-kill to verify role. There is almost no chance Spolium was a successful save from a scum kill night 1. The only possible way this is true is if both Spolium and spring are town, and the scum decided to shoot Spolium over Spring. That is unlikely enough of a scenario to not impact the lynch decision.

Second reason is a bit of wifom, but worth mentioning: Why would scum target jebus? If I were scum, I would assume that even a best case scenario, the kill would fail due to protection from the other doc. Worst case scenario, a scum would be caught making the kill by the watcher. To me, this seems like a textbook example where scum should've tried to kill someone who had no chance of being protected or watched, unless the scum knows that don is not a watcher.

Hmm...This is a good thought. Shooting Jebus was quite a risk for scum if both Don and Spring are town. The question then is, was the reward enough to justify the risk for scum or is one of those two scum, thus lowering the risk?

Lets look at some numbers. I'm assuming, of course, that don would always pick one of the 2 claimed docs to watch. If he flipped a coin to pick, that means there was a 50% chance scum would be found. Add in the other doc to the calculation. Say SL picked either don or jebus to protect randomly and here is the complete breakdown:

25% - failed kill, no watch.
25% - successful kill, watched.
25% - failed kill, watched.
25% - Successful kill, no watch.

3 of those scenarios hurt the scum - only a 25% chance of scum getting a positive result based on choosing to kill 1 of the docs. Is the risk worth the reward? I don't think so. Should we just assume scum got lucky on a calculated risk, or was there no risk because don is scum and was told to say he watched SL?

The number's don't really work out. You're assuming that don was going to choose Spring or Jebus 50/50, and that the doc's would likewise choose 50/50 whether to protect the other doc or the watcher. If Don is to be believed with his results, then neither doc protected the other.

This doesn't take into account that the docs didn't necessarily have to protect the other doc, and that don could have possibly watched a non-doc.

I'd argue it's more like 40%, but regardless, I agree with your overall point. Either the scum make a high-risk high-reward play in shooting Jebus, or it was a lower risk play by virtue of Don/spring being scum. I'm not sure if we can really determine which one it is based on numbers alone, considering if Don/spring/jebus are all town then scum would be in the kind of situation where they might be forced to take a high-risk play like this.

[Goatrevolt]

[quote="RedCoyote"]
Lynx flips 'nilla. p/quote[

is this a prediction or do you know? I just find this odd...

As for spolium, i believe that he was defending budgja from my ealrier attacks cuase they are scum. I was attacking budja with valid reasons, and he kept slapping a stop sign at me. His spring attack day 2 was weird. early on he gave the impression he did not believe spring, bu tlater he gave the impression he did. it seemed...unnatural progression for a townie. Like he was attacking spring but then i gave reasons against it, and then he was suddently also against hit. Just seems faked...like he was not sure how to react as scum, who maybe wanted spring dead, but then backracked when he realized it wasn't going to happen. that is my impressionj at least.

I don't know about sekinj. she keeps harpin on spring, but i can legitimize her stance so...i don't know. I have also attacked spring where i do not think her actions fit...so maybe hypocritical for me to pressure her on that?

so...yeah...posting drunk probably a bad idea...but i think senor spolio is of the scum temperment.

[Goatrevolt]

I feel similarly, but pinning a Goatscum case down is proving difficult. Like you said, the biggest offense he's guilty of is lurking.

You're struggling to pin a case on me because I'm town, and there isn't anything to pin on me. The lurking point has been blown out of proportion, probably because it is really the only point of attack you have.

RC: My lurking, which you yourself acknowledged was a sitewide absense, is enough for me to be a top suspect of yours. Why then was Spring's lurking day 1, which was not sitewide, not enough for you to be suspicious of her? Inconsistent application of scum tells?

it may take some thinking, but coming up with an order could be somewhat revealing. lets say we agree, for instance, to lynch in this order:

1) sekinj
2) goat
3) spolium

does anyone have a problem with this? we could roll dice and select a random order, or vote for top three suspects and choose the two with the most votes. we only need one more scum to bag a town win if SL and i are town.

Um...no.

Rolling dice is a surefire way to fail. Behavioral analysis, people.

Your playstyle has changed to me based off your scumhunting. After your claim, I didn't see any other cases from you. You vote sekinj asking to talk more, Rhinox under deadline, and FHQ under deadline. This contrasts with your aggressive play earlier day 1 against Spring. Though you're recent attack against Spolium was much more similar to day 1. I saw a somewhat fade into the background after your claim. On top of this, I saw a definite buddy up to Spring with posts 483, 497, and 525.

People play differently based on how they are perceived. I don't think this is much of a tell.

Plus, I'm not sure why the feud is my fault. Spring could drop it any time as well. I'm going to tell her my opinion just as forcefully as she tells her opinion. I don't see how that puts me in the wrong.

Regardless of who is in the wrong, you should just step up and end it. Your contribution this game could be summed up nearly entirely as:

"I think spring is town, but I disagree with her playstyle." I'm not going to lie, I have issues with how she has played this game as well. I think the "I'm going to do what I want, nah, nah, nah, nah" hurts the town, and is dumb play. But you haven't really moved on.

As for RC: I have him as town because he has consistently shown a townie mindset in how he handles situations. By that, I mean he changes his opinions based on new information in a fairly logical manner. For example, he was suspicious of spring, but amended that to her being likely town based on new information, which speaks of a townie legitimately hunting for scum rather than scum hunting for an available mislynch. The one thing that gives me pause is his pressure on me. I dislike his continued assertions that I'm scum, or scummy, but a distinct lack of any real reasons to back that up. Even now, he's looking for a reason to pin on me, rather than looking for scum based on reasons discovered. In other words, it's starting from the conclusion of me=scum, and then trying to build the supporting case, rather than starting from a neutral point and asking whether or not I am scum or town.

[Goatrevolt]

I coasted past your list don, because I didn't find it very representative. Considering Spolium was 3 on the list, and you were voting him, it clearly wasn't indicative of actual suspicion.

I thought it was just a sample for the point of arguing about dice rolling. So I said dice rolling is dumb, because it is.

[Goatrevolt]

RC: That was not my case on Spolium. That was me giving my drunken opinions of his play. Tonight is not the night, though. A friend is back in town that I haven't seen in a while, so...yeah mafia gets pushed down the ladder of priorities. Sorry guys and gals.

[Goatrevolt]

I skimmed up to this point.

I can't guarantee a high post frequency. This point of my life is not very conducive to intensive mafia playing. If you want to replace me, then you can, although I have never been replaced out of a game before, and I hate not honoring a commitment, and would like to play this one to the finish if possible. I'll leave that decision up to the mod and other players.

RC: I can't really address your suspicion on me because it's entirely based upon my absence. I understand that doesn't make me look pro-town in any sense, but I also don't see how that paints me as scum. Do you have anything from my play that leads you to believe I'm scum, or is it just my sparse posting as of late?

-----

Double cop, double doc? Double the fun!

I highly doubt all 5 of those roles are telling the truth. I would not put it past 1 or two of them to be scum. Here's a novel idea. Let's lynch based on behavior analysis, not role claims. Who feels like scum, and who feels like town, regardless of their alleged role claims or not. Seriously.

Lynx - I believe he is town. I have felt this way all game, and the manner of his counterclaim on Sekinj cements that for me. Scum pulling a counterclaim on someone who confirmed them as pro-town seems highly unlikely. I don't advocate lynching him at all.

Don - Hasn't rubbed me as scummy since day 1 when I pressured him on his FoS's but no vote. His target of RC made sense based on his claim of confusion. His target of Spring made sense last night. Not a lynch priority for me.

Spring - The likely choice for a N1 kill by scum. Spring is scum if the scum decided to not kill night 1 for the purpose of verifying her role. Seems extravagant and unnecessary. Not a lynch priority for me.

Sekinj - I could see her as scum. I need to read back through and see how her cop claim fits with her play, but the lynx target choice kind of surprises me. I don't recall her expressing suspicion of Lynx at all.

-----

No Spolium case as of now. To be honest, I'm not sure when/if I'll get around to putting one together. I don't have anything substantial on Spolium. There's no "Wham, only scum would say this!" post he made. It's based off my feeling that he's played a safe/wishy-washy game. Example: Early day 2, gave the impression of disbelief of Spring's claim. I argued in favor of Spring not being scum, he backed down. There is also stuff like day 1 his assertion of Ice avoiding him, which was quite the exaggeration, coupled with his later statement that "Ice9 felt town." Granted, he had backed off Ice by the end of day 1, but it was more of a "nobody else sees what I see in Ice, so I'll back off" not a "he feels town" kind of thing. I'm not getting the impression of genuine scumhunting or genuine suspicion from him, and I think some of the inconsistencies in belief (Ice felt town, swap on spring) are a result of him trying to tailor his opinions to fit that of the town.

Regardless of role claims, I still think Spolium is our best lynch, strictly on behavior. This game seems designed to confuse. The easiest way to find scum is to stick to who is scum based on behavior/ties to Budja, etc, regardless of claimed roles.

Here's my take on the game:

Town: Lynx, Spring, Don --- Ice, RC, Rhinox --- Sekinj, Spolium: Scum

Those in the middle are variables for me. Not much content from the artist formerly known as Ice over the course of the game so it's tough to get a concrete read, but I'll stick with my early town read for now. RC is a tricky one. I felt he was scummy in how he handled spring day 1. He felt strongly town day 2. Today I have a mixed read. The one nagging thing at my mind is that I believe he is suspicious of Sekinj, yet a recent post of his was written in more of a light tone, which doesn't express true suspicion. I'll look into that more. Rhinox, hmm...will look into more.

-----

I'm willing to claim if necessary. I don't see any reason not to go through with a mass claim at this point. Who remains unclaimed? Me, Rhinox...anyone else? Ice?

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, you do realize you contradict yourself a couple times in that last post right?

The major contradiction being:

I don't have anything substantial on Spolium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of role claims, I still think Spolium is our best lynch, strictly on behavior.

The minor contradiction being that you feel strongly that at least one of the claimed PR's is scum, but you'd rather lynch a player you don't have anything substantial on.

It's not a contradiction. What I mean by substantial is that there isn't any one post or any one thing Spolium has done that you can pick out and say "This is why he's scum." It's more a collective feeling over time that he's playing it safe, and is not genuine in his suspicion. You are attributing that to the idea that I don't really think Spolium is scum, which is wrong. I don't have a strong case against him because he hasn't been overtly scummy, but I do think his play adds up to him being scum regardless.

As for the minor contradiction, again I don't see anything contradictory. I pointed out that we should lynch strictly on behavior. Behavior points to Spolium as the most likely to be scum. Just because I believe that at least one of the claimed roles is probably lying doesn't mean that I advocate our lynch should be one of the claimed roles. In fact, I think we should put aside role claims and stick to behavioral analysis. My analysis is that Spolium is scum. He wasn't one of the claimed roles, so be it.

Also, there are 4 claimed roles. There are 5 unclaimed or vanilla claimed. If 1 claimed role is lying, that's 1/4. If there are 2 scum remaining, then going for an unclaimed is 1/5. You're kind of splitting hairs there, especially because scum could all be unclaimed, or all be claimed, etc. Behavior over role claim.

If sekinj flips scum: Goat is the next lynch.

If sekinj flips town, one if not both of RC and Don is scum.

Reasons?

[Goatrevolt]

Goat, there are FIVE claimed roles.

Are we talking claimed players in general or claimed players with non-vanilla roles? I'm seeing 5 claimed players, 4 roles. Doc, Cop, Cop, Watcher, Vanilla. Am I missing anything?

Also, I'm surprised you addressed that seemingly unimportant point of confusion yet have no comments on anything I've said about you. Do you agree with my assessment of your play?

Question: Why was I second on your "players I am fine with lynching" list day 2? Process of Elimination? Actual suspicion?

[Goatrevolt]

Early day 2, gave the impression of disbelief of Spring's claim. I argued in favor of Spring not being scum, he backed down.

(1)

There is also stuff like day 1 his assertion of Ice avoiding him, which was quite the exaggeration, coupled with his later statement that "Ice9 felt town." Granted, he had backed off Ice by the end of day 1, but it was more of a "nobody else sees what I see in Ice, so I'll back off" not a "he feels town" kind of thing.

(2)

1. Didn't I explain this at the time? I wasn't especially disbelieving of Spring's claim, but I posited a double claim gambit as a possibility. Your argument did a lot to put it's feasibility into perspective, but then I never pushed it with conviction because I didn't view it as an overly strong point.

2. I explained this when it was brought up before (see #638 and #640) - remember, when you were pushing the past tense in "Ice9 rung town" as deceptive?

1. I feel you pushed it far harder, or presented it with more gusto, than you would something you don't think is an "overtly strong point."

2. I still think this is deceptive, although I'm thinking it's more of an unintentional slip in remembering how you handled Ice. What I mean by that is you say he rang town, but the reality was not that at all. It was more like you dropped your suspicion of him in light of others not having the same suspicion. That's a far cry from "rang town." That's more of a "nobody else sees it so I'm dropping it" deal.

Was there any other behaviour which you considered "playing it safe"? What about my outright defence of Budja - was I playing it safe then? Was I playing it safe when I argued with you/Ice, or (later) RC?

Arguing isn't my meter stick for determining playing it safe. It's more that I can't recall you ever pushing someone with strong conviction or genuine suspicion.

Also, was that an outright defense of Budja? I thought it was more of a "I want to see how he responds to this, but those questions are unfair." Can you point me to anywhere you defended him as being a wrongly pressured townie?

It's odd that you've hopped between "Spolium is generally playing it safe, so I can't really provide evidence in the form of his posts" and pointing out specific instances in which you think I was playing it safe, where you could easily have referred to a couple of posts to illustrate the point. I don't quite understand why - it seems like you're trying not to invest too heavily in your case against me.

I'm not invested heavily in terms of going back and spending a long time dredging up a case. I'm invested heavily in terms of being the biggest proponent of lynching you.

Question: Why was I second on your "players I am fine with lynching" list day 2? Process of Elimination? Actual suspicion?

Answer: As I said already, the contrast between your play D1 and D2/D3 was significant enough that I considered you to be a valid target for investigation.

This was around the middle of day 2. My lurking was far less severe by that point. I didn't lurk at all throughout the entirety of day 1, and wasn't lurking during the beginning into the middle of day 2. I just don't get how the contrast in my play from day 1 to day 2 (somewhat more lurky, sitewide absence based on RL issues) somehow was enough to spring me to 2nd on your list, considering there wasn't a whole lot of a contrast at that point.

---

RC: I can't really address your suspicion on me because it's entirely based upon my absence. I understand that doesn't make me look pro-town in any sense, but I also don't see how that paints me as scum. Do you have anything from my play that leads you to believe I'm scum, or is it just my sparse posting as of late?

Well, you've managed to lurk your way past most every important role claim in this game. Your play is inconsistent, as we've documented time and again. You've ignored questions and asked questions without showing much of an interest in following up with them. As I've noted before, I think a case can be made for you attempting to covertly derail a Budja lynch by means of turning the discussion toward less important matters.

Ignored questions? Where?

Asked questions without following up? Sure. Everyone does that. If I ask a question, and someone gives an answer that answers my question, there's no need to follow it up with more.

Covertly derailing Budja lynch: Weak case. Budja made some scummy posts at the end of the day and I was the only one who jumped on him for them. Everyone else was also caught up in discussing spring, yourself included. I made it clear that Spring was a deadline lynch choice only for me, and that I would only support a lynch of Fhq or Budja. My vote was on Fhq, and swapped to Budja when his wagon had more steam and he made some scummy posts to swing the balance for me. Sure, I probably discussed Spring more than Budja towards the end of the day, but so did everyone else. It was the hot topic of discussion at that point, and I had some legitimate concerns with Spring's play.

I highly doubt all 5 of those roles are telling the truth. I would not put it past 1 or two of them to be scum. Here's a novel idea. Let's lynch based on behavior analysis, not role claims. Who feels like scum, and who feels like town, regardless of their alleged role claims or not. Seriously.

I don't agree with this. This seems like an unneccessarily risky thing to do at this point in time. The claimed roles all kind of protect one another by virtue of just being alive tonight.

This makes absolutely no sense. If one of the claimed roles is scum, please tell, how exactly are they protecting another claimed role? I really dislike your idea of ignoring anyone who has roleclaimed. Granted, my top suspect is not someone with a claimed role, but nobody should be off limits simply because they claimed a role. If someone with a claimed role looks the most to be like scum, they should be lynched, not spared.

It's kind of strange how you bring this up and then basically call all the role claims townish or "Not lynch priorities" (Well, except for sekinj).

Strange, how? My stance is that role claims should not be off limits, and that we should lynch based on who looks the most like scum, regardless of a claimed role. It just so happens that the majority of those roleclaimed do not look like scum to me. That doesn't mean I should just not point out my stance because it isn't really all that applicable based on my own suspicion for the time being.

The one nagging thing at my mind is that I believe he is suspicious of Sekinj, yet a recent post of his was written in more of a light tone, which doesn't express true suspicion. I'll look into that more.

If we lynch sekinj, and she's town, then Lynx could die without anything new. If, as spring has been able to point out through her questions of the Mod, sanities aren't revealed upon death, we get literally nothing usable from either Cop going into D4.

If we leave sekinj alive, I feel very strongly that Lynx will also be left alive.

The point is we shouldn't lynch Sekinj unless we think she's scum. I think she's a strong scum suspect, but I'd rather lynch Spolium. The "what if she's town" consideration shouldn't be a deterrence to lynching someone if all signs point to them being scum. You seem to be advocating that we learn something useful about Spring via lynching Spolium (I think this is a crap reason to lynch him), but doesn't that idea break down if Spolium is town? Why is that not a deterrence from him being a lynch choice of yours?

But I'm having trouble understanding why you'd be more comfortable on the sekinj wagon than the Spolium wagon... just because you think that my vote for Spolium is less sincere?

??? I'm on the Spolium wagon. I never said I'd be more comfortable on the sekinj wagon? Where is this coming from?

I'm willing to claim if necessary. I don't see any reason not to go through with a mass claim at this point.

To protect the integrity of what remaining secrecy we have left? The only thing the town has on the mafia inherently is their specific role, why should anyone be in a rush to reveal it?

The point of mass claim: To give the town a clear understanding of the setup to aid in finding and catching scum.

The reason not to mass claim: To needlessly out roles to give scum a leg up in who they should kill/target for night actions.

The situation we find ourselves in how: FIVE outed roles. Are 4 more people sandbagging roles that we should not out to scum? We've outed practically everything I would think is possible to out at this point. We might as well go all the way, get a clearer indication of the setup, and help us determine a better lynch choice. I have a hard time seeing what else we stand to lose from this.

edit: probably best to hold off until tomorrow, considering imminent deadline.

----

This is a good point here... I overlooked it initially. If Sekinj is the insane cop, how does that make me mafia? Presumably, that would mean lynx would be a sane cop, and lynx is the one with an innocent on me *headscratch*

If sekinj is an insane cop then Lynx could not be the sane cop; he would be scum.

given his claim, I've also ruled out that he is a godfather. If he was a godfather he'd be sitting pretty with an inno result, rather than putting him self out there with a counter. So either I am sane, or he is scum (from my pov)

A cop could also be naive. There are a lot of possibilities for varying sanity.

----

I think Goat's play has been lackluster D1

Yet your choice of protection was between me and Spolium?

---

So I do think Spolium's lynching can be justified outside of any sort of sanity argument, but, if Spolium comes up scum, then it undeniably puts spring's sanity back into question. This wouldn't be as necessary if we didn't have two Doctors/Cops, but now that we do I think this should be our primary concern. spring is a literal walking timebomb if she's a Quack, and I, for one, see it as an increasingly probable role given the way this setup is breaking down.

That increasingly probability, as you might imagine, is only fueling my interest in a Spolium lynch.

This is a bad reason to support a Spolium lynch. How does spring protecting him make Spolium more likely to be scum? Aren't we lynching players because we believe them to be scum, or is that no longer the case?

One thing I don't get is that you don't support a lynch on any of the claimed roles because of the information loss on the "what if they are town" angle. However, we learn nothing useful if Spolium is town in regards to spring. Why is that not a deterrent the same way that it is for you to lynch any other claimed role? Seems inconsistent.

---

Because you and sekinj contradicted, and then you changed your story to allign with her. Furthermore, between sekinj, spring, and lynx, sekinj was most suspected to be scum. I would not have expected scum sekinj to claim what was in her role PM first, assuming that she had no way of knowing you would change your story (i.e. she would have to had assumed you were correct the first time), as well as without knowning whether spring or lynx would be able to corroborate your story or hers. Thus, I now strongly believe sekinj is town.

I consider it somewhat of a town tell, by simple nature of scum not wanting to be the first to claim anything. However, I don't think it's terribly hard for scum to claim the way their role PM was arranged, considering scum have roles as well as town.

---

I can't guarantee I'll be on tomorrow for the deadline. I won't have access to my own computer, and I'll have to see about getting access elsewhere.

[Goatrevolt]

And I was blocked. So we have nothing new on the cops. I tried to look at ice.

That would mean Spring is probably a jailkeeper. That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked.

I targetted sekinj.

So I may be in fact a roleblocker or jailkeeper.

Rationale? Was post 1124 an intentional lie or did you change your mind over night?

Although I still think don is lying scum, my suspicion has actually dropped a small bit, due to the fact that with all the power roles, I think we're meant to get paranoid/distracted and lynch them off, rather than searching for scum. I am interested to hear what don claims his results are.

I really wish we had RC's results. Maybe we should comb through his posts looking for crumbs to see who he targetted and if he got any interesting results?

Here's 1 result:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe don's claim. I think don is the Watcher and his reports have made sense to me thus far. I've been

tracking

his posts pretty well and everything he's said has led me to pretty much do a 180 from my position on him earlier.

I found the other result, but I want to mass claim first.

Well good, that confirms you are in fact a watcher.

If it wasn't completely obvious when RC called me out on it, I'm also a watcher. And its almost certainly massclaim time.

don - Watcher
goat - ????
Ice - Watcher
Rhinox - ????
sekinj - Cop
Spolium - Vanilla
spring - Doc (Unknowing Jailkeeper?)

Night three I watched spring, and saw don visit her. Night two fhq watched goatrevolt and saw Jebus visit him. Night one whoever was supposed to be in this player slot was missing in action and no watch was submitted.

I have some ideas, but we need to fill in those two blanks before we continue.

Wow. I have some ideas myself, but I'd also like to see it all out first.

I missed the interaction between Ice and RC, but both Ice and Don are able to cross-confirm each other (in addition to RC confirming Don). So, both check out as legit watchers.

Spolium: Were you informed at all about being roleblocked night 1 or 2?

I'm vanilla. Rhinox, you're up.

[Goatrevolt]

Is it normal for someone to be told they're a doc but actually be a jailkeeper?

No. Jailkeeper is a variation on the doc role, but generally it's given as an entirely separate role.

That would mean Spring is probably a jailkeeper. That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked.

Question for you: if I was scum attempting a NK on N1, what reason would I have to think I was being roleblocked, as opposed to the target being protected?

Sekinj was informed about being roleblocked or is lying (doubtful). Hence, I'm wondering if you were informed about anything at all related to that.

Spolium: Were you informed at all about being roleblocked night 1 or 2?

No.

Ok.

I agree that its looking bad for spolium at the moment. I also want to point out that don and ice can be scum working together here... however, that could just be my paranoia because its hard to argue with the crumb goat found.

Proved watcher doesn't necessarily mean town. Considering there are only two vanilla claims, and I know I'm town, I know for a fact at least one player who has claimed a role is lying scum.

in the same post as the other crumb:

Unlike some others, I didn't find that whole DO "let's lynch a Doctor claim" thing to be scummy. Like I said at the time, seemed more newbish than scummy to me. Rhinox may be a little overly concerned with defense and not enough with offense, but that really isn't enough to put him over the edge. I've played with Rhinox before, and (don't want to talk about it too much because it's an ongoing game) I think I have a better feel for reading Rhinox. Like, you can't really see it here, but I can

track

the way he was pressuring people yesterday to explaining why DO was scummy other than because of that one comment I mentioned. You can argue it might seem a little too defensive, but to me that shows he's interested in getting other player's opinions.

So I guess RC must have tracked me/DO at some point and got no result. That might explain why I was feeling that RC was buddying up to me hard.

Yep, that was the other result. I wanted to see how your claim matched before pointing it out.

And I was blocked. So we have nothing new on the cops. I tried to look at ice.

That would mean Spring is probably a jailkeeper. That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked.

This doesn't add up, it's either a slip revealing that you know Spolium attempted to NK N1 or just a crappy argument: I targetted Spolium N2 and there was a kill.

If it is a crappy argument, it is also scummy because of its crappiness.

Really? Seriously? You don't think it's possible Spolium has a scum buddy who is also capable of submitting a night kill and may choose to do so the following night after blockage N1? I'm not sure I follow your argument. Spolium couldn't have failed in a NK attempt N1 because of events that took place the following night?

To put it simply, there were 3 possibilities for the lack of N1 kill:

1. Jebus saved a kill attempt on you.
2. You saved a kill attempt on Spolium
3. Scum didn't submit a kill

Now there is a 4th option:

4. Spolium tried to make the kill and got blocked.

[Goatrevolt]

Sekinj was informed about being roleblocked

or is lying (doubtful)

What makes you say this? Sekinj never said that she was

informed

of being roleblocked.

Weak semantics argument? Or did you miss this post:

And I was blocked

. So we have nothing new on the cops. I tried to look at ice.

Don - did yu get anything?
Spring - who did you protect?

Also:

Considering there are only two vanilla claims, and I know I'm town, I know for a fact at least one player who has claimed a role is lying scum.

How do you know for a

fact

that there are two scum remaining?

I don't. I'm making assumptions on what I believe to be the most likely scenario. I'm playing off the idea that there are 3 scum total (I remember we discussed this back in day 2 somewhere). If I'm wrong, then we have 1 less scum to catch. That's far better than being wrong about 2 scum and realizing you have to find 1 more than you thought.

[Goatrevolt]

Weak semantics argument?

Whether or not sekinj received explicit confirmation of being roleblocked affects the assessment that Spring's protection of scum-Spolium caused a lack of NK on N1 (no no, it isn't a semantic argument).

Or did you miss this post:

And I was blocked.

I didn't miss it - I was wondering how you derived that sekinj was "informed" of being roleblocked, when she could have assumed a roleblock based on a lack of investigation result.

I derived that sekinj was informed of being roleblocked when she explicitly said: "I was blocked," as crazy as that may sound. Now, maybe she targeted Ice, and he's an untargetable, and the moderator told her that her investigation failed, and she lied and said she was roleblocked instead of simply having a failed investigation, and it just so happens that the player capable of blocking also targeted her last night. I'm inclined to believe my explanation fits better, however.

You're reaching pretty far here.

-----

Rhinox: I'll echo the call for details on your deputy roll PM. I'm interested specifically in how your PM is worded in regards to how you learn results. Meaning, does your PM imply the existence of multiple cops/deny the possibility of multiple cops, etc?

-----

Ice, some questions:

With an already revealed doctor, I

find it extremely hard to believe that we'd have both a second doctor AND a watcher

. Three roles that punish scum for targeting the most pro town targets seems very, very excessive.

Don, did you get any useful results?

QFT

(The jig is up, apparently)

Considering your claim of watcher, why was a watcher + 2nd doc hard to believe?

Vote: don_johnson

If you ignore his claim,

which is now EXTREMELY questionable given the appearance of another claimed investigative role

, then his actions surrounding the early budja wagon become extremely damning.

Spring protects sekinj tonight, and my opinion is that sek should investigate one of {Spolium, Rhinox}, but in the end its up to her.

Why did it take someone else claiming an investigative role for you to vote Don, considering you've claimed an investigative role yourself?

Compare:

Something is very, very wrong with these claims.

It could very well be massclaim time after all of this.

With:

Is anyone vanilla??

maybe the mod put in tons of roles so we would all counter claim and kill each other off. maybe that is how the town is balanced with the scum.

I definitely am ready for a mass claim.

A mass claim right now will just add to the confusion. I think we need to have a lynch and a night to resolve whats wrong with the current claims before we think about massclaiming.

And trying to outguess the mod is a recipe for disaster.

Also, for what should be obvious reasons, nobody should answer whether or not they are vanilla.

You suggest mass claim, but then shoot it down? What changed?

[Goatrevolt]

I derived that sekinj was informed of being roleblocked when she explicitly said: "I was blocked," as crazy as that may sound. Now, maybe she targeted Ice, and he's an untargetable, and the moderator told her that her investigation failed, and she lied and said she was roleblocked instead of simply having a failed investigation, and it just so happens that the player capable of blocking also targeted her last night. I'm inclined to believe my explanation fits better, however.

You're missing the point.

- Sekinj stated "

I was blocked

".
- Spring announced that she targeted sekinj.
- You concluded that Spring targeting me could've been the cause of the lack of NK on N1.
- I asked what reason I would have, as scum, to believe I was roleblocked rather than have targeted a protected player.
- You replied that Sekinj was "informed" about being roleblocked and that you considered it relevant to know whether I was informed of being roleblocked.

I reject the notion that I am "reaching pretty far" - given that sekinj did not clarify whether she was (a) explicity told or (b) just received no result, it is interesting that you asked me a question based on the assumption that (a) was true, particularly when I am more likely to be scum in that scenario than in the other.

Do you actually have any basis for making the assumption?

She claimed she was blocked. To me that fairly clearly means she was targeted by a roleblocking action. I don't see how it could be interpreted differently. She would be playing a risky and dangerous game claiming to be roleblocked if that was a lie.

This isn't some crazy or absurd suggestion. It's fairly simple and fits the information, but you seem determined to try to undermine the obvious. I didn't even suggest it was the reason for the missing kill night 1, only that it was a possibility, but you seem to either want to get rid of the idea that it should even be on the table as a possibility at all or toss baseless suspicion on me because I assumed that "I got blocked" is the same as "I was targeted by a roleblock" despite the fact that they are synonymous.

Rhinox: I'll echo the call for details on your deputy roll PM. I'm interested specifically in how your PM is worded in regards to how you learn results. Meaning, does your PM imply the existence of multiple cops/deny the possibility of multiple cops, etc?

See above^^ my previous post.

Until this morning, I was a normal townie, with no indication of being a deputy. This morning, I recieved a PM saying I was activated as a deputy. I was given a list of Lynx's 3 investigations results: N1 Jebus, N2 myself, and N3 Goat all Not guilty. As part of the flavor poem (paraphrased), I was told that I could ensure Lynx's death wasn't for nothing. It also says I assume my role because lynx has died, although it does not specify that I could only replace lynx or if I could replace whichever cop was killed first, if there is more than 1 cop. It gives no indication of how many cops exist.

Unfortunate. I was hoping it would shed some light on the possibility or lack thereof of a 2nd cop.

From town->scum: Spring/Rhinox/Don/Ice/Sekinj/Spolium.

Vote Spolium

[Goatrevolt]

Spring is a second mafia roleblocker. After no one counterclaimed budja and she had been run up, she counterclaimed her own scumpartner under the false assumption that there just wasn't a doctor at all, in order to survive the day herself and hopefully get falsecleared for the remainder of the game.

What explains the no kill N1 if this is the case?

I was not informed of being roleblocked. I gathered that from the supporting evidence. My PM said I investigated Ice but I was not successful and returned no result.

Rhin - I doubt the mod is looking very favorably on our attempts to compare PMs at this point. he may be intentionally adding differences.

Why claim "I was blocked" if you weren't certain that was the case???

So failed result. Possibilities:

1. You're lying.
2. You were roleblocked.
3. Ice is untargetable or something else that would cause no result.

I don't like the don/ice confirming each other thing. I was supicious of don before, and I was obviously suspicious of ice. don may have claim watcher early to get out of being lynched, and now, after discussing how they were goign to compare it and "Confirm" each other duirng the night, ice come backs and claims to be the 2nd watcher. This is only after 2 docs and 2 cops have popped up.

Don is confirmed to be a watcher. Ice9 is confirmed to have an ability he used to target Spring last night, unless both Ice and Don are scum and put their eggs all in one basket. Based on Ice's push on Don yesterday, I doubt they are scum together. I think both are likely to be what they claim, although that doesn't necessarily speak to alignment.

[Goatrevolt]

Why claim "I was blocked" if you weren't certain that was the case???

because the result of my investigation seemed like I was blocked.

If I was lying, wouldn't I jsut come back and say, you're right, it said I was roleblocked. There's no reason for me to go against the grain now if I am lying. (wifom I know)

After spring claimed to target you, and would be the only logical player capable of blocking, no, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. It's not really WIFOM either.

If you had the option of 2 or 3, which one would you say? "I was blocked" or "there may be something with ice's role that makes me get no result"

The one that is far more likely and obvious. Roleblocked.

Plus - saying "I was blocked" does not exclude your option 3. Whether the block came from a role blocker targeting me, or from somthing in ice's role that caused me to get no result, the fact is something blocked me, so that is what I said.

That's basically just trying to stretch semantics to fit. Blocked in this game implies roleblocked.

She claimed she was blocked. To me that fairly clearly means she was targeted by a roleblocking action. I don't see how it could be interpreted differently.

Let me make this clear: I am

not

trying to interpret it in any way other than "Spring roleblocked sekinj" (I'm taking that as a given for now).

I'm asking you why you assumed that "sekinj was informed" about the roleblock (i.e. was told "

you were roleblocked

", as opposed to assuming a roleblock due to a lack of result). I want to know this because it is directly relevant to your

Spolium's NK was blocked by Spring

hypothesis.

I'd also like you to answer this question properly:

if I was scum attempting a NK on N1, what reason would I have to think I was being roleblocked, as opposed to the target being protected?

What's the difference in distinction between Spolium tried to make a kill and had it fail by either protect/roleblock and Spolium was informed he was blocked when the conclusion is the same? - Spolium: Scum. Failed at killing someone night 1. I have a thought here, but I want to hear your answer to that first.

I thought Sekinj was informed she was blocked. If that was the case, my assumption is that you would have also been informed you were blocked if you tried to make a kill. In other words: Sekinj targeted by spring, tried to perform action, was informed she was roleblocked compared to: Spolium targeted by spring, tried to perform action, was informed he was roleblocked.

just because I think there are mafia roleblockers does not mean to think spring is one of them. I think she is a paranoid doc. however...

This makes no sense:

You think there are multiple scum roleblockers, but you think Spring is a paranoid doc? Where is the information leading you to believe a 2nd roleblocker is coming from in that case, if you don't necessarily think it's Spring? Nobody else has claimed to have been blocked, so there's no physical evidence of another non-Spring roleblocker. Explain?

Thoguht: Tony has emphasized several times that we should not discuss the poems in the PMs and that they are for flavor only. Spring is currently "confirmed" because of the similarities between her and Jebus's poem. Maybe Tony is trying to tell us we should throw that out? or maybe we are too close to the truth...

That's not at all the reason I have Spring as town. Is this the reason everyone else has her chalked up as town? Why?

[Goatrevolt]

@Goat, no kill on N1 because of spolium being jailed is a possibility, but it is not usable as an increment to Spolium's culpability as there is no evidence that it the likeliest hypothesis amongst alternative scenarii. You using this argument to convict Spolium is indeed crappy, and you not recognizing that is indeed scummy. Agree/disagree?

Where am I using this argument to convict Spolium?

My post:

And I was blocked. So we have nothing new on the cops. I tried to look at ice.

That would mean Spring is probably a jailkeeper. That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked.

Point it out.

[Goatrevolt]

What's the difference in distinction between Spolium tried to make a kill and had it fail by either protect/roleblock and Spolium was informed he was blocked when the conclusion is the same? - Spolium: Scum. Failed at killing someone night 1.

This does not address my point in any way whatsoever. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Let's put it this way; your hypothesis relies on the idea that scum-Spolium realised that he was being roleblocked. Therein lies the problem - you do not adequately explain why scum-Spolium would be inclined to believe that he was being roleblocked over his target being protected (instead of just targeting someone else, which would've resulted in no kill N2).

I don't know why you didn't just come out and say this right away. It would have saved a lot of pointless back and forth and confusion. I had absolutely no clue what point you were trying to make.

Scum are typically not informed when they try to kill someone and it fails due to doc save. People are generally told when they try to perform an action and it fails due to a roleblock. One is a successful action that produces no result, and the other is an unsuccessful attempt to perform an action. I don't think I've ever played in a game where I was roleblocked and not informed of it.

That's all well and good, but you still haven't answered my question.

Why

did you think sekinj was informed that she was blocked, when she did not confirm this? Why did you attack me instead of clarifying the facts with sekinj first? It seems more like you were looking for an excuse to push for votes on me than to sincerely consider the consequences of sekinj being roleblocked by Spring.

I've answered that question at least 3 times. When she said "I was blocked" I took it to mean "I was roleblocked." When someone says they were roleblocked, it's natural to assume they are claiming to be roleblocked because the mod said "Hey, you were roleblocked." If that is not the question you want answered, then be a little more clear.

The obvious conclusion to draw when someone claims "I was blocked" is that they are claiming to have been roleblocked. I didn't first check the facts because I didn't even consider the possibility that I was wrong. It seemed pretty cut and dry to me.

I don't how you can claim that I'm using this as a means to push votes on you (spring claimed the same thing) when I haven't done that at all. Point out where I've tried to make the argument that you are scum as a result of this possibility? All I've done is point out the

possibility

and then repeatedly try to defend that stance (the stance that Spolium getting targeted N1 is a possible reason for the lack of kill). Nowhere is me saying "This is what happened" yet I'm getting misrepped into that stance.

[Goatrevolt]

i am trying not to intervene in the goat/spolium debate here as i thought it was going somewhere, but it seems like you guys are arguing in circles. goat, what makes you think scumspolium is going to admit to being roleblocked when/if he committed the night1 kill?

He wouldn't. That's not why I asked him. I asked him specifically to get as much information on the table as possible, which could possibly be useful later.

I think people are attributing me asking Spolium if he was told of a roleblock to mean that I am accusing Spolium of being roleblocked and lying about it. I'm not. There's no evidence for me to argue that being fact.

With that being said, I'm bothered by Spolium's behavioral reaction. He instantly attacked me for jumping to the conclusion that "I was blocked" implied confirmation of being roleblocked. I get the distinct feeling he knew sekinj wasn't actually directly informed of a block because he was blocked himself and wasn't directly informed.

To everyone else: When you saw "I was blocked" did you jump to the same conclusion I did. To me that was the natural conclusion, yet Spolium didn't agree and gave me serious grief over it. Inside knowledge?

[Goatrevolt]

I don't know why you didn't just come out and say this right away. It would have saved a lot of pointless back and forth and confusion. I had absolutely no clue what point you were trying to make.

First I asked why you thought scum-Spolium would assume being roleblocked over targeting someone who was protected. Your response was "

sekinj was informed of a roleblock, therefore Spolium would have been informed of a roleblock

". I wanted to know why you thought sekinj was informed of a roleblock instead of deducing a roleblock from a lack of information, because you seemed to disregard the possibility that sekinj was not explicitly informed (meaning that I would not have been informed, which took us back to "

why would scum-Spolium assume a roleblock over a protect

").

If you had a

good

reason to think sekinj was explicitly informed of being roleblocked then I might've approached it a different way, but what really bothered me was how you failed to address a simple question over and over:

Are you serious? I answered that question every time you asked it. In fact, 4 times to be exact. Are you deliberately ignoring my answer? Maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted so you just assumed your question remained unanswered? What is it?

Here are the 4 times I answer it:

1.

Question for you: if I was scum attempting a NK on N1, what reason would I have to think I was being roleblocked, as opposed to the target being protected?

Sekinj was informed about being roleblocked or is lying (doubtful).

Hence, I'm wondering if you were informed about anything at all related to that

You ask me why I assume roleblock over protection. My answer is because I assume sekinj was informed.

2.

What makes you say this? Sekinj never said that she was informed of being roleblocked.

Weak semantics argument? Or did you miss this post:

And I was blocked. So we have nothing new on the cops. I tried to look at ice.

Don - did yu get anything?
Spring - who did you protect?

You ask me why I say she was informed of being roleblocked. I point to the post where she says "And I was blocked." My inference is obvious here, that I'm taking "I was blocked" to mean "I was targeted with a roleblock."

3.

I didn't miss it - I was wondering how you derived that sekinj was "informed" of being roleblocked, when she could have assumed a roleblock based on a lack of investigation result.

I derived that sekinj was informed of being roleblocked when she explicitly said: "I was blocked,"

Again. I give the same exact answer, after you ask the same question.

4.

She claimed she was blocked. To me that fairly clearly means she was targeted by a roleblocking action.

Again. Same answer.

So you're accusing me of dodging a simple question, when in reality I answered it every single time you asked it.

It's funny you should say that. One reason for which I found it noteworthy was that I thought it could suggest that

you

had inside knowledge. After all,

you're

the one who jumped to a conclusion about sekinj's information and used it as a basis to push your case on me - I have only been asking why you jumped to that conclusion.

I asked you to point out where I've pushed this as a case against you. You haven't done that. If you're going to accuse me of pushing this as a case against you, why haven't you actually pointed out where I've done it? Right now you're just straight misrepresenting me.

Explain how I could possibly have inside knowledge? I was never targeted by Spring. The only way I could possibly know about the flavor is if I'm your scum buddy. Also, it turns out I was wrong. My inside sources feeding me this information need to be taken out back and shot, cause they gave me incorrect inside information.

I would also note that Rhinox understood what I was getting at, and so did sekinj. I will be interested to see other responses.

Rhinox's post is ambiguous as to what he meant, although I'd guess you're probably right about that. Sekinj would obviously understand what you meant, considering she's the one who has the information in the first place, and didn't actually have to draw a conclusion.

goat, what makes you think scumspolium is going to admit to being roleblocked when/if he committed the night1 kill?

QFT. Goat claims to have tried to "get as much information on the table as possible", but the answer was never going to be "yes" because that would suggest that I was trying to perform a night action and was therefore lying about being VT.

However, if the motivation behind the question was

not

that he thought I was lying about being roleblocked (again, as Goat claims), what information did he think he could derive from it? It's an empty question with zero useful return, short of scum-Spolium screwing up and admitting to receiving a roleblock confirmation. Goat's stated rationale for asking the question is therefore vague and dissatisfactory, and it strikes me as a question asked only to give the

impression

of scumhunting.

The point of the question was actually to attempt to determine the validity of sekinj's claim, not your own. If player B claims to be blocked, and player A has been previously blocked, you ask A if the story matches. I really don't see how you can possibly attempt to construe this as scummy, and the "appearance of scumhunting" accusation is weak as all hell. You're pulling 1/8th of a post out, saying the information generated from that question wasn't immediately applicable, and then saying I'm just trying to give off the impression of scumhunting. Meanwhile you ignore the rest of my post, and subsequent posts today entirely. Taken out of context much? Strawman?

FOS Goat

, in case it wasn't obvious.

Why only a FoS and not a vote?

What are your thoughts on the rest of the game?

[Goatrevolt]

@Goat, ok. For some reason I thought you were using it as an argument. I would need to look at that conversation closer.

Nah. Both you and Spolium have accused me of using it as an argument, which I haven't done. Granted, I do think Spolium's reaction to all of this is telling, though. So, it has kind of turned into a reason for me thinking Spolium is scum based on the discussion of it not being a reason for finding him scum. If you can follow that.

Now, Goat, what do you think of sekinj?

Mixed reviews, but overall scummy.

There are some things that would suggest she is a cop, such as voting for a no lynch day 2 under the guise of getting more information, or her claim that Lynx was town early day 3 fits the claim. She would have had to plan her claim out ahead of time if she's lying scum.

However, there has been a complete lack of any real scumhunting, and the whole RB discussion between her and don is pretty scummy. I don't understand how she could instantly jump to the conclusion of 2 scum RBs, but yet still consider you town.

I don't know how much stock to put in the differences between Rhinox's claim and her own. It's possible Tony mixes it up, as well as being entirely possible that Sekinj is simply lying to cover up a lack of real investigations. I haven't seen enough information to make an informed statement about which is more likely.

I agree with your point about the pushing for a massclaim. It doesn't make sense from the perspective of a cop with no results. I remember calling EA out for that same thing in mini 696 when he claimed to be a tracker, yet supported the early mass claim.

I don't see the planning with Lynx as a very meaningful tell either way.

Overall: More like to be scum than town. My 2nd pick for a lynch.

[Goatrevolt]

Are you serious? I answered that question every time you asked it. In fact, 4 times to be exact. Are you deliberately ignoring my answer? Maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted so you just assumed your question remained unanswered? What is it?

Yes, I'm serious.

Here are the 4 times I answer it:
<snip>
So you're accusing me of dodging a simple question, when in reality I answered it every single time you asked it.

No, you did not. I asked - repeatedly - why you assumed that sekinj was directly informed of a roleblock

as opposed to assuming it based on a lack of information

, and all of your answers amounted to "

Spring said she was roleblocked, therefore I assumed she was roleblocked

". This does not address the question which I was asking.

Question: Why did you assume sekinj was informed.
Answer: Because when she said "I was blocked" the implication is: I was targeted by a roleblock. I didn't think someone would claim to be roleblocked unless they were sure (aka informed) that they were blocked.

Why is that not an answer? That directly answers the question. You can't just wave your arm around and say it doesn't answer the question and then use it to toss baseless suspicion on me.

Spolium, give me a sample answer to the question. I want to see what a "real" answer looks like. What answer were you looking for?

I missed your request for that information - trying to establish my stance here is particularly frustrating as I can't fathom how you keep missing the point.

I missed the point entirely. I don't know why you didn't just point it out. It was clear I didn't understand what you were going for, so why not just say "This is my point"?

You've been pushing for my lynch since D3. At the start of D4, when sekinj reported being blocked and Spring speculated that she could therefore be a roleblocker, the

first thing you did

was make a speculation based on the assumption that I am scum: "

That adds another possible reason for the lack of kill night 1. Spolium tried to make the kill and was blocked

". This is one sign of an attempt to drum up further suspicion against me.

You're really misrepresenting me here. I never implied that this meant you were scum. All I said was "Here is another possible explanation." I have not used this a single time whatsoever as means to push a case.

I go into the thread. I see sekinj is blocked. I see spring targeted her. I connect the dots. I think about who else spring targeted, you. I think about the missing N1 kill. I point out the possibility. You overreact, and assume I'm using it as some insidious means to drum up suspicion on you.

Further, as Spring has pointed out, you posited only one out of any number of possible scenarios (one example would be, what if sekinj lied about the roleblock and Spring's choice to target her was coincidental?); why pick out this single one? Your stated suspicion of me suggests that you were inclined to point it out because it supported your case against me, not because it is the most likely scenario.

I mentioned sekinj lying and dismissed it as unlikely.

Further, as I have pointed out, you did not explain why scum-Spolium would assume this was the result of a roleblock. You have argued at length that if sekinj received explicit confirmation of a roleblock then so would scum-Spolium attempting a NK, yet you fail to acknowledge the possibility that explict confirmation of roleblocking did NOT occur. Why? It seems fair to suspect that you are more interested in pushing suspicion on me than considering all the possibilities.

How can I acknowledge a possibility I didn't think of? There is a jar of coins. All the visible coins are pennies. I reach in and pull out a penny. You come up and ask why I didn't grab the quarter. I say "I didn't realize there was a quarter in the jar. I thought it was all pennies." You say, "But why didn't you consider the possibility of a quarter?" Me, "because when I see a jar of pennies, I just instantly assume all the coins in the jar are pennies." Etc.

You're asking me why I didn't think of a possibility. My answer is: "I don't know, I just didn't consider it." Explain how that makes me scum again? I jumped to conclusions that "I was blocked" means "I was explicitly informed I was blocked" and I'm suddenly scum because I didn't even consider an alternative possibility?

Furthermore, your entire push here is based on the premise that I'm twisting facts and ignoring possibilities for the purpose of making you look as scummy as possible. Considering I haven't once pushed this as a reason anyone should consider you as scum, your case is pretty manufactured and weak.

One example could be that Jebus was also a paranoid doc, and his N2 targeting of you would've resulted in roleblock confirmation if you were a scum power role. That's just one possibility though - as I've said already my basis for this observation is the fact that you jumped to a conclusion about the nature of RB confirmation, and I can only speculate about how you would gain this information as scum.

Nice dismissal. Unsupported speculation on Jebus, or the easy-to-fall-back on "you're scum and thus you'd just know somehow". You also ignored my point about how if I actually had inside information I would have had correct information. You're accusing me of having inside information when I was wrong.

Ridiculous.

I construe it as suspicious because the question is fundamentally flawed. I have pointed out this flaw, yet you have not addressed it directly. Scum ask questions to present an illusion of scumhunting, so this stands out to me. Perhaps I should explain once more?

You ask me whether I received roleblock confirmation when I was a claimed VT. Why would a VT receive confirmation of a roleblock? Why assume that

anyone

would receive explicit confirmation of a roleblock in this game? The foundation of your roleblock confirmation question is not sound, yet you expect to get meangingful information from it.

Here are the possible scenarios/answers to your question,

Spolium: Were you informed at all about being roleblocked night 1 or 2?

:

1. townSpolium answers "no"
2. townSpolium answers "yes"
3. scumSpolium answers "no"
4. scumSpolium answers "yes"

2 and 4 are unthinkable, because a VT would not typically receive any confirmation of a roleblock due to a lack of role - I can think of no reason to assume this, and you have provided no explanation for assuming so. The remaining options are therefore 1 and 3, which tell us nothing because even if sekinj DID receive explicit confirmation of her role there is no reason to think that a VT would receive such confirmation (or that a goon would admit to doing so). I see literally no use for your question.

First of all, this is extremely nitpicky, overstated, and ignores the context. You pull out one question I asked, try to prove how it couldn't generate anything useful, and then try to imply that it makes me scum for asking a question without a large capability for useful information. I didn't realize every townie's post had to be jam-packed with only the most expertly crafted questions designed to get every drop of useful info.

Your push here is based on the idea that I'm giving the "illusion of scumhunting" and your proof is one question that isn't likely to generate useful info. Again, why did you ignore the rest of my post. Why did you ignore the rest of my posts today? Ignoring the context.

With that being said. There is possibility for useful information. I've seen vanilla townies informed of a roleblock. As scum, you might decide to answer that you were roleblocked out of fear that you get nailed for not claiming to be roleblocked when sekinj did claim it, etc.

Although, we are so far detracted from the source here and dwelling on irrelevancy. I asked the question simply because I saw sekinj claim to be blocked, and that if spring is the blocker you would have been blocked as well. So I just thought, "hey spolium, did you get informed of a block?" That's it. I didn't stop and think about the 19 different possible replies that could be generated and whether any of them could produce useful information. I didn't spend 30 minutes thinking about that question and whether anything beneficial would come from it. I just thought it, and asked it. You're stretching really hard here to drum this into something scummy.

Because my D3 vote for RC was based on what I perceived to be a slip, and I was very wrong. I also have no desire for my vote to be misinterpreted as OMGUS. Lynx's result on you strongly suggests you are town, and I am currently weighing this against the possibilities that he was naive, or that you are a godfather. Oh, and because I think sekinj currently deserves a vote more than you do.

In short, I'll vote you when I'm sure enough that you're scum. Have some patience, eh?

It's not an issue of patience. It's just that I see you roundabout push suspicion on me all day that finally culminates in one long post and the epic conclusion is a...FOS. You also have no stance taken on anyone else throughout the entire day. You don't commit to me. You haven't committed to anyone else (until last post).

@Goat:

you've expressed suspicion of sekinj for a while now, and she has in fact been your second choice for a lynch consistently since the beginning of D3. However, I cannot find a single point where you ask her questions, push her for information or otherwise do anything other than state that you find her scummy (except for when Spring directly asked). Can you explain?

I thought I gave reasons for why I thought she was scummy on day 3. I'll have to go back and check.

But no, I haven't really pushed her very hard. I pressured her some on her RB stance today, but Don covered it all in the meantime. I don't really have an explanation for why I haven't pressured her. She hasn't been my top suspect, so it's not been a burning need, and there hasn't been anything directly I've found scummy enough to jump on and pressure her over (excepting the RB thing).

Have you "pressured" her at all prior to your vote here?

----

@Goat, why is voting for nolynch a towntell?

It's not a towntell. It's a possible cop-tell. The valid townie reason to suggest a no lynch is for information gaining purposes. Cop is the only role which can guarantee information enough to justify it. If she had claimed vanilla townie, then this would be a reason to lynch her. As cop, though, it at least fits.

----

@goat/Spolium: When I read sekinj saying "I was blocked", I assumed she meant "I got no result", because I believe it is the convention to be told you got no result rather than being told you were specifically roleblocked. However, were I to receive no result, I would assume I was blocked. Thus, I don't fault sekinj for saying she was blocked, although the way I would have worded it would have been something akin to "I got no result, so I assume I was blocked", rather than the certainty and vagueness the phrase "I was blocked" implies.

I'm not really sure about the convention here. On one site I play, a lot of mods inform everyone that they were roleblocked, regardless of whether or not they are making an action or are vanilla or not. I've been roleblocked once on this site. It was by a jailkeeper, and I was directly informed that I was blocked. I kind of assumed "you were roleblocked, your action failed" was the standard for dealing with failed action via RB.

@Rhinox - I agree there is a possibility that sekinj is lying about being blocked and that Spring targeting her was coincidental, though there is the other possibility that she is a scum power role and was actually blocked. The possibility that Spring is a paranoid doc is therefore still valid.

I doubt she's lying about being blocked. It's a risky play to make when the scum roleblocker is dead. You'd have to go in trying to convince people that there is a second scum roleblocker alive who blocked you, and has mysteriously not been a factor in the game until night 3.

Far more likely is that she was legitimately blocked by spring.

--

I think we should be lynching one of Spring/Spolium

I also think that Rhinox's claim is a little bit too unbelievable and worry about him coming up with a magic guilty in lylo

About spring:

Spring is a second mafia roleblocker. After no one counterclaimed budja and she had been run up, she counterclaimed her own scumpartner under the false assumption that there just wasn't a doctor at all, in order to survive the day herself and hopefully get falsecleared for the remainder of the game.

What explains the no kill N1 if this is the case?

Sekinj, can you answer that question as well.

Regarding Rhinox, I think he's town simply because I don't see the motivation as scum to confirm me as innocent. Plus, his play end of yesterday->today strike me as townie behaviorally anyway.

[Goatrevolt]

Sekinj: Why did you push for mass claim day 2 before you had any results? What was your motivation?

[Goatrevolt]

Sekinj: Why did you push for mass claim day 2 before you had any results? What was your motivation?

well, for one, i didn't "push" for it, but I did suggest it. My motivation was actually my frustration at spring. I wanted to show her that she wasn't the only power role around and so didn't have a license to lurk since the rest of us weren't. However, once I realized that 1) I wouldn't have any results to claim, and 2) would become a mafia target after claiming and therefore might die wihtout ever bringing results, I posted my disagreement with it. if you hadn't noticed I usually type before I think (which is why i stack up so many posts in a row)

Why were you so focused on getting spring to contribute and less focused on finding scum? Isn't the job of a townie to find scum, not push along other townies?

What do you think "proving to spring" would have done? What benefit would there have been?

[Goatrevolt]

I was not informed of a block.

I'll wait on role information then best figure out how to go from there.

[Goatrevolt]

Our lynch today needs to be either Don or Rhinox.

i would vote, but i am thinking this is lylo.

If Rhinox was the only one who targeted Ice9, then why wouldn't you vote? Wouldn't he be guaranteed scum in that case?

Don is lying. I'm not a cop. I was gambitting

Explain the gambit to me. You were pulling a gambit in hopes of drawing scum fire?

Don has verifiable results as a watcher, from both Ice and RC. So, if he's scum, then he's a mafia watcher.

Rhinox doesn't have anything to verify his claim of deputy, and now has claimed that he doesn't actually have the ability to make investigations, which seems kind of sketch to me. That would be a good way as scum to justify not bringing in any new results for the rest of the game. However, I also have to take into consideration that he cleared me by nature of claiming Lynx's innocent on me. I guess as scum, he would have had to fake a result for Lynx's last night.

Rhinox, did you get any information from Sekinj? As a deputy, would you not get info from both cops?

[Goatrevolt]

1) Does it make any sense for me if I'm scum to fake claim cop and then instead of making up fake results today, say nevermind, I'm really not a cop?

Claiming deputy is different than claiming cop. It's easier as scum to "cop" out and have a viable reason why you would no longer get results than it is to have to keep providing fake results all game. You would either have to keep semi-clearing people by giving out innocent results on townies, or you would have to eventually pit yourself in a 1-1 counterclaim by saying you got a scum result on someone. Granted, you would never fully be clearing anyone by nature of godfather as a possibility or the possibility that Lynx wasn't a sane cop, but nonetheless it's less appealing to lynch someone who has a cop innocent on their shoulders.

2) If Don was really a town watcher and me scum, why would the scumteam have me submit the nk when I was set up to give fake cop results? It would be suspicious giving results on a player who is dead, especially with the chance the a watcher might see me be the only one to target the player.

I don't follow. You said that you don't have the capability to make an investigation, so what fake cop results would you be setting yourself up to give? Secondly, why would making a night kill prevent you from being able to lie about giving fake cop results?

The gist of your argument here from what I gather is "it wouldn't make sense for me to be the one to make a NK." In reality, it would make a lot of sense. Who of the remaining players in this game as scum would be better fitted to make a kill? You were under practically no suspicion, and had claimed investigative powers, making it unlikely spring would try to block you.

I also want to point out that claiming lynx's innocent on you should have no bearing on anything. If I'm scum and you're town, then its not hard to fake an innocent result on someone I know to be town. We also don't know Lynx's sanity, and you could still be a GF.

The point I was making was that I was under moderate levels of suspicion for my lurking. By claiming Lynx's investigation on me, you made me a less attractive lynch target and lowered the chance of me being a mislynch. I wasn't suggesting it was tough for you to claim an innocent on a townie, I was suggesting it was against scum motivations to even clear townies at all.

what good is a mafia watcher against two cops, two docs(providing spring is town), tracker, watcher(oh, and a deputy)?

With that much town power, it could be about as effective as a role cop.

I don't think speculating on the setup is going to get us anywhere. This seems like a game built specifically against gaming the mod. Gaming the mod would say if there are 2 town cops, and likely 2 town docs, then it wouldn't be surprising to see 2 town watchers as well. However, there is also an oddball lone tracker, and a lone deputy claim as outliers, which would throw out the symmetrical theory. I'm not putting any stock in theories based around gaming the setup.

-----

I'm leaning towards believing don more. I'm trying to think of what motivation he would have as scum to lie about Rhinox targeting Ice. As scum, he could simply have continued to give truthful results and probably skated to a win. Tying himself in a 1-1 against Rhinox just seems unnecessarily risky play for scum in that situation.

I'd like to hear opinions from Spolium and Spring, though.

[Goatrevolt]

The bolded is essentially what don is doing

I'm aware. I feel like it's a less likely scum move due to the inherent risk.

Look, there are many things I could have done if I were scum claiming deputy yesterday. For one, if I were scum and didn't want to semi clear any more townies, I could have said I had an innocent on my scum partner, or I could have claimed to have been blocked.

Unless Don or myself is a scum partner to you, that wouldn't really be a plausible claim based on this post that Lynx agreed to. He stated he would be investigating myself or Don (or sekinj, but I would have been skeptical had you claimed that), and for you to claim a different result would have been suicidal.

Claiming a roleblock that doesn't exist, and has no evidence in 3 nights to support it would likewise be bad scum play. I would have pushed for your lynch immediately had you made a claim like that, simply due to the unbelievable nature, and likelihood that you would be lying.

For that matter, why go through the trouble of claiming deputy and pretending it means cop when I could have just claimed the deputy part with lynx's results and not even made up the part about being cop? The point is, I messed up and misread the deputy PM, and then thought I could turn it into an opportunity to find scum. I didn't work as intended, but it did fid scum. Its just a matter of whether or not I can convince you guys. If don doesn't lie about me this morning, I come clean about my gambit, and we'd be having an entirely different conversation right now. For one, Don would have been on the bottom of my list of people to lynch today. Instead, don does what everybody was worried about since he claimed and says he saw who made the kill in LyLo and here we are.

That's actually a valid point. If you planned on claiming deputy without the ability to produce results, then it would have made more sense to skip the cop part entirely. As scum you would have had to originally planned to claim deputy with the ability to investigate, and then later changed your mind to only get lynx's results. That is certainly a town point in your favor.

Actually, while looking back, I'm wondering how this post fits into the whole scheme. That seems an unnecessary post to make if you're lying about the deputy claim. I'll think about it.

Are you intentionally playing stupid? If I were scum pretending to be a cop, then of course I would setting myself to give fake cop results. But if I submit the kill, the only player I could claim to have investigated was the player who died, and I would be doubly screwed if I were the only one to target that player. Don't you think its all too convenient now for don to have given the results he's giving now?

Ok, this makes no sense. If you're scum, then you LIE about results. That means you don't have to ACTUALLY target someone to give a result about them. YOU pointed that out yourself when you explained to me that it's not hard as scum to fake an investigation on a townie.

Are you playing intentionally stupid here? As scum you could have simply waited until don and spring claimed their results, and then claimed to investigate someone who didn't interfere with their claimed actions and voila! Why the hell would you have needed to actually target that player? This is really sketchy, since you yourself pointed out that you could easily lie about results as scum. Now you're trying to argue that you couldn't have lied about results. It doesn't work both ways.

Easy. If I get lynched, scum wins. Clearly don would never try this if there would be a tomorrow. He would be lynched then after I flip town. Scum are probably expecting that because ice confirmed don as a watcher, that don would just be believed by default and today would be a quick, easy win. Playing "honest" would have carried more risk because there would have been a greater chance of a scum lynch today.

My point is that it's a risky play, and seemed completely unnecessary for don to lie about this with no suspicion and little risk of being lynched. The only real reason I could see him trying this is to protect a scum buddy who would otherwise be the probably lynch today.

I agree and I'll answer any questions you want, but I realize all I have to offer in defense of myself is a big pile of WIFOM and kudos to don and his partner for getting me stuck in this position, so if you guys are going to lynch me for it don't bother wasting your time and mine talking all day about who my scum partner could be - If I'm really scum, I'm experienced enough to not give you guys any information that would help pinpoint my scum partner, so any speculating you would want to do you could do just as well after my lynch. I say its a waste of time because if I get lynched, we're having post game discussion by dinnertime tonight.

[mafia theory]I really hate extending the day past the point where a lynch is decided upon. So I agree with you that once we decide on a lynch we should just do it.[/mafia theory]

I think the best non-wifom point I can get right now is what goat brought up - when don gave his fake result on me, he didn't even vote for me.

That does bother me. That's really the only main point I see against don.

In the event I'm not lynched today and don is, I'll definately be nked. Whoever left is town, don't give goat a pass just based on the innocent result. Since don is lying about me, scum were probably gambling on a townie voting me so they could quick hammer me. That would require both scum to be around checking the thread regularly, and don and goat are both here while spring and spolium haven't posted yet.

This is probably the worst argument I've ever heard. I'm scum because I'm being active, checking the thread, and questioning both of you to determine who should be the lynch? What a load of bull.

Apparently townies lurk and scum are active. If that's the case, then how did I amass so much suspicion day 2-3? Clearly I was demonstrating my pro-town appeal by having RL issues.

Goat is also playing wishy washy about it, tending to believe don, but sitting on the fence about it and playing both sides in case you guys believe me, so he can bus and still look good tomorrow piggybacking on the innocent result I have on him. If don gets lynched, spring should protect/block goat, and hope there is a no-kill. I wouldn't recommend protect/blocking me, as it would open spring up to being the nk if the scum thinks spring would protect me.

Translation: "Goat is scum because he believes don more than me."

I haven't really been playing both sides. I questioned don on the one point that bothered me, and have stuck to pressing you for the rest. Why? Because I thought you were the more likely to be lying. Why didn't I vote or commit? Because we're probably at Lylo, and I'm not going to potentially vote the wrong target and allow for a scum quicklynch before 2 players even give their opinion. Besides, maybe Spring or Spolium can come up with something I missed.

Also, your last point is an excellent way to setup a mislynch and loss. Spring claims she is going to block me. The scum can just choose to no kill, and I get framed, lynched, and town loses. If we lynch scum today, I want spring to make her own decisions.

Spolium hasn't posted anywhere since friday, so that rules him out as scum IMO. Spring has posted even this morning, but spring's role is more confirmed, IMO. scum-spring would really fuck with my head though. If I had to bet right now, I'd say goat is probably second scum.

What? How could that possibly rule him out as scum? Missing 2 days as scum during a 4 day night phase when there are almost certainly 2 scum left makes him town? Do explain. Hell, I was probably absent for earlier night phases myself. If there are 2 scum left, though, that would not be a clearing point at all.

Thats about all I can offer. This will probably be my last significant post, unless you guys have any direct questions for me. If you think you're going to vote me, and this post hasn't changed your mind, then nothing I can say will. I'm not just going to keep repeating things I've already said and wasting my time and yours if I'm just going to be lynched anyways. So just do what you're gonna do. I'll answer questions, but there's nothing left for me to say here. Lynch me and we'll talk about it in endgame, or lynch don, have a nice LyLo tomorrow, and I still won't see you til endgame.

You can answer all the stuff I pointed out in this post. The two main things I want you to address is the point about how you couldn't fake claim an investigation target, which runs contrary to your earlier statements, and secondly I want you to explain the Spolium is town because he was absent 2 days thing, because that doesn't make any sense, and seems arbitrarily thrown in to justify your statement that I'm scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I have to hand it to you don, you got the drop on me and I'm in an indefensible position. I'm even convinced that your attack on me right now is genuine. Isn't there a scum role similar to a framer where scum can make it look like someone targeted someone else? That would definately make sense in this game for scum to have against 2 watchers and a tracker. Because I didn't actually target ice. Thing is, if we're both town, you'd already be hammered unless there is only 1 scum left (or unless scum-spolium is sleeping).

Eh? You pointed out how don's lack of a vote on you was a telltale sign, and then you go on to eventually unvote him?

i am going to read up on some roles to see if it is plausible that you have been set up, but as of right now i don't know of any "watcher-immune" roles.

There is a role that is untrackable/unwatchable. I don't know what it's called, but I've heard of it. That role could make a kill without worrying about getting caught by a watcher or a tracker. However, I know that can't be the case here, because Rhinox claimed to not target ice at all. That could only be a possibility if Rhinox did admit to targeting ice, and someone else had killed ice and was unwatchable.

I've never heard of someone who can frame another player to make it look like that other player targeted someone. Bus driver is not a possibility. For bus driver to explain Rhinox targeting Ice, Rhinox would have had to target someone else and get redirected to ice. Rhinox has claimed to have targeted no one, thus ruling out that possibility.

I really don't see how this could be anything other than Don or Rhinox being scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm tempted to play this on a coin flip. That's the amount of interest this whole don/rhinox discussion generates in me.

Hopefully you use your lucky coin....

Goat, I think you are scum, and this even though you have been looking townish today. The pattern fits, start of lurkage just after being put under scrutiny D1, avoidance of hard stance on the 3 mislynches, activity dramatically pick up in lylo.

I was put under 0 scrutiny day 1. You put me under very minor amounts of scrutiny, but listed me as one of the most town players (admittedly, more by default) and said either Spolium or myself was your choice for doc protect night 1. My lurking was not related to me trying to hide from pressure. That makes no sense considering I was not under any pressure, and actually became under pressure simply because I was lurking. My lurking accomplished the literal complete opposite of what you claim.

I didn't have very strong stances on any of the 3 mislynches, which is for the most part true. However, I was also not on those wagons. During the FHQ lynch I was basically absent completely from the game. For both the day 3 and 4 lynches I was pushing a lynch of the secondary target in both cases (Spolium, both times). I don't see how not being on the wagon of mislynches makes me scum.

Activity dramatically picked up in Lylo: Wrong. My activity dramatically picked up at the latter half of day 3. Both you and Rhinox have accused me of being scum simply because I've been active today. If I was scum today, I could have easily just sat back and watched how things unfolded before tangling myself in the mix. I'm also scum because I lurked earlier in the game. I'm probably scum because I kept up a consistent level of posting on day 1. Do you see how absurd this really is?

Really, the only point of suspicion people have had on me all game is that I lurked day 2 and the first half of day 3. That lurking corresponded to similar lurking in other games on the site, as well as games offsite (which I can certainly link to if you disbelieve me). It's clear this was a result of real life issues, unless you really want to make the case that I just really badly wanted to lurk in this game and so I lurked in every single other game to cover it up.

Now, if you want to look at my posting, I think you'll see how likely it is that I'm town. I jumped on Budja from the earliest part of the game. Throughout the day I attacked him based on posts he made that were scummy. I joined his wagon around the time that a wagon could have been pushed on either Spring or FHQ. As a scum buddy in that situation, I could have easily tried to push for a separate lynch instead.

If you want to look at role-related results, you'll see that I have a lot going for me as town as well. Rhinox claimed his deputy results cleared me as town. Either he is a legitimate deputy and has legitimate results that clear me, or he is scum and lying. If he's scum and lying, it's far less likely that he would try to clear me if I'm his scum buddy. Scum rarely tie themselves together so neatly. This doesn't mean all that much, but Spring RBed me last night and the kill still went through, which means if I'm scum, I wasn't the one who made the NK last night. That doesn't confirm me, but I argue it makes me slightly less likely to be scum by narrowing it down to "if I'm scum, I'm not making the NK."

since when do sk's need a reason to target anyone? I'm not a vig. I generally target players for nk's who are unexpected choice. Want me to link you to my comment last week in the MD thread? Hang on...

Who do you kill, the lurker or the obv. town?

Allow me to one up you

Here's my final play. I would like goat to vote me to L-1. I think Goat and don are the scum. When I'm at L-1, its choice time for spring and spolium. Obviously if either of you are scum you'll autohammer me. If you're town, last chance to consider the happenings of the last page.

There is no way Rhinox as town suggests this play right here. If he's town, he risks a town loss based on his idea that I'm scum. However, as scum, he knows he won't be hammered, because he's scum. So, by having Don and myself vote him, and then by showing he wasn't hammered, he's trying to make a fallacious argument that he's town by nature of having 2 votes on him and not being hammered. Nice try.

Vote Rhinox

Rhinox is flailing and scum. He tried for the SK avenue to get a mislynch under the notion that town loses from voting a SK. That didn't work, now he's trying the "Don and Goat vote me and I won't get hammered and thus they are scum" fallacy. There is no way he's town after that play. Townies don't risk the game on a whim like that.

[Goatrevolt]

Thinking about it some more, I'll go ahead and

Unvote

pending what Spring/Spolium have to say. I don't see any way how Rhinox could possibly be town at this point though, and I'm willing to vote him and end the day when we are ready to move on.

[Goatrevolt]

Spring, do you have any games where you ask scum to claim when you are town?

Because I remember you repeatedly asking the SK to claim when you were the SK in a previous game.

[Goatrevolt]

Check out Bus Stop Large, I don't ask scum to claim but I kinda have the same attitude toward end game. Though the whole point is weak as I generally make my meta works for me when I scum. The question here is whether you are asking throw away questions to look townie or are genuinely concerned. So here: what changed between your vote and your unvote?

I'm genuinely concerned. It really bothers me when people ask scum to claim, because it always strikes me as a plea to look like a townie by virtue of pushing for scum to claim. It's kind of a pointless thing to ask, cause scum aren't going to claim, so I can only assume the purpose is to try to look town. I was thinking about it, and then I remembered you had done that before as scum, and that really caught my attention.

My opinion didn't change between the vote and the unvote. Rhinox is scum. I just wanted to hold off and give a chance for the rest of the game to come to a conclusion before pushing to lynch him.

Your 1208 is also long winded and lame.

OK?

1. You were on RedCoyote shortlist D2 and your lurking kinda put a cap to that.
2. You arguing that your lurking is not scummy because it attracted you more attention than not is a crappy argument, it is akin to saying that committing scumtell is unscummy because it attracts people's attention.
3. Kinda true that your activity picked up end of day 3, but it wasn't anything ressembling town proof activity - the bottom line on this is that at no moment did you take a central role in the dynamic of the game, which contradicts the town meta I have on you.
4. If there is 2 scumgroups, you jumping on Budja becomes a nulltell.
5. Scum claimed results means exactly zip and probabilities don't work like that.

1. I became suspicious to RC because I lurked. You have it backwards.
2. That wasn't my argument. Your argument was that I lurked to avoid suspicion. My response is that I didn't have suspicion on me, so thus lurking to avoid a complete lack of suspicion is pointless (not to mention my lurking had absolutely nothing to do with this game.)
3. Your town meta is incomplete. And you have no scum meta of me. I have 3 scum games on this site. 2 of them I took a central and dominating role from the beginning of the game through the end. The other game I lurked for about a month (lurked in all my games) when I got swamped with schoolwork, but took a central role when I returned. I can think of at least 2 town games where I took a backseat role. It all depends on the other players in the game.
4. That is true. But I don't see any evidence for 2 scum groups. Elaborate?
5. Scum claimed results are meaningful. People dismiss that as WIFOM all the time, and wrongly do so.

So yeah, a whole lot of nothing in very long paragraphs. Are you aware of this or not?

What? I outlined a case for me as town. That's not nothing. What doesn't make sense is you calling it nothing, yet addressing every single point I brought up.

Here something else I find scummy, your lack of comment on Don, who basically voted Rhinox for not being the SK. What is your thoughts on that?

I don't see a problem with it. My initial reaction was similar. He claimed SK and then tried to say town shouldn't kill the SK. There is no evidence in 5 days of play to suggest there being a SK. It was just a ploy to avoid his own lynch. Nothing Rhinox says can be believed at this point.

Rhinox: Trying to argue that scum aren't as interested as town in keeping themselves alive is laughable. Of course they are.

Vote Rhinox

It's fairly obvious he's scum. I highly doubt there are multiple scum groups. There is literally no evidence to suggest that is the case. And even if there are multiple scum groups, I'd rather take the sure scum lynch in Rhinox rather than a shot in the dark.

[Goatrevolt]

My opinion didn't change between the vote and the unvote. Rhinox is scum. I just wanted to hold off and give a chance for the rest of the game to come to a conclusion before pushing to lynch him.

Hai scum. Way to slip that the game will end with my lynch.

How is that a slip in any way? More BS?

[Goatrevolt]

My opinion didn't change between the vote and the unvote. Rhinox is scum. I just wanted to hold off and

give a chance for the rest of the

game

to come to a conclusion

before pushing to lynch him.

Hai scum. Way to slip that the game will end with my lynch.

How is that a slip in any way? More BS?

Lol. That is probably the most ridiculous thing I've seen. Explain how that's a slip again? Are you saying that since I used the word "game" in a sentence it somehow means that it's a slip that the game will be over. Hahahaha. At least you got a good laugh out of me.

Game = players in the game. Come on, that's obvious.

[Goatrevolt]

Whats obvious is that as soon as DJ shows up and hammers me, you guys can give me your honest opinions about what a townie was supposed to do in my position today.

By the way, that reminds me. You never did answer my question in game context. Assume for a moment I'm actually town, though you think I'm scum. Is there anything I could have done after don's fake results and 3 out of 4 players were ready to lynch me that would have prevented my lynch?

If you were actually town, you would have built up a more convincing case as to why Don is lying. Unvoting him, believing he could still be town, etc. just shows your insincerity.

[Goatrevolt]

Also, in case I get killed tonight:

I don't think Don can possibly be scum with Rhinox. There would be no motivation for him to throwaway a scum buddy in Lylo.

It's either Spolium or Spring. Based on play today, I'm actually starting to worry about Spring. Repeatedly suggesting multiple scum groups without any evidence. No real stance on Don/Rhinox. And I'm suspicious of the "scum claim" thing. I've seen her do that before as scum.

[Goatrevolt]

how does goat know its lylo?

See my discussion with Spolium.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm guessing Rhinox was town then? Balls.

Hopefully Tony shows up soon.

[Goatrevolt]

Don, you scared the hell out of me with that gambit! I started out playing both sides, as Rhinox rightfully called me out for. Thinking about it, I realized that I had no chance of winning by busing don, so I had to just go for the throat and hope we could get a mislynch on Rhinox.

If I bussed Don, then spring probably roleblocks me again. And I lose. Even if Spring doesn't roleblock me again, I have to kill her that night or I'll lose the following night. Then I'd have to convince Rhinox to lynch Spolium over me, which could be quite difficult.

I actually was not aware that Budja was a roleblocker. I hate busing my buddies as scum, and regretted busing Budja, but I could see that he was going to get lynched day 1, and so I might as well get the most out of it. I tried to push a FHQ lynch instead, but that didn't catch on at all. I tried to subtly push a spring lynch while remaining on the Budja wagon. RC rightfully attacked me on that a few times.

My lurking was legitimately as a result of RL issues. It sucked a lot for me. I feel like I was doing fairly well prior to that, and the lurking and my struggle to get back into the game with any kind of presence really hurt me for purposes of looking pro-town. Spring/Spolium/RC, etc. had me pegged as scum, but nobody really stepped out and acted on it, which was nice. I think RC was the only one who actually voted me at any point, and it was short lived.

I actually enjoyed playing this game, Tony, although I thought we had a nearly nonexistent chance of winning for most of the game. It wasn't until we were able to successfully kill Lynx and Rhinox got the deputy results with an innocent on me that things started to turn a bit in our favor.

Don, kudos for pulling off the "I didn't understand my role and that's why I targeted RC" angle. I'm kind of surprised that actually worked out. The truth was that I tried to kill Spring, and Don couldn't really justify claiming a watcher who didn't target spring (the obvious N1 watch target) so he went for that instead. We lucked out that the other watcher was MIA that night.

I still can't believe we managed to dodge a cop/watcher/tracker/roleblocker. With that much town power and no roleblocker, I think it's nothing short of a miracle that we didn't get caught by roles at all.

Tony, my suggestions for improvement are this: I would allow the scum to communicate N0 at least long enough to learn what each other's roles are. Or if you don't allow communication, I'd include in the role PM what the other mafia member's roles are.

I also think there were too many town power roles. The only town power role that was essentially useless for the town was Lynx. Beyond that, the scum has to compete against a jailkeeper/doc/watcher/cop/tracker, which is tough to deal with. Granted, this may sound bad since the scum did win, but I think if you ran this setup 10 times, the town would win the majority of the time.


Rhinox, I was impressed with your gambits that last day, actually. I had to sit and think for a while before I responded to them. To answer your question truthfully about what you could have done as town in that situation, I would say your best bet would have been to go back through and point out where your actions make sense from a deputy but not from the perspective of scum. I would have really harped on those. I was kind of worried about that actually. For example, the post where you unvoted based on you having to check your PM. That really spoke to you being a legit deputy. Also, your counterclaim of sekinj's information on how results were received, etc. Then I would have really pushed harder about how don was scum. For example, point out his night 1 target of RC as a scum move, etc.

Whew...I was sweating bullets that last day. I'm happy we pulled it off. Good game, don...

[Goatrevolt]

I can also post the scum QT, if don doesn't mind.

[Goatrevolt]

Damn good job scum. I really didn't have any suspicion of Goat until the end of Day three where I targeted him. We should have had that in the bag after nailing the roleblocker. I wish I stuck to Don more, I knew there was a connection between him and Budja. The claim threw me off guard and I let him go. I only knew he was scum this day with his results on Rhinox. After Red Coyote flipped tracker I knew Don was tracked and was a watcher. And I was pretty sure Sekinj was a cop with her paraphrased role pm. So that left Goat to investigate. Too bad I was naive...

I expected you to target don that night, actually, because it seemed like you had me pegged as likely town. Don did a good job at avoiding suspicion. People attacked him all game for various things, and he ended up somehow avoiding getting lynched.

Town's downfall was deadline lynches. We never had organized our lynches early enough which ended up in rushed choices like RC. This is especially upsetting cause it was my first town loss and the town had a huge advantage after day 1.

Yeah, that helped us tremendously. The RC and Sekinj lynches really helped me a lot. I wasn't involved in either lynch and was on Spolium both days, so I could kind of play the "so now can we lynch Spolium?" angle. If we had lynched Spolium earlier, I think I would have been lynched the following day. Lynching RC before he could even claim was really nice. He probably wouldn't have been lynched if he claimed tracker and produced his breadcrumbed results.

[Goatrevolt]

The overpowered town was painfully obvious after d1. I thought about making spring naive as well as paranoid, but that would be overstepping my boundaries as mod. (not that it mattered, as spring never saved anyone.) Also thought about making you a untrackable, unwatchable godfather. Again, thoughts i should have had before the game started

I think those 2 changes would have helped balance the setup a lot. You did the right thing not editing it midway through, though.

All I have to say is, You should have seen the setup before i got it reviewed

[Goatrevolt]

I was basically don's buddy after D2. I can guarantee you that if I didn't track don N1 I'm almost positive I would've kept my vote on him and pushed him the rest of the day.

Yeah. I approved of your strong defense of him. I didn't realize it was due to role related reasons until I saw that you were a tracker. Actually, if you look back through the thread, I basically just follow along with RC's defense of Don. Nobody once brought up the fact that I had been defending Don all game. I wasn't about to suggest it.

When D3 came around, I had gotten nothing useful out of Rhinox, but I wanted to plant some breadcrumbs (kudos to Goat (I'll bet you were happy to find the don one!)/Rhinox for finding them) in case I was shot.

I was very happy to find the Don breadcrumb. I was equally as happy when Ice confirmed Don. In our scum quicktopic I suggested numerous times how Don needed to play his role in a manner befitting a town watcher for confirmation sake. I'm so happy that happened, because he ended up getting confirmed by both you and Ice. That helped a lot.

I submitted all the night kills (N1 Jebus stopped my kill on spring), except the kill that last night. I knew spring was going to roleblock me, so Don made the kill. I didn't expect him to try to frame Rhinox like that, though. That scared the hell out of me!

In any case, I definitely do not blame the town for losing this one. Even if we had nabbed Goat it would've been damn hard to convince me don was scum after he claimed. Like Spolium, I would've definitely had voted Rhinox over don on Day 5.

I think the town's biggest mistakes were lynching you and lynching Sekinj. I could understand the sekinj lynch, somewhat. Your lynch, though, surprised the hell out of me. We debated NKing you the previous night and I said something along the lines of "RC looks pretty pro-town and won't ever get lynched." I think the town should have lynched Spolium day 3. And then I would have been the logical lynch day 4. You probably would have tracked me that night making the kill as well, to ensure my death (assuming we didn't NK you).

Lurking is such a double-edged sword in that way. It can totally let others argue amongst themselves while you hang back and stay clean, but it's always going to be a thorn in your side as a potential tell the rest of the game. You did very well though Goat, at some point I had said something along the lines of, "Everytime Goat makes a post he starts looking townie again". I'd like to think, had I not decided to lurk through the end of D3, I would've pushed you a little harder, but you never know.

I really hate to lurk as scum. I pointed out to spring this final day about how my meta shows me lurking more as town than scum, and that was actually true. All the suspicion against me was as a result of either my lurking, or my difficulty in getting back into a dominant/aggressive role after I was able to dedicate time to the game again. I think if I had kept up my day 1 level of activity all game I wouldn't have attracted much suspicion.

Y'all have got to admit that it was helpful that the town Cop/Watcher were basically out of commission during D1 and a good chunk of D2. I'll never forgive Plonky/DO or millar13 for their disappointing us. Especially a player like Plonky who makes constant promises to post but never delivers on them. Come on, not when you're a Cop. Not having those reports really hurt the town.

That was nice. I think it helped to balance the setup .

[Goatrevolt]

I think a safer gambit by don would have been to bus goat, by fingering him as Ice's killer.
Then killing spring would leave him Rhinoxand Spolium in lylo, and I can't imagine getting either of them lynched being hard.

If he had fingered me as scum killing Ice he would have gotten caught for lying. Spring roleblocked me, so I couldn't have possibly killed Ice.

[Goatrevolt]

I really wish we'd done a mass claim earlier. I think that would have saved RC and brought to light the vast amount of roles. then we wouldn't have been afraid to look at don more closely, just because he claimed a role.

Say, maybe a mass claim on day 2 . But you didn't have any results yet!