California Trilogy: City of Angels - Off Stage (Game Over)

[zwetschenwasser]

If you think I am scummy

The thing is, I don't think you're

anything

yet. Like I said, I wanted to see more from you before deciding one way or the other.

You ignore me.

[elmosaurian]

PJ Posting.

elmosaurian, I don't

care

that the odds of both Advocates being scum are theoretically "tiny." That's like me listing two people I think are scum, and being rebutted with "but the odds of

both

of them being scum are tiny."

I basically started off the day assuming that if both advocates say the same thing on day 1, we can assume they're telling the truth and that that choices is the correct choice. If something has more then a 90% chance of being true in a mafia game, I generally will just assume it's true.

And, anyway, if they're both lying, then we lynch them both; probably a good trade for the town anyway.

I don't care about statistics. I care about whether I think somebody is scummy, and I think both John Locke and Valentine fit that bill. Period.

I'm pretty sure CKD is town and telling the truth; he's making sense to me, and it's not the kind of lie I would expect a scum to tell, especially for no obvious gain. I'm not convinced of Panzer's alignment; no real read on him at the moment. I'm pretty sure that the option they're both pointing to is the correct one, though.

However, there clearly needs to be a new definition in mafia.

We have, in some rank:
Scummy
Anti-Town
Neutral/Null
Pro-Town
[Townish?]

I think mechanics discussion is necessary and generally ‘helps’ the town, but I do not think it makes a person who discusses mechanics any more

likely

to be town. So I suppose I would agree in a sense that it is neutral to “pro-town” in that it is necessary (as I said before) and needs to be done in order to avoid confusion at a critical moment.

Eh...I'm not really sure of that, since I can't really think of any action that's pro-town but not "townish", at least in the general sense and to some degree. Some things more so then others, of course.

I never claimed you did not eventually get to scum-hunting; I just very much did not like your implication that because you were discussing mechanics that you (and others who may have been acting similarly) were likely to be town. I guess you might have meant to only mean “pro-town” in the “necessary” sense and not in the “townish” sense, but that is certainly not how I read your post, and reading your post again it still seems like you meant “Townish.”

I'm still not sure why there needs to be a distinction; if an action is pro-town (IE: it's an action that helps the town and increases the town's chances of winning; the opposite of anti-town), then I don't think it can be scummy, because it's something a pro-town player should be doing.

I guess it's theoretically possible for a pro-town action to also be a scumtell, but that would only happen with a really screwed up meta and consistent bad play on the part of pro-town players

[Bagel Eating Cowfrog]

updating vote..

Vote: Zwet

, Thok, [People], Mighty Orbots, ShadowLurker, No Lynch, Bagel Eating Cowfrog

[Bagel Eating Cowfrog]

Eh...I'm not really sure of that, since I can't really think of any action that's pro-town but not "townish", at least in the general sense and to some degree. Some things more so then others, of course.

Certain types of emotional response are townish but not pro-town, I would argue.

But this is slightly tangential.

- Shanba

[Mr. Grey]

Deadline:

Approximately 40 hours from this post.

Vote Count:

6 to lynch.

zwetschenwasser: 3 (Bagel Eating Cowfrog, Mighty Orbots, Talilan)
Talilan: 2 (elmosaurian, Gaspar)
elmosaurian: 1 (MrJellyLee)
Gaspar: 1 (zwetschenwasser)
GoofballsAndBaloons: 1 (Thok)

Not Voting: 3 (GoofballsAndBaloons, Rawr Hydra, ShadowLurker)

Current Condorcet Winner:

zwetschenwasser

To view the complete table of pairwise results, put the following information into this form.

1,Bagel Eating Cowfrog
2,elmosaurian
3,Gaspar
4,GoofballsAndBaloons
5,Mighty Orbots
6,MrJellyLee
7,Rawr Hydra
8,ShadowLurker
9,Talilan
10,Thok
11,zwetschenwasser
12,No Lynch
13,Mr. Grey

1:11>10>2=3=4=6=7=9>5>8>12>1
1:9>3>1>11>6=7=8=10>4>5>12>2
1:9>1=2=4=5=6=7=8=10=11>12>3
1:11>8>1=2=6=7=9=10>3=5>4>12
1:11>6=7>4=8>1=2=3=10>9=12>5
1:2>10>1=5=7=8=11>3>4>12>13>6>9
1:1=2=3=4=5=6=8=9=10=11=12>7
1:11>6=7>3>1>10>12>5>2>4>9>8
1:11>3>2>5=7=8=10>6>4>1>12>9
1:4>7>6>1=5>8>12>11>2=3>10>9
1:3>5>8>1=2=4=6=7=9=10=12>11

[elmosaurian]

Eh...I'm not really sure of that, since I can't really think of any action that's pro-town but not "townish", at least in the general sense and to some degree. Some things more so then others, of course.

Certain types of emotional response are townish but not pro-town, I would argue.

But this is slightly tangential.

- Shanba

Townish but not pro-town, I can see. But pro-town but not (at least slightly) townish, I can't.

[elmosaurian]

PJ Posting.

We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents. Since endgame is going to be 5 town 2 scum no matter what, I would assume he's not just talking about turning a town into scum on day 1; he's probably talking about some kind of rule or setup change that tilts that 7 player endgame setup towards one side or the other.

Well, then this adds a new layer. John Locke's choice, even if it does flip his alignment, might still be the "good" choice in that it helps the town in endgame.

Well, they're both claiming that the "correct" choice is that Panzer drive. Panzer is "supposed to lead". I assume that means they're both claiming role information that says panzer driving is the "good" choice.

From my point of view, it's basically like 2 people both claiming at the same time that they both have role information that says person X is scum; they COULD be lying, but it's pretty damn unlikely.

As for your theory...umm. I guess it's possible that he was given the choice "either stay pro-town and hurt the town, or turn scum and help the town", but I doubt it. That would be kind of an icky choice; I'm not sure how you could "play to your win condition" in a situation like that. Neah; what he's claiming, that he could either help the town make the right choice and stay pro-town, or get the town to make the wrong choice and turn scum, makes more sense to me then the alternative you're suggesting.

[zwetschenwasser]

updating vote..

Vote: Zwet

, Thok, [People], Mighty Orbots, ShadowLurker, No Lynch, Bagel Eating Cowfrog

Please elaborate.

[Bagel Eating Cowfrog]

The things that have changed in that vote - Thok has moved up, and the lurkers we had occupying the next two spots have gone (dahill has a pro-town read on rawr hydra and ky krew has vanished.)

The Thok move should be pretty self explanatory if you've been reading my posts, I'd have thought.

- Shanba.

[elmosaurian]

On a side note, I wonder if scum can daytalk.

If they can, then there is a risk that the scum on camera could suddenly decide to end the day at a time when the voting in this thread helps their interests.

Considering we have little time left, and considering that the on camera thread is only 2 vcotes away from a lynch, I'd really rather we do a "real" lynch very soon, since there's less chance of scum manipulation there.

[ShadowLurker]

I keep noticing that practically nobody takes up my discussions about (i)

why

I think John Locke might very well be lying, and (ii)

why

Valentine is being so vague.

This is primarily because there are

<2 days to deadline

and vagueness does not seem like a good enough case to try and completely redirect the On Camera people into switching. There will also be a reveal at the end of the Scene, which will give us a definitive basis to go on rather than speculation.

---

Anyway, the combination of KY Krew choosing to put Talian On Stage as well as the fact that I could see where they were coming from On Stage and the singleness of that action makes me very uneasy about a Talian lynch.

I am now uncomfortable about zwet being scum as well as his points are logical, and I don't like the meta argument of "zwet isn't logical as town" as it is basically saying to lynch zwet when he's being protown. However, since he is currently the leader by far, I do think he should claim ASAP with less than 2 days to go.

---

This is pretty much just WIFOM. You're trying to guess at another player's intentions when presented with two equal choices. Plus, it's entirely irrelevant if Krew is town, or if MafiaJin and Talilan have the same alignment.

The choices are not equal however. You are putting one person in danger. The chances of KY Krew being town after his shenanigans in my eyes is virtually nil. And if MafiaJin and Talian are both scum, he could always go for hewitt or someone. Actually, now I wonder why KY Krew would not really try and screw up things by picking an advocate or the voice of reason sottyrulez. Is he protecting zwet maybe?

[ShadowLurker]

It is frustrating for me right now because I rely largely on meta reads and since I haven't played in a fair while, I have no meta read.


zwet seems to have been pretty willing to do what other people tell him to do which normally strikes me as protown for a newb who isn't paying attention. However, in this case he really has been completely avoiding scumhunting. He has not claimed any additional role to try and save himself, while I would expect a scum to be claiming a power role here close to deadline. However, at the very worst possibility here, I see us losing a vanilla townie who didn't do much. As such, I will be ranking zwet above Talian in my Condorcet list, which as of right now, puts him pretty close to a lynch.

Looking at Off Stage in general, I really feel like

most of the scum are On Stage

. On Stage has been a clusterfuck today when it should have been a relatively straightforward situation and I feel like scum were definitely confusing that situation. Meanwhile Off Stage, I feel has been very insightful and protown in general.

The trihydra and GnB I feel extremely town about. Mighty Orbots has also been pretty protown. While I disagree with elmosaurian on some things (I really hate affirming self's actions as protown as well as focus on specific actions while not taking into account the context), this is just typical Yos and I've always had these disagreements with him. PJ, I don't have a good read yet. This leaves Thok, who while I felt protown initially, hasn't really done any scumhunting and didn't follow up to his questions to GnB as well as Gaspar, who I really just completely disagree with. Rawr Hydra I also do not really have a read on yet but RH has much less of an excuse and needs to make a Condorcet list ASAP.

As such, I will be voting Thok, but what really matters about my vote is that zwet is above Talian.

Vote Thok

, Rawr Hydra, zwetschenwasser, [Gaspar, Talilan], elmosaurian, MrJellyLee, Mighty Orbots，No Lynch, [Bagel Eating Cowfrog, GoofballsAndBaloons]

[Thok]

My internets been flaky for the last hour or so (like, it has gone down consistently every 10-20 minutes today.) I'm hoping to put in an hour or two of rereading if it stabilizes.

(Don't use the above to avoid voting for me if you find me scummy.)

[Talilan]

I've been around but wanted to give the posting a rest cause we've (well mostly me) were responsible for about half the posts for a timeframe and I feared you might just stop reading them.

Thok:

From what I've seen in my quick glance since I've last posted, I wouldn't necessarily find Gaspar/Elmosaurian suspicious even if you came up town. Your defense involves things like "I couldn't see the argument Thok made in the thread that mith wouldn't lie", even though the default assumption in a non-bastardly modded game is that the mod won't lie.

It is not comforting to know that if we flipped town you would entirely ignore our sentiments about the scum.

Why did you find it likely that mith would mislead CKD or Panzer?

Again and further to the above point this is a completely different use of the phrase "bastard modding" to how I would expect it to be applied. Lying in a standard role pm is bastard modding. Having the roles of advocates who need to lead the town to a correct decision (especially when you have two different advocates) is not the same. I just did not view this as in any way a situation where we should think the advocates had complete/accurate information. Especially when what they said was so solid which directly indicated us choosing a specific choice. Had they claimed to have been given more cryptic information I would have assumed they had been given the truth but that we had a puzzle to solve or WIFOM to work out. In this case they just emphatically agreed on us going in a specific direction. If this was the correct decision then it kind of makes you wonder what the whole point of the first scene was to begin with. Because under your arguments and what it seems like now it's pretty much an autowin for the town. Not only are there two advocates minimising the chance of either being scum but if one or both is scum then they will caught in a lie anyway. I have since looked at what Jelly posted and conceive of these scenes more like a resource game with added WIFOM, as I said in our quicktopic:

I think what MrJellyLee had to say was intelligent and correct albeit a lot was pure setup speculation. It pretty much seems to be a resource game with WIFOM where scum will have to decide whether to install themselves or others as the advocates and whether to lie or not as an advocate (which will also lead to WIFOM as to whether a townie is or is not telling the truth when they get made an advocate). Lynching them decreases the pool of scum they have to draw on to dispose of by misleading the town. I think this setup is the cool the more I think about it.

You are also ignoring the fact that there still IS a non-zero probability of both advocates being scum, 6.25% assuming the scum make up 25% of the town. These reasons are easily enough not to be completely certain about what to do. Being completely certain I would be more inclined to interpret as a scum-tell. While Talitha and I agreed we got the vibe you were likely pro-town (albeit I don't think you've been particularly helpful so far) I think you are perhaps suffering from confirmation bias and coming up with all these reasons to suspect us given elmo and Glork's strongly stated opinions.

Quick post: Gaspar, do you believe the Advocates were truly chosen at random? If so, what would you say if a [Something Else] received John Locke's offer to turn scum?

This was something else we were wary of which we discussed on camera, and was the motivation for considering letting Locke drive. He may have been relying on his claim he could have defected to later effectively confirm him.

This is one of the things that makes me think there is a strong chance that John Locke is lying. For the record, though, I have already asked Mr. Grey if "random" means

truly

random, and he refused to give me an answer. But I don't see how a Something Else "turning" into a Non-Innocent is really a

bad

thing if it is also

announced to the Town

; all that would really do is tell us somebody who was already scum to begin with.

If Locke is telling the truth and him driving is genuinely the bad outcome then I would have expected, if he drives, for mith just to say "that was the wrong choice". We would have had no way of inferring from this that Locke's alignment had changed. It's only because Locke claimed it to begin with that we would potentially know.

"I think it's clear what decision to make, however I think we need to force more information out of the advocates to help assess their scumminess/not scumminess."

What the hell? Since when is telling someone you're specifically trying to work out their alignment conducive to finding out their alignment? Do you genuinely think your argument here holds water?

Now, you did later change your mind in thread and start pushing toward the other (I'm assuming "good") option instead, but by that point, it was arguably pretty clear that the town was going that way no matter what you said.

Even Glork said that even

before

we brought up our dissenting voice the decision was already pretty much set. You can't use the argument "well it was already decided when you finally changed your view" without considering whether "well it was already decided before you brought in your dissenting voice in the first place".

I would be pretty upset with your horrendous use of mislogic.

I still see no evidence of such anywhere.

We apparently can't quote the mod rules, but go back and read through the rules for endgame again; it clearly says that the more "bad" choices are made, the harder the endgame will be on innocents.

I don't think this is clear. Changing the alignment of one player from innocent to scum itself will affect the end-game no matter what.

When I said that I thought Talilan would give an "flavor/acting" explanation for her behavior, I thought to myself "it would actually be good if she said she needed to put pressure the decision to force the On-Camera players to provide her alignment insight."

This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen. Please provide one way in which this is not exactly the same thing or entailed by "generating discussion and getting reads on other players", which is what we claimed as our goal multiple times.

I actually came to a similar conclusion to GAB, because it seemed to me no one was really beefing with Talilan before the sudden switch. It's only after, when the sparks started flying, that anyone expressed suspicion of Talilan such certainty as was associated with MafiaJin.

No, it was before. Gaspar was attacking us very heavily before we were switched and an increasing flock of people seemed to be following him.

Well, I asked Talilan to explain their behavior, and in a lengthy conversation, Talilan didn't bring it up once. If Talilan were suddenly go "Oh yeah, that's another reason I was making alternate suggestions," I would not be inclined to believe them.

I'm sorry that we did not think to write "we needed to put pressure the decision to force the On-Camera players to provide us alignment insight." instead of "we were attempting to generate discussion and determine other players' alignments". You don't have a leg to stand on and as such have resorted to transparent word games.

In light of seeing Elmosaur's 480, and PJ's reply in 490, I'm going to unvote. I suddenly feel like I've played an extremly poor day one.

Unvote

I don't understand what you were referring to as your "poor play" considering you revoted us in 496.

[Talilan]

Also, two things.

The fact KY Crew claimed having important information to share as a pretext for stuntmanning in but is yet to say anything pretty much confirms he is scum.

Also I am wondering if it's possible that the advocate tomorrow will be muted. I am also, on reflection, wondering if they will even know which is the correct door to begin with. If so, I propose that if it turns out that they can't talk then we assume that they do know which is the correct door. Thus, optimal play is for them to pick a door which isn't the correct one. Thus the decision should always be to change. That way if they do not know which door is correct, then if they pick anyone, one gets closed and we opt to change, we get the standard 2/3 chance benefits of the correct solution to the Monty Hall problem. If, however, they do know which is the correct door, we instruct them in advance to pick a door which isn't the correct one, so that changing will force us onto the correct door always.

Basically we want to ensure, assuming the advocate is muted which is a possibility, that we always opt to change to the other door, and that their behaviour entails the best possible results whether they know which is the correct door or not. The only way this plan fails is if the advocate is scum and deliberately sabotages it or in the event they do not know which is the correct door and we lose on a 1/3 probability.

I am checking some things with our host.

[Talilan]

Apparently the advocate does get to speak in scene two so disregard that.

[Thok]

@Ortolan (I assume that's you in the most recent posts): Assuming for the sake of this comment that you are innocent, being innocent doesn't mean you are right. I'm allowed to decide on my own how much importance I should place on your opinion.

If you want I can hunt down 5-6 newbie games where I've said the same thing.

If Locke is telling the truth and him driving is genuinely the bad outcome then I would have expected, if he drives, for mith just to say "that was the wrong choice". We would have had no way of inferring from this that Locke's alignment had changed. It's only because Locke claimed it to begin with that we would potentially know.

You seem to be implying that you'd trust CKD more if he gave you less information. That strikes me as extremely counter-intuitive.

You are also ignoring the fact that there still IS a non-zero probability of both advocates being scum, 6.25% assuming the scum make up 25% of the town. These reasons are easily enough not to be completely certain about what to do. Being completely certain I would be more inclined to interpret as a scum-tell.

Even in this 6.25% chance, if scum lie they lose two of their members. The odds that scum think the benefit of winning the stage 1 game are more important than the benefits of losing two scum are probably pretty small. (Obviously it's hard to give specific odds to this event, but scum can't afford to give up too many free lynches or they'll run into the 2 scum lots of town worse case endgame no matter what happens in the stages.)

"I think it's clear what decision to make, however I think we need to force more information out of the advocates to help assess their scumminess/not scumminess."

What the hell? Since when is telling someone you're specifically trying to work out their alignment conducive to finding out their alignment? Do you genuinely think your argument here holds water?

Way to miss the point completely. The point is that you can say "I think a specific decision of who to drive is the right decision" and then continue to scum hunt anyways, rather than give the impression that you're ambivalent about the decision of who should drive in an attempt to scum hunt.
---------

Doing some rereading.

First off, it feels like there's a lot of scum in KY Krew/Hewitt/ThebladethatkilledMufasa/MafiaJin on stage (possibly Panzerjager also; Thesp and sottyrulez are the only players on stage who come off as strongly protown.)

Looking over pregame, I noticed Hewitt's semiwishy-washy support of the zwet attacks in post 66. That fits with my feeling that zwet is townish.

@Bridges: In post 346 you said you were working om a zwet meta. How is that coming?

Also to GoofballandBaloons: you haven't voted in over a week (I know, lol hypocrisy.) What would you vote be now if you made it? (You had KY Krew/zwet as your high scum then, but one can't be lynched and you've argued that scum would have bussed zwet by now if he was fellow scum.)

(Nowhere near done and it feels like some of what I've posted is superficial. The following vote is really more of a tweak to my previous vote that I plan on refining more tonight than a fully crystalized view of who I feel is likely scum. Also, given my feeling that lots of people on stage are scum leads to some weird stuff; for example I think zwet has a good chance of being town, but still rises on my vote count because other players have felt somewhat more townish. Similarly late day 1 I'm not going to support no lynch.)

(I plan on posting more in about 2 hours. Going to get dinner.)

unvote

vote GoofballsandBaloons

, Talilan, MisterJellyLee, Rawr Hydra, zwet, Shadowlurker, [Bagel Eating Cowfrog, Mighty Orbots, Gaspar, elmosaurian], No Lynch, Thok

[Bagel Eating Cowfrog]

Zwet i think now would be a good time to post your picture On Camera.
You might also want to include some kind of symbol indicating that they unvote as we're not done yet. I find it all too easy for one of them to vote for Valentine, thus forcing a no lynch here, and blame it on forgetfulness

-dahill

[Talilan]

You seem to be implying that you'd trust CKD more if he gave you less information. That strikes me as extremely counter-intuitive.

Wow why do so many people repeatedly misrep us. I said if the nature of the information given by both advocates was vague, as is a possibility going into the first scene without any knowledge of the sorts of advice given to advocates and how they will express it; then I would have been more confident that there was a riddle or puzzle to solve or somesuch. As it was they both gave emphatic responses, which begs the question of why the decision is so easy. I'm frankly surprised you misunderstood the argument I was putting forward to such an extent that you misrepresented it and put it in such uncharitable terms. I never said anything specifically about CKD, I never said "I would trust him more if he gave us less information" which carries totally different implications and implies he is deliberately holding information back, when I am talking about the nature of the information given to the advocates in the first place.

Even in this 6.25% chance, if scum lie they lose two of their members. The odds that scum think the benefit of winning the stage 1 game are more important than the benefits of losing two scum are probably pretty small. (Obviously it's hard to give specific odds to this event, but scum can't afford to give up too many free lynches or they'll run into the 2 scum lots of town worse case endgame no matter what happens in the stages.)

Ok that is all true but for God's sake what is at issue is whether Gaspar/elmo's attacks on us were ever justified. It is not a matter of whether the scenario that both advocates are lying scum is likely, it is whether Gaspar/elmo were justified in attacking us for even countenancing the possibility in the first place.

What is happening is Glork is saying we are scummy for X reasons. We are saying doing X is not scummy. You are then asking us to prove not X. It's not a valid line of enquiry or attack at all. We are not arguing "it is likely that both advocates are lying", or "it is likely that the advocates are giving misleading information". We are defending against Glork's accusations that we are scummy for even considering the possibility. I really do not see where you're coming from at all.

Way to miss the point completely. The point is that you can say "I think a specific decision of who to drive is the right decision" and then continue to scum hunt anyways, rather than give the impression that you're ambivalent about the decision of who should drive in an attempt to scum hunt.

This is really "silly". If it's a foregone conclusion then you're not going to get any more information out of the advocates. If you leave things on the table then you're still going to get information. It's the same as the argument for why you can't say "ok we're definitely lynching X today but let's have some more discussion" on say day one. If who you're lynching is a foregone conclusion, and scum know this, there's no validity to scum-tells anymore. They're not going to defend their buddy anymore if the person is scum, and they're not going to bother attacking townies anymore because the lynch is already determined. There is also the fact that "giving the impression you're ambivalent" isn't even scummy to begin with. As I said being ambivalent is a scum-tell. We never gave you any evidence we did intend to vote or coerce people to let Locke drive. Considering the possibility helps catch scum. End of story. I can't understand why you don't see this.

I am clearly going to have meta you because that condorcet is honestly completely horrible.

[Talilan]

The last four posts by Talilan are all ortolan

[Gaspar]

If you think I am scummy

The thing is, I don't think you're

anything

yet. Like I said, I wanted to see more from you before deciding one way or the other.

You ignore me.

Sorry, I didn't know you expected a response.

I find gaspar scummy because of his unanticipated reversal of his point of view on me that everyone else seems to have ignored or missed.

My reversal was unanticipated because -- and see if you can follow this:

KY Krew a COMPLTELY UNANTICIPATED DECISION, which makes him very likely scum

. Like I've already explained, going On Camera and leaving you hanging out to dry makes it

MUCH

more likely that you're a victimized townie.

Of COURSE my reversal was unanticipated. I didn't expect Krew to do what he did, and I don't think anybody else did either. That was the DIRECT trigger which caused me to change my mind about you.

That's my explanation, and that's exactly what it has been all along. Somebody (Shanba?) said they saw that as being fairly protown, so not everyone has by and large ignored it. What I want to know, Zwet, is what YOU think of my explanation.

[Talilan]

zwet, Mighty Orbots, please send a signal to the stage immediately telling them not to trust KY Crew. He just posted and asked for directorial firing and looks like he suggested to follow Locke.

[Gaspar]

When I said that I thought Talilan would give an "flavor/acting" explanation for her behavior, I thought to myself "it would actually be good if she said she needed to put pressure the decision to force the On-Camera players to provide her alignment insight."

This is the most absurd thing I've ever seen. Please provide one way in which this is not exactly the same thing or entailed by "generating discussion and getting reads on other players", which is what we claimed as our goal multiple times.

No. This is bull. You quoted your own damned QuickTopic to say you thought following Locke actually had merit. Now you're saying you suggested following him merely to create discussion? I'm not even sure YOU know what you're trying to say here. You're either trying to have your cake and eat it too, or you're just vomiting nonsense as you go along.

I don't understand what you were referring to as your "poor play" considering you revoted us in 496.

I think I let myself get sidetracked by some assumptions I had made. Nevertheless, after stopping and thinking about it, I decided that your play as a whole (not just the fact that you wanted to follow Locke) makes you the most viable scum lynch candidate at this point. My play has been less-than-stellar, but there's also still a pretty solid chance I arrived at the right conclusion.

[Mighty Orbots]

Right, I agree that we want to let those on camera know not to listen to KY Krew but as I've said the prearranged signals that I have that I could pass on right now would be to trust Val or to end the day. I don't think we want to end the day right now (I'm not sure where the Condorcet vote sits) and even if I said to trust Val that might be taken to mean trust her, follower her and end the day now.

It's much safer to have zwetschenwasser send a picture; I'm not sure whether he's prepared one or not so I went looking. Unfortunately the internet has failed me yet again. In addition to not being able to find something simple like a picture of a chimpanzee playing a trombone I can't find any of Carrie Fisher with an X through her. So I made my own. I have to confirm with the mod that zwetschenwasser can post this one without violating the extra information part of his job description but while I'm getting that checked everyone take a look and let me know if it gets the message across.

Picture here

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Thok]

As it was they both gave emphatic responses, which begs the question of why the decision is so easy.

Occam's Razor suggests it's easy because it is easy. If there is another reason, then it more likely is a mith-mod tell than a CKD/Panzer scum tell.

So perhaps I should rephrase my question: Do you have good reason to believe that Mith would not give straightforward answers? Do you have good reason to believe that CKD/Panzer would misrepresent the type of information they were given and provide a straightforward answer rather than a puzzle?

(By good reason, I really mean a reason that is likely enough that pursuing that line of inquiry would help town improve its odds of winning even a negligible amount.)

The competing theory is that you really were trying to persuade the on camera decision in the wrong way, which feels like it's a much more likely situation.

This is really "silly". If it's a foregone conclusion then you're not going to get any more information out of the advocates.

From the point of view of the advocates, it was mostly a foregone conclusion once Panzer posted. And yet you still felt it was worth trying to get more information out of them.

(I also think your related comment is silly; if scum suddenly relax once day 1 is seemingly over, then you now have a viable scum tell that helps you lynch on day 2/3/4 etc. MrJellyLee has even observed a case of this; his suspicion of Panzer comes from the fact that Panzer has seemingly relaxed since the on camera decision is inevitable.)