Mini 878: Nouns Mafia - Da game is ovah!

[Iecerint]

/confirm and /cheers

[Iecerint]

Vote: Parhelic

for being the other slow-to-confirm player.

[Iecerint]

I'm assuming that you're /confirming rather than confirming that you are scum with SF and ML?

[Iecerint]

elvis, what are you claiming about BM in the bit SC quoted? It reads as if you believe that town-BM is slyly discrediting your wagon on scum-SF. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Iecerint]

I'd thought that the first "Confirm" was from some player other than SF and that MC was the first to slip up/joke about it, so I was prodding in that direction to see what would come up. As it is, he ignored me, so I guess it wasn't very effective. In any event, my current understanding that SF had already trivialized elvis's thread before that makes MC's perceived transgression all the more innocuous.

[Iecerint]

ML -- your italicized bit is my read of the elvis quote I was asking about. Here's said quote:

The boxman wagon does not look random to me. It looks to be based on a weak scumtell. I don't know how others see boxman's post 31, but to me it's boxman posting without content, posting without trying to advance the game or scum hunt, and possibly the worst sin of all -- making my sensfan bandwagon look silly!

At the time, I was assuming that elvis wouldn't criticize the boxman wagon unless she thought he was town. If she thought that both BM and SF were likely scum, her indignation above wouldn't make much sense. So I assumed she thought/was leaning that BM was town and SF was scum.

The last sentence of the quote indicates that there are three things BM has done that elvis believes are worthly of suspicion -- low content, low scumhunting, and trivializing her SF bandwagon. (How BM is responsible for trivializing said wagon is anyone's guess, but that's how the quote reads to me.) The last of these transgressions make little sense, because it's not clear why a town player would actively discredit a wagon on another player, but that's what elvis seems to be claiming.

It looked like SC had already called her out on this, but elvis's hypothetical scumtell made such little sense that I wanted to get clarification from her.

[Iecerint]

Suffice it to say that Boxman has been online.

[Iecerint]

Unvote; Vote: Netopalis

. Neto's claims are pretty out-there IMO. I think a town player would just admit he'd made a mistake at this point.

[Iecerint]

Trying to stop a lynch is not necessarily scummy; however, the bizarre logic that you are using to stop this one it is. Boxman hasn't responded because he hasn't been online? Bandwagons aren't useful for pressure? It doesn't make any sense. I find it scummy that you're unwilling to make concessions even when it's clear you may have erred. You're sticking to your version of the facts without regard to information from other players.

[Iecerint]

Now you've just contradicted yourself again. Earlier, you said that votes are not useful except to indicate willingness to lynch. Now you're saying that you'd only be okay with the bandwagon if it was for pressure. Does not compute.

Moreover, in spite of saying that you like bandwagons that are genuine, you're implicitly attacking SF for implying that his vote WAS genuine?

And on top of that, what are you trying to prove with the 3 votes business? If 3 votes don't do it, what would YOU have players do? Ignore the suspicious player? That's the clearest alternative to keeping up pressure as far as I can tell. If people used your algorithm, any player under suspicion could evade it by lurking.

If someone understands what Neto is arguing and the logic doesn't seem really self-defeating to them, please speak up. Maybe he's just not expressing himself very well.

[Iecerint]

You may have conflated me and SC a little bit there. I see what you mean, though.

What do you think should be done about Boxman? (Be clear. Don't just say what we "shouldn't" do.) Why do you think he's ignored this game while being active elsewhere?

[Iecerint]

Do you think that lurking to replacement upon coming under suspicion is null with respect to alignment?

[Iecerint]

I wasn't asking specifically about Boxman; I was asking about the general case. Your post 117 implies that you often ignore games in which you are under suspicion, which may imply that you think lurking to replacement is null. It now seems like you're claiming it's null for you, but is scummy in the general case. Is that accurate?

[Iecerint]

That's nice, but it is only tangentially related to what I asked you. <_<

[Iecerint]

OK, so how long does Boxman have before he crosses a line in the sand and enters scumville?

[Iecerint]

Why do you think I "vehemently support" the boxman wagon? Why do you think I'm voting Neto specifically because of his view of the speed of the wagon?

Also, have you ever answered my question about that weird statement you made a long time ago? (I quote it and spell out why I think it's odd in my iso 5.)

[Iecerint]

There's a difference between me "supporting" the wagon and me "vehemently supporting" the wagon. The former I understand someone thinking, but the latter I do not. Elvis claimed the latter, which is relevant because there's no reason for a town player to overestimate another player's support for a wagon. I wanted to know why she did so. (For example, I may have missed a phrase of mine that implied "vehement support," she may have misread something, etc.) As is, I'm still not sure why she chose the word she did. All my "support" for the boxman wagon has been pretty indirect.

Thanks for clarifying the "trivialized" issue. I see what you meant. Regarding the other, the fact that by "weak scumtell" you actually meant "legitimate scumtell" slipped by me the first time. It seems like disingenuous word choice to me. When I call something a "weak scumtell," I am typically discrediting it.

I think boxwagon was originally pretty silly (nothing wrong with that; it was page 2), but his subsequent disappearance has made it somewhat credible.

[Iecerint]

Cam, you have implied that it is town-to-null to quickly vote the other wagon if you are one of two wagons. This differs from what I understand to be common knowledge. If necessary, could you clarify your perspective on this issue?

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: Oh, follow-up on the elvis business. elvis, did you think that BM was intentionally trivializing your SF wagon, or just that that was a consequence of his post?

[Iecerint]

Neto, why is my questioning "potentially scummy"? Do you feel this way about all questioning, or is something particularly off about mine? Assuming the latter, could you point out what exactly is off about it? Also, why did you share your town reads?

NB: 5 hours left until you're not allowed to complain about boxwagon anymore.

[Iecerint]

I see. The only tell I trust is perceived inconsistency, and I find that the best way to confirm that something is inconsistency rather than misunderstanding is to ask highly specific questions.

[Iecerint]

You left out my post 118:

Do you think that lurking to replacement upon coming under suspicion is null with respect to alignment?

This one is about the general case.

[Iecerint]

What does 156 have to do with his case on SF? Or am I just assuming you were implying it did?

[Iecerint]

I believe he's said that it was not motivated to lynch, but it was a serious vote. I think that should be true of all early-game votes.

[Iecerint]

If anyone votes someone with intent to keep pushing until whoever it was is lynched on page 2 of D1, they are deluded or silly or scum. All votes that early are with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean that they're not serious, though, or that they're appropriately discredited as "just for pressure." I personally don't see a contradiction in SF's characterization of his vote.

SF was scummy in Twilight, but I'm not getting the same vibe now as I got from my readthrough back then. Then again, SF isn't advocating a policy lynch on zwet D1 this time.

[Iecerint]

Namely, players vote to go on record with their suspicions, to encourage others to participate, to contextualize their posts, and/or to express lynch preference.

Am I misunderstanding that last sentence, or do you not understand why those first 3 things are valuable?

[Iecerint]

Neto, I don't think going on record with suspicions is necessarily a pressure thing. I think it ties in to what elvis just mentioned; it makes it harder for scum when they have to explain their actions and be held accountable. The easiest way to avoid being accountable is by lurking, not voting, and so forth. The easiest way to make scum accountable is by encouraging everyone to publicly voice their suspicions and participate so that said behavior is evident.

Regarding scumlists, I agree with SF. Town reads are largely irrelevant, as we're (usually) not voting for the most town player. They help scum far more than they help town. Listing suspects is nice, though.

[Iecerint]

I think you overreacted to an early wagon in a big way.

[Iecerint]

There are some other scummy things that Neto did along the way, like suggest that we discuss the set-up rather than reactions to the wagons. Could be that he somehow really thinks it's a good idea to do as much, though.

[Iecerint]

It's potentially scummy because a lot of your questions were really nitpicky. They seemed to be rather aggressive and, in a few cases, regarding things that just didn't matter. That being said, I only said it was potentially scummy, and it will be reevaluated as you play.

This is Neto's 156. He's explaining why he thinks my asking questions of players I suspect is scummy. Did you misinterpret this post, or did you mean to refer to some other post?

[Iecerint]

The first explains a reason for such votes and a perceived consequence of the vote in this circumstance.

The second is stating that he won't explain what was going through his mind when he joined the bandwagon.

[Iecerint]

Neto's been feigning ignorance at why SF would vote that way for pages now. (I say "feigning" because it's been explained to him so many times that I have difficulty believing that he really doesn't understand.) I don't have a problem with trying to end issues like that when they get out of hand.

[Iecerint]

How many votes is that...?

[Iecerint]

Barring interesting new analysis, I'll vote for Boxman once Parhelic's replacement has had a chance to chime in.

[Iecerint]

I've never been scum on this site, and I always try to be hyper-conscious of how I represent myself. Maybe I'd try even harder as scum, but I've never seen the truth in the "trying too hard = scum" angle.

Waiting for Percy's promised post and one from Parhelic's replacement.

Vote Count 12

Boxman:

5 (Konowa, Netopalis, mathcam, elvis_knits, Seol)

Netopalis:

4 (StrangerCoug, SensFan, Iecerint, Boxman)

Not Voting:

(big_kahunia, MacavityLock, Percy)

Deadline:

Friday November 27th, 12:00 PM EST

Everyone

is now back from LA.

I'm going to give

Boxman

until

noon

on

Saturday

to pick up/respond to his

prod

before I replace him.

[Iecerint]

If I'm not conscious of how I play, I wallpost everywhere. This is my eighth game.

Waiting on Percy and/or BK.

[Iecerint]

Why would anyone think that it's scummy to have never been scum?

[Iecerint]

I said it to contextualize my comment about what Seol said.

[Iecerint]

This is also pretty evasive play from Iecerint; quibbling over "vehemently" rather than addressing the substantive issues.

Elvis potentially misrepresenting my play = evidently, not a big deal
Me wanting to set the record straight = "quibbling"

Your commentary on post 211 doesn't make any sense; rather than "acknowledging the fact that discussing Netopalis' alignment requires discussing Box's alignment," I'm giving an example of why Neto looks scummy regardless of Boxman's alignment. (In other words, that post literally says the opposite of what you claim it does.) I do as much because elvis explicitly asked for such an example.

Also, I have no idea what you mean regarding post 235. Neto didn't understand SF's post, so I explained it. I don't see how you can contrive an attack out of that. I actually already explained said post just afterward:

Neto's been feigning ignorance at why SF would vote that way for pages now. (I say "feigning" because it's been explained to him so many times that I have difficulty believing that he really doesn't understand.) I don't have a problem with trying to end issues like that when they get out of hand.

Welcome, BK. It looks like the main thing that bothers you about Neto's play is the disparity between his treatment of SF and BM. Do you think that Neto is only scummy if he is scum with BM, or do you think the disparity can be explained some other way?

[Iecerint]

At the time, Boxman's guilt was just failing to play the game and one content-less post. It was not a hugely serious scumtell at the time IMO. However, it was still a more significant scumtell than anything else at the time. As such, I thought that Neto's attempts to discredit said wagon by calling SF's vote either "just pressure and pressure is lame!" or "too quick to lynch I am so uneasy!" (depending on the page we're on) were very disingenuous.

This is information that hinges on BM, and elvis wanted something unrelated to BM, so I brought up the bizarre set-up discussion comment as something 100% independent. I didn't respond to elvis's re-question because I'd already answered it implicitly; obviously, I wouldn't be voting Neto if I didn't think he could be scum without BM. I didn't respond to yours because I wasn't sure what you were talking about; I think I've been pretty clear that I think Neto could be scum without BM.

That said, BM's second disappearing act is quite troubling. I assume he's active elsewhere on the site?

Neto, literally like 4 players have brought up the disparity between your treatment of SF/BM by this point. Why have you failed to address the issue until now?

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: BM is currently posting elsewhere. Not sure if he's been AWOL for the past few days, though.

[Iecerint]

Suppose that you were scum who knew that BM is town. By overestimating the degree to which other players were pushing for a BM lynch, you could be setting-up for a mislynch D2.

Until BM came back and disappeared again, BM wasn't that scummy. Neto was odd at best.

[Iecerint]

My thinking was more like this:

1. Elvis claimed I vehemently support X.
2. I do not vehemently support X, nor have I implied I do so.
"Why would Elvis do this?" =>
3. Elvis may be trying to set-up something.
"Why would Elvis do that?" =>
4. Elvis is scum preparing for a mislynch on BM.

Granted, this is from a LONG time ago. It looks like you were just using the word "vehement" rhetorically. If I assume you're honest about that, then there's no conflict between the facts and what you said, and your behavior is no longer scummy.

[Iecerint]

So Boxman was both vigged and bomb'd, and mathcam was NK'd?

Finally, I think scum tells = more over-rated than Adam Morrison coming out college

BK, what did you mean by this?

[Iecerint]

I don't blame people for thinking I may be scum given Neto and Boxman's flips. All I can refer you to is the views I expressed D1 about the possibility that Neto could be scum without BM, which I maintain were justified.

I don't think that ML is the most likely scum. He lurked a little, and he was suspicious of Neto, but I think the arguments he's presented have been solid. Also, his play reminds me of his play in the WoT theme game, where he was town. Percy reads similar to ML to me, except that his comeback post in my view contained significant distortion about SF and me. His play with regard to confirmed players looks good, though. Withholding judgment for now. I had a gut town read on Seol D1, but in iso it looks like he put a lot of effort into legitimizing the Neto wagon early on, and then sort of lurked once the rest of us had it going. This was apparently due to real-life commitments, but it makes me wonder a little. Still, the fact that he kept his vote on BM for the vast majority of D1, even when there was sustained parity between wagons, speaks well of him.

BK hasn't given us much, but what he has given us has been highly suspect. His first post expresses interest only in the Neto wagon without addressing BM's while his second post implies that Neto is scum if BM is, but doesn't follow up with a request to lynch BM first, anyway. The extension of this perspective is that either could be scum without the other, so I think he was just twisting existing rhetoric rather than providing his own. His predecessor did nothing but question SF's initial vote for BM, which isn't much, but is nonetheless a point against him.

FoS: BK

.

SC is another good suspect. elvis has already spelled this out very well; I don't really have anything to add.

Pending further information, I think we should lynch either BK or SC.

Vote: StrangerCougar

.

[Iecerint]

I was wrong in the sense that BM was scum and Neto was not. I doubt that's what you mean, though.

Neto did a number of things unrelated to BM that I view as scummy, including but not limited to advocating set-up discussion. The fact that he later clarified that he was referring to the hypothetical, abstract value of set-up discussion rather than this game (in other words, that he was making comments irrelevant to why he thought that early wagons were a bad tool in this game) didn't make things any better IMO.

[Iecerint]

I remembered him sticking with the argument longer than it looks like he did, but you're right; he didn't hold onto it as long as I thought.

Still, advocating set-up speculation as an alternative to scumhunting sort of IS a "cardinal sin" IMO. And, contrary to your recent analysis, he certainly did advocate that we setup speculate; he just backpedaled when pressured on it (or that's what it looked like at the time -- in hindsight, he just wasn't thinking very clearly when he suggested it at first. or something). I also thought it was suspicious that he repeatedly asked the same questions of SF even though the answers had already been explained.

[Iecerint]

elvis -- When I was looking for suspects after the flip, one of the first posts I noticed was SC's post at the top of that page (mostly because it's at the top of said page), which you quoted and prior had expressed "disappointment" in. You've interpreted that it was scummy because he was trying to inappropriately extend the day to extract set-up/role information, but I took it a little differently. I thought his post evidenced inappropriate ambivalence in the face of Neto's claim, and especially after Seol's subsequent comments.

The more serious scuminess in my view is from his iso 15 and 16, which I believe are the posts you alluded to where he switches from BM to Neto on the back of arguments that ranged from classically fallacious ("trying too hard to look town") to unambiguously false (Neto was "going with the flow"). He retracted them after being criticized, ignored the issue for a bit, and then switched back to the BM wagon. It looked like he tried to join the townwagon, erred, and returned to the buswagon. The one counterargument in his favor is that he was on BM most of the day, but the usefulness of that as a tell is undermined by BM's extremely anti-town play.

I've already said that my other favorite scum suspect is BK. Check my long post on the previous page. I don't think any other player comes close. I had a gut town read on Konowa yesterday, but I haven't read him since the flip. I'll do that later.

Konowa -- I didn't switch my vote to BM because Neto claimed before I could get BK to answer my question. The question was important because a vote for Neto (which is what BK appeared to be leaning toward) wouldn't follow if Neto was only scummy with BM, but it looked like BK's read on Neto was based mostly on his BM defense. If Neto had held off a little longer, I may well have switched votes, especially considering BM's continued absence.

[Iecerint]

My entire reasoning for thinking he was scum was based on how he reacted to Boxman's wagon. I could not see town reacting to a wagon like that.

I do not understand the difference between my reaction to the wagon and SF's reaction to the wagon. Please explain.

I have played in a game recently, sometime this summer, where we caught scum for doing something like that, i.e. over-reacting to a early wagon.

If anyone was guilty of "overreacting" to an early wagon D1 this game, it was Neto IMO.

[Iecerint]

I think it is highly, highly unlikely that EK is scum. She pushed hard for a BM wagon at a time when it was very reasonable that the town could have been persuaded to switch sides. And the townwagon was, IMO, on a reasonably scummy player, failing to do so would have been pretty blameless. If she is scum, she was pulling an unnecessary gambit. As such, I strongly dislike SC's recent post.

Neto had already prematurely claimed. Given the uncertainty town had about the claim, it stood to reason that some player, well-meaning or otherwise, might have dug for flavor information in Neto's claim and gotten the scum information about role PM structure to aid in hypothetical future fakeclaims. Even had he been fakeclaiming (as townSC wouldn't know, etc.), the types of flavor questions posed by town probably would have communicated information analogous information to scum. In short, flavor digging was a bad idea for the same reason that D1 set-up speculation is a bad idea.

[Iecerint]

2town4town is literally the lamest, laziest "scumtell" ever, especially in the absence of meta. Hell, it's probably true of literally almost all town players. Town should almost always play town; being "too town" is not scummy. By that logic, I should start playing scummier to help the town rule me out as a possible scum player. Doesn't make any sense, right?

If you meant something else -- like, "Neto did X thinking it would seem town, but town players wouldn't really do X; town players would do Y. So Neto is scummy." -- it may be a valid tell, but that's not how your post reads IMO.

[Iecerint]

Bombs kill the NKer, right? So BM NK'd SF and was himself killed. There are two sets of flavor on BM's death, which is why I think he was also vigged; the crater was probably the bomb flavor. I figured MC made more sense as an extra NK kill than an extra vig, but I was just guessing. Let me know if there is an obvious alternate interpretation of events, because, if so, it's probably clear to everyone else.

Sample extra scummy things that Neto did include a premature, unusual claim and sidetracking the town by repeatedly feigning confusion about SF behavior even after its value had been explained by SF and by myself. Obviously, in hindsight, the claim was real and he wasn't feigning confusion, but that's how it looked to me yesterday. (Also, who's "quibbling" now? )

Obvious tells are obvious tells for a reason -- they help scum without helping town. Scum wins if they're allowed to play that way. Some players insist on playing such that town has to deal with their scummy behavior, but it shouldn't be excused in the general case.

Your argument about the Netowagon being an extra-scummy mislynch is crap. Neto was scummy, so scum would jump to vote for him? Well, yeah, but so would town. If anything, I'd venture to guess that wagons on scummy townies have fewer scum inasmuch as the wagon doesn't need to be helped along by rhetoric and votes from the scum.

[Iecerint]

I saw the flip, read about the Bomb role on the wiki, and made the original post. So that was my understanding when I first posted, but my understanding was based on the wiki page.

SK makes sense given the extra kill. You may be right.

That said, the best evidence against BK being an SK IMO is that Par called out SF for his BM vote, which may imply that Par was scum with BM. It's pretty weak that early in the game, though; it could just be Par wanting SF to explain his vote. Also, I'm not sure that BK didn't express a preference for lynches, either. His first post is mostly about Neto's scuminess, and he lists a bunch of reasons that Neto is scummy related to his treatment of BM and how that differs from his treatment of SF. After I asked him why he thought we should lynch Neto rather than BM given that, he didn't explicitly answer my question, but his follow-up post shifted to being confused about the relationship between the two players. It looked like backpedaling to me, which makes me lean toward scum rather than SK. Granted, BK hasn't given us much to analyze.

I agree that K looks odd this page, but I think SC is the more fullproof choice. Also, I know I promised to go back and read K, but I haven't yet. I will.

[Iecerint]

I hadn't thought of an SK at the time of my first post, for whatever reason; I was assuming that mathcam was an extra mafia kill or something, perhaps a 1-shot extra kill, by PoE. That's why I said "NK." I wasn't really confident with this interpretation, though, hence it being phrased as a question. I agree that SK is a more likely choice for the third kill (I don't often see extra mafia kills on this site); I just hadn't thought of it at first.

In spite of Neto's flip, BM was the scummiest living player after yesterday IMO; if he had survived the night, he probably would have dominated D2 discussion and been lynch. Were I the vig, I would have killed BM last night on this basis. I also hadn't thought of the SK option originally, so I was originally just assigning mafia+extramafia+vig kills, which made BM the obvious vig target.

Mathcam didn't strike me as particularly town yesterday, but he was on a lot of townlists yesterday as I recall. He'd make a reasonable scum target. He's not the target I would have chosen as SK (it's my understanding that SK tends to target scum roles early on), but, given the assumption that the kills are mafia+SK+vig, I think his kill is by SK by PoE.

[Iecerint]

Skimmed Konowa in isolation. I think his play today has not been very well thought-out for reasons that have already been discussed, but I'm inclined to believe that he is not scum due to being the first person to point this out:

I am not sure I am buying the whole "oops, I forgot" from Boxman. He confirmed on Thursday, random voted early Friday morning, and then his, effectively, "hi guys" post was late Friday evening. It is entirely possible that he forgot to put it in his watched topics as he said, but the fact that these three posts were made two separate days does not give much justice to him saying "oops".

I would expect an annoyed response from scum about BM's behavior, but I would not expect this level of evidence and analysis. Actually, I'm surprised that this observation didn't come to dominate the discussion and lead to a BM lynch. There are scumKonowa angles on this -- maybe he thought BM was a lost cause by then; it's also worth pointing out that I don't think Konowa brings up this point again later on -- but I think it's more than enough to keep us from thinking too seriously about lynching him today.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: By "not scum," I mean "not mafia."

[Iecerint]

elvis -- It's worth noting that at least one player (mathcam) had already come out and interpreted BM's comeback post as meaning "BM=Town." I think the issue looked like it was going to go away up until Konowa posted that. (Granted, it STILL pretty much almost went away, except that BM couldn't stop lurking.)

BK, you've said that you were leaning BM yesterday. When exactly do you mean? I ask because your first post in this game implies the opposite:

The main thing that jumps out to me is Neto’s scuminess.

The post goes on to discuss the discrepancy between Neto's view of BM's wagon and SF's wagon. While I think that issue is legitimate, a) your tone doesn't indicate a preference to lynch BM and b) you only mention Neto's scuminess in light of his treatment of BM.

Were you leaning toward a BM wagon already at this point? If so, why did you emphasize Neto's scuminess? If not, when did you change to mentally preferring to BM wagon?

[Iecerint]

It might be helpful to hear other players' takes on EK's/my discussion about Konowa. I'm especially interested in hearing from Percy and ML.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: Seol, too.

[Iecerint]

I think ML's point is that your case consisted mostly of vaguely complaining about BM's low activity. As I allude to in my analysis of the K quote, that kind of response is consistent with scumplay IMO. That you described it as "my case" is a little disingenuous.

I've never modded a game, so I don't have a good sense of what's balanced and what isn't. Is there an a priori reason why that that can't be balanced? Your tone implies it should be obvious that it is impossible, but it is not obvious to me. If there is a better way to interpret the flips, please enlighten me.

I agree with your comment about EK's last sentence.

[Iecerint]

But that's just it -- if Neto was scummy just for BM-directed favoritism, then his behavior is only scummy if BM is scum, right? As such, BM would've been the obvious lynch. Did you not see it that way, or did you think Neto was also scummy for his own reasons, or what?

Regarding balancing, if that's all there is to it, I fail to see the balance problem SC's alluding to. SF can be hammered by town just fine; the bomb role helps town, but not to a degree that balancing is unimaginable. SC's question is just rolefishing as far as I can tell. I'm happy with voting him.

[Iecerint]

BK made an initial post that didn't make any sense (i.e. preference to lynch Neto even though Neto was only scummy with BM). I wanted to clarify BK's perspective because I found it a little scummy; he was lifting EK's rhetoric and my lynch suspect, even though the two perspectives totally didn't mesh well. In other words, I wanted to check whether I'd just noticed a major scumtell from BK before I ran off to vote BM.

[Iecerint]

BK, I've just noticed that you've yet to vote anyone. Please do.

[Iecerint]

How did you expect me to answer your question about balancing if not by listing potential roles? It's scummy for the same reason that Neto was scummy for advocating set-up speculation D1.

Three players died last night and one had double kill flavor. If you think that evidences a bad set-up, complain to the Mod; it doesn't change that it's what happened last night.

[Iecerint]

You've already asked that question, and I've already pointed out the circumstances where doing so could be advantageous to scum regardless of Neto's alignment. Read my last few posts directed at you.

[Iecerint]

Talk about Konowa's D2 play, too, please.

I would also like more quibbling from Percy -- ideally, quibbling about Konowa, but he can quibble about me, too, if he must.

[Iecerint]

Do you just disagree with EK's attack, or do you find it scummy? Has your view of BK changed since your earlier post?

I understand that you've said that you'll post as you find things worth commenting on, but you disappeared for a bit earlier, so I'm trying to abuse you so long as I have your attention.

[Iecerint]

Neto had already prematurely claimed. Given the uncertainty town had about the claim, it stood to reason that some player, well-meaning or otherwise, might have dug for flavor information in Neto's claim and gotten the scum information about role PM structure to aid in hypothetical future fakeclaims. Even had he been fakeclaiming (as townSC wouldn't know, etc.), the types of flavor questions posed by town probably would have communicated information analogous information [sic] to scum. In short, flavor digging was a bad idea for the same reason that D1 set-up speculation is a bad idea.

This is what I was referring to. It was a little farther back than I remembered, though. It's pretty much the same information as Seol listed, except that Seol's explanation was a bit clearer.

[Iecerint]

I think BK is the clearest choice, but it makes more sense to speculate in detail after the mafia inevitably eliminates some possibilities for us. How many votes does SC have?

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: It looks like 3 (L-2).

[Iecerint]

This is misrep of SC:

2town4town is literally the lamest, laziest "scumtell" ever, especially in the absence of meta. Hell, it's probably true of literally almost all town players. Town should almost always play town; being "too town" is not scummy. By that logic, I should start playing scummier to help the town rule me out as a possible scum player. Doesn't make any sense, right?

I found SC's point was clear - it wasn't that he was just too town, that is, looks suspiciously

good

, but that he was trying to look like town and failing. I think the previous post of Iecerint's is an attempt to buddy to EK and get a rival wagon going.

I'd like to point out that Percy conveniently forgot to include the rest of my Post 359. Here's the rest of it:

If you meant something else -- like, "Neto did X thinking it would seem town, but town players wouldn't really do X; town players would do Y. So Neto is scummy." -- it may be a valid tell, but that's not how your post reads IMO.

Look familiar? The rest of my post literally spells out Percy's criticism of my post. He took out my caveat, then criticized me for ignoring the caveat. It's POSSIBLE that he would pull this sort of thing as town for rhetorical effect, but it's pretty remote, and it's kinda a lazy move either way; did he think I wouldn't notice?

To the extent that asking about use of the word "vehement" is quibbling, I'd say that focusing on plurals rather than the actual concepts concerned constitutes quibbling.

The only other time I have ever played with someone so prone to make lame, forced attacks on me was magnus_orion in Twilight mafia, who was scum. I'm getting that same vibe from Percy, but I'd rather lynch SC today.

/Welcome SX

Vote Count 4

StrangerCoug:

3 (elvis_knits, Iecerint, MacavityLock)

Iecerint:

2 (Percy, Konowa)

MacavityLock:

1 (Seol)

Not Voting:

(SpyreX, StrangerCoug)

8

alive,

5

to lynch.

Deadline:

Wednesday, December 2nd, 12:00 Noon EST

[Iecerint]

Seol, I asked you that because given the flip I would consider any attack on EK to be highly, highly scummy at this point. I've already pointed this out once just after SC voted EK, so I thought my intent would be pretty transparent. I was trying to see whether you were trying to discredit EK in preparation for an attack later on without openly saying that you find her argument. In other words, having that very thought about

your

post is what led me to post that.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: "...that you find her argument

scummy

."

[Iecerint]

From my perspective, I think her evaluation of my posts since the day started has evidenced that she's trying to determine players' alignments rather than trying to find someone guilty. Given the flip, I'm not the player to buddy up to; I'm the player to mislynch. So that's why I feel pretty confident about EK. On the other hand, I agree with you that her tone this game is a hair more brusque than in other games I've played with her (I think I may have commented as much D1); however, I'm not certain how to interpret that.

Nah, I don't find your perspective scummy. If you'd come out like SC and voted her for odd reasons, I might have, but I think being cautious is fine.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: Should add that I've never played with scumelvis. I've read through her play in the WoTmini (where she apologized for lack of activity throughout), where she was scum, but she's told me that that was an aberration.

[Iecerint]

So long as we're taking sides, I dispute that the case on SC is weak and I especially dispute the notion that EK is tunneling.

[Iecerint]

OMGSPOOKY. Pending information to the contrary, I guess that probably explains why BK never voted.

[Iecerint]

Elvis, have you played with Seol in the past? I've personally noticed that you're a bit more aggressive in this game than in other ones. As such, I don't blame someone for commenting on your being aggressive (unless they lack prior experience with you). On the other hand, I agree that Seol's post on BK is odd. I didn't think much of it at the time because I was pretty suspicious of BK, but the post looks strange in the context of SX's subsequent behavior, and especially when contrasted with Seol's cautious interpretation of the flip.

Whether this means that Seol is a better lynch than SC isn't necessarily as clear to me.

[Iecerint]

I agree that SX should perhaps toy with his vote, albeit not on SC (for the moment).

[Iecerint]

NB: That I am currently (L-2) if the doublevote was a function of SX's vote rather than SX's vote on BK. Take care, etc.

My crush on elvis continues.

[Iecerint]

MEBWOP --

(L-1)

. <_<

[Iecerint]

SX, you had one vote (Seol was voting BK). If you have 2 permavotes for today, you're now at L-2. Just so that's clear.

[Iecerint]

It's true that BWCS ultimately leads to a paradigm shift where scum players (and ultimately maybe even townies -- ugh) start more commonly fakeclaiming PRs. Are we at that level? I'm not convinced that we are. As such, I think it's decent to point out that only pulling one claim and lynching a vanilla D1 isn't too bad, all things considered, especially if it's a claim on a sketchy player.

I am sympathetic to your claim that Seol is the scummiest out of Seol, EK, ML, and myself. However, I am not convinced that one of us is necessarily scum. That assumes 2 scum on the wagon altogether, which seems possible but not essential to me. Neto claimed at (L-2) IIRC; I think an unsolicited vanilla claim kinda invites attention.

I am also somewhat sympathetic of your view that Percy is scummy out of SC, Percy, and Konowa. However, I do not understand your justification. Could you clarify what those quotes have to do with your read on Percy? Also, please clarify how Percy beats out SC in that category. Both players failed to "stick" IMO, unless you think Percy's vote was deliberately weak or something; it didn't look that way to me.

(Also: I just noticed that Percy was apparently the first to call BK 3rd party. Elvis, was your read on BK based on Percy's speculation?)

[Iecerint]

I do not recall Neto's claim being solicited. My recollection is interpreting that he got tired of the game stagnating and decided to go ahead and claim. It was particularly irritating to me because I was trying to communicate with BK to see whether there was something there. Please let me know if I just missed where the solicitation happened.

As much as I love that you don't love Percy, I think you're reading too much D2 rhetoric into your evidence against Percy. His first post is basically the same (accurate) rhetoric that elvis-and-cohorts were espousing all day. I don't think it's fair to say that Percy specifically is scummy for that unless you establish why the other players who had the same view were not scummy. I also don't see any conflict in someone thinking that Seol and EK were both town D1. Seol's anti-elvis business only became apparent within the last two pages or so. On the other hand, Seol's role in starting the Neto wagon does seem a little at-odds with also thinking elvis town.

I agree with you that SC's being on BM most of D1 is a net chip in his favor. That said, I'm inclined to believe that he thought it would be a quick early-game wagon based on a very weak scumtell and go away just as quickly. Unfortunately, BM's subsequent disappearance prevented him from easily leaving the wagon. He ultimately tried leaving it to join Neto's, but he fumbled on the required logic, and returned to BM's.

[Iecerint]

I think a claim is appropriate when a player is at L-1 and is asked to claim. Before that time, discussion is ongoing. The only time someone should claim earlier is if a player knows he will be lynched at L-1 or earlier, in which case he should point out as much and/or claim ahead of time.

You're saying that Percy deliberately put his buddy (Seol) and his buddy's "enemy" (EK) as town? If so, I think you're not interpreting the post in context. Seol's D1 enemy, if anyone, was Neto; elvis's was either SF or me.

What do you mean by your last sentence? It reads like you think that SC is suspicious for calling out Neto's claim without voting Neto, but then you say that he'd have to be very brave to do that as scum. Which did you mean?

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: The Percy scumlist SX listed is from today, so that part of SX's post now makes a lot of sense. I'd thought it was the list from his initial post for whatever reason. I think the post still came before most of the Seol v. EK business, though, so some of what I said still matters.

I agree with SX on it being sort of lame that Percy never voted for BM given aspects of his rhetoric.

[Iecerint]

Seol, I'm inclined to believe that SC didn't feel very strongly about the reasons he listed for switching to Neto. If he had, he would have defended them and/or stuck up for them. As I recall, someone criticized them, he crawled into a hole, and he came back to vote for BM.

Meta ftw.

Vote Count Se7en

StrangerCoug:

3 (elvis_knits, Iecerint, MacavityLock)

Seol:

2 (SpyreX)

Iecerint:

2 (Percy, Konowa)

elvis_knits:

1 StrangerCoug)

SpyreX:

1 (Seol)

8

alive,

5

to lynch.

Deadline:

Wednesday, December 2nd, 12:00 Noon EST

[Iecerint]

SX, what are you thinking by accusing Seol of preferring lynching inactive town over scum? That obviously isn't what he meant. I think you're misrepresenting him intentionally, which may just mean that you're uncommonly confident in your read and are pressuring. Also, please quote less.

Seol, I think elvis's IIOA accusation is compelling. Some of the theory you're discussing is only tangentially related to this game as far as I can tell. For example, "lynching inactive town is better than lynching active town" from this page is a big one, as is the combination of both pointing out that Neto's claim was way early and hinting that there may have been more than two scum on BM's wagon (i.e. contrary to SX's view that there were exactly two). (In my view, while there may remotely have been 3 scum on Neto's wagon, that possibility is reduced by the early claim and so forth; the fact that you mention the latter discredits the former.) Also, please quote less.

Percy, you're "missing" my post again, but this time it's not really your fault. If you read the next couple of posts after I ask that, you'll find that I correct a mistake I'd made in an EBWOP. I'd thought that the scumlist he posted was your list from D1, but it was your list from D2.

[Iecerint]

I will hurt you.

I didn't notice this the first time around. Cool it bro. O_o

I don't know why you're voting EK either, SC. It hasn't made sense all day. Literally, none at all. If she's just scummy for not wanting to lynch me, then you should be voting me. (That rhetoric sounds familiar.) Granted, if you're really only voting her for that reason....

[Iecerint]

Also, please comment in a bit more detail on Seol v. SX.

[Iecerint]

SX, I still think that's a kinda vacuous accusation. No player, town or scum, is actually going to claim that the goal of lynches is something other than lynching scum. If you think you've caught someone saying that, I think it's more likely that you're misreading/twisting someone's words. In this case, I think Seol's going overboard on IIOA (this mislynch is better than this mislynch is better than this mislynch, etc.), which may be scummy, but not for the reason you have indicated.

[Iecerint]

I don't think that his take on the mislynch yesterday was particularly scummy. I agree with him that lynching vanilla D1 is the BWCS. Given Neto's claim, lynching him was the best option unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise. I don't think that's a very strong point to attack him on.

I agree with you that his expounding upon the relative badness of mislynches was a little scummy, but it's because it was only tangentially related to the issue at hand and encouraged us to argue mechanics rather than to scumhunt.

[Iecerint]

SX is now L-1 (Seol, SX, Percy for 4 votes). I believe the VC on this page is incorrect with respect to SX's vote. Do not lynch SX.

[Iecerint]

I share elvis's criticism of Seol's analysis in 534. At a certain extreme, refusing to accept speculation allows such a broad set of possibilities that it is very difficult to come to consensus. On the other hand, this may be a criticism of playstyle rather than analysis. It looks like Seol has said he will try to keep this under control.

elvis, Seol actually supported the Neto wagon early on in the day IIRC. Read him in iso to make it especially clear. I'm not sure whether this makes him less likely scum or more likely scum, but it contradicts your assertion that "Seol did not seem like he wanted Neto's lynch before that."

I'd still rather lynch SC than Seol at this point; I may be converted if SC steps up. Some of SX's points have seemed very peripheral; Seol accusing SX of being scum is a "masterstroke" and therefore somehow scummy? It's fun to read, but I think it's effective mainly as pressure.

On the subject of masterstrokes, I'm looking forward to an artful return post from ML tomorrow.

[Iecerint]

SC, I meant that I wanted you to address SvS at all, since it was topical. I think you're scum, but I'm not sure whether one of them is scum, so I wanted to get more information on that.

There was no conflation of "too townie" and "trying too hard to be townie." First, these are both crap "scumtells" as written, anyway, for reasons everyone has listed. Second, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and interpreted the latter into "miscalculated how a townie would behave" for your benefit. In other words, I was deliberately allowing that you may have made an argument that by all accounts was more sophisticated than what you actually said. Percy missed this when he read me for the first time, I corrected him, and he said sorry. Maybe you missed this?

Nice post from elvis. I'm even happier with my vote.

[Iecerint]

I see "trying to look town" as a common expression of the "too townie" argument/fallacy. No one ever literally says that someone is "too townie;" that's just the tongue-in-cheek title the fallacy is given on the wiki to emphasize that the argument doesn't make much sense. So I don't see any difference between these terms UNLESS the person using whichever term clarifies why they feel that way with specific evidence differentiating town play from faketown play. When you made the original post, you didn't clarify; you just said without further explanation that Neto was trying too hard to be town.

(Calling whoever's play "unnatural" without examples is equally as unpersuasive. What did you find unnatural? His votes? His syntax? His suspicions? Try to differentiate town play from unusual play, if that's the route you want to take.)

[Iecerint]

If someone makes what I think is a bad point, I point it out even if I had been all-but-convinced that the player was town prior to that. I did quite a bit of it on my last day alive in Twilight mafia if you'd like a reference.

I think Percy already addressed that disconnect, but he mostly just said that there wasn't a disconnect. That, or I didn't understand what his explanation had to do with the discrepancy:

Those on the wagon were arguing that Boxman and Neto were tied together - they were both scum. I was disputing this and saying that if those who said it thought the argument was strong enough, they would be voting to lynch Boxman first. The fact that people were trying to lynch Neto first was a product of (1) their alignments being linked and (2) attention being shifted off Boxman. I didn't like either of these things.

[Iecerint]

Oh, I see what happened there. See, the relationship between Percy's discrepancy and his response is so tenuous that I didn't even recognize that you had already posted it. I thought you were asking him about two independent issues you had with him (i.e. that by "Percy, your response?" you meant that you were requesting one rather than that you were about to provide it). I remembered he had addressed the former, so I posted it without looking to see that you'd already posted it as what I had interpreted to be your second "concern."

Lesson is that the connection between transgression and explanation is so weak that I didn't recognize the latter as addressing the former even with cues.

[Iecerint]

The 3rd quote of yours IS Percy's response to the contradiction between the points in his iso 5 and 11. Re-check the SX quote that that 3rd quote is responding to in his iso 13.

[Iecerint]

Here are quotes you are asking Percy about:

I think Boxman may be scum, but that the case on Netopalis is pretty dead unless Boxman is scum.

I don't think I did any work whatsoever in tying those two players [Neto and Boxman] together[...].

Here is what your 3rd Percy quote was responding to. Notice that SX's quoted bits are paraphrases of the above:

Nah, of course there isn't any dissonance between "Neto makes no sense as scum if Boxman is town" and "I did no work in tying those two players together."

So I am not mistaken. You could be forgiven for failing to notice this, though, because it's somewhat unclear what Percy's response has to do with said disconnect.

[Iecerint]

Whatever. I guess it can't hurt to have Percy explain it again, anyway.

If ML's unaddressed contradiction is obvious to someone else out there who'd like to make it clear to me, I'd appreciate it very much.

[Iecerint]

I don't think he's criticizing you for linking alignments per se. He's arguing that you claimed you hadn't linked alignments (hadn't "done any work tying those two together") whereas you made the "Netoscum iff Boxscum" argument, which constitutes linking. It sounds like you meant something different by "tying those two together" than how most people interpreted it. The linking itself isn't scummy at all IMO; elvis-and-friends were doing it all yesterday.

Could you clarify what you meant by that quote specifically? What did you mean specifically when you said that you didn't think you'd done any work tying Neto and BM together?

[Iecerint]

That's an old argument; it's the same one that SX was making. Since Percy quoted it and then made some "explanatory" text, I think he's of the opinion that he has already addressed the issue. I share your view that his explanation is not very satisfactory; at best, I think it misunderstands the criticisms leveled at the disconnect. On the other hand, I don't think that totally ignoring that he has attempted to address the concerns is helpful. It just leads him to re-cite the explanation he's already given, which is what he's done.

[Iecerint]

ML is criticizing your logic. You've said that you thought Stethoscope was a fakeclaim because it sounded like a doctor Noun. But, if we don't like the claim, we're talking about circumstances where Neto is fakeclaiming. That means that Neto was scum who invented the Noun "Stethoscope" even though any number of other Nouns would've have non-VT connotations. While scum could have done as much, it's not clear why they would.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: Drop the "non," but I think I know what you meant, and it looks like ML's already explained, too.

[Iecerint]

EBWOPx2: "you know what I meant." I no grammar canst do. <_<

[Iecerint]

Let me put it a different way -- did you think that Neto was a Mafia Doctor?

[Iecerint]

Well, if Neto had been a Mafia Doc, that would've been consistent with scum claiming Stethoscope (given that you don't know that rolenames don't necessarily match abilities, etc). Maybe MafiaDocNeto claimed his actual Noun and modified his ability to VT. That way, it'd be consistent to find Neto's claim suspicious.

I personally doubt that Neto really thought through it to that degree. For one thing, he'd have mentioned the MafiaDoc possibility without being prompted.

[Iecerint]

I'm not a wagon jumper. I voted Neto all day. Correct me if I'm remembering incorrectly.

If you don't think that Neto was scummy if and only if BM was scummy, why the hell are you criticizing people who were opposed to that logic yesterday for doing so?

Vote Count Eleefen

StrangerCoug:

3 (Konowa, Iecerint, MacavityLock)

Seol:

3 (elvis_knits, SpyreX)

SpyreX:

2 (Percy, Seol)

elvis_knits:

1 (StrangerCoug)

8

alive,

5

to lynch.

Deadline:

Wednesday, December 2nd, 12:00 Noon EST

[Iecerint]

SX, if seems to me that if you're pretty certain on one of EK and Seol being scum, it doesn't make sense to vote elsewhere. Why have you decided to vote Percy?

I personally might prefer Percy to Seol -- I'm not certain -- but, given your assumptions, I don't understand the switch.

[Iecerint]

Let me see if I understand that position:

1. Yesterday, some people said that BM and Neto were linked.
2. Some (e.g. elvis) said that this meant we should lynch BM, since Neto's scumminess depended on BM's alignment. Such people are one faction of "linkers."
3. Some (e.g. SF) said we should nonetheless lynch Neto, since he was independently scummy. However, as these people still believed in a link between BM and Neto, these people are linkers.
4. Percy was not certain whether Neto was scummy even if BM were scum. He pointed out that the perspectives of all the linkers was null if BM were town, but this was ONLY a logical extension of the linker viewpoint rather than an endorsement of it.

Do I have that right? I'm filling in the blanks a little bit because I'm trying to make #4 not imply that you yourself are a linker. I had prior assumed that you were one of the linkers in group #2 in spite of your having claimed that you were not a linker of any sort.

[Iecerint]

It would be nice if Konowa would take sides on all the disputes that do not involve SC.

[Iecerint]

If people become convinced that SC is indignant town or whatever, I could get behind a Percy lynch. After SC, I think his play has been the least internally-consistent. It's possible that he will clear up SX/ML's problem with his play in a way that doesn't require the logical wrangling I used a few posts ago; given that somewhat remote possibility, it's possible I may begin to prefer Seol, but not by much. I'm more than a little annoyed at Konowa's low activity today (even if it was due to circumstances beyond his control), but he's 4th pick or better given his response to BM's faking he had missed the game.

[Iecerint]

Percy's explanation about what he meant is good enough for the time being. I still think he did some of what I would personally term "linking," but a) it wasn't scummy linking per se (i.e. the act itself was not scummy) and b) I could imagine it being differentiated from the stronger versions of that argument as "not being linking."

Given that, I agree with EK's suggestion that we lynch Seol or SC. I'd rather lynch SC. At best, he has a criminally defective scumdar, and there are problems with his play, too.

EK, has Konowa done anything to change your suspicion of him? Is lingering Konowa suspicion part of the reason that you switched from SC to Seol?

[Iecerint]

Your implicit scumteam is EK, ML, and me (I guess one of us is SK?), whereas we are literally the least scummy players in this game.

[Iecerint]

SC > Seol >>> Others

[Iecerint]

I think the wagon argument is often strong, but not in this case. When players join a wagon after a vanilla claim, I think said joining is pretty blameless. I understand you counting that as a chip against Seol, but it should be a pretty minimal one IMO. I'd have jumped to Neto's wagon if I weren't already there given his premature vanilla claim.

[Iecerint]

It was premature because he was neither (L-1 + claim request) nor (right at deadline). It's OK to lynch vanilla claims because it was a BWCS -- the expected payoff of continuing to seek out claims was lower. These facts are easy to forget in hindsight because the alternate wagon was on scum, but townSeol and townEK wouldn't know that, etc.

The fact that the claim was premature is less important than the fact that a claim had occurred.

[Iecerint]

I personally was on the verge of switching to BM, so I did not perceive that the air of the town was headed the way you insinuate.

I think D1 vanilla claims should be followed by a lynch 95% of the time. As such I think that moving to lynch Neto after his vanilla claim was acceptable town behavior.

[Iecerint]

I suppose it tells you that I am not very impressed with your scumhunting, regardless of whether it is real or fabricated, and, given that the fabricated kind is more difficult, I see your list as a bit scummy.

[Iecerint]

It's in the best interest of the town to minimize the number of claims. I'm not sure why you seem to think premature claims should lead town to seek out extra claims. PR claims are often confirmable, so I'd be less prone to lynch a claimed PR. This is more true of some PRs than others.

The claim was not premature specifically because it was far from the deadline. However, had it been close to deadline, I would have forgiven Neto for claiming prematurely. The lynch's rapidity is pretty null-to-pro-town; Neto's lynch was all but a foregone conclusion after his claim, so there was no need to draw it out and risk leaking PM information.

[Iecerint]

I'd forgotten that BM was at L-1. (Was he really?) But it doesn't change much. Mainly, it just emphasizes how silly it was for Neto to claim. And after he'd claimed vanilla, best play was to lynch him.

[Iecerint]

I still disagree with you about EK and Seol being scummy for lynching the claimed VT; however, I just went back and noticed that SC was asking for BM's claim rather than Neto's claim way back when. I am now converted to being OK with a Seol lynch, maybe even preferring one.

Unvote; Vote: Seol

.

This puts Seol at *L-1*. Unless EK changes her mind (give her a post to do so), I would support a claim from Seol.

[Iecerint]

Agh, this is too stressful. I retract my preference for a Seol lynch.

Unvote

. I'm still between SC and Seol, but I'm not convinced of who I think should claim.

[Iecerint]

SX puts at the bottom of his post that he had seen my unvote and therefore knew that it wasn't a hammer. Where are people getting that he thought he hammered?

SC, I had thought SX was still voting Seol when I voted Seol, but it looks like he'd switched to Percy. That's my mistake, but why do you think it's scummy? It made a quicklynch on Seol less likely rather than more, if anything.

I think the most default scumteams based on who's defended who D2 are SC/SX and Seol/Percy. In each pair, I think SC is scummier than SX and that Seol is scummier than Percy. (Third parties could mess with these pairings.) I think the former pair is more probable, but I was convinced for a moment when I noticed that SC asked BM to claim just before Neto did. Since Neto claimed just afterwards, I'd remembered it as SC causing Neto's claim, but I was mistaken. The shock of this has worn off by now, though, so I'm back to preferring SC.

I think BK knew he had a doublevote. It would explain why he never voted all the way to mid-D2, when he was replaced. As such, SX's explanation about the doublevote reads as a little disingenuous to me. I'm not sure whether this makes him scummier than SC. Then again, their alignments are linked a bit, so lynching either of them would be OK with me.

Revised lynch preference -- SC or SX.

[Iecerint]

Do you think that BK and Parhelic failed to vote because they were aware that they were doublevoters, or do you think that they failed to vote because of activity/playstyle issues?

[Iecerint]

Hey, those posts were largely me arguing with him. I find them silly, too. <_<

[Iecerint]

SX's role -- assuming that he's not totally lying about it, because then we could easily find out by the method Percy suggests -- is what I would expect for a 3rd party role, which makes him a good candidate for the SK. Maybe he gets bonus powers nightly. The missing piece of the puzzle is his link to SC.

[Iecerint]

More like he desperately doesn't want us to kill you. Another possibility is that he's SK who thinks Seol is scum. Maybe he's hoping tilting the wagon Seol's way will clear him if he's right.

[Iecerint]

Nice post from elvis. Thoughts:

1. Your point "scum choose easy targets" is undermined to an extent by Seol's D2 attack on ML. I don't think ML looked particularly obvious. It's true that his low activity made him a pretty blameless one, though.
2. I could see a player seeing you as aggressive as far as mid-D2. I've commented as much. You're usually a very nice player IMO. (This is based off of having played Twilight and ILY with you; you were town in both cases.) But if Seol doesn't really know you, I agree that his read is maybe kinda odd. His vague rhetoric on certain things rubbed me the wrong way, too (e.g. saying that things are "engineered" rather than explaining why, etc.).

I agree with pretty much everything else. I suppose we can always check out SX's abilities tomorrow to get a better idea of his alignment. The only problem is that I suspect he'll become NK-proof and/or lynch-proof if he's a real SK.

Unvote; Vote: Seol

. This is *L-1*, for real this time (SX+elvis+Iec=4 votes). I support a claim.

P.S. -- Elvis, why aren't you more alarmed by how often I agree with you? I think someone called out Percy for agreeing with you too often, but I think I agree with you much more frequently.

[Iecerint]

I'm sort of paranoid about being blind to players I mentally clear after Katy did it to me in my first game on the site. That's the basis of my question. I'm satisfied with your answer. You may recall that I had a similar concern about other town players after you were dead in Twilight; not sure you were following the game at that point.

I could see SXSK gradually becoming NK-immune and so forth as he survives each day as SK. He'd still be NK-proof toward the end when the prior probability of dying that way is greatest. My feeling is that a role like that makes the game very swingy if it's on a town player or scum player. If the abilities are all relatively benign (doublevoting-level abilities), maybe it's not such a concern. That's a decent point about the arsonist flavor, too.

[Iecerint]

BM was pretty scummy D1. I'd say he was comfortably past the bus threshold. His earlier presence on BM's wagon speaks better for him, but since the wagon was pretty innocuous at first, he probably intended to get off as soon as possible. This is assuming scumSC. I'd explain the jump as being caused by Neto's premature vanilla claim. But we've been through that already, and I'm reasonably comfortable with Seol.

[Iecerint]

I second ML's "Huh?"

Also, we should possibly maybe let the replacement come in and say nice things and mean things before the flip. But I'm also sort of hungry for information, so I could probably forgive whomever for sparing us the week's wait.

[Iecerint]

I thought that might be the case, @ elvis.

I agree with ML's post. This might end up like a genocide, but there's hope. I think you should shoot SC. If he's town, at least you didn't kill a townie. If he's lying scum, a winnar is you. This is moderated a little based upon whether Seol is scum and whether the details of your role make other things worth it, but we don't necessarily need to know about that.

[Iecerint]

I wasn't sure enough to take it to that level; that was an accident. But I thought the double kill flavor was pretty unambiguous; ignoring it looks like willful ignorance to me.

I will be very cross with SXSK if he is nonmafia and SC isn't. <_<

[Iecerint]

There is pretty much a 100% chance that ML, elvis, and I are town. If that is not true, I will cry a little on the inside.

Assuming SK + 2 scum, that means that all of the other players (Percy, SC, and Budja/Konowa) are non-town.

So I don't think a mass claim is necessary. We should decide whether we want to kill the SK or scum, and then look for connections between those players accordingly to guess which is SK. The scum can share their opinions about this, too, if they'd like.

[Iecerint]

I will be very cross with SXSK if he is nonmafia and SC isn't. <_<

lol

[Iecerint]

I could be persuaded to lynch any of those three. Target plan AFAIK:

Lynch scum
Redirect SK -> scum
Lynch SK

The potential RBer could mess things up.

[Iecerint]

I don't think that would've gone into effect until tonight. I agree that the targeting choice is bizarre, though, especially given the doctor flip. Maybe both teams thought SX was the other faction?

If we are all claiming, I must claim before ML. That is my only condition.

[Iecerint]

I'm fine with EK choosing the next to claim. If she wants that to be me to accomodate both ML claiming ASAP and me going before him, that is fine. I doubt she will decide to do things that way, though.

[Iecerint]

I hope not. That would violate the Mega Man theme. <_<

[Iecerint]

What do you want me to say? I agree with you and SC is obvscum? It kinda goes without saying. Of the 3 obvscum players, his scuminess is the least ambiguous. Your implication that he may be SK is reasonable and augments what ML already said.

Waiting on Budja.

[Iecerint]

I think the basis of my belief will become clearer after I claim.

I would explain the large number of town players the same way that Seol did -- after a (premature & unrequested) vanilla claim, lynching returns the best expected value for town.

[Iecerint]

If you'd like, I can partially claim up-front. There's just one detail I'd prefer to save until Budja and Percy have claimed.

[Iecerint]

SC's post doesn't make much sense. Why would SC think that EK was roleblocked if he thinks he's a bulletproof townie? For that matter, why would scum roleblock EK when she's announced her intention to kill a bulletproof townie?

[Iecerint]

I see. It's still pretty remote thinking. If I were in your claimed position, the elsewhere-entertained notion that EK was roleblocked wouldn't even cross my mind.

That's not to say that I disagree with your conclusion, reasons aside.

[Iecerint]

Progress. Choose the next, please.

[Iecerint]

If I were in SC's position -- regardless of my alignment -- I would come to the same conclusion and indicate that Budja was the SK. (This is not to indicate that SC's alignment is in any significant way ambiguous.)

[Iecerint]

I am

Randall Kennedy, author of the 2003 book

[removed]: The Strange Career of a Troubling Word

, Cop. When I investigate someone, I learn their noun and alignment.

N1 I investigated ML because I thought he was active enough to draw conclusions if he was scum, but inactive enough that it would be hard to get a conclusive read on him otherwise. I learned that his noun was "Picasso's Guernica" and that he was town. My results indicated specifically that he was town rather than that he was "Innocent," so I think this clears him of both the SK and mafia roles.

N2 I investigated SX because I thought he was scummy enough to survive N2 and he was a major suspect of mine given Seol's flip (i.e. hypothetical SCSX and SeolPercy scumteams I mentioned yesterday). I think we could have lynched SC yesterday had he not interfered. It also seemed like elvis would be unlikely to go along with a SX lynch if I didn't have a Cop result on him. I was told that I was not able to investigate SX. This could reflect that he was NKed, that he was un-investigateable, or that I was RB'd. I asked the Mod about this at the start of D2, but have received no response. I am inclined to believe it was because SX was NK'd.

ML is last.

[Iecerint]

Here's a thought --

If Percy is telling the truth, that means that I was actually "unable to investigate" elvis last night. SX's NK couldn't explain that. So I was roleblocked, EK cannot be investigated, or Percy is lying.

[Iecerint]

No. I think that SC is SK and that you and Percy are scumbuddies. There's a vague, vague outside chance that EK is a (brilliant) uninvestigateable SK and one of you three is town, but this would require me to accept that the apparent arsonist is town, which is unlikely unless ML claims it. I doubt he will, even if it does kinda fit his noun flavor. I think he would have been more suspicious of elvis up til now.

Best play IMO is to lynch you or Percy, redirect SC to the other of you, then lynch SC tomorrow. I'm inclined to believe that Percy should be lynched because he may be faking a PR to prevent tracker claims from having messed him up, but I'm not sure.

I think Percy fakeclaimed bus-driver because it allows him to potentially take EK's place in keeping the town win possible (e.g. performing the "redirect SC to the other scum") step.

[Iecerint]

I had ML's noun in addition to his alignment, so claiming before him with his noun would allow him to confirm me. Otherwise, I could have been fakeclaiming as he already would have given his rolename. I breadcrumbed to him a little D2, so it shouldn't have mattered, but I figured it couldn't hurt to make it a sure thing. Since no one else has claimed ML's noun, I thought it was pretty unlikely that I'd been busdriven, so I was pretty confident that my results were accurate.

I'll admit that I had not considered the sanity issue. I have never been in a game with a non-sane Cop. If I had thought of that, I would have insisted on going last. I figure that's a pretty outside chance, though.

[Iecerint]

He could also be GF, but that's similarly on the unlikely side of things IMO.

[Iecerint]

ALERT: I have just been informed via PM that I was roleblocked N2. My N2 result is now independent of Percy's alleged bus-drive, so EK's investigativity is no longer in question. This probably also means that EK was not roleblocked, unless the scum have 2 roleblockers or something. (I imagine that EK will be able to let us know about this.) This means that SC is most likely bulletproof.

However, I've thought of another possibility -- in the event that A and B are busdriven and A NKs B, does A target himself? If it's ever the case, it might explain scumPercy's alleged busdrive. Busdriving elvis's target with elvis would suicide her. It might also explain EK's shot failure (e.g. if the Mod ultimately decided that the kill wouldn't go through), though I'd be willing to bet that SC is bulletproof regardless.

[Iecerint]

I'll be careful not to clear him too quickly.

[Iecerint]

Out of curiosity, ML, did you notice my breadcrumbs? I assumed you did (you posted a really weak "suspicion" of me after the first one), but I wasn't sure.

[Iecerint]

[quote="I, after discussing SX's claim about Seol's "masterstroke" against him,"]On the subject of masterstrokes, I'm looking forward to an artful return post from ML tomorrow. [/quote]

I agree with ML's post. This might end up like a genocide, but there's hope.

Here they were. I'm trying to get an idea of whether they were too much or too little. Maybe they were too little if you didn't notice them.

[Iecerint]

It might be helpful if the scumteam could hallucinate an imagined scumteam+SK set. SCSK has already done this (ML+Iec scumteam, Budja SK), but I'd like to have a hypothesis from Percy and Budja, too.

[Iecerint]

I'd briefly forgotten that you bussed elvis and SC rather than elvis and SX, Percy. My mistake.

Given BM's use for the N1 NK, the remaining two scum roles are probably quite strong. I think that's what justifies the strong town roles.

Double roleblock could be due to a X-shot non-recurring roleblocker or something like that. Maybe the RBer hadn't used his ability until N2, so he had extra RBs to throw around. Scum motivator also makes sense, but I'm not certain that combination alone would have justified BM's use D1.

[Iecerint]

SC, I thought you thought the scumteam was Iec+ML with Budja scum. Now you say that Percy is scum. What changed?

[Iecerint]

ACK, I typed it wrong. I had the correct set-up in my head this time, though. <_<

Maybe is because I gave them similar names.

[Iecerint]

It's important to note that I'm not just a namecop. I'm vanilla-cop+flavorcop. I receive 2 independent pieces of information about a player I investigate.

My interpretation of the usefulness of the flavor is two-fold. First, it allows me to breadcrumb to players I find town. This clears me to them (if I do it flamboyantly enough <_<) and allows the town to search my posts to find evidence of my targets after I have died. Second, claiming before former town targets confirms me to them. The second explains part of why I wanted to claim before ML. So the flavor information about targets isn't superfluous.

I had this impression of town flavorcops because this is how they were used in Rabbit Doubt mafia. Mastin became flavorcop N1 and soft-claimed to Kmd that he knew that he "was famous." The set-up was a little less powerful (Mastin would have received flavor that doesn't match a player's flavor if they were scum), but that's where I got the idea of soft-claiming to ML, etc.

[Iecerint]

<3SC<3

[Iecerint]

I target a player and learn their alignment. For example, I targeted you and got "Town."

[Iecerint]

What, you thought I was basing my Town read on you on a notion that "Picasso's Guernica" is rather nice-looking? <_<

[Iecerint]

I see. I interpreted your use of words incorrectly. I meant that I was "typicalCop+flavorcop." I don't receive any information at all about a player's abilities. That's why I allowed that you could be a hypothetical pro-town arsonist after I claimed.

ML is town unless he is GFscum. Remote.
EK is town unless there are 2 killing 3rd parties or the arsonist is town. Remote.

Which leaves the others as scum of some sort.

EK, could you ask the Mod how his ruleset processes night actions? Specifically, what's the order of processing redirects, roleblocks, and NKs? I'm assuming it's redirect -> roleblock -> NK, but I'm not certain. Assuming that I'm correct, we might be OK even if we mistakenly lynch SK today.

[Iecerint]

My result on ML was "Town." It was not "Innocent" or "Not mafia." Therefore, assuming that my ability works properly, I think ML is only non-town if he is GFscum. This is remote because the probability that I targeted GFscum N1 is very low. It is much more likely that I targeted town.

I've already indicated that the 2 roleblocks are probably from someone with an X-shot (i.e. 2-shot, 3-shot, 4-shot) roleblock. (I believe I simulposted this with SC.) For example, maybe Percy is a 2-shot RB rather than a 2-shot busdriver. I think you independently came to the same conclusion. Your scum motivator option is also a possibility, but that wasn't what came to me at first. Either explanation could be consistent with BM being used for the kill N1.

(It's maybe worth noting that, if I were scumNameCop, I could only be scum with the superRBer. I could not be scum with motivator+RBer unless I were like scumNCRBer or something totally absurd like that. This is irrelevant as I am obviously not scumNC, but I figure it's an extra piece of information for you to mess with.)

Let me explain in more detail why I want you to ask the Mod about order of ability resolution.

The best case scenario is that we lynch the scum roleblocker today. That way, you can redirect SCSK to the other scum with little problem (unless the SK decides to neglect participating, but I imagine he'll still participate because there may possibly be 2 RBers, etc.).

If we lynch non-RBscum scum, RBscum can roleblock you and kill whomever (assuming he's allowed to do both), and then town will decide whether to give the game to the SK or the scum. Lynching the SK first is similarly non-ideal, because scum can roleblock and kill you N3 to force a scum victory.

However, the lynchSK scenarios are no longer a near-automatic town loss if redirects beat roleblocks:

RBscum roleblocks EK.
Non-RBscum kills EK.
EK redirects RBscum -> Non-RBscum

If I'm correct that redirection occurs before roleblocks, this would make N3 deathless and we'd still have a shot. It would hinge on you using your redirection properly, though.

[Iecerint]

lol @ "bus" being just barely OK and "redirect" being just barely too late. <_<

Please correct me if someone thinks I'm reading it wrong.

Well, that means we have to lynch the roleblocker. I think Percy is a good guess for the reasons elvis pointed out. Does anyone else have any strong feelings about who it is?

[Iecerint]

As I've stated, you could be mafia GF without me. But that is probably remote enough to ignore. I won't be too upset with myself if I lose due to an unlucky target choice N1.

Yeah, you're right. I made a mistake. I should have insisted on going last. I think it's still a mistake regardless of my alignment, though.

I'm not sure why people are asking Percy to explain the presence of RD+BD in this game. It's not as if townPercy is uniquely equipped to explain the situation, and scumPercy is just going to make something up.

[Iecerint]

Here is my hypothesis:

Scum all killed SX hoping to take out the other team.
Percy capitalized on this and tried to take credit for it while keeping close to his RB claim.

We lynch scumRBPercy.
Redirect SCSK -> Budjaextrascum
Budja kills ML/elvis/me (probably elvis, but it's irrelevant)
Survivors lynch SC ftw

This method only works if PercyRBscum AND SCSK AND SCSK targets someone tomorrow. Otherwise, town will lose. I think this is still the only method that could work. (As a consolation prize, we'll get to choose which team wins tomorrow if we mess up. I think this is pretty much true regardless of how we mess up.)

I think SCSK will choose to kill tomorrow if he is rational. There may, after all, be 2 scum RBers, in which case town is 100% screwed and SCSK can win only if he makes a kill tonight. Maybe we can plan to give the scum the game if SCSK doesn't cooperate. That would incentivize his participation.

[Iecerint]

I claimed a RB PM before elvis claimed a RB PM IIRC. It is unlikely that I fakeclaimed it to discredit you.

It's a mistake rather than scummy because the error doesn't help me as either scum or town AFAIK. I can understand someone seeing it as a mistake that scum would be more likely to make due to a desire to confirm themselves, though. Still, it's not as if the breadcrumbs wouldn't have existed if I had gone last.

Need to go eat. Will add more in a bit.

[Iecerint]

I said I would post again, so I'm doing so, but I don't really see anything new to comment on. I thought there would be something else in Percy's post, but I don't see much that hasn't already been dealt with elsewhere or in my prior post. Please let me know if you'd like me to address anything I've missed.

[Iecerint]

Percy, you have indicated who you think is scum. Who specifically do you think should be lynched and why?

[Iecerint]

elvis, I did not target you last night. I targeted SX last night. Refer to my claim post for why.

I asked the Mod about whether I was roleblocked as soon as I saw that my target (SX) had died. I was suspicious because my result did not indicate that SX was innocent, but rather indicated that I could not investigate him. I did not receive a PM from the Mod on this issue until moments before my ALERT post.

I am unlikely to be scum with Percy, and, even if I were, I am unlikely to be the roleblocker.

[Iecerint]

Two thoughts:

A. Based on my prior relative claim of when I received my N2 result clarification PM, you are probably in a decent position to confirm my receipt of it. This assumes that the Mod sent both PMs in one sitting. It's possible that he would willfully subvert this, but I doubt it. (The time can be inferred from the ALERT post being a triplepost or something absurd like that, so I figure this is OK to point out.)

B. I see why you were confused that I targeted you N2. This is what happened:

1. I targeted SX and learned that I could not investigate him N2.
2. I wasn't sure if this was due to SX's death (you can't investigate him; he's dead!) or due to roleblock, so I asked the Mod. (I ruled out that SX was investi-proof because he was town.)
3. Percy claims to have busdriven EK <-> SX.
4. If he's telling the truth, I effectively investigated EK N2.
4. EK is alive, so the explanation for the result changes (!). Either I was roleblocked, or EK is investi-proof. So I said that one of those was true if Percy was telling the truth.
5. The Mod notified me that I was RB'd. Therefore, Percy's busdrive had nothing to do with my result, and EK's investi-proof-hood was no longer in question.

I hope that clears matters up.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: I had missed your second post. I thought you hadn't been RB'd because the simplest explanation was that SC was just bulletproof. I thought I hadn't been RB'd because the simplest explanation was that SX was killed.

[Iecerint]

(Also, judging from your bolded bit, it looks like I hadn't altogether ruled out that SX was investi-proof, but it was at any rate a comparatively remote explanation.)

[Iecerint]

Alsox2, it looks like you already pointed out that the Mod answered yours at the same time. I don't see how this is insufficient to absolve me. Are you thinking I was just really lucky or what?

(Sorry for EBWOP x4 or whatever. I will stop now.)

[Iecerint]

I hadn't noticed Budja's kill flavor. That's a good find. That would seem to imply that Percy is the roleblocker and Budja is NonRBscum. On the other hand, Candlestick From Clue appeared to kill SF by "filling him full of holes" N1 (confirmed), which doesn't seem to match the flavor in an obvious way.

There was another weird thing I thought of about the set-up while I was out, but it's totally slipped my mind. I'll try to remember it soon.

[Iecerint]

Elvis was on the fence between targeting SC and targeting Percy IIRC. Also, I can't be the SK unless I am nouncopSK.

I think we're in good shape. Worst case scenario is that Budja and Percy swapped claims to prepare for this, but there's no way to predict that.

[Iecerint]

I am not the SK and I targeted nobody last night. That is regardless of the other two alignments I could be.

O_o

elvis&ML -- Remind me of why SC is the SK and not Budja? It's the bulletproof claim + Percy's behavior toward him today, right? Anything else? I remember being quite convinced.

[Iecerint]

The best plan I've come up with so far is to get you to direct whoever you think is SK to whoever you think is scum, but if you pick wrong then we might have screwed ourselves. Effectively we need to crack the game today - know who each of the scum are, one for lynching and two for the redirection (assuming 2 scum 1 SK, which I am given the known PRs) and be confident in that. If we can do that with scumhunting, we might be able to have that confidence, and it will be obvious who you should target.

Brilliant plan. I wonder where you heard that one.

[Iecerint]

Elvis, I've heard that successful vigging is what led to you to adopt BM's skillset (NK + redirect). I have also heard you insinuate that successfully using BM's NK will trade BM's skillset for the NK'd player's skillset. First, is that accurate? Second, if you successful redirect a player, will that affect your skillset? What if you successfully redirect a player and consequently cause an NK?

[Iecerint]

Can you redirect X -> X?

For example, could we kill RBscum, redirect otherscum->otherscum, then lynch SK?

[Iecerint]

OH, and I just remembered that thing I figured out and then forgot that I mentioned yesterday --

Redirector did the kill N1. This implies that the other two scum had better stuff to do N1. But if RBscum is an X-shot RBer, then it would have made more sense for RBscum to do the kill N1, right? Since he presumably was either saving up his RB to get (n+1) RBs or just not using any of his finite number of RBs.

So either scum erred D1 (possible -- BM was the one that was replaced, though), or something's up. It could also be that RBscum had to sit out the kill to accrue a RB N1; that would still explain things. Or SK could have had the extra RB as Percy mentioned.

[Iecerint]

(The point is that the X-shot RBscum theory is probably not right.)

[Iecerint]

(EBWOP: In spite of the fact that it resembles Percy's claim. Could be that he changed it in extra ways, though, obvs.)

[Iecerint]

On second thought, you don't necessarily need to share whether X->X redirects are allowed. The important thing is that you personally obtain access to that information. The fact that you have 2 viable NAs available to you incentivizes both teams to use their kills, which reduces the likelihood that either group will take no action to subvert your ability.

[Iecerint]

That could be. My naive N1 bias given the Neto flip would have been that trackers would track BM and watchers wouldn't watch SF, so it's not the way I would've played it, but I've never been scum on this site, so I don't know what the norms are.

[Iecerint]

There are two possibilities:

1. There are 2 roleblockers.
2. There is 1 double roleblocker.

If there are 2 roleblockers and they can both do it again tonight, we have (probably) already lost, so that's not really worth considering. (We may still be OK if one of the RBers was SK depending on how he decides to play, but that's outside our control.)

So I think we should assume a double roleblocker. My interpretation of the BM choice implied that the RBer was either part of a motivator+RB set (less likely, as no one reported RBs N1, but that could be poor target choice by scum) or that the RBer could "save up" RBs (e.g. maybe foregoing RB N1 and N2 would allow up to 3 RBs N3) by taking no action. But if scum just used BM because he was suspicious, then that's all irrelevant and an X-shot RBer is still feasible.

Basically, nothing has changed that our goal is to lynch a scumRBer. The only reason what I noticed was relevant is that X-shot RBer matched Percy's claim, but my interpretation made an X-shot RBer unlikely, so the resemblance was no longer as suspect. Not that I don't still think Percy is probably the best choice.

Let me know if you meant something different by your question.

[Iecerint]

Everyone should keep in mind that EK has 2 viable redirect options. She can redirect either the scum kill or the SK kill. This means that both scum teams stand to benefit on average from using their kill tonight.

[Iecerint]

Right. But we'd been focusing on the SK->scum redirect most of the game. If the SK had missed the scum->scum redirect, he might have decided not to shoot to subvert the inevitable D4 SK lynch. Emphasizing that you don't necessarily have to redirect his kill shows that he pretty much has to kill to win.

[Iecerint]

That's the second wedding this game innit?

I think it is very unlikely that I will ultimately want to lynch someone other than Percy. The only other possibility is Budja, and I'd rather attribute the kill to him due to flavor. It could be that Budja switched rolenames with Percy to claim, but I think they'd avoid that to keep trackers from catching them. Probable worst case scenario is that Percy is the SK, but you'd think he would have just claimed that by now.

I'd vote him if he hadn't just expressed intent to post soon. But I doubt I'll be swayed.

[Iecerint]

I don't think I understand part of Percy's claim. Is he NK-proof so long as he has shots? If that's the case, that doesn't jive with him blocking elvis to prevent an N2 vig on him. Percy, any particular reason why you targeted mathcam?

Unless Budja's noun is fake and designed for us to fallaciously think he did the NK OR he can both NK and RB in a single night (but I doubt he's the last scum), I doubt he is the scum RBer given that Percy is SKRB. If Percy is the SK and we trust how he will use his ability, SC would be the scumRBer. (Or lolGFRBML.) This is a little weird because his bulletproof claim would (probably) just be a wild gamble (not impossible) at that point, but it's not impossible.

[Iecerint]

If he is not SK, he is almost certainly RBscum. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to fakeclaim SK.

[Iecerint]

I'd forgotten about that. I remember it looking odd. You may be right. That makes me more comfortable with a Percy lynch.

[Iecerint]

Percy didn't provide that reason when asked why he killed mathcam. So either mathcam's doc breadcrumb is coincidental or Percy didn't do it. It's also possible that Percy is lying about his reason, but I don't see any reason for him to have done so.

[Iecerint]

I'm ready to vote Percy whenever. Don't want to preempt ML's reread, though.

[Iecerint]

Same. I almost posted the same thing as SC, but I was going to wait until you said your reread was done. I think Percy is probably RBscum and, even if he's not (probability < 50%), his roleblocks could still screw us up.

[Iecerint]

There are two possibilities:

#1 (More likely)
RBscum: Percy
Scum: Budja
SK: SC

#2 (Less likely)
RBscum: SC
Scum: Budja
SK: Percy

This is because Percy only had a reason to claim SK if he was SK or RBscum. (If he were normalscum, he could have been lynched and won the game.) I think Percy making some errors in his SK claim and potentially messing up the mathcam target explanation make him a better target. Also, his claimed RBs are arguably as likely to mess us up as RBscum's.