890: Cults of Darkness and Shadow - Game over!

[semioldguy]

/confirm

(will not be able to post again until Sunday or Monday due to American holiday weekend)

[semioldguy]

I am back. Thoughts so far:

Regarding the page one posts not thinking it is a good idea to throw around incantations, I strongly disagree. Too many times I see people fence sitting or not backing up suspicions with votes and this mechanic helps force them to both put there vote somewhere and have to back it up. The random voting stage is not significantly better or worse in this game than it is in others.

The idea that random voting stage incants could be around when someone isn't here that leads to a lynch is ridiculous since there would have to either be an overwhelming support for that lynch of the random vote would be sitting there for a coupe weeks without ever having moved, which would be huge points against that player regardless. No one should be gone multiple weeks. Random voting wasn't dangerous. Everyone who is discouraging voting gets scum points from me. Voting is the town's main power and our only way to make kills.

We also don't want a no-lynch on day one. Ever.

@Seacore
Voting without explanation isn't necessarily scummy. You also defend you information over analysis as being helpful due to the odd setup. I don't see how you information helps progress or advance the favor of town at all. It is a distraction to actual scum hunting and is definitely information over analysis.

Seacore also has a lot of buddy-ing and "I agree" attitude.

Random bandwagons being bad
Power roles being evident of being "pro town" and thus less trustworthy
Pro town tells being significantly less helpful compared to scum tells in this game as opposed to normal games.

In fact, I would like to hear from other people on these points as well.

Random bandwagons aren't bad at the beginning of a game, they provide a lot of information and help to bring out scummy people. Power role claims should be treated as they are in most other games. Somoene claiming cop in a normal game isn't just automatically assumed cop whether they are or not, why should we have trusted any power role claims here? Not any more or less trustworthy in my option. Pro town tells are not less helpful, just not all necessarily the same.

Faraday is right about his stance on these issues.

Players shouldn't hide behind an excuse not to vote. That is scummy. Put your vote somewhere.

@Seacore Post 70
You are defending the mindset of scum. It looks sympathetic to the scum agenda. Town should not defend an accusation of what the scum should or shouldn't do. That is scummy. Why do you think it is a good idea to defend the scum's ideal actions?

All this discussion of crafting a multi-lynch is bad. Let's just lynch whoever we find most scummy. If two players get lynched, great. If not, well then we lynched the most scummy person by majority. I am not going to try cooperating to try and get a double lynch, I m going to be voting for the player I find most likely to be scum.

re: DeathSauce vs. Faraday (and Faraday's opening vote)
I didn't see Faraday's vote as a random vote. I would have voted Snow_Bunny there too, and for the same reason.

@Magua
You weren't the only one to break the game Perhaps I'm not on your radar because I have be V/LA until today, seems like an odd oversight by you since I hadn't even posted.

@Chaco
Saying you are almost ready to incant someone is scummy. If you were almost ready to incant, what kept you from doing it?

@Seacore
Several of your more recent posts and defense appear as an appeal to emotion.

Incant: Seacore

[semioldguy]

He has been mostly useless thus far. He needs to post more, and about relevant things. No strong read, neutral to slightly scummy. There are worse players than him.

[semioldguy]

Because it is pointless to discuss. It's also both in the rules and is not reflected on the most recent vote count. Any reason you're asking?

[semioldguy]

I am a strong advocate of voting. In order for an under-majority lynch to even occur on the first day, 18 days must have gone by. That's nearly three weeks, which is pretty standard for a normal deadline in minis. We aren't losing anything by all having our votes somewhere. Having a lynch go off when only four votes are required instead of six or more is bad because less total people are accountable for a lynch and provides the town with much less information regarding stances. Letting the day go so long as to ensure we don't have a majority lynch is bad in my opinion.

Do you (or anyone else) intend to not vote for three whole weeks? Would you recommend players not vote for this period of time? If everyone votes for someone before 18 days has passed, then what difference did it really make by them not random voting?

To reiterate: If ANY lynch is reached before 18 days, it will be a majority lynch no matter what.

It is not possible to have a non-majority lynch before eighteen days have passed. Why are you so concerned about having too many votes out to cause an accidental lynch? This is an unrealistic concern.

I think forcing players to stick their vote somewhere else when they unvote someone is a good thing. It keeps them actively scum hunting and targeting their top suspects.

[semioldguy]

Sitting back and holding onto your incantation is also bad because it either allows scum to manipulate a wagon first and thus potentially limit options for the town when it comes to voting in deadline type situations OR if you are scum it is a good way to hide behind other people's suspicions and hop onto a wagon you see others supporting.

semi-related to the above:

mipe's most recent post and vote smell bad. Scum points.

@mipe
Why do you find Seacore the most likely to be scum?

[semioldguy]

EBWOP:
or rather you said that you have thought it; would you mind leading us through your thought process?

[semioldguy]

Yeah, I'm agreeing with SC on the suspicion here. Even if it's to jump to somebody that isn't me, I really don't like it when somebody appears for 5 minutes to agree with the crowd and then evaporate. If he's really intending to "postmoarl8er" (which is offensive to read, oh my god) then why not just wait til then to post, you know, after you've had a chance to explain to us your thoughts on the game so you don't look like a scummy bandwagoner?

Why point out this about Datadanne but not mipe's most recent post?

To me it looks like both of them merely came in and made a vote on a bandwagon in a post with no real content.

[semioldguy]

Chaco, you are now the only one without an incantation out. No one is in perilous danger of being lynched by someone going away for a few days or even close to it.

[semioldguy]

There are different modalities, degrees and types of buddying. Some are more scummy, some aren't so bad. Buddying in itself isn't scummy. Like many tells, pulling it out of the situation and looking at the context of both the buddying and current development of the game state help to determine potential motive behind the action rather than just looking at the action itself.

Seacore's buddying seemed somewhat opportunistic in my opinion, following more along the lines of parroting.

[semioldguy]

How am I parroting? I was the one who said that stuff first!

Here it looks to me like buddying/agreeing/parroting off of Snow_Bunny's post just above yours. It is something you could have mentioned first, but didn't. The post had an off feel to me. Also your first post on this page didn't sit right with me, as already brought up in a previous post of mine.

On review I don't think that the buddying of you and Chaco is particularly condemning to you, it's buddying over mechanics rather than content which is more or less null in my mind.

@mipe
Of course the mod is hiding things. He is hiding all of our alignments! If the Mod hid nothing from us it wouldn't be mafia.

Incant: mipe

Stop speculating about the game and setup and start looking for scum. Don't dangle information in front of the town in the fashion of "I know something the rest of you don't know, but I'm not going to tell you yet." Doing so is scummy at worst and distracting at best.

[semioldguy]

@Snow_Bunny
More content, please.

Do you have nothing to say or add since your last post? Could you expand upon your reasoning for voting mipe and why you find him scummy?

[semioldguy]

Don't dangle information in front of the town in the fashion of "I know something the rest of you don't know, but I'm not going to tell you yet." Doing so is scummy at worst and distracting at best.

There are roles in the play that aren't on the first post.

Did you ignore that bit on purpose? Why do you think it a good idea to do this? I have no reason to believe you are telling the truth.

[semioldguy]

@Chaco
I don't think you could be much more hypocritical.

[semioldguy]

I usually dislike ISO reads, though think Snow_Bunny found a few good points.

[semioldguy]

@mipe
What is your role name?

Are you reading the thread? There are several points questions posed to you which have either not been answered or have been only partially answered. Please fully answer the points brought up against you. Don't partially reveal information to the town. That is scummy. It allows you to make stuff up later so that it fits your claim rather than having your actions fit your claim as the game goes on.

Post 200 is scummy.

Also, if you had a role that wasn't in the rules post, then why did you even need to vote the mod to test if there would be hidden mechanisms? Why would the mod's no commenting make you feel there was something hidden in this game? You wouldn't need to test to know and his answers wouldn't have made you feel that way. Your role PM before the game even began would make you feel that way. You would have already known by the fact you had a role that wasn't part of the rules post that there were hidden mechanisms.

Doesn't add up.

Quite frankly, I don't believe you anyway.

There are no secret mechanics.

I'm having a hard time getting past this.

[semioldguy]

It sounds like Mipe's scum partner is a Guardian, from reading between the lines.

I say that as I don't buy that claim at

all

.

My thoughts exactly. His role is made up of things that existing roles can already do, basically verbatim.

[semioldguy]

The only way I want two lynches to happen at once is if it happens naturally.

I don't like the idea of trying to craft a double lynch. I don't like the idea of people here saying things to the effect of "Yeah, I don't buy that claim, but I'm going to vote for ___ instead because I want two people lynched." That's a load of crap. Let's just lynch mipe.

If the majority of people want to lynch mipe, I don't see why a smaller minority should be the ones choosing to do the second lynch (most of whom are also presumably part of that mipe-hate). Why do a select few get to vote your second suspect and not your top suspect?

If everyone on the mipe wagon did this I doubt we would all also vote for the same second person. A second lynch isn't representative of a majority and isn't even representative of being on any sort of equal ground as mipe's wagon.

What gives some people the "privilege" to not vote mipe if he is their top suspect and use their vote somewhere else, but not allow others to do the same? It makes you less accountable for your suspicions overall since you are apparently allowed to spread them out more. That is scummy.

Furthermore it allows mipe's potential partners to lessen the blow or to have an excuse not to be voting their scum buddy.

[semioldguy]

Chaco would be my second choice for my incantation. I don't support a Datadanne lynch, and disagree with policy lynches in general. I don't think he will be entirely useless nor do I think he will be impossible to read. Though I am not looking to run Chaco up for a double lynch either. He can be examined further and lynched tomorrow if he is the scummiest player tomorrow.

[semioldguy]

I am against policy lynching. Policy lynches don't help the town. I will do what I can to keep them from happening (in this and any other game). Lynch someone because you think they are scummy, not because you don't like the way they play or because you don't think you can get a read from their play style.

[semioldguy]

Let him play. He has to post something. If he doesn't than he will be auto-replaced. As he posts more it will give us more to gets reads from. Just because he plays in an anti-town manner doesn't mean we can't get scum or town reads off of him.

Policy lynches take nothing into account regarding possible role of the player, just the personality of the player regardless of his role. It doesn't make the player lynched any more or less likely to be scum. It discourages actual scum hunting. Policy lynching is also role-fishing.

If you have a case for why he is scummy, that's fine. Otherwise, voting him itself as a policy lynch is just as anti-town as he is.

[semioldguy]

Don't lynch someone on an assumption of what they might do. If all he posts is that he will post more later, then you can see that as scummy. He hasn't done that yet. He posted it once. For all you know he might post a lot of good content later (or at least some).

The argument of it not wasting our lynch is a bad one. It IS wasting a lynch. An extra lynch we do now is one we don't have later in the game.

[semioldguy]

1) Mostly agree that this can be seen as scummy.

2) Disagree about Lurking being scummy. Is not active elsewhere on site (though also not in other games).

3) Partially agree. Due to not being in thread it seems odd to both hold lurking and this against him since he hasn't been here to answer most of the questions. He has ignored some though, but this case can be made against other players too, why single out Datadanne for this?

Datadanne would either have to outright and seriously claim scum (or some role more ridiculous than mipe's). Other than that, what it would take for me to vote Datadanne is at least another day. I am voting mipe today, will be looking at Chaco tomorrow.

[semioldguy]

(1) If I or someone else is actively planning or intending to disrupt a coordinated double lynch, it isn't likely they are going to just come forward and tell you and thus allow you to additionally plan for that. That would undermine their own purpose of intending to disrupt the lynch.

(2) How do you plan to account for the possibility of mipe and/or Datadanne trying to mess up you plans? Why would you count on their cooperation? Either of them can just move their vote off the other and come by and hammer when the time comes for them to do so, saving themselves. There is nothing you can do to ensure this doesn't happen unless they are both already voting each other and don't take it off.

(3) Even if you know I am not planning to disrupt the double lynch, it can go wrong in enough other ways that it really isn't a good idea to try coordinating. Lynching mipe without an attempt at a double lynch gives us a sure thing for lynching mipe.

This is more of why I don't want double lynches to be coordinated. It can't be ensured. If they happen naturally, okay, fine. But planning it is not good.

starttransmission is entirely correct that we should just lynch mipe now.

[semioldguy]

So regarding number two. If you can't ensure it, then why are you trying to coordinate a double lynch?

Everyone trying to coordinate this double lynch is allowing mipe an out for the day.

That is scummy.

Furthermore, it doesn't make the other person totally scum if they save themselves. If they are town why should they just let themselves be lynched? I disagree that a townie should just accept that fate.

Even by your own reasoning that a townie should go along with this (which I disagree with)... if you think they should let themselves be lynched than the only way we pull off a coordinated double lynch in your eyes is if we are lynching two townies.

This double lynch coordination looks very scummy to me.

[semioldguy]

And let's make mipe accept his fate by lynching him.

You've also got it backwards. As the incantations currently stand mipe is the one who can save himself right now, not Datadanne. mipe just has to hammer Datadanne right before your coordinated double lynch goes off and he saves himself.

By voting Datadanne are you saying that you are okay with giving mipe an out from the lynch today if he so chooses? Because that is what you are allowing. This is why EVERYONE should incant their FIRST suspect.

A double lynch is never going to benefit the town if the only people who accept the fate of the double lynch are townies. In EVERY scenario, it will take two days to kill the scum that saves himself. Here is a breakdown of scenarios under the assumption townies should be resigned to their fate in a double lynch:

2 Town:
They both get lynched. Minus two town. Bad news for town.

1 Scum, 1 Town:
Scum saves himself, town dies. We lynch scum day two, letting him potentially live an extra day. Bad for town.

2 Scum:
One of them is the lucky one who saves himself. It still takes the town two days to lynch them both. Normal for town.

So the best case scenario is if both of the players we are lynching are scum, in which case we obtain the same results by single lynching two days in a row. Only by doing it two days in a row we get a better idea of everyone's suspicions as they can't hide behind voting the second lynch because everyone is voting their top suspect.

[semioldguy]

Please explain to me the consequences of waiting to enable a double lynch?

I have, but you choose to ignore those consequences.

[semioldguy]

Because this conversation that's happening right now is a huge distraction. It isn't scum hunting. It isn't progressing the game. It's dragging it out. It's allowing players to not be active.

[semioldguy]

Because it lets us get to tomorrow where we can start scum hunting again.

[semioldguy]

So your argument is that you're impatient? Okay. Its not actually costing us anything, because we'll still have that time to hunt when the day starts. I don't see how the scum are gaining anything from this extra day time.

I don't see what town is gaining by this extra day time, waiting once we already found our lynch for the day. Unless enough people think we haven't found the lynch for the day, in which case we wouldn't be able to lynch anyway and there would be more to talk about.

So in other words, the sooner this time of not-scum-hunting ends, the less not-scum-hunting time we have to look back on or to distract us once day two and more actual-scum-hunting happens.

Does anyone with an incantation on Datadanne suspect him of being scum more than mipe?

[semioldguy]

My vote is to lynch sooner rather than later.

If he doesn't pick up his prod, he is going to get replaced anyway so we wouldn't need to wait.

If he does pick up his prod, there really isn't much else that's going to happen today anyway if we are set on a mipe lynch that he wouldn't also be able to address tomorrow.

Or he could die during the night, in which case waiting for him to check in or be replaced probably isn't going to help us much either way.

[semioldguy]

If we also think either of the scum teams has a guardian, or that mipe has a partner that is a guardian, then we need to lynch those we think are most likely scum and not count on a night kill. Plus not lynching the most scummy player opens up a whole can of WIFOM for every night they survive.

We should lynch the player we find most scummy. It would be dumb to do otherwise.

[semioldguy]

Incant: Chaco

[semioldguy]

Chaco, there are several things that you said you'd do that you never did. Have a look back through your own posts and look at the things you said you'd discuss or answer but never did. Yes, this post is actively avoiding stating a case from me against you, I'd like you to adress this first before it gets further out of mind.

Here are a couple things for reference that I felt you never really got back to:

I'll reply tomorrow Semi, too long of post for my phone. But I think we missed each other. In terms of the posts.

Incant: Mipe

The way he's acting, he needs to be incanted.

Sorry, I'll give more explanation later. but I really gotta go right now.

[semioldguy]

@Magua
I don't think starttransmission to likely be scum buddies with mipe. If you are voting him because of a scum partner read with mipe, I don't think you should. He was one of the few players yesterday pushing more strongly for a mipe lynch by not dragging the day out and allowing for the travesty of a coordinated double lynch which could have let mipe save himself. Mipe's partner would most likely be for the double lynch in my opinion rather that actively seeking to avoid it.

If you find him individually scummy separate from whatever mipe-partner read you have, then that's different.

I'd bet that mipe's partner was either in the double/policy lynch camp or didn't speak up at all about the matter.

[semioldguy]

Hmm I agree. I don't find the points expressed against Chaco to be very good. I find him quite scummy still, but when I look at it there doesn't seem to be an awful lot there, really.

You were incanting Chaco yesterday. What do you see as the case against Chaco, or your own case against Chaco that led you to incant him yesterday, and why is that not enough to earn an incantation from you today but was enough yesterday?

[semioldguy]

I think it relevant to look at the Data counter/double-wagon rather than the people not on the mipe wagon. It is very likely for scum of either alignment to be there. If dramonic flips scum at some point it may change the read on that wagon, but as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

[semioldguy]

I did not find Datadanne scummy.

[semioldguy]

As stated before, I am against policy lynching.

No, Datadanne was not policy lynch worthy. No one else will be either.

There has been a change between dramonic and Datadanne. Unlike Datadanne, I don't think dramonic will disappear for days at a time. In my numerous past games with him he keeps active and I'm sure as the game goes on I will be able to get reads on him. He has not yet done enough to be considered an asset or not to this town. Part of that answer depends upon the town and part of the answer will depend upon dramonic.

If you don't know what I mean by that, an example would be that some towns are more accepting of zwetschewasser while others aren't (though I am not comparing dramonic to zwets at all, just using an example of how sometimes it is the town that helps determine a player's value to the game)

[semioldguy]

Whether or not you are against it, doesn't make them not worthy of a policy lynch.

Actually it does. I don't think that anyone is worthy of being policy lynched, which is why I am against policy lynches. I would find it very odd for someone to say that they are against policy lynches, but then also state that certain players are worthy of a policy lynch. That just makes no sense, how would you justify being against all policy lynching if you thought anyone was worthy of a policy lynch? That would be a huge contradiction.

So you're read on him is neutral? Or would it be a more pro-town read since you said you do not think he is scum? Or do you have enough info to derive a stance? If not, then why the claim of his township? If so, why not enough to prove he's an asset or not?

I don't have a read on him. It isn't a neutral read, it isn't a pro-town read, and it isn't a scummy read. I did not claim his township, this is a misrepresentation by you. If you think I did I'd like you to point out where.

It's quite straightforward. In your opinion, do you feel that Dramonic is currently an asset to the town?

No, I do not currently think he is an asset to the town. My answers seemed pretty clear and straight-forward, that there wasn't enough for me to get a read on him yet.

Why did you feel my post was in need of such extreme scrutiny when you haven't questioned any other post to this extent throughout the game so far? It seems that there would be far more important things to take note of and investigate than my post, which in all honesty was answered quite clearly by any literal means. It looks to me like you are trying to make something out of nothing.

[semioldguy]

Seacore was not the one who looked worse in the Chaco-Seacore buddying. In fact, between those two it looked more like to me that Chaco was the one doing more buddying, not Seacore. The buddying I didn't like yesterday from Seacore was toward Snow_Bunny. Of course, I stated all this yesterday.

@Magua
Also I don't see where I am buddying to dramonic, would you mind directing me to where you get this notion?

[semioldguy]

Explain what you mean here then. You do not find him to be scummy, but you have no read? To much ambiguity there.

If you don't have a read on someone how can you find them scummy? If I don't have a read on someone, it wouldn't be possible for me to read them as scummy. Not having a read also means that I don't find him town. Where is this ambiguity?

[semioldguy]

You are saying that you have no read on him. You labeled him as not scummy to you. That sounds like a read to me. The ambiguity lies in your trying to cover up that lie.

"Not scummy" isn't a read. It is a lack of one. (that's what the "not" is for, it means that some) To be specific, it is a lack of a scummy read. "Not scummy" is a subset of "no read."

The definition of not having a read is that I don't find a person to be scummy/town/third-party/anything! Not having a read means that I don't find a player to be any of those things. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this. Saying that someone is not scummy to me and that I have no read on that person are not conflicting things.

Chaco, do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?

[semioldguy]

EBWOP:
The parenthetical above is incomplete, it should read as: (that's what the "not" is for, it means that something it refers to is of the opposite existence)

[semioldguy]

I think Chaco is town. I find the points that semi and dramonic are using against him are weak.

Out of curiosity, what points of mine did you find weak? I was only aware of one point I'd even brought up against Chaco by the time of your post, and it was in my very first post of the game. Don't attribute other people's cases as my opinions.

[semioldguy]

That's the thing, it is a conflicting view. You are saying you have NO read on him, saying that he isn't scummy to you requires a read.

No, it doesn't. That's the way it is and the the way it always will be. By you seeing that I don't find someone scummy you are making the false assumption that I have a read on him him to be something else. Which is the wrong assumption.

I do not get why you deny this so. You ca n't just throw out a baseless "Oh he's not scummy to me." Well, you can. But I do not expect it from you, which is why I am pushing the fact so hard.

Why wouldn't you expect it from me?

Saying someone isn't scummy to you, means that you have a read. Simple enough. It may not be leaning to two sides heavily, but it is in fact a read.

Again, no, it doesn't mean that. How can someone be scummy to me if I don't have a read on them? If I don't find someone to be scummy because I have no read on them, how is saying I don't find them to be scummy a lie?

I rarely have no read, and when I do it is early on D1. Scum slips and tells change my read to scummy.

That just means we play differently. Just because you play with a certain ability or preference doesn't mean that I play with those same abilities or preferences.

What you are saying makes no sense.

Just because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's wrong.

Also, you dodged my question. Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on? A yes/no answer will suffice (until my followup question). I don't need to know how you prefer to play or how long it takes you to get reads on players... that isn't what I was asking for. Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on? Yes or no.

Even if I were lying about having no read on dramonic, which I am not lying about, why would that be scummy? you can't just say that an action is scummy, you need to know what makes it scummy given the context you find it in.

I don't understand why so many people on this site just look at an action and automatically declare it as scummy with no thought about

why

it is scummy. Town do "scummy" things all the time. Town can be hypocritical, they lie, contradict themselves, vote for no reasons, vote for bad reasons, buddy to others, lurk, fence-sit, post contentless garbage and a myriad of other things people label as "scummy." Yet as soon many people see one of these "scum tells" they hop onto it immediately without so much as a thought as to why it might or might not be scummy. Players in general need to stop playing on autopilot and do a little more thinking. These things need context or analysis to be considered scummy.

[semioldguy]

Here are the options:

(1) Someone is not scummy.
(2) Someone is scummy.

There are no other options. Someone either is or they are not. Period. When I eliminate option (2), option (1) is all that remains. Any decision made on a read or lack of read on any player will fit into one of those two options.

[semioldguy]

Here are the options:

(1) Someone is not scummy.
(2) Someone is scummy.

There are no other options. Someone either is or they are not. Period. When I eliminate option (2), option (1) is all that remains. Any decision made on a read or lack of read on any player will fit into one of those two options.

And you said you had no read on him, so how did your not scummy come about?

Because someone can't be read as scummy if you have no read on them. Is this seriously that difficult to grasp?

[semioldguy]

Is it that hard to grasp that deeming someone not scummy requires a read?

It is that hard to grasp that it doesn't? I have

shown

why it doesn't. You have explicitly ignored this. You have provided no counter-evidence or argument as to why I am wrong. You make no effort to either prove or disprove my point. You just saying something with absolutely nothing but your word to back it up does not make it true. I am not going to bother trying to explain this further to you since it is doing the town no good and you seem intent on repeating yourself while ignoring anything I write anyway.

Why does it require a read to not have a scummy read on someone? If you don't have any read at all, then don't you not have a scummy read?

I agree with Chaco on this one. You are contradicting yourself. Saying someone is "not scummy" is a read. Saying "I have no read" is a total different matter.

Then you can be wrong too. I am not saying and never have said that the two are the same. Saying someone is

NOT

scummy isn't a read. It is a lack of one.

That what the word "NOT" means!!!

When anyone calls someone not scummy, it means you are not able to find a scummy read. It isn't a read, it is not being able to find a read of scummy. Maybe you also find a different read, but also maybe you didn't.

(1) Not having a read on a player
(2) Finding someone not scummy

If (1) is true, then (2) will also always be true. However, (2) being true does not always mean that (1) will always be true.

[semioldguy]

Anyone other than Chaco could probably just skip this post, there isn't really any content in this post, I just want Chaco to actually answer the questions I'm asking rather than giving me answers I'm not interested in to questions I'm not asking in their place.

Chaco, you seem to think that you answer questions when in fact, you are not directly answering the question being asked.

For example, if I asked "Do you ever play hockey on Sundays?" The answer to this question would be either "yes" or "no." If you answered "I play hockey all the time, it's a really fun sport." then you are not answering the question. While this may be nice information, I still wouldn't know whether or not you ever play hockey on Sundays.

Now let's use an example from our exchange:

semioldguy: Do you ever find people to be scummy that you have no read on?

Chaco: I rarely have no read, and when I do it is early on D1. Scum slips and tells change my read to scummy. What you are saying makes no sense.

Now, if I was asking any of "how often do you have no read?", "At what times do you have no read?", "what changes your reads to scummy?" or "Does what I'm saying make sense to you?" then you would have answered my question brilliantly. However, from your answer I still don't know whether you ever find people to be scummy when you have no read on them.

So I asked again. to get this response:

Chaco: And again I will say, I form an opinion. So I guess I'll say no because, once they do something scummy that attributes to a read.

Holy crap, you answered the question... kind of. Okay... so no,

you don't find them scummy when you have no read on them

. Great! Oh then you come with this gem:

Chaco: I explained the way I did it, that's better than a yes or no answer. Only using Yes or No limits my reply to only something you want to hear.

Better than a yes or no answer?!? While you gave me much more information than a yes or no would have given, only "yes" and "no" are answers to the question. (

and maybe saying 'I never once in my life had no read on any player, ever" because it would get at something false within the question. however. this isn't the case as you admitted in your answer that you only rarely have no read, not never

). While limiting it to "yes" and "no" actually does limit your reply to what I want to hear, the only thing I actually want to hear is an answer to the question. Unless, of course, not answering questions is considered better than answering them.

You didn't want to answer the question because your reply is only something I want to hear? Should I only ask questions that I don't want to hear the answer from? That wouldn't be very productive. I mean... I am only asking the question in the first place because what I want to hear is an answer. That's kind of the point of asking questions. Otherwise, why ask questions at all?

Now for the next question you've so expertly dodged:

semioldguy: Even if I were lying about having no read on dramonic, which I am not lying about, why would that be scummy?

I'm not really sure what exactly you thought was an answer, so I'll just lump all of it in there and show you why it isn't.

Chaco: Liars get lynched. Plus, I am trying to understand your "No read" + "He's not scummy to me" combination. They don't parallel. And as you said, I am trying to get to the context of it, but you're going into a turtle shell.

We'll just start with part one. Nice, you are trying to understand the combination, or at least are claiming to. What have you done to try? I have shown you a way that they do parallel, or at least I claim that they do. Then it goes to your turn. If you don't think they do, you need to show why my example doesn't parallel. You need to prove it wrong. Just saying it doesn't work gets everybody nowhere and proves nothing. Effort is needed. You don't keep your job by saying you'll show up to work on time every day, you keep it by proving that you do.

As for trying to get to the context... the context is already there. We are now past the context. To look at the context you must on your own examine the part of the game immediately surrounding my post and what my post means in conjunction with other posts made up through that point. Though maybe you're just confused with what I meant by context.

Let's get to part two....

Chaco: Town can do scummy things yes. So you're saying we can pass you off as town because you did something scummy? No, I'm trying to get to the bottom of something and you're shelling up on me with a wall of useless post whining because you're under scrutiny.

Hmm... I don't remember saying that I could be passed of as town for doing something scummy. Heck, I don't even think I did something scummy since I know I'm not lying. If anything I am supporting the opposite, that nothing should be passed off. That everything needs to be looked or thought further into to determine a judgment. Yes, and you are not whining at all in comparison to me and your wall posts are also not useless. That was sarcasm in case you were unaware. Our posting between each other has been equally useless to the town from both parties. However, I am attempting to use evidence and example to prove my side... oh, you aren't doing any of that? What are you trying to do in your posts again? Tell me I'm wrong? Well, if you won't give me a reason with examples or evidence that I am wrong, I am inclined to believe my own examples over you... uh... nothing.

After all, I know what I am thinking and you don't. So who are you to tell me how I think about stuff?

[semioldguy]

If any of you think my examples are wrong... then DO something to SHOW they are wrong. Saying they are wrong, and doing nothing to show or disprove it other than giving me your word obviously is not going to sway my opinion.

[semioldguy]

Semi do you have any examples off hand where you stated no read means not scummy before?

Probably. I'll look. If not, I'll have on from now on after this game.

[semioldguy]

@starttransmission
Check out Post 397.

[semioldguy]

My line isn't the same as yours:

Town----------Neutral----------Scum

No Read----------Read

"No read" isn't on the same line. I differentiate between neutral read and no read.

[semioldguy]

Hmm... in typing up another response, I may have found where the clash here is. Saying "Someone is not scummy" and saying "I find someone not scummy" are not the same thing. You all seem to be assuming the verb "to be" while that is not the verb I am using. I am using the verb "to find."

They aren't even the same sentence structure. With the verb 'to be,' 'not scummy is the part of the nominative (essentially the subject). With the verb 'to find,' 'not scummy' is the direct object (part of the predicate).

[semioldguy]

An verb example/comparison:

I say, "I did not find there to be any emeralds in that cave."

This could be the result of multiple scenarios. Suppose I elaborate more. "I found rubies to be in that cave instead." or "I didn't find there to be any gems in that cave."

Neither of these elaborations to my answer makes the original answer untrue. They could also be answers to the question themselves, since both elaborations show that I did not find any emeralds.

Maybe instead I say, "Emeralds are not in that cave."

By changing the verb, the meaning is changed. Now I am stating my knowledge that there are not emeralds in the cave. In the first situation there might be emeralds in that cave, we only know I haven't found any. Maybe I suck at finding emeralds, or maybe I hadn't even gotten to looking for gems in that cave, we just know I haven't found there to be any.

Now let's say that "gems" represent different kinds of reads and emerald is a particularly scummy gem. (emerald is a type of gem, scuminess is a type of read) Also let's say dramonic is the cave.


Now the conversation could go like this.

I say, "I did not find there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

This could be the result of multiple scenarios. Suppose I elaborate more. "I found towniness to be in dramonic instead." or "I didn't find there to be any reads in dramonic."

These all makes sense, yes? Neither of these elaborations to my answer makes the original answer untrue. They could also be answers to the question themselves, since both elaborations show that I did not find any scuminess.

Maybe instead I say, "Scuminess is not in dramonic."

By changing the verb, the meaning is changed. Now I am stating my knowledge that there is not scuminess in dramonic. In the first situation there might be scuminess in dramonic, we only know I haven't found any. Maybe I suck at finding scuminess, or maybe I hadn't even gotten to looking for reads in dramonic, we just know I haven't found there to be any.

[semioldguy]

But as of now I do not find dramonic to be scummy.

Do not find him to be scummy. The "find" you are using is "to feel or perceive", so you do not feel he is scummy?

Which goes back the very same thing. This is not a difference of English, as you wish to pass it off as.

"to feel or perceive" are still not the same verbs, or even the same types of verbs as "to be."

[semioldguy]

The "find" you are using is "to feel or perceive", so you do not feel he is scummy?

Which goes back the very same thing. This is not a difference of English, as you wish to pass it off as.

It is the verb thing. If I'm not feeling anything then I am definitely not feeling that he is scummy.

[semioldguy]

Also, statements retracted about your side and those agreeing with your side being wrong (at least up through post 420). Your points were right. We just weren't talking about the same thing. Which is probably why the communication for both sides was so frustrating.

[semioldguy]

@Chaco
Um... you realize that feel/percieve fits just fine into all three sentences, not just the first two. Definition six is probably closest to actual meaning in all of the three.

But as of now I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy.

I did not perceive Datadanne scummy.

I did not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic.

The change you noticed is not the difference between meanings of the verb "to find," which is the same meaning in all, what you noticed as the difference between the third sentence and the first two is that scummy is an adjective and scuminess is a noun, which has no bearing on the meaning of the verb. Other differences are that the second sentence has an implied infinitive, the first opens with a prepositional phrase, it also is in present tense, while the third has a prepositional phrase with respect to the direct object. None of these things affect the verb "to find."

[semioldguy]

It's hard to admit that I had a read on dramonic... probably because I didn't have a read on dramonic.

How do the first two

require

a read from their wording?

"But as of now I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
<sentence two snipped for irrelevance>
"I did not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

With the exception of the tense and preposition phrase "But as of now", sentences 1 and 3 are the same sentence.

**Incoming grammar lesson monologue. If you don't want to read about grammar, stop now. There is no game content found below. Though grammar is really interesting and if you do read on you'll probably learn something about grammar.

Let's first sync up the tenses and remove that prepositional phrase from contestsant number one for ease of comparison.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

Now "I" is the subject/nominative of both sentences. Everything past "I" is part of the predicate.

"do" is the predicate or acting verb of both sentences coupled with the adverb of "not." The verb "to do" generally requires the partnership of an infinitive which is a helping verb, which here is not an exception, in this case that infinitive being "find/perceive," whichever you want to use at this point.

Next let's look at a couple direct object nouns. "Scuminess" and "dramonic" aren't the same nouns in a literal sense, but both sentences have a prediacte nominative as the direct objects, so the sentence structure between the two is still the same so far.

(A 'prediacte nominative' is the acting subject of the prediacte phase. More on this later.)

When looking at the next infinitive, "to be," we have an additional pronoun, "there," in the second sentence. However, this pronoun is not acting like a pronoun. When joined, generally with the verb "to be," the word "there" acts as an introduction to a clause in which the verb is coming before it's subject. For example "There is no spoon." The word "there" has no real translatable meaning to the sentence here since "Is no spoon" is not proper english grammar (there are many other languages in which this grammar would be fine).

Think of the word "there" as a reflexive pronoun in this case. When you say "there is no spoon" you are essentially saying "There exists no spoon," which has the same translation as "no spoon exists," eliminating the word "there" entirely since the subject "spoon" is now at its place before the verb. Let's look at the clauses within each sentence's predicate separately for a moment (this is the clause following our verb and helping verb)

"

I do not perceive

dramonic to be scummy."
"

I do not perceive

there to be any

scuminess

in dramonic."

We can get rid of the pronoun "there" by rearranging the word order in the second phrase to "

I do not perceive

any scumminess to be in dramonic" We then have the same exact verb in the prediacte, "to be." Nothing exciting there. So now we've whittled it down to:

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"any

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

I underlined both prediacte nominatives. What we do with the word "any" that seems to be poking out the front is more or less ignore it. The word "any" is an adjective to the direct object that expresses emphasis when in a sentence with a negative. Basically it emphasizes that the person saying the sentence is sure that there is no scuminess. It does not change the meaning. It could even be cut out.

The prediacte infinitive "to be" has the same use in both clauses, linking the predicate nominative to it's compliment. So "to be" also passes the identical test between the two sentences.

"

dramonic

to be scummy."
"

scumminess

to be in dramonic"

"scummy" and "in dramonic" are both complements. A complement follows a verb to let us know the meaning of a phrase. In both clauses these are acting as predicate adjectives, they modify the prediacte nominative so we know what's going on. Their actual part of speech is not important when dealing with complements.

"scummy" let's us know more about "dramonic" and "in dramonic" lets us know more about "scuminess." The part of speech which a word is does not affect the kind of complement it is within the sentence, so it does not matter that one complement is an adjective and the other is a prepositional phrase. Complements can also be nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.

"I do not perceive dramonic to be scummy."
"I do not perceive there to be any scuminess in dramonic."

So looking back at the whole picture, both sentences have their nominatives (I), a negative (not), a verb with helping verb (do perceive), a direct object (dramonic/scuminess), a complement to the direct object(scummy/in dramonic), which are combined by a linking verb (to be).

Structurally they are the same sentence. They have all the same parts.

[semioldguy]

I have a better feeling toward dramonic as leaning slightly town.

Snow_Bunny's case feels very fabricated to me. The players on SerialClergyman's wagon other than her have better reasons for being there as already mentioned. Snow_Bunny is either fabricating a case or if she actually believes in her own case then she is selective scum hunting aiming at one cult.

I still have a town read on starttransmission from his play on day one.

Chaco feels slightly less scummy to me than he did previously.

Incant: Snow_Bunny

[semioldguy]

@Mod

I will be V/LA from the 24th until the 27th

[semioldguy]

Do I get cookies for already being on the Snow_Bunny wagon?

I noticed the same thing you had about people mentioning Snow_Bunny's scuminess yet all not voting her as someone else was their top suspect or for whatever reason. If people start hopping onto the Snow_Bunny wagon now, I'd like to know why they weren't here to begin with.

[semioldguy]

After reading back through on iso I found her posts to be... not scummy.

Uh oh... quick! hide this line from Chaco!!

[semioldguy]

Back from V/LA

In light of the claim I believe there to be a town Guardian. I don't think this person should claim. I have a wall of logic for why I think it very unlikely for scum to have been targeted by a guardian and saved from a kill last night.

I don't see how being targeted by a guardian and likely being protected from a night kill makes me more likely scum. Would those on my wagon care to explain this for me?

The way I see it there are three possibilities regarding the claim and last night.

(1) Shadow Cult targeted me to be killed, but it was protected.
(2) Shadow Cult didn't target anyone to be killed.
(3) Shadow Cult targeted someone other than me who was also protected.

I don't see any other possibilities and (1) seems the most likely to me for a variety of reasons.

Now, I am more or less under the assumption that we only have two members per cult, as having three in each would likely be too many for a 12 player game. If Shadow cult targeted me for a kill, then I am not in Shadow Cult. It is also unlikely for me to be in Darkness Cult and to have orchestrated being protected because if they only have one member left there wouldn't be any way for a buddy to protect another member.

Given the circumstances, I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that me being protected last night leads to me being likely cult. If anything, it greatly reduces the chances of that.

Also you don't need to be a dreamwalker to know that someone's alignment has been protected. You'd also know that if you were the guardian or if you were the one who tried to kill someone but were unable to. Though I think Startransmission is most likely town.

I do have one request though. What was your reasoning for targeting me with your dreamwalker ability?

[semioldguy]

1. There was only one death last night, so a either shadow or darkness was blocked. I doubt that a cult group would protect a townie, thus it was a town guardian who made the right choice.

It had to be Shadow Cult that was blocked as Darkness' kill went through.

2. Semi being protected by town makes no sense for the same reason.

Why exactly does it make no sense for town to protect me?

3. Semi is obviously in the Shadow cult. His partner protected him, and the kill they chose was blocked by an astute town guardian.

Why is this 'obvious' and why couldn't I have been the night kill target who was blocked by an astute town guardian?

I don't really understand how your result makes you think I am more likely to be scum, especially considering the cult you think I am a part of didn't have a successful kill last night meaning it likely that someone was protected from the kill from that cult. I am confirmed having been targeted by protection last night from your own investigation.

I'm wondering if it's worth getting the person who protected him to claim.

If noone claims then he's obvscum whose partner doesn't want to expose himself. If someone claims and they are faking, we'll have the scum team on a platter. If someone claims and they are not faking and it was a town block, we have two PRs exposed for nothing.

This makes little sense. Basically you are saying that someone doesn't claim it's because they are scum, but if someone does claim two town power roles are exposed for nothing? I think you answer your own concerns as to why town wouldn't, and shouldn't, want to claim.

Either way, I completely believe the claim and so.

Well, how does the claim implicate me as scum?

I'm gonna have to go with Start's claim on this, as I was already suspicious of Semi.

What about his claim makes me more suspicious?

And I'd rather not have a Town Guardian outed, not this Early in the game.

Agreed.

[semioldguy]

I don't have a double vote. You should only have one vote as far as I know.

[semioldguy]

@Mod, could we get a prod on Deathsauce?

It would also be totally awesome if the people voting for me were around or something instead of disappearing as soon as my V/LA is up.

startransmission was on site and posting last night, but not in this thread. SerialClergyman has been around quite a bit on site elsewhere the past two days as well. There isn't a whole lot to catch up on in here, shouldn't take long or much effort.

Are my questions too difficult?

[semioldguy]

Snow Bunny, I'm drunk so who knows if it's you not making sense or me understanding you, but explain why Darkness has 3 members including a power role or

why Darkness would protect a townie

. If you can do either, you earn 10 points from me.

Can I steal her 10 points?

Reasons why a scum guardian might target someone that isn't scum; (1) To aid his claim later as to not have to lie about his targets; (2) If they see someone who is likely to be investigated and they want to keep the person from being investigated or potentially cleared. I hadn't originally considered the second reason until your post mentioning that you thought I deserved an investigation.

If you believe that Darkness has a guardian and likely only two members, then the guardian can't target his scum buddy because there isn't one left. If he targets someone, it is likely from one or both of the reasons above.

Another reason why Statransmission's claim was really bad, it helps scum to eliminate players who could have been my guardian last night. For instance, if I were trying to figure out my guardian, I can eliminate the three of you voting me, because as town you wouldn't be likely to incant the player you just protected (if you aren't town though let me know because then all this logic can be thrown out the window). A guardian can't protect itself, so that already narrows it down to 6 out of 10 players. If scum know they didn't do it themselves and are part of those six players, then they can narrow it down further.

[semioldguy]

So I did some re-reading and noticed something.

Incant: Startransmission

His claim makes even less sense, and has a few contradictions.

On day 1 I got a mild town read from Semi, whereas I got a neutral/scum read from DD. But since you mention it,

Unincant, Incant: Semioldguy

So on day one he had a mild town read on me. It isn't unheard of to investigate players you have mild town reads on, but I would definitely like an explanation for this. This isn't my main problem with his claiming though.

1. There was only one death last night, so a either shadow or darkness was blocked. I doubt that a cult group would protect a townie, thus it was a town guardian who made the right choice.
2. Semi being protected by town makes no sense for the same reason.
3. Semi is obviously in the Shadow cult. His partner protected him, and the kill they chose was blocked by an astute town guardian.

Now this thought process didn't ever follow for me before, but makes even less sense now. If he was leaning toward a town read on me, then why is it so unbelievable to him that a town guardian might protect me?

And like I said, I can't imagine town protecting semi, because that would mean scum protected town last night, and I can't wrap my head around that.

Again I don't know why he thinks it unreasonable for town to want to protect me when he himself was leaning town on me on day one. The extreme conclusion he jumps to is not congruous with his own statements/reads.

[semioldguy]

Now Magua makes sense, though I would prefer to hear from Startransmission before moving my incantation.

Also if Startransmission and Chaco have not posted by tonight, they will both have been inactive for 72 hours and be due for a prod.

[semioldguy]

The Datadanne lynch was bad. Policy lynches are bad. He was not scummy, just currently unhelpful.

You "playing the odds" as you call it is a horrible decision, and actually not playing the odds at all. It also falls under the gambler's fallacy. You are using known events to determine the likeliness of an unknown event. You targeting me and me being targeted by a guardian are known. Those things can't change and do not affect the probability of other events.

If you flip a coin three times, from the start you have a 12.5% chance that all three flips will be heads. However, if you already know that two flips were heads, then it's a 50% that all three will be heads. It isn't going to be less likely for heads to come up the third time just because it was heads the last two times.

You are applying this same logical fallacy to last nights actions. To call all three actions having happened when knowing none of them would be a very small percentage. But you already know with certainty what the first two actions were.

(1) You target me
(2) A Guardian targets me
(3) Scum targets me

OR

(1) You target me
(2) A Guardian targets me
(3) Scum targets someone else
(4) Another Guardian protects that same someone else

Now (1) and (2) are not random events, we know for sure these things had to happen, unless you are lying. So really only you know for certain. So we can remove those first two from the equation.

You are saying that:

(1) Scum targeted me to be killed

Is LESS likely than

(1) A second guardian targeted someone other than myself
(2) Scum also targeted that same player

Even if you are playing the odds, you are playing them wrong.

If we assume two members of the Shadow Cult, then from anyone's point of view we have approximately a 11.1% chance of being randomly selected by the Shadow Cult for a kill last night. It isn't even a certainty there is another guardian, but for statistical ease, let's just say there is. That would leave a 11.1% chance for someone to be targeted by a guardian at random last night (1 in 9, since the guardian cant target himself, and Seacore was not the target of a guardian).

I'll show you the math...

(1) You target me (100%) the probability of this happening is always, because we know that it happened
(2) A Guardian targets me (100%) same with this
(3) Scum targets me (11.1%) Assuming two Shadow cult that don't self target, there are nine others, including Seacore that might have been targeted

So lets multiply these all together, you can do it as fractions to show probablility. So we have 1.0 * 1.0 * 0.111 = 0.111

OR

(1) You target me (100%)
(2) A Guardian targets me (100%)
(3) Scum targets someone that isn't me (88.9%) Just subtract the chance of me being targeted from 100% to get the probablility of me not being targeted
(4) Another Guardian protects that same someone else (11.1%) The guardian has to target that specific person, so back to a 1 in 9 shot.

Again we can multiply. 1.0 * 1.0 * 0.889 * 0.111 = 0.098679

So you are banking on 0.111 < 0.098679? Sounds like playing the odds to me... or wait, no, you aren't playing the odds. Go go gamblers fallacy!!

Additionally, you have still failed to answer the first question I have put forth to you. Skirting around this further is intentionally wasteful of time. Time is something that is particularly valuable to the town in this setup. Please make an effort not to waste more of it than you already have by avoiding questions.

I'll repeat myself for your sake.

Why did you choose me as your investigation target?

[semioldguy]

What would a false claim like this at this point in the game accomplish?

Whether it was a fake or real claim, you didn't accomplish anything positive by doing it that aren't heavily outweighed by the negatves of doing so.

[semioldguy]

SOG's is kinda weak, based on the word of a single player. Yes, I'm not discrediting the claim, but I am not believing it right away. In the other hand, we have SC, who's a great lynch for today.

Whether you disbelieve the claim or not. If you believe his claim, how is that in any way an indication that I am scum?

The fact that the people on my wagon are lurking like crazy and avoiding the topic at hand should be an indication that the people on it are more than questionable.

[semioldguy]

It is (IMO) far more likely that SOG was protected by a scum partner than the idea that a town guardian, the town dreamwalker, and the other scum group all targeted SOG.

I've already given proof why this is in reality to be less likely. If you think I am wrong, prove it. You offer no proof. You offer no evidence.

ALSO YOU STILL NEED TO ANSWER MY QUESTION:

Why did you choose me as your investigation target?

Quit ignoring this. Please.

[semioldguy]

Does town

want

to lose?

Seriously? If these claims are coming from town they are completely unprecedented. Neither of you actually have any useful information and if you think your claims somehow condemn me or exonerate anyone, not only are you wrong because your claims essentially reveal nothing about anyone else, but it will be your heads on the chopping block next. Neither of you looked to be lynch targets at the times of your claims, also making your claims more or less pointless from a town perspective.

Both claims makes no sense from a town perspective and also very little to no sense from a scum perspective. They are just crappy claims. Period.

@SerialClergyman
If you don't have an objection to a Heilograph lynch, why would you feel the need to stop it today in pursuit of my lynch? If you think we are both good lynch targets, what good does it do for town to reveal your role if you could just try to get me lynched tomorrow as well without having to out yourself?

In my experience Doctor roles generally avoid claiming more than anyone else, and for good reason.

@startransmission
If that was your reason for targeting me, then why did you find it so unbelievable for a town guardian to protect me? If you had a town read on me, wouldn't it make sense that a town guardian might also have a town read on me and that would be a pretty good reason for protecting me? You have been contradicting yourself with this claim.

[semioldguy]

I can see stratransmission's claim: we have obvious evidence there is a guardian that stopped a scum kill, and we're relatively certain that the other scum team is only one person. So it makes sense that there's a town guardian.

This could have been deduced whether he had claimed or not. This also didn't appear to be the reason he claimed.

[semioldguy]

Also 2 doctors cross protecting in this set-up seems really, really powerful if they everr come out. So yeah.

Is deadline passed now anyway?

I share the same thoughts as to why there are likely not two pro-town guardians. Cross protections would break the setup. Any scum member by himself would essentially never be able to win.

Deadline is not passed.

[semioldguy]

The apathy and inactivity in this game does not bode well for town

[semioldguy]

I think SerialClergyman has a decent chance of being scum, but not as strong of a possibility of startransmission being scum due to the poor handling of his claim and his own contradictions that surround it.

I see little town motivation for SerialClergyman's claim, which is still far outweighed by the negatives. However, I can think of several scum motivations for the claim given it's timing and implication.

If SerialClergyman is town, then my flip is about to set up his own mislynch and waste more of town's time in the process (which plenty of has already been wasted away today by numerous players).

My incantation on him is either a positive for the town, or a lesser evil.

Incant: SerialClergyman

I would not, and still will not, choose Heilograph to go down with me if my vote is the deciding factor in that endeavor. I would not have chosen SerialClergyman either until his recent claim, which in my opinion is condemning toward him.

[semioldguy]

As for my reads of players,

I currently find Snow_Bunny and dramonic to be the most likely to be town.

SerialClergyman's death would not change this read on dramonic regardless of the flip.

startransmission is the scummiest player. He should be lynched.

[semioldguy]

I'll keep posting as I can until the thread closes, though I am at work and without much time.

BAH!!! Go town!

[semioldguy]

Of course no one is even here at deadline.

Seriously guys.... 3 votes out of 10 is enough to get a lynch?!? You are giving a ton of power to the scum when you wait so long into the day. Please don't wait so long in future days. It is important to get a majority or close to it. Less than one third of the players were able to determine today's lynch. That shouldn't happen. Ever.

[semioldguy]

I would be beyond shocked if the three people on my wagon were all town. The reasons for them getting on the wagon were very illogical. They lollygagged around in keeping their votes there and preventing game development by disappearing for days at a time, allowing the deadline counter to tick down further. They they denial logic in keeping their votes there, offering no counter argument or anything to the posed case.

[semioldguy]

Deathsauce should be looked at closer.

Chaco and Faraday are middle of the road in my eyes.

I can't get a good read on Magua, but he sees things clearly and his thought revolving around players and the game is correct. Not always an alignment tell, but I'd lean town with a cautious eye just in case.

Heilograph needs to do more.

[semioldguy]

You shouldn't have claimed. There wasn't benefit to town from your claim. That was your mistake, not mine.

[semioldguy]

You outed yourself when there wasn't threat of your own lynch, one of the top two people you were okay with getting lynched was leading in incantations.

If you were the only town Guardian, you wouldn't be protected. If there was another town guardian, then it throws your case against me completely out the window. You point's against my protection being from scum would be invalidated. What you did made NO sense as town.

Also no one can hammer me. Deadline is passed three minutes after my incantation. We both are gone. If you are town, do something constructive with you posts. Post your opinions on other players. Answer the questions and points that were addressed to you.

[semioldguy]

EBWOP:
Actually there were still seven minutes after my incantation. No one even cared enough to be around at deadline to respond or make a post.

[semioldguy]

And as I said, I am town.

Tomorrow the town is going to look and see that I was targeted by a Guardian (or startransmission is a liar), which means a known town was targeted by a guardian. You are claiming to be another guardian and to not have protected me. Your mislynch is looking particularly appealing. You are going to have to defend youself based upon the presumption that (1) There are multiple town guardians, which you didn't believe; or (2) that scum guardian would target someone other than their buddy with a protection, which you also posted that you don't believe. That doesn't sound to good for you if you are town.

Unless startransmission was lying... I would have rather he been lynched. But I couldn't get him lynched because exactly Zero people were going along with that.

I'm still thinking you'll flip scum.

[semioldguy]

/pre-in for your next game Percy.

I enjoyed the setup and theme very much. A well run and fun game.

Some Thoughts:

I thought the setup was both good and balanced and the guardians' role for scum led to having multiple utilities/options for use without being overpowered, which is nice.

Successfully "Taking someone down with me" was cool.

I would have preferred to live though. I haven't been living past a day or two though recently and think this makes I think five games in the last six completed games that I was targeted by scum on the first night (twice on a night zero)

My reads before my death were pretty accurate, I would have tried to push lynches away from Snow_Bunny and dramonic for the rest of the game had I lived. I've played a few games with both of them and felt I had good reads on them this game (being right about them doesn't necessarily mean I was accurate though).

I deduced that Magua was the Guardian and tried to sow a little doubt without casting suspicion on him while still giving a town read to hopefully distract the night kill to someone else but draw town attention for incantation. (He was killed anyway)

I don't think I would have gone after Heilograph on day three had I lived, for the same reasons I was unwilling to incant him the previous day. I would have went for Chaco and startransmission the following day.

I didn't peg Faraday until a short while into the final day, when I thought he was more likely scum than Chaco at that point. Even though it was lylo with two scum left I thought the town was in a very good position to win.