Mini 917 -- Precision Mafia (Game Over)

[Iecerint]

Vote fhqw(something) For having such annoying name to vote on

In spite of the other errors in your post, I'm assuming that one of them was not your decision to vote?

FoS: Cobalt

for always being scum.

[Iecerint]

How nice.

We just need a volunteer to keep track of the realvotes (FoS) for the class.

[Iecerint]

Right, that's what I meant.

[Iecerint]

Apparently, he wanted to waste his team's CP. Maybe because of recent rhetoric on the issue?

UnFoS; FoS: fifi

.

[Iecerint]

Apparently, he wanted to waste his team's CP. Maybe because of recent rhetoric on the issue?

UnFoS; FoS: fifi

.

Well, if it's the former, he needs to die.

Frankly, I think the latter is more troubling.

[Iecerint]

<3 Cobalt <3

My take on the issue is a little different. Let me clarify.

See, the reality is that both town and scum need points to function. Uselessly wasting points is poor play regardless of your alignment.

What's missing from this analysis is the context. Others (including the Mod, I believe) had implicitly or explicitly said that conserving points was scummy. Since I think that minimal honest introspection would have shown that that rhetoric was a half-truth at best (at least, that was my experience), I think fifi's decision to use CP was motivated by an attempt to (!) appear town.

[Iecerint]

J.R. -- you have literally restated my point, except that you've ignored the context a bit and thereby demoted it a bit to 2TOWN4TOWN, which I don't think is all it is.

I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to have everyone talk in detail about their intuitions about the usefulness of using CP. I suspect that doing so would expose PRs.

Having stated that, though -- we have to either make everyone use all their CP, or conserve CP. Low CP only disproportionately negatively affects scum if they don't have any points at all. I suspect that the set-up is designed to punish game-breaking, though, so I'm inclined to conserve CP. I also think it'd make for a more interesting game.

[Iecerint]

I think the scenarios in the pre-game Mod posts indicate that a lynch cannot be stopped by overvoting. If everyone goes into PR debt some day, the lynch will happen as usual, but all night actions will fail. Please correct me if you understand differently.

[Iecerint]

O. I totally missed that.

Well, that makes fifi look even worse (because of the waste-looks-townie rheoric), and makes setup-breaking look worse.

[Iecerint]

(Can we still pretend that it's Valkyria Chronicles Mafia? =P)

OK by me. But, given that, did you just claim scum with the Imperial chant? Or Selvaria - SK?

1fifi's comeback post does nothing to change my opinion of him. Should add that I only stay in RVS until I see any kind of case on someone; your behavior qualified.

[Iecerint]

Selvaria is my goddess, but I'm afraid I have dark hair. Crumb4U.

[Iecerint]

"Fifi is scum; the people voting him are not."

That is how I read it.

[Iecerint]

BTW -- V/LA until Monday morning. I'll be skiing.

Noted. Have fun!

[Iecerint]

I wish I knew how to interpret fifi's tone.

[Iecerint]

I like my avatar. And Cobalt's.

I agree with whoever said that Alma looks comparatively bad given fifiTown, but Alma always seems scummy to me, so I dunno, etc.

[Iecerint]

I like it except for the McGriddle. That is disgusting.

[Iecerint]

Is there an optimal number we would have fifi waste such that it effectively nerfs scum while minimally nerfing town? My expectation is that this sort of technique will be unproductive, but it's probably worth at least the mathematical exercise.

[Iecerint]

Given fifiScum, it would also potentially give us an idea about how many scum are on the wagon.

[Iecerint]

Well, obviously no one would want him to burn them, but he still would. If he didn't, we'd just lynch him. Right? Otherwise, this would be a very abuseable system.

If fifi flips scum, and a NK does not occur, that would imply that fifi used 10 CP and other scum used enough daytime CP to eliminate their night actions. If we assume 3 scum, one of whom is a commander (12 points total), that would mean at least 2 actions other than fifi's took place.

I was assuming that the extra CP would be used to be on fifi's wagon, but I suppose it could come from other sources. Either way, to the extent that dayCP use is public, the point is that we'd be able to figure things out.

This presupposes that the commander's extra 3 CP apply to their team rather than themselves. Maybe I should ask the Mod for clarification on that point, unless it's in the rules and I just can't remember, etc.

Yes, all Commander bonus points apply to the party, not just the individual.

[Iecerint]

(Flipside is that given fifiScum and an NK does occur, the scum would have to be off the wagon. That, or scum have tons of Commanders, but that would seem to contradict the Mod's pre-game speculation.)

[Iecerint]

Back.

I love long days.

Cobalt's purported "scum commander claim" from fifi is improbable IMO. Regardless of fifi's alignment, his post is just subjunctive mood fail. It's a language barrier issue; not a scumslip issue. I still (improbable though it may be) think fifi is the scummiest one in the room, though.

I had in my head that the Commanders gave +3 bonus CP (i.e. double the CP of a typical player), but it looks like that number was only used as an example. So that makes half-lynching (who came up with that jargon? it's not very descriptive) more difficult to pull off, maybe. We could always start low and work up, though. It's better than leaving free CP to rot.

[Iecerint]

My supposition is that town probably has an abundance of CP. (My guess is that scum has 0-1 commanders and town has 1-2 commanders. Otherwise, the Mod's pre-game speculation that reluctance to use CP might look scummy would not make sense.) Given that abundance of CP, I think that using a bunch of CP to potentially narrow down scum D2 would be a fairly wise use of CP, especially since unused CP doesn't carry over to subsequent days.

I should confess that I skimmed the last page or so before my post. It started to look a little vacuous. So if his plan was amended somewhere in there, I may've missed it. I should also add that I think we should slightly favor killing whoever just wasted the CP, in the interest of saving CP (i.e. CP is no longer abundant after you've potentially wasted however many points of it). This problem wouldn't exist if everyone was disciplined about FoS's, though.

Another thing I should point out is that when I indicated my disappointment that it wouldn't be VC mafia per se pre-game, the Mod indicated to me which VC character my role would have been had this remained a VC-themed game. This makes me wonder whether the roles in this game are just ciphers of VC characters (e.g. whether he made VC mafia, and then de-flavored the roles to broaden the appeal of the game). I'm not sure that too much speculation in this direction would be fruitful (might just distract from other issues), but it is potentially something to keep in mind as we see a few more flips.

[Iecerint]

VC is Valkyria Chronicles. That's where the CP stuff comes from; it's a combat mechanic from the franchise. This game was originally a VC theme game, but the Mod decided to broaden the theme out of worry that VC was too obscure. That information can be found in the queue.

I didn't explicitly request permission to share it, if that's what you mean, but I have no reason to believe I've done anything naughty. The tone of the correspondence was "Hey, since you're a VC fan, you'd be X given Y." It was really parenthetical. For all I know, he was just injecting some custom flavor on the basis of my stated interest.

If you're rather asking whether it's wise to disclose the information for strategic reasons, I certainly think it is, yes. Scum are already in a position to make those kinds of generalizations because they presumably have access to one another's roles.

[Iecerint]

I'm not sure I understand. Do commanders have access to residual CP totals after each night phase?

[Iecerint]

Amazing. That almost seems too good to be true.

[Iecerint]

If final CP is less than 0, are Commanders told that end-of-night CP was (e.g.) "-4," or simply that no CP remained?

[Iecerint]

My point is that if exact numbers are only given when at least 1 CP remains, that gives an incentive to be slightly more conservative.

[Iecerint]

I think we're potentially OK to use CP today. Assuming that the Commanders are aware of how much extra CP they generate, producing a baseline is unnecessary. As such, the baseline is only useful to players who are not the Commander, but the Commander must reveal himself to make the baseline known to them. So I don't understand the need to establish a baseline CP D1. Assuming the Commander is competent at counting, choosing some burners should help us out today.

I do like the rest of your plan, though 3 burners may be superfluous. At the very least, we should lower the number of burners as the number of players drops.

Let me know if I am missing something critical.

[Iecerint]

I don't know whether they do or not. I am assuming that they do, because I think it would be confusing to receive a PM that indicates "you give your team extra CP" without a numerical designation.

Even if they do not, we could account for that by having a smaller pool of players make comparatively large burns today. That would make the presence of a non-town burner relatively unambiguous. Hell, we could even just have 1 player do it to an absurd degree. That would make for an extra cop shot at relatively little risk (i.e. really absurd Commander bonuses could still mess this up).

[Iecerint]

It's relatively straightforward now that we're on page 9, but the whole CP concept would have been shakier at the pre-game stage, and especially without other players to bounce ideas off of. Had I made this set-up, I would have kept it as simple as possible to minimize the number of questions I would need to field.

But yeah, it's possible that they don't know. Another potential confound is a second town Commander, come to think of it.

[Iecerint]

Working from the VCmafia-cipher hypothesis, 1 town Commander is the most plausible, but there could potentially be a 2nd Commander given the flavor. I could also imagine the Mod including a second Commander to increase total town CP (consistent with his pre-game talk) and/or to reduce risk of CP loss to town (as lucky loss of the one Commander would totally warp the intended CP balance in scum's favor, which may play against the intended tone of the game).

That is pure speculation, but it was the basis of my suggestion. I still think trying to do something with the spare CP is a good plan.

I have no problems with the newest version of the plan, really.

[Iecerint]

We're doing 1-2 players today either way. We need to allow whoever we choose to waste enough points such that the Commanders will be certain they aren't just imagining a disparity due to hypothetically not knowing how many extra CP they produce, not to mention the added spooky effects of other PRs.

[Iecerint]

The fewer burners there are today, the easier it will be for Commanders to determine whether the burner(s) were scum tomorrow.

1 burns 14 -- can reasonably estimate whether CP reflects 14 lost points
2 burn 7 -- can probably reasonably estimate whether CP reflects 7 lost points
3 burn 4 -- can't do it

I think we're OK so long as we only have 1-2 burners today. Sure, there's some risk involved, but the payoff is definitely worth it. I doubt the town Commander bonus is so extreme that 14 would be ambiguous, for example. It's also possible that the Commander knows his own bonus, in which case the ambiguity will be low.

I think we should lynch fifi and have Alma or Cobalt burn.

[Iecerint]

Seacore, are you a protown power role?

What the hell could possibly be your justification for asking such an absurd question?

[Iecerint]

I don't understand. We know that we each give 3 CP as a base. Assuming 9 town, that's 27 CP. Then the Commander gives an extra X CP, probably no more than 6 or so.

Lynching someone takes 7 CP.
Burning takes however many CP we want it to take. Let's say 12.
Some of the idiots who already voted might be town, too. Let's say we waste 3 more CP in there somewhere.

We enter night having at least 5 CP to spend, and that's pretending the town Commander has no bonus (extremely remote).

Basically, if we end up with 0-10 CP, the burner was town. If we end up with 12-22 CP, the burner was scum. Granted, there's a hazy space in the middle, but I'd rather potentially clear someone or find scum than just sit on my CP pile.

If I am missing some self-evident reason why this isn't worth it, please explain it with an example.

[Iecerint]

You should have waited and then shot fifi just before we had all settled on starting to realvote him. Free lynch ftw.

[Iecerint]

I cannot believe you just shot him. That is an utterly fail usage of your ability. The only circumstance in which I can justify your behavior to myself is if fifi is scum Commander and you're trying to take the bullet. Otherwise, it literally makes no sense.

Clearly, am waiting on the offchance that SC is scum.

Also, eggplant is delicious.

[Iecerint]

-_-

Fos: fifi, McGriddle, Alma

[Iecerint]

Cobalt, I'm getting the strangest sense of Deja Vu. ^^;

[Iecerint]

That would be fine, provided it is made clear that Commanders need not claim at all unless their result indicates foundscum. We should interpret no news to mean that the player was likely town. Assuming that was implicit in your Countdown Claim, I have no problem with it.

Differences in voting, so long as they aren't totally off-the-wall, will probably be informative in retrospect. I don't see the need to regulate that too stringently. Though clearly the need to use CP to catch scum will lead us to maximally moderate our voting-related CP us.

[Iecerint]

Hmm. I suppose you're right. It beats SC's idea, probably, which was to require PRs to either use abilities every night or no nights to achieve the same effect.

[Iecerint]

My plan has a better outcome (extra investigation), provided the Commander is good at counting and the town Commander doesn't give 2342343 CP or something.

This is a mini. It's not as if we have until the end of time to figure things out.

[Iecerint]

fh, if there are multiple town Commanders, my supposition is that neither gives town a ton of CP. For example, 1 Commander probably gives town up to 6, whereas 2 probably give town up to 3. If multiple Commanders are present, their function is probably to spread the risk of any individual Commander being killed.

[Iecerint]

Looks like it, yep.

I'd nominate Alma to burn at this point. I'd be happy to hammer once he's done. But talk amongst yourselves, etc.

[Iecerint]

That's what I was alluding to when I told Cobalt about deja vu. While I agree that the prior probability of having daykilling scum or daykilling SK is low, the prior probability of having daykilling town do what Alma just did may be somewhat lower.

[Iecerint]

It used to be 7 to lynch. Now it's 6 to lynch. That accounts for it still being L-1 IIRC. At any rate, he's equally as close to lynch as before.

I think Alma is a good burn candidate because he's a potential town PR.

[Iecerint]

Just you today, I think. More burners might make it hard on the Commander if s/he's a bad counter.

Let other people agree or disagree with your status as burner before you start burning, please.

[Iecerint]

You just shot one of the most helpful players in the game, even though you are voting for a different player in a game where it is costly to vote for players. Your behavior is utterly bizarre and does not match town dayvig behavior. You've also never even attempted to justify your suspicion for Seacore, even in retrospect!

I might keep you around were I scum, if I thought you would carry out a charming repeat performance D2.

If you think someone else is a better burn candidate, you should indicate them. Whining about being seen as scummy, especially after having done something quite scummy, is unbecoming.

[Iecerint]

2. Two other players burn. (two is doable

You were complaining about my plan being "sloppy" just a few pages ago. Now you want to make it sloppier?

Wat.

[Iecerint]

Cross a certain sloppiness threshold, and you no longer get any benefit from the burn at all.

2 is possible, but is flirting with danger.

[Iecerint]

There aren't 9 townies anymore. Now there are 8.

[Iecerint]

If it's 1 burn, yeah, I guess 8-9 would be fine. It was 12 before, but now we have 3 fewer CP. I think. Actually, come to think of it, if CP is alotted at the start of each day phase, we may still get to use Seacore's CP.

Two burns is possible. It's just pushing it. Other players should probably weigh-in, too.

Do you think Alma is obvtown for having a daykill? How will you respond if he's still alive tomorrow and there's no burn evidence on him?

Who do you want to burn instead?

[Iecerint]

Oh, I'd forgotten about him. OK. I can handle him burning.

[Iecerint]

Useless is just as hard to get a read on as the inactives. Why do you prefer the players you listed to the useless one?

[Iecerint]

If we have a CP-innocent on McGriddle, I'm sure scum will be happy to kill him. Also, I disagree with your implicit endorsement of policy lynches. Zwet et al make minimally painful mislynches, but they're ideally investigation targets.

[Iecerint]

Cruc, Commanders are told how many CP their team ended up with at the end of Night. By asking specific players to waste a lot of CP, Commanders can evaluate how much CP remain to determine whether that player shares their CP pool. It's like a really costly Cop investigation.

[Iecerint]

I just concisely described the point of burns. Are you still confused? There's no reason it should be confusing.

[Iecerint]

Investiburn -- McGriddle would do. Or any of the lurkers.
Lynch - fifi

[Iecerint]

I wasn't putting you in the category, necessarily.

[Iecerint]

Nah, my semantics were ambiguous. I could have been positing a lurker and then specifying that any lurkers were acceptable, or I could have posited a non-lurker and then specified that any lurkers were acceptable. It's true that I could have been clearer, though.

I wrote it the way I did because whooever's useless/lurker dichotomy between McGriddle and "the lurkers" was in my head.

[Iecerint]

"I don't like the Beatles, or any 60s rock groups."

I'm sure it is ungrammatical via a certain warped, prescriptivist notion of the English language, but it's fine in my English. Hence, the semantics were ambiguous.

[Iecerint]

The top English scholars haven't been prescriptivists since the 1950s.

[Iecerint]

It looks like we're set to lynch fifi and have someone burn. Has everyone weighed-in on that issue? If so, it's just a matter of accumulating the burn votes.

[Iecerint]

I'm assuming you intend me hammering to be my vote for the day? (That is, I shouldn't burn one as I'm to hammer later?)

[Iecerint]

kk grammarboss.

[Iecerint]

I'm the one who picked out fifi early game. If you think I was distancing or whatever, that's fine, but it's not as if I tried to derail the wagon after it became popular.

[Iecerint]

It's not (just) "I stayed on the fifi wagon" so much as "I made the fifi wagon." If our goal is to find the second-most-scummy player to burn, I would appear to be the least obvious choice, unless you have reason to believe that it was all an elaborate gambit. I'd like to think I wouldn't be so heartless as to fail to fix matters when things got out of hand, though.

If there is a compelling reason I am a second scumlord of this game, I would love to hear it. Seriously.

[Iecerint]

If you want readless players to burn (not a bad strategy, though I'd prefer probablescum>readless>likelyscum>town>obvscum), you should have lurkers and jokers burn. I account for 18% of the posts in this game. I have given you relatively more data from which to construct a read.

[Iecerint]

People voted on burn targets before fifi claimed scum. It would slightly alarm me if people's burn targets did not change as a result of that. That is the point of my having brought it up.

It doesn't take a genius to see that I am reluctant to burn. I am not scum; it is better that literally anyone else burn. If my play today had been such that suspicion of me was warranted (e.g. if I had defended fifi early on or something), I would be less reluctant. But things being what they are, I intend to prod people who have targeted me at the very least.

[Iecerint]

You can't play a self-righteous "this is what what has been chosen" since it was never a majority anyway.

Players, regardless of alignment, don't want they themselves to be the one to burn.

Is the first directed at me? Because I don't believe I've used that rhetoric. Show plz.

The second sentence is something I already pointed out.

That's a bit better, @ Alma, even if it's a bit of a backtrack. Earlier you wanted to burn "no read" players. Now you want to burn active players, since knowing their alignments is more informative. Both are reasonable perspectives, but they're a bit mutually exclusive IMO.

[Iecerint]

More Alma inconsistency found by Fate innit.

Who was it that said that Alma was confirmed town after he shot SC earlier? I forgot.

[Iecerint]

You should probably assign someone else to participate in lynching fifi, since we now need 2 votes to do so. I'm one of them.

[Iecerint]

If you have already voted once today, you do not need to vote again. You have already voted today. You do not need to vote again.

You DO need to amend your FoS-ish vote of who you want to burn 8 votes for a nerfed extra investigation, if necessary.

[Iecerint]

Everyone burning one just reduces the noise the Commander has to deal with when he looks at the vote total. Keeping everything else the same makes counting easier.

The Commander can estimate whether his count is 8-10 points lower than it would otherwise have been. If it was, you must have used his CP for your voting spree, so you must be town. Does that make sense?

If you are town, burning will be good for you because it will confirm you D2. The downside is that you would probably prefer that scum burn, but that's another issue.

[Iecerint]

OK. Let me explain it with a numbered list. This should not be very difficult to understand:

1. The Mod's pre-game talk implies there is a relative abundance of town CP. (The intent was probably to allow close-to-normal voting practices, but that's irrelevant.)
2. Also, townCP does not carry over to subsequent days, so that's a lot of wasted townCP.
3. Wouldn't it be great if we could put that CP to good use?

ENTER: BURNING!

4. Commanders see how much CP their team wasted at the end of each Night phase.
5. By seeing that number, Commanders can start to judge which players are unlikely to share their team.
6. So if we artificially make certain player(s) much more CP use-heavy, the Commanders can judge whether those players share their alignment by looking at how many townCP remain!

EXAMPLE

1. Suppose town would have wasted 12 CP.
2. We have Cruc burn 8 votes.
3a. townCommander sees that we actually wasted 4 CP.
4a. So Cruc must have been town. A free investigation!
3b. townCommander sees that we indeed wasted 12 CP.
4b. So Cruc must be scum. He didn't use our CP. A free investigation!

I hope that clears things up. We're only having one player burn and regulating how many times each player votes to make it easier for the Commander to determine whether 8 CP are missing, since he *may* not know how much CP he personally contributes to the pool.

[Iecerint]

No. If Cruc is town, he uses townCP to perform his votes and unvotes. So final townCP (as seen by Commanders) will have decreased.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: Oh, I think I see what's confusing you. I'm using "waste X CP" to mean "how many CP town didn't use." I think you're confounding that sense of "waste" with the "waste" associated with Cruc burning CP.

[Iecerint]

Note that it's possible this plan may backfire if town Commanders give like 20 CP, or if town Commanders know how much CP they give, but there are 2 town Commanders. That's why SC wanted to avoid burning D1 to establish a baseline. I think it's worth a gamble, though, since we don't have many days in a mini.

[Iecerint]

He burned 1 vote. Since everyone burned 1 vote, that isn't enough to judge his or anyone else's alignment by end-phase CP.

To make burning useful, Cruc (and ONLY Cruc) needs to expend a disproportionate amount of CP. That's why pops asked him to vote him 9 times.

In other words, Cruc hasn't burned yet and also hasn't really indicated why or whether he thinks someone else is a better a priori burn target. That's what we're waiting on. Cruc should do one of those things. Also, any players who think Cruc is not a good burn target should speak up.

[Iecerint]

You already told Cruc to burn 9 (8 more). I thought you had made an executive decision, and I thought your choice was fine, so I didn't complain. I encouraged others to, though.

I still think any of the lower-activity targets would be good burn targets. Cruc looks particularly good.

From the perspective of fifiscum, I think Alma would be a good burn target. Namely, he was uncharacteristically enthusiastic to support my fifi perspective early on. Several people seem to think that his promise to behave D2 onward temporarily exonerates him, though. Whatever. My other fifiscum-derived burn target would be Cobalt, but for the opposite reason. It looked like he was trying to deflect my fifi view a little bit at first.

[Iecerint]

I suspect this sort of CP use was either intended from the start, or that there is a mechanism for taking care of it in the set-up. The Mod seems pretty competent.

[Iecerint]

^^;

[Iecerint]

^ That is very nasty rhetoric. Does not like.

[Iecerint]

Well, that was hyperbole. It is mildly unsettling rhetoric. It mildly unsettles me.

[Iecerint]

The burn is just a mechanic that provides an extra Cop investigation. It's not a violation of the spirit of the game IMO. You are welcome to come up with conventional cases on players (you can even vote to have them "investigated" via a burn), even if fifi's having claimed scum means whoever it is will probably be dealt with later.

[Iecerint]

I dunno. Pops (and SC, I think) originally wanted to forego burning at all today to establish a baseline.

[Iecerint]

Will deadline be extended for the replacement, or will it remain unchanged?

[Iecerint]

Els, I am sympathetic to your perspective, but even if you are correct, it is not as if we are wasting CP that could be used in a separate fashion (to my knowledge). The extra CP would be wasted.

I think this is worth one try at the very least.

I'm going to go ahead and put my vote on fifi.

Vote: fifi

. The other vote is to be provided by fhq if I am not mistaken.

[Iecerint]

Oh. Sorry. I forgot about that. <_<

I have a big exam Monday, so I wanted to go ahead and do my part in the event that my activity drops off.

[Iecerint]

No, he meant me. fifi tried to self-hammer to stop the burn earlier, but he forgot to unvote. You can possibly take this as another piece of evidence that the burn is a legitimate tool

[Iecerint]

fifi (failed at) self-hammer to stop the burn. That's all the evidence I need that it's worth trying.

Vote: deadline extension

I assume that won't cost CP as I didn't unvote first, etc. ^^

No, you're good!

[Iecerint]

bv, why do you think fifi self-hammered? For example, do you think he deliberately fake-hammered to give the appearance that he did not want us to burn? If so, why bother with the charade in the first place?

[Iecerint]

Fair enough @ bv. That is possible. Not enough for me to change my intuitions, though.

I'm voting to prevent the circumstance where scumCrucRep dallies on burning for so long that fhq forgets to lynch the witch.

[Iecerint]

Deadline is now Wednesday, it looks like. Good deal.

Els, burn the votes or refuse to do so.

[Iecerint]

I. So happy.

[Iecerint]

fhq is one of them. I think everyone else has voted once. I messed up our perfect symmetry; I sorry.

You can revote as far as I'm concerned, Fate. You might make sure there's not someone else who also has yet to vote, though.

[Iecerint]

That's correct. However, my voting earlier and your unvoting to prevent a fifi quickhammer prevented that from being possible. I think everyone has already voted once now.

EBWOP: O NEVER MIND. Els is a new voter. So we just need fhq. ^^;

[Iecerint]

lol. it's almost sad to see him go.

[Iecerint]

Him/her*

[Iecerint]

Fifi, what's your gender?

[Iecerint]

^ ?

Do you know?

[Iecerint]

...

...

O.o

[Iecerint]

I meant, do you know fifi's gender?

[Iecerint]

Iec, I think she did it just to frustrate us and spite Pops. Her post seems to me to be an annoyed, whiny person trying to get a rise out of Pops (who it seemed to be directed at)

I asked because you used female gender back here, even though s/he hasn't indicated his/her gender. I thought s/he might have clarified pre-game. Could just be that s/he has a kinda feminine name.

[Iecerint]

We're waiting for fhq to hammer

If he fails to hammer by rather-soon (say, late tomorrow), someone else may hammer and enjoy +like points at fhq's expense.

[Iecerint]

Why do you want to give fhq a town pass? O.o

[Iecerint]

Bah. Go town.

[Iecerint]

Great job @ Cobalt. I suppose it was pretty obvious that I was the doctor when I resisted the burn. I targeted Els with my doctor-jailkeep N1. I was surprised everyone didn't decide to lynch me when I pulled that. The idea was that I could stop Elscum's scumkill and prevent Eltown's being killed by scum. I guess someone-else-not-El made the kill.

I was so proud of finding page 1 scum, and then picking Cruciare. Bummer that I was manipulated. I did think Cobalt's "D1 SCUM MY FAVORITE" post was a little disproportionate, but I thought the replacement-rich slot was scummier, especially for the role in MG's lynch.

RC said I would have been Isara had this stayed Valkyria Chronicles mafia. That was what the dark hair crumb was about. Bonus points were that Isara isn't really a conventional doc (she drives a tank!), so I thought it might throw off scum inferences.

[Iecerint]

EBWOP: PAGE 1 SCUM*

[Iecerint]

O WAIT. FATE WAS JUST MAKING IT UP.

HOORAY.

I remain proud of myself.

[Iecerint]

I still think any of the lower-activity targets would be good burn targets. Cruc looks particularly good.

From the perspective of fifiscum, I think Alma would be a good burn target. Namely, he was uncharacteristically enthusiastic to support my fifi perspective early on. Several people seem to think that his promise to behave D2 onward temporarily exonerates him, though. Whatever. My other fifiscum-derived burn target would be Cobalt, but for the opposite reason. It looked like he was trying to deflect my fifi view a little bit at first.

LOOK AT HOW SMART I AM.

(Anger @ poor vig use notwithstanding.)

[Iecerint]

Yeah, pops is right. I'm frankly surprised scum didn't have an ability that would have messed with the plan Els is indicating.

Agreed @ McGriddle.

[Iecerint]

The mechanic is a lot cuter if you know the relation it has to Valkyria Chronicles. I'm disappointed you dropped the flavor.

Cruc could've been Selvaria, after all.

[Iecerint]

Nah, he's talking about the last time. His plan would've worked AFAIK.

Actually, that works in general, provided it's possible to hit cap with a burn. Having the player to be lynched burn extravagantly toward endgame makes it impossible to mislynch.