Mini 918 - A Hot, Steaming Bowl of Mafia - Game Over!

[Locke Lamora]

Morning, everyone. Definitely no Lost spoilers, I haven't seen the season 6 opener yet!

Vote: Hoopla

Happy Birthday.

[Locke Lamora]

Charter: you think what Shotty did is scummy, or you just don't like it?

[Locke Lamora]

RC: why the assumption that Sotty's kill is WIFOM and not simply scum getting rid of a good player, or town going on a very early hunch? Your eagerness to divert attention away from those players seems odd to me.

[Locke Lamora]

Why take them out of the picture? I agree, circular arguments are a possibility, but that's only if we focus on them because they were mentioned by Sotty. Following your logic, what we ought to be doing is treating them like everyone else, not taking them out of the picture. I think we all realise there's absolutely no point focusing on a couple of comments on the first two pages at this stage. Personally, I don't understand why you'd be so quick to give a few players an easy ride if you were town.

Unvote; Vote: RedCoyote

Shotty and MIC have already had attention on them, but to me it looks like you're trying to shift that away, and it's the second time you've defended Shotty early on. Is your reason for moving that pressure simply that you think we'll get into pointless arguments about what Sotty said?

[Locke Lamora]

MIC: it was fairly clear to me, and apparently several others, that RC was saying that we should deliberately NOT look at those three players at this present time to avoid getting into circular debates over Sotty's comments. My opinion is that we should avoid talking about any connections between those players and Sotty's comments, not that we should avoid talking about those players altogether. I never assumed that RC meant those players were cleared for the entirety of the game; my issue was with the fact that he appeared to be suggesting we give those players an easy ride for the moment. This is as valuable a time as any to put pressure on people, so his attitude seems anti-town to me.

Also:

Reconcile these two.

I meant that we should take anyone directly involved with this Sotty shot out of the picture as far as accusing them of killing Sotty.

And therefore we should take everyone else out of the picture because then we're into WIFOM about whether they'd kill Sotty to implicate the others. Am I right in detecting a hint here that you think the purpose of your vote is to catch the person who killed Sotty? If you're not, then I don't understand your initial decision to rule those three players out of your voting options.

To summarise: on one hand, you argue that we shouldn't dwell on Sotty's connections to those players. This, I agree with. On the other, you insist on voting outside those players BECAUSE of the kill. My thought is that you shouldn't be factoring in the kill at all, not reacting to it by voting someone who she didn't mention.

[Locke Lamora]

My only intention was to say that we shouldn't be any more receptive to their supposed involvement or lack of involvement in the killing.

Exactly. So why vote outside of them? That's what I don't get. You can say what you like about misinterpretation but I think you're going to have a pretty hard time if you're arguing that your initial reaction to the kill was anything other than to suggest that we don't target those players because Sotty mentioned them. You didn't say 'let's treat everyone equally and ignore the kill', you said 'let's avoid these players so we don't argue about the kill' and then random voted Dry-fit. As far as I can see, that's doing the exact opposite of what you state above; you're being

more

receptive to their supposed involvement by deliberately not voting them.

[Locke Lamora]

RC: perhaps you should point out where I said either a) you didn't want to lynch those three players for the entirety of the game or b) that your vote on Dry-fit was locked in and you wanted him lynched. It was quite clear what I meant: that at that specific moment you deliberately did not vote for one of those three players because Sotty mentioned them. I still don't really see why you were talking about blaming anyone for Sotty's death in the first place, given that it was obviously impossible to tell who made the kill.

To clarify, my objection was that you said we should take those players out of the picture and I think it's a bad idea for any player to avoid pressuring others, even just temporarily, simply because they think there might be some WIFOM involved. Below, I have bolded where you said this. If you weren't saying that we should take them out of the picture FOR THE MOMENT, could you explain to me exactly why you made the below comment?

I'm not denying other possibilities, I'm simply saying that

right now I think it's best that we completely take anyone directly involved with Sotty out of the picture.

I could see the town bickering over what are ultimately circular arguments (e.g. "Sotty was shot after she said charter was town... suspicious" "Moai was voted by Sotty, clearly we should lynch him after her killing").

The more I think about it, the other problem I have with this is that you were really saying a whole lot of nothing about the kill. Your vote wasn't based on any suspicions you had and it seems to me that all you were saying about those three players was that we shouldn't go having an argument about which one killed Sotty. I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly wasn't planning to declare 'Sotty voted MIC! He must be scum!'. As such, it strikes me as a fairly pointless statement to make.

[Locke Lamora]

To respond to the other interpretation of that, if all of your comments about taking people out of the picture were about who killed Sotty, and only that, why do you even have a picture? To me, that implies that you were thinking one of the other 8 players made the kill, which again isn't really a helpful line of thought because you still have no way of telling which. I think this could be the main reason why I misinterpreted that; I assumed you were actually talking about the whole game in which we try to catch scum, instead of playing 'guess who killed Sotty'.

[Locke Lamora]

Ok, I think we're about clear on that one. I do disagree with your approach to the kill but I don't think we're going to get much further by debating it.

Hoopla: bandwagon analysis is useful, yes. What's also useful is people analysing the game and not just voting. Also, if you spend this game sticking your vote on whichever the popular bandwagon is at the time, it really tells us nothing at all about your alignment. You've made virtually no effort to contribute to the game yet you complain that the town is dead.

Unvote; Vote: Hoopla

Moai: do you not think it's incredibly insubstantial to say 'RC is being attacked for something stupid' without actually making a single point about what it is? I appreciate that you might not have the time to react to every person, but even just clarifying that you agreed RC was just talking about the Sotty kill would have been better. Calling the attacks stupid and ridiculous with no concrete points against them just looks like you're trying to score easy points off people without bothering to address their actual arguments. Also, what bothers you about Hoopla's departure from her meta? Do you think it's more likely she's scum because she's not playing to her town meta?

We have less than 72 hours to deadline so it'd be good if everyone could make their position on a Moai lynch clear and, if they disagree with it, put their vote someone else. I'd be happy to hammer but I think a competing wagon would be useful.

[Locke Lamora]

Hoopla: I think calling a vote opportunistic when it's entirely consistent with Cathart's suspicions is a feeble assertion. Last time I played with him he actually made a big deal about being very careful with his vote on D1, and he turned out to be scum. Was your impression that CC simply voted for Moai because he mentioned a jester?

RC: I see where you're going with Moai, but it's always WIFOM-y to go down that road. I don't think there was by any means unanimous agreement on you being scum in any case, given that several players weren't really saying much at all. My view is that people say scum wouldn't defend players so often it's worth scum doing it just so someone will bring that up.

[Locke Lamora]

Charter: you think Shotty was bussing with his vote? MIC wasn't the obvious lynch at that point.

Hoopla: your 'if MIC is scum' post seemed incredibly contrived to me. Do you not think I justified my vote on you adequately? Does anything about my attitude towards MIC yesterday make you think I'm his scumbuddy?

Need to hear a lot from Zach and more from Konowa in particular.

[Locke Lamora]

Hoopla: now you're done criticising others for not responding to your post, mind responding to my post?

[Locke Lamora]

Hoopla: Because when I was ready to place a Moai vote he was already at L-1. It wasn't time for a hammer, in my opinion, so I didn't vote.

I thought Dry-fit made some good points, he was obviously interpreting RC the same way I was, so I saw where he was coming from there. I also agreed with his criticism of MIC's approach to the RC wagon. I didn't really see anything scummy from him either, so he was firmly on my town list.

As for your 'if Moai is scum' post, I thought the original premise was contrived to begin with. It just read like you were eager to start pointing fingers at other players even though you shouldn't have known whether MIC was scum or not. I didn't see the need to get those thoughts out there before the lynch scene for any other reason than to make people suspicious of those players overnight.

[Locke Lamora]

Well, that was an interesting read. Looks like I've missed a lot in a day.

Hoopla: why do you think it's unlikely that both lurkers are scum?

Looking at the votes around Moai's lynch, I agree that charter's vote makes it unlikely for him to be scum. It's an incredibly ballsy bus if he is. We know Cathart is town, I think Shotty is too from the timing of his vote. I imagine my vote on Hoopla looks quite scummy to some people, not really a lot I can say about that other than it definitely wasn't hammertime. I think the hammer vote is horribly timed; we could have waited to get some more reactions and possibly draw a save attempt from a buddy. The only reason I think Hoopla's not scum is down to the fallout from the tracker ploy. It seems very unlikely that RC's scum too after MIC's defence but that's got WIFOM written all over it too, so I'm not going to get too deep into that. I think it's more likely that d3x is right and Moai was trying to get town points by defending someone he knew was town.

I could see d3x as scum; his vote was on Moai all day and moving it off once the wagon got going would have looked terrible. At least one of the lurkers is very likely scum, given how D1 went. I'd be inclined to say Konowa if I had to choose. Konowa's RC vote is odd from any standpoint; an RC lynch was never going to happen at that stage, so voting for him was no good if he was trying to stop a scumbuddy getting lynched and it was no good for a competing wagon if he was a townie who disagreed with the MIC lynch. Also, it's virtually impossible to get a read off the Nik/Zach slot right now. If we are going to get anyone vigged, I'd vote for Konowa right now.

[Locke Lamora]

Well, that's a WIFOM fest and a half. Scum obviously got bored of saying 'let's lynch Shotty' based on absolutely no case.

CC, any results?

[Locke Lamora]

So we have a tracker, vig and a JOAT? Already sounding a bit implausible to me.

Charter: what's your motivation for blocking Shotty? Why not investigate or vig him? Also, why protect CC first instead of pursuing your unwavering suspicion of Shotty on N1?

[Locke Lamora]

Simulpost. CC makes some excellent points. That D2 MyLo should never happen in any 12-player game, especially not a normal.

[Locke Lamora]

Charter: I've already pointed out that a Shotty lynch on the back of MIC's flip was a pretty strange idea, so I won't go into that one. I see where you're coming from with the games you pointed out but both of those are different situations to this. I particularly don't agree with you using your modded game as an example, particularly because of the numbers mechanic. In your endgame notes you even admit the JOAT was useless and that the cop was only useful as a confirmer. That's not really the same as a 4-shot JOAT, dayvig and tracker in a game where their actions (apparently) work on anyone.

[Locke Lamora]

Charter: you think it's scummy to ask the claimed tracker if he has any results? I'm not really buying that you forgot a suspect either. You seem like the kind of player who might forget about those who you don't find all that scummy, but someone who drops the hammer way too early without waiting for a claim to be verified? Not quite sure how you forgot that.

[Locke Lamora]

Charter: I was eager to see if CC had anything good, sure. I guess I can see why you'd think scum might do it, though.

Entertaining the vig notion for the moment: we really need to have some thoughts about who the best vig target would be depending on each lynch. If we lynch scum again today then we probably don't need to worry as much, but if we lynch town then we need to have a clear plan in place for an appropriate likely scum target.

BH: you think charter would bus his roleblocker at that time? What makes his bus more likely than that of d3x, for example?

[Locke Lamora]

Part of me is leaning towards believing charter but part of me can't stand the WIFOM possibilities for tomorrow if we let him live. I think d3x has a good point - any MyLo/LyLo arguments don't really hold weight as a reason in either direction. If we lynch charter and he's town, we're still likely to be in LyLo tomorrow. We need to just decide what we want to do today and not think about tomorrow. If we do hit town today then a town-charter will obviously need to think very carefully about if he even kills at all. If scum-charter has an additional kill then we better get it right today. If not, then we're guaranteed to make it to tomorrow anyway.

[Locke Lamora]

So do I. I was just listing all the possible outcomes. However, if you think that one mafia with 2 NKs is broken, why isn't a town with an unlimited dayvig, an extra JOAT kill and a tracker?

[Locke Lamora]

Why, because we agreed not to out-guess the mod?

[Locke Lamora]

So your response that two mafia kills would be broken and thus very unlikely to happen was an odd thing to say, really. That's not what I call keeping a completely open mind about the setup.

[Locke Lamora]

I'm not convinced that there's going to be a scumflip between them. That idea had crossed my mind too.

Zach: you find something particularly lurky about my play?

d3x: I didn't like BH's response much. He didn't back his thoughts up much, such as his town read on RC, and I want to hear why he picked charter out for the bus. As for his hammer, that's another one of those things that you think scum wouldn't do, like MIC sticking his neck out to defend RC. His being humble and apologising I don't think makes him any more likely to be town - I did the same thing as SK in FF Mafia after I'd gone after a townie all day on D1. I thought Zach was a little eager to put his vote down; he seemed too quick to decide that the dayvig could be scum and I don't think the pressure was warranted because Hoopla had already agreed to direct her kill wherever we wanted. I agree with him about charter and his reads on most players seem reasonably thought-out. As he admits, we need a lot more contribution from him too. I find BH scummier and I already favoured a Konowa lynch. Zach I'm unsure on, I thought his decision to put Hoopla at L-1 was a poor one but I don't have enough of a read from him or Nikanor to find him particularly scum or town.

[Locke Lamora]

I did agree that it was very likely. I also thought charter wasn't scum. I'm definitely not so sure about that now, so my thinking one of BH and Zach has to be scum is also uncertain.

[Locke Lamora]

The more I think about it, the more I don't buy that town-charter is going to use his protect N1 instead of investigating, blocking or killing Shotty. It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing he'd do after tunnelling on Shotty all day. It's too conservative a move and I'm finding it hard to picture it.

Vote: charter

[Locke Lamora]

I don't think I ever have been a straight-up cop, actually. When I have information roles, I usually focus on investigating someone who I think is scummy. Take my tracking KMD on N1 in Star Control, for example. I just don't see how anything from the way D1 went made you think we would get an automatic Shotty lynch. The two lurkers were virtual unknowns, I clearly hadn't expressed any preference for lynching Shotty and most people you sounded out on it were getting a neutral/slightly scummy read at worst. Add MIC's lynch and his vote to all that and it simply makes no sense whatsoever. If anything, I'd say I would be a more likely lynch than Shotty after D1 because I voted for Hoopla and not MIC.

For argument's sake, I'll wash over not doing anything to Shotty and come to my other concern. How do you justify using the protect on N1, when you had 9 targets to choose from? If you'd waited even one more night, it would most likely have been at least 2 fewer players to choose from to protect.

[Locke Lamora]

Yes, of course we know Cathart was a good target to protect now. If you'd investigated Shotty N1, you wouldn't have kept focus on him D2 and you might have put your block/kill/protect to better use last night. Instead of which, you blocked a dead vanilla townie. You even said you were wavering in your view of Shotty-scum on D2, which is not really obvscum. Personally, I can see quite a lot of use for investigating Shotty D1.

[Locke Lamora]

Perhaps I just have too different an idea of how to play a JOAT. I think if I was sure (or as sure as you can be D1) someone was scum, I'd at least have used the block on them N1. If Shotty had been more of a prime lynch candidate with MIC's flip, I might be able to see why you used the protect instead. No matter how many times I reread, I just can't see the sequence of actions matching up with your play and the game as a whole. You seem less sure that Shotty is scum on D2, so instead of investigating you use the far less definitive block? You might just be a victim of circumstance, but it all sounds a little bit too unlikely; using two JOAT abilities that are both unverifiable and being tracked to the kill last night? Either you're lying or scum got very lucky with how things played out.

[Locke Lamora]

Which lynch do you think won't lead to an easy scum win? Bio's?

[Locke Lamora]

Charter: you're paranoid about the lurkers, so maybe you'll understand this. I'm paranoid that someone who has been tracked to a kill, claimed a currently unverifiable PR, and whose choice of actions don't really make sense to me, is going to get to live.

Let's assume you're town and we lynch BH, for instance. If we lynched scum, I would breathe a bit easier. You could use your vig safely and either take out scum altogether or with that confirmed, we'd have at least one of you or CC in a 3-1 scenario tomorrow. If we lynch town, however, it's a whole different story. You then have to decide whether to use your vig or not: if you do, we could lose; if you don't, you'd have to cop and scum would either kill you or we'd be having this argument all over again tomorrow. I'm already debating whether to trust you - I certainly don't want to have to assess your investigation in LyLo. My other difficulty with this is that you're probably leaning towards vigging me if you are telling the truth, which is definitely going to lose us the game if BH is town.

Perhaps my assumptions are wrong, though. Would you vig me (or anyone) if our lynch flipped town?

[Locke Lamora]

BH: perhaps you don't consider it a bus if it's an early vote, but I again direct you to d3x's vote. It went on MIC early when there was little pressure and I think removing it later when the MIC wagon had built would have been as risky as charter bussing if he's scum. As for RC, that's not what I meant at all. I was referring to RC's D1 comments when he said that he didn't think MIC would have stuck his neck out to defend him when there was a group of us attacking RC in the manner that we were. Clearly, MIC was scum and he did it anyway. Similarly, anyone's first instinct on seeing your hammer would be to think 'there's no way scum would be that obvious'. It's therefore worth scum hammering in that situation to generate that WIFOM and make people think about whether it's too blatant a move.

[Locke Lamora]

Sorry everyone, no internet all weekend. I don't see any

I'm really getting a scummy read from d3x. He appears to agree wholeheartedly with myself and CC over charter, which bothers me somehow.

BH: Hoopla was the only one who actually called your hammer scummy. It wouldn't surprise me if one of those quotes was scum taking a really easy chance to put pressure on you for the next day (completely justifiably, of course, as you shouldn't have hammered). My personal instinct at the time was that it was a bad townie hammer. It's not really worth debating the point, though, as it is WIFOM and you could have made the same mistake as scum and possibly not even realised the heat you'd get from it.

I don't really like all this 'conversation is dead, let's hammer'. If everyone's tired of talking about whether charter's scum or not, how about you all give me some thoughts on d3x?

Unvote

[Locke Lamora]

I don't know what CC's view is, but just because I'm arguing for the charter lynch doesn't mean I want us to only discuss the charter lynch and then decide there's nothing else to do but hammer. Considering we have two player slots we knew next to nothing about after D1, I think we should use our extra time to get to know them better and gain some more information about everyone.

You make a valid point. Wholeheartedly was a bad choice of word. I got the impression that you feel the same way about charter in the sense that you really don't like the thought of letting someone live who has already been tracked to a kill and who could just generate even more WIFOM tomorrow.

I've been pondering this today: what about no lynch and charter vigs? I know that's bad information wise, but consider the possibilities:

Two townies die - we're in LyLo but charter is confirmed (providing everyone agrees scum don't have an additional kill). Potential for CC to track another player if scum choose to kill charter (depending on kill resolution method this might only lead to one death).

One townie, one scum dies - we're in a 4-1 situation, charter is confirmed and either CC (with a result) or charter will still be alive. Another lynch available before LyLo.

One townie dies - either charter is lying, charter and scum both chose to kill the same player or scum chose to no kill and charter missed. Puts us in a 4-2 situation but CC is unlikely to die and we could no lynch again. This is worse if charter is scum but great if charter is town, as scum then have to kill either him or CC and one of them will definitely be in endgame with a result.

One scum dies - either scum gambled on the no kill or theirs was blocked. Charter is confirmed town and CC is alive with a result. Town can then lynch freely and Charter and CC can investigate/track two of the remaining players, virtually guaranteeing a win.

This is all with the fact that there may be some kind of protective role involved. I'm assuming this is what scum were scared about when they decided not to kill CC last night.

[Locke Lamora]

Sorry, should have used preview.

Zach: you think I'm scummy because I don't want to end the day way before deadline? What happened to this?

With all that said, I'm gonna

FOS

charter for now, but I hold off turning that into a vote until the town is satisfied with the discussion for the day so that an opportunity for another quick hammer isn't opened up.

[Locke Lamora]

d3x: that's your main concern? I was more worried about if charter was scum, there was only one townie killed and we were left with the same WIFOM we have today but with fewer townies. I still don't think that's as much of a problem as was previously suggested. Scum still have tricky decisions to make in that scenario. Let's say charter kills his scumbuddy. First of all, CC would get to live, giving him another opportunity to track and tell us the result. Charter's left on his own against 5 townies and he would have to claim he investigated on N4. He can't claim he was blocked because the roleblocker's dead, CC could track him again to check who he investigates and if he did decide to finally kill CC this time, there still could be a protection role, which would leave us with no kill and charter confirmed as the remaining scum. I just don't see why scum would go for that over the opportunity to create more confusion over charter's role. I don't think it's as easy a win as you suggest.

As for my gutScum read, I've been harbouring it for a while. I never really saw why you couldn't be MIC's scumbuddy after D1 and there's just something about your choice of targets and the way you've gone after them that seems off to me. I think CC makes a good point about you wanting to lynch the lurkers a bit too eagerly.

The more I read Zach's vote on charter, the less I like it. Why doesn't it make sense that I want the day to last longer? Why does he think me not wanting to lynch charter right now is scummy? It really bothers me that he suggests he's happy to wait for the town to discuss more before we lynch and then as soon as I look like I'm not desperate to lynch charter right away, he puts him back at L-1 and calls for the hammer.

CC: I'm interested. We seem to agree on a lot of points and you don't appear to find me even the slightest bit scummy (or if you have, you haven't shown it). Why is that?

[Locke Lamora]

I've been called scummy from several directions today and I seem to make it onto most people's scumlists somewhere. As far as I can tell, you've had a town read on me pretty much all game. It's quite reminiscent of last time I played with you, except you're confirmed town this time. I'm also wondering who might be scum trying to capitalise on suspicion on me and who's just genuinely suspicious town, so it got me thinking about you not seeming to suspect me at all.

[Locke Lamora]

RC: my rethink has been caused largely by what I perceive to be a change in attitudes to the charter lynch over the last few days. When I last posted on Friday afternoon, it felt like we were having a debate over whether to lynch a lurker or charter. As far as I recall, d3x's preference was for a lurker, you obviously favoured a BH or Zach lynch and BH, while obviously suspecting charter, hadn't expressed any strong desire to lynch him in the next couple of days. I check back on Monday morning and suddenly everyone's decided that we should hammer charter and end the day? That felt off to me. I think I felt even more disturbed by it when Zach immediately put charter back at L-1 after claiming he wanted the town to discuss more. As a result, I felt it was time to take a different angle and respond to this turn of events in a manner that might get us some more information, instead of just ending the day early and letting our early-game lurkers say much less.

I'm pretty sure it probably looks quite strange to everyone else, but from my perspective it felt like there had been quite a big change. It could just be a scumbuddy deciding to bus, or it could be that scum perceived the charter lynch was going to be the easier sell and put their backing behind it. I still really don't like the circumstances of charter's claim and his choice of targets but I'm going to put a little more thought into it than some people before I decide to hammer or not.

[Locke Lamora]

RC: I would say you changed my thinking about the motivations of people backing the charter lynch, not about charter as a player. I'm definitely not as confident about lynching him as I was earlier in the day. Arguably it's an overreaction and has just come about because of the timing of my absence but I definitely felt the situation warranted further examination. I'm still probably going to hammer because nothing has happened to change my view of his choice of actions or the fact that he has been tracked to a kill.

Zach: I can see where you're coming from on d3x. I almost didn't mention it because I don't think there's much that can tangibly back it up. Clearly CC is getting a similar read and I thought it was about time to mention it as I've been getting that read for a while now. It was also partly motivated by the fact that nobody seemed to have anything to discuss any more and I thought that d3x was a player who hadn't been discussed in great detail (which may be part of the reason why I've got that sneaking scummy feeling without much to back it up).

[Locke Lamora]

d3x: yes, I expect if charter did decide to kill his own scumbuddy and CC was killed before he had a chance to track again, we probably would let him win. I do think it depends on too many variables and would be a gamble for scum when they could just as easily create a lot of WIFOM without killing one of their own. I can think of ways that we could throw a spanner in the works if the situation did happen but it's clearly not going to happen anyway as everyone's now so freaked out that I'm rethinking the charter lynch that we won't get another one through today.

CC: no good reason. I really was just interested.

I'll hammer charter today at some point, I think.

[Locke Lamora]

Well, this clearly isn't going anywhere.

Vote: Charter

[Locke Lamora]

I'd be inclined to say scum would bus yesterday, so that'd be Zach or RC. I'm guessing you tracked d3x to nothing, CC?

[Locke Lamora]

The thing I don't get is there's no point scum continuously avoiding you. Why would scum not try to kill you? Their scumbuddy's just been killed and a no kill just compounds the problems. If they're worried about a doctor, that problem doesn't go away. They'll have exactly the same problem tonight and so the game will just go on with no night kills until we lynch scum correctly.

[Locke Lamora]

No, BH has posted plenty during the night. It's either a deliberate no kill or a block to me.

I'm going to go ahead and:

Vote: Zachrulez

Everything he did late on the charter lynch feels off to me. He kept charter as his number one suspect throughout the day without voting for him while we argued over whether to lynch him or not. His whole rationale for not putting charter at L-1 was then undermined as he did exactly that when I unvoted, claiming there was a clearer consensus. That's the safest time to put your vote on! He avoided it while there wasn't a clear consensus and let others argue for it, then when RC and d3x appeared ready to go along, he decided it was ok for him to vote (ie. time to bus now that the other viable lynches had gone). I'm really not buying the fear of another quick hammer. BH would never have done it again after what happened with Hoopla and I don't think anyone else in this game would have either. Then after I expressed my doubts and voiced my other suspicions, Zach immediately tried to use it against me and say I was trying to set up future lynches.

[Locke Lamora]

Thanks d3x! It's been a fun first year.

It is possible CC is scum, of course. Scum tracker is a possible role and he could have tracked Hoopla N1, but that would have led to him gambling on Shotty being vanilla. Fakeclaiming tracker is even more risky and also completely unnecessary, as scum could have just let Hoopla vs myself play out and guaranteed themselves an easy townie lynch. Bussing charter instantly on D3 with one scumbuddy already down makes CC-scum even more unlikely.

By lurker lynch I assume you still mean Zach or BH?

[Locke Lamora]

So can we safely assume that nobody protected CC (or anyone else, for that matter) last night?

[Locke Lamora]

Agreed, claim is a good idea.

BH: I wouldn't have asked about the doctor if I didn't think it would help us win.

[Locke Lamora]

Zach, you're up.

[Locke Lamora]

Alright, here's why I was so curious:

I'm the Roleblocker. I blocked Hoopla N1, d3x N2 and, surprise surprise, Zach N3. I'm not told whether my block is successful so I can't confirm that it did work last night - what I do believe is that scum are not going to no-kill in a 5 on 1 situation with a tracker alive. I therefore urge you to all join me in a Zach wagon (after d3x's claim, of course).

[Locke Lamora]

You think we ought to co-ordinate on blocking/tracking just in case Zach's not scum and they really did no-kill last night?

[Locke Lamora]

If I tell you who I'm blocking, surely scum will just no-kill to make it look like whoever I'm blocking is scum. That does have the benefit of buying us another mislynch opportunity, I guess. I was more thinking of CC picking someone to track and me blocking one of the remaining two players. My main concern was myself and CC selecting the same target, so I guess him targeting me solves that if you really think I'm lying.

[Locke Lamora]

If we make it to night I'll block BH. You can go ahead and hammer this time, Bio. I'm pretty confident this one will be over.

[Locke Lamora]

Well played town, apologies if I threw anyone off with my charter rethink and d3x hunch on D3! CC made a great track on charter and with the MIC lynch on top, Zach's position was pretty difficult.

Zach: can I ask why you didn't kill CC on N2?

[Locke Lamora]

I thought the modding was great, thanks sigma! N2 was definitely crucial - Hoopla's failed gambit of tracking me and her subsequent lynch could have led to a town meltdown, I think, especially if we had lost CC that night.