Mafia 913: Wickedestjr's Mafia - Game Over

[Fat_Tony]

Hi, I'm Fat Tony, and I'll be your replacement today. We will be backreading at a speed of 10 pages per however long it takes me to get to an actual computer, rather than my iPhone. In the meantime, sit tight, and please, try not to kill each other? At least until I've made popcorn.

Once again, I'd like to thank you for flying Mafiair.

[Fat_Tony]

Quick response and vote before I go to sleep- will be briefish as am on the iPhone.

Cy - Christ, for the first 4 pages you were a total d-bag, but my read on you is strongly pro-town.

TQO - have to say, I agreed with crueltys assessment that for the first 11/12 pages, your play was obvtarded, not obvtown. Your roleclaim verges on insane, and you will be dead by tomorrow. But not by lynching- you are town.

Jack. Jackie jackie jack. You annoy me, and I don't know whether to push for your lynch or not. Your soft claim was piss poor, and you have done some pretty scummy stuff, especially early in the day. You're not my major suspect but IGMEOY.

Vivi57 is as useful as a cock-flavoured lollipop and I could get behind a wagon on her. Or at least I could if it wasn't for TBM, who has done basically nothing but tunnel vision in on TQO. Lynching TQO at this of all points makes zero sense- if we let him live he'll likely be NKed anyway, so to keep pushing that wagon is braindead. I've yet to see a single post from TBM that isn't scummy.

vote: TBM

At some point (likely Saturday) I will do a full PBPA of the thread with analysis, but on my readthrough a TBM lynch just makes the most sense.

[Fat_Tony]

EBWOP:

unvote, vote:TBM

since my predecessor apparently wanted zang done away with.

[Fat_Tony]

TBM is now L-1, for those unaware. Out of interest, cruelty, what changed your mind regarding voting TBM?

[Fat_Tony]

Also, for those keeping score at home, I replaced in for CA. I must admit, your quick push of TBM to L-1 unnerved me, cruelty. Stagnation? Ok, I realise there are some circular arguments bouncing around, but hardly stagnation. I had just pushed TBM to L-2 myself. Not calling you out as scum, just passing along my observation.

Nonetheless, I'm fully behind a TBM lynch, just wasn't expecting such a quick response from Alf from Home and Away. TBM is also the ONLY player I will be happy to lynch without doing a more detailed readthrough and PBPA this weekend first. I have seen nothing but scummy behaviour from him. For info's sake, I don't have Coug down as his scumbuddy, and would probably view Vivi57 as the most likely scumpartner due to megalurktasticity.

Get your hammers out, people.

[Fat_Tony]

PaltryExcuse- that is the point I was trying to make, in a roundabout way. My preference is to get my in-depth done before we lynch, but I would be perfectly ok with a TBM lynch at this point.

[Fat_Tony]

FYI everyone: unexpected absence, likely until late Thursday, due to both personal and work stuff. My apologies. My vote remains until my return.

[Fat_Tony]

for being openly town.

Why can't you understand that you cannot be openly town?

QFT. TQO, for your own sake, please drop this line of reasoning. Stating over and over again that you are town is pointless. Even assuming your Town Neighbour claim is true, what do you hope to gain? Put it this way - if for some reason everyone had to say just whether they are town or mafia aligned, the following scenario occurs:

Townie: "I am town."
Mafia: "I am town."
SK type anti-town: "I am town."

Saying it over and over doesn't make it any more true or believable. It serves no purpose, so please, for the sanity of everyone, drop it.

For the record, I don't see why you would claim something like Town Neighbour unless it was true, so I buy it.

Consequently, I have one question - WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU ADVOCATING A MISLYNCH ON YOURSELF?! If we mislynch now, that'll be 4 townies gone in by end of N2. WHY would you think this could possibly be beneficial to town? Or at least, more beneficial to town than ACTUALLY FUCKING SCUMHUNTING?!

Your play makes me want to tear my eyes out. If you are town, you're making yourself look really stupid and your suggestions are consistently anti-town, so PLEASE stop trying to get lynched, don't mention it again, and start fucking hunting.

@everyone else. PBPA of whole 18page thread is taking forever, so instead, and in light of N1, I'll do an indepth ISO of Paltry and also TBM. If there is anything you would like me to pay particular attn to let me know.

[Fat_Tony]

@Zang: what does "taking full responsibility for your actions" mean in context? That you admit you moved your vote around a lot, but you don't want to give an explanation for it so we can all suck it?

I think you're scum. While I wait for work to be over so that I can do my ISO,

vote: Zang

.

[Fat_Tony]

Vote: Cruelty

For a different reason than I asked him about.

Being?

ISO on Paltry coming up.

[Fat_Tony]

PaltryExcuse in ISO:

23: RVS - OMGUS on StrangerCoug. Standard.

32: Doesn't like early role talk - unsure whether Jack or TQO is worse for starting and speculating respectively.

47: Implores Jack to drop cop talk - has started discussion (+) but also rolefishing talk (-). Points out TQO's "but srsly guys I'm town!!!!" talk means nothing.

80: Asks to distinguish between Sir C and StrangerCoug. Tells Sir C and TQO to STFU with the ad hom nonsense. Again, lambasts TQO for role talk and questions her case against Sir C. Agrees with Jack that Sir C has yet to participate in scumhunting. Asks Zang why 2 FoS's and a HoS and no vote. Asks TBM to contribute some analysis.

Votes Jack

as he started the rolefishing and is hiding behind Sir C(?).

140: Asks Sir C why it's Jack's job to explain Sir C's argument re:benefits of investigating town. Explains his vote to Jack, as his q bred role talk.

157: Asks Zang why he finds Jack scummy and perceives him more of a threat to town than Sir C. Asks Coug why he bothers mentioning his own scummy meta.

168: Calls TQO on what seems like a sudden turn on Jack.

193: Asks AGar why he feels TBM has stifled conversation. Asks why TBM isn't voting TQO even though he is encouraging Jack to ISO her and vote her.

Unvotes

.

232: Again smacks down TQO for "waving the I'm a townie flag" as it makes no sense. Questions why suspecting her should be scummy in itself. Tells AGar he likes the case on TBM. Tells ConfidAnon that Zang FoS's TQO on 22nd and believes her on 24th. Asks Zang why he believes TQO.

233: EBWOP, and

votes Zang.

235: Says Zang doesn't believe his own accusations of who is scum, and changes his mind on his FoS's without offering explanation to why. Finds it scary.

240: Again says he finds Zang's quick change of heart unnerving. Picks up on POSSIBLE slip: "Why could only 2 of your 3 suspects be mafia?" (Re: Zang post xxx) Asks a couple of other valid questions, wonders why Zang is speculating on a killing role.

247: Again asks Zang why he believes TQO.

249: rephrases question after Zang doesn't answer the actual q (probably accidentally). However, Zang seems to contradict himself between 170 and 248, as Paltry points out.

257: asks pertinent questions of TQO and TBM. Asks for more from lurkers.

282: suggests cruelty make a massive case against someone as he is "almost new" into the game.

284: Correcting Coug on cruelty's comments re: TQO.

288: dislikes cruelty's question about single most important event.

291: pushes for info from cruelty.

303: basically a repost of 291.

319: Explains to TQO why role talk so early is -EV for town. Asks cruelty to answer his own question. Calls Zang on stupid question.

347: After cruelty and I jump on the wagon, asks for patience and to get answers before we string TBM up.

352: Suggests we wait for my PBPA, asks cruelty who he suspects.

383, 385: Asks TBM who he has as scum (after TQO), then implores him to give information to help himself out, says he's only waiting on my PBPA before he hammers.

390: Explains his case against TBM.

392: Responds to TBM's defence.

397: EBWOP

410: Slams Zang's iso "analysis" and hammer of TBM, says Zang should have been lynched instead.

414: Asks Zang why he didn't wait given two players were catching up.

418: Points out he had Zang as his #1 scum read but found TBM scummy also.
------

After this, nothing more of use is said, and Paltry is killed.

Analysis of this: He seems to catch Zang not paying attention at best, lying/scumslipping at worst on a couple of occasions, and builds a really decent argument against Zang. Continually tries to get TQO to calm down with the rolefishing and supertownie claiming, to not much avail. He seems to be uncomfortable with the way cruelty comes into the game - doesn't really have time to build a case due to the TBM wagon rolling on. Early on he shows suspicion of Jack which seems to die down as the game wears on, as well as a little suspicion of Sir C.

Since we know now that he is confirmed town, and since the standard of play so far in this one has been fairly poor from all sides, I have no problem believing that the NK was down to scum-Zang having figured out that he was probably going to get owned by Paltry in D2, and acting out of desperation. I am definitely looking for some decent work by Zang to keep him from being our daykill today.

I do, however, think the key to town getting a good lynch today is that TQO absolutely, imperatively HAS to stop waving her town flag, volunteering for investigations/lynching, and all this other batshit insane crazy lunatic dumdum talk. It is so unbelievably antitown that it's making it easy for potential mafia to hide in plain sight by pointing out that everything she is doing is so, SO bad for town that it hurts. Please, PLEASE, TQO, stick to scumhunting, and stop focusing on trying to deflect attention from you. At the moment I buy your town neighbour claim. If you keep going on about you and how innocent you are, then I'm going to grow less convinced. By now, you have said all you can say on this, and those who don't believe you, aren't going to be swayed by re-hashing the same defence. The best way to defend yourself as town is to go after the scum proactively, not pursue vendettas (you OMGUS'd Sir C D1 and you chased down TBM who was town but who, coincidence of coincidences, had his vote on you) and continually say you're obvtown.

In fact, the more I think about it, the weirder everything about your town neighbour claim is. It's so obscure a role that it's barely worth claiming, which probably lends extra legitimacy to the claim. But you're OMGUSing everything in sight and you're behaving in the most antitown way ever. I'm leaning more towards awful play than scummy play, but IGMEOY.

My vote stays on Zang, at the very least until he can provide a sensible reason not to flat out kill his ass.

[Fat_Tony]

@Zang: Why are you trying to justify your actions with bad, scummy reasoning?

bad and scummy? How do I have bad and scummy reasoning?

Because scum are bad. QED. Scum also often use bad/flawed logic in their arguments to try and pass off their own agenda as fact, or reasonable.

Zang: who is scum?

To Zang: Since TBM turned up town, who do you believe to be suspicious going into Day 2? I ask you specifically because everyone else seems convinced your lynch worthy, so your perspective is key right now.

my top suspects are sir cyanide and Jack. And the tbm misltnch does make tqo look a lot scumier but I think that he might be town, scum would never risk seeming so stupid.

I think we were looking for reasons as well as names. We're going to need more than we're getting from you right now.

@Zang: what does "taking full responsibility for your actions" mean in context? That you admit you moved your vote around a lot, but you don't want to give an explanation for it so we can all suck it?

it means that I am not dening it and I moved around my vote a lot because they all seemed like they could be scum.

And yet early you wouldn't vote and instead threw FoS/HoS's out all over the shop? AND you said max 2 out of your 3 suspects could be scum (using reasoning I don't quite follow and I don't believe was ever explained)? Dude, weak.

Bold emphasis mine. Also, EBWOP:

"
240: Again says he finds Zang's quick change of heart unnerving. Picks up on POSSIBLE slip: "Why could only 2 of your 3 suspects be mafia?" (Re: Zang post

82

)"

[Fat_Tony]

@TQO: I feel a few things need to be clarified here. Yesterday, I said I would post ISOs on Paltry and TBM. I didn't have time to do both in the end, as I was late in from work and had chores to do around the house. So I posted what I thought to be the most relevant. Also, an Iso on TBM yesterday would have stopped the hammer, since that came last week. I said I would post a PBPA (post by post analysis, as I remember someone asking what PBPA meant pre-lynch) on Saturday waaay back on Tuesday/Wednesday (I forget exactly which), but Zang hammered before Saturday came around. The difference between this and Paltry saying he would hammer post PBPA is that if he waits for the PBPA it's possible I find a stronger case on someone else before we lynch. TBM lynch was not inevitable. However, the hammer is only a part of why I want to vote zang now. He's slipped up and contradicted himself on at least one occasion and he's my strongest scum read.

FWIW, I agree with your analysis on Jack coming across scummy now (OMG distancing). He and cruelty give me the heebies.

If you want an ISO on TBM I'll do one, it'll be later on though as I have pesky work.

By the way, the fact you are again pointing he finger at someone who has criticised your play is duly noted.

[Fat_Tony]

Firstly, EBWOP: an iso of TBM yesterday would NOT have topped the hammer...

Secondly, I didn't dismiss your case against me as OMGUS- I dismissed it on the basis of factual inaccuracy, as detailed in the paragraph of 'clarifications'. You're picking and choosing what you read of mine, and twisting it for your own agenda.

And for the record, I've never meant to imply that YOU are antitown - I've said on more than one occasion that I can't justify your claim for any reason other than it being truthful. What I have said is that your play is antitown due to its ineptitude. Which, by the way, would be me criticising your play.

Anyway, we are wasting time by bouncing this back and forth. Zang, your rebuttals have been noted, I'll reply tonight when I have more time.

[Fat_Tony]

I'd say it's more the way he went about creating the discussion and continuing it. He had circular logic that basically went like this.

If you said you wanted to be investigated by the cop, then you're scum looking like you have something to prove.

If you said you didn't want to be investigated by the cop, then you had something to hide and were also obviously scum.

If you didn't answer the question at all, you were dodging the question and thus were acting scummy.

It was a lose-lose-lose situation. And if anyone tried to question Jack on it he would just post one liners of "You didn't read the thread carefully enough" and ignore the questions entirely afterward.

Now I find it convenient how he went from that being his ace in the hole playing strategy to find scum to how it's suddenly just "a bit of a joke to get some discussion started".

So if that one topic he brought up is to be taken as a joke, I don't see a single thing Jack has posted the entire game beyond that beginning conversation starter that's been any use. And even now that he's discrediting the usefullness of his own argument, he's basically got nothing in his favor to keep me from believing he's scum.

StrangerCoug is right on in his post, because I think you're on to something here. I think as an attempt to start discussion, it was successful (partly), but you are right in saying that it was a question with no right answer and it did cause a lot of song and dance that frankly led to us mislynching.

Now he's trying to say it was all a joke? As a joke, it was a pretty terrible idea, and as you say, it discredits his own argument and leaves us in the sort of position where we have to ask what he's actually contributed to the game.

By the way - this was a quick post as I had 5 minutes to come in and read the thread - I apologise for the delays in my posting the last few days but work has swallowed me whole and I've had no free time - I'm using my lunch break to even do this. I promise to get you a TBM iso, my response to Zang, and some more meaningful analysis next time I get an hour to myself (please God let it be soon *cries*)

[Fat_Tony]

my top suspects are sir cyanide and Jack.

Why?

Since we know now that he is confirmed town, and since the standard of play so far in this one has been fairly poor from all sides, I have no problem believing that the NK was down to scum-Zang having figured out that he was probably going to get owned by Paltry in D2, and acting out of desperation. I am definitely looking for some decent work by Zang to keep him from being our daykill today.

This is pretty WIFOMy though.. and Zang wouldn't be the only mafioso. Nor was Paltry the only person to express suspicion of Zang on Day 1.

Don't get me wrong though, Zang's play is pretty worrying.

Quickly as I have a couple of minutes left - I appreciate that both thsoe things you say are true - however, given the standard of his play and the amount of suspicion already upon him, I can imagine the scum players being willing to get rid of Zang in order to limit the damage he can do. Best way for them to do this - take out the guy who very strongly attacked and cast suspicion on Zang after his hammer.

I realise it would be a REALLY obvious/bad play from Zang's POV... but this is Zang.

And finally - my scumlist: Zang, Jack, cruelty. Elaborations next time, here on Mafia.

[Fat_Tony]

my top suspects are sir cyanide and Jack.

Why?

Since we know now that he is confirmed town, and since the standard of play so far in this one has been fairly poor from all sides, I have no problem believing that the NK was down to scum-Zang having figured out that he was probably going to get owned by Paltry in D2, and acting out of desperation. I am definitely looking for some decent work by Zang to keep him from being our daykill today.

This is pretty WIFOMy though.. and Zang wouldn't be the only mafioso. Nor was Paltry the only person to express suspicion of Zang on Day 1.

Don't get me wrong though, Zang's play is pretty worrying.

Quickly as I have a couple of minutes left - I appreciate that both thsoe things you say are true - however, given the standard of his play and the amount of suspicion already upon him, I can imagine the scum players being willing to get rid of Zang in order to limit the damage he can do. Best way for them to do this - take out the guy who very strongly attacked and cast suspicion on Zang after his hammer.

I realise it would be a REALLY obvious/bad play from Zang's POV... but this is Zang.

And finally - my scumlist: Zang, Jack, cruelty. Elaborations next time, here on Mafia.

[Fat_Tony]

@ Zang - post 475. Explanations in brief:

You are top of my scumlist, although Jack is edging ever closer into contention. The reasons I think you are scum include your hammer, but more importantly the fact that you have contradicted yourself in this thread on at least one occasion, which suggests to me that you're scum backtracking.

Jack is getting worse, and while his argument about MS.net townies probably has some merit in the general discussion forums, I don't think it's helped his case. I have been uneasy with his play from minute one, and I don't like his excusing lack of activity using lack of interest. Admittedly, I too have been rather scarce this week, but work > mafiascum in terms of life importance to me. While I'm more in favour of disposing of zang, who if he is not mafia, is still not much use to us as town compared to some others, I would probably find it within myself to support a Jack wagon/lynch.

cruelty is more of a gut feeling. The "fuck it, I'm in" on TBM, even though I agreed with the wagon, was really awkward and he has showed a lack of activity (even allowing for the fact he V/LA'd the first week. I also don't really see what he achieves by voting Vivi. He posts a convincing argument about Jack and then votes Vivi on a much less well-developed argument (unless he's going all L-A-Lurkers already, which is just as bad IMO). It's not as strong a case as I feel we have against Jack/Zang, but it's there.

I'm also undecided on the lurkers and also Zhero, who has contributed in fits and starts but hasn't put anything out there that I've really liked or gone "hey, that's a really good point.

My TBM iso will be forthcoming in the next few hours, unless my girlfriend has planned something for Valentine's that I don't know about.

[Fat_Tony]

Congratulations TQO on royally fucking town. I hope things that I won't post on here because they would break the rules happen to you.

[Fat_Tony]

Happy scumday Fat_Tony!

Not sure I understand what you are getting at. Could you explain?

[Fat_Tony]

Looks like Jazzmyn has the power then. By the way, welcome, replacements.

Apologies for my lack of content recently. As someone said on the previous page, I got kind of fed up with this game when the Sir C/TQO war started up again, and even more so when TQO managed to get herself modkilled.

Re: cruelty vs. zang, I'm happy with my vote on Zang, and would sooner lynch Jack than cruelty, but there you have my 1,2,3 list of suspects also. If someone can convince me or provide me with a compelling case for why cruelty deserves the rope more than Zang, I'm happy to listen to it.

@LeafSnail - Depending on how confident you are in your predecessor's play, you might want to unvote while you're reading through - you could unwittingly contribute to a lynch you don't agree with otherwise.

[Fat_Tony]

@whoever mentioned it, the reason I said Jazz had the power is because at the time two guys were at L-1, and Jazz's was the only uncast vote. Does that make more sense?

Liking content and analysis from both the reps. @Jazzmyn: aw shucks, you're making me (and my jib) blush... Lol

still pretty happy with my vote.

@cruelty- I forget whether it was you or coug, but I'm pretty sure someone was defending finding people scummy on gut reads alone a few pages back. If it was you, then does your view of the accusations against you change, if we call them 'gut reads'? I agree that the case against you currently isn't the strongest, but I do feel that valid points have been raised against you and your sole response has been to shrug at it.

[Fat_Tony]

What I do think though, is that there's definitely scum on my wagon. If zang is scum then I highly doubt they're both (assuming 3) bussing him already, therefore my belief in zangscum (about 75%) + my knowledge of my own innocence leads me to the inevitable and logical conclusion that scum is currently pushing my lynch. Zang and probably Jack.

Although Zang is among my scum reads, the problem I have is that two of my other scum reads (Cruelty and Vivi) are on his wagon, and that gives me pause.

I detest voting analysis. Especially ones like this, I genuinely don't understand why who is on the wagon matters. It just seems like a really contrived reason to avoid voting.

Um, ok... Am I to therefore take it that you detest your own assertion that there's scum on your wagon?

It seems like a logical question to ask.

[Fat_Tony]

Incidentally vivi you need to step up your game. You're not involved, you're basically repeating points others have made (the above is a good example, you're just rewording Tony) and you're posting about once every 3 days. I suspect you're probably newbscum trying to avoid making errors, but what you're doing is very, very close to active lurking.

I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but taking Jazz's point that although she is reading zangscum, she notes her other two scumreads are you and Vivi, and that you're both on Zang's wagon, it's tempting to read this as crueltyscum chastising viviscum for playing too scummily.

However, that's not necessarily something I personally buy into.

I remain happy with my vote, although I grow increasingly uneasy that Zang's play may just be more inept than scummy.

[Fat_Tony]

Mislynch perhaps, but I'd rather lynch someone who provides zero meaningful analysis and be wrong than someone who contributes and still be wrong. Still, I would like to say "bugger"...

Jazzmyns point about cruelty now seems pertinent. If he isn't nk'd then I will support a cruelty lynch d3.

Looks like my concerns were right, too. Balls.

[Fat_Tony]

Scummy players don't tend to get NK'd unless there's a vig, Fat_Tony, so I'm assuming you have Jazzmyn's gender wrong, which should be obvious...

Or I made a simple typo, and you're a smartass. Either way.

We've already lost one townie through ad hominem bullshit, Coug, don't start provoking more people.

[Fat_Tony]

EBWOP - actually, no, what i typed originally was right. I take your point that scummy players don't tend to be NKed

sans

vig, but I intended to say what I said.

However, you've now given scum a new gambit, whereby they can NK cruelty and cast suspicion of a vig.

Congratulations, Coug, you just made my scumlist.

[Fat_Tony]

Jazzmyns point about cruelty now seems pertinent.

Mm, which point? I'm not seeing the relevance to Zang's flip.

Jazzmyn noted that her other two scumreads, cruelty and vivi, were on zang's wagon.

@Jack - how does potentially giving scum ideas get someone off your scumlist?

[Fat_Tony]

OK, that fucking sucked. My scumdar says Jack or cruelty at this point. Jack trying to make himself valuable to the town by "correctly predicting" that Coug was town is dodgy as hell, and I already thought he was scummy, so this reinforces it.

I

vote: Jack

[Fat_Tony]

Good point well made Leafsnail. However, my vote stays.

[Fat_Tony]

Sorry Jack, let me rephrase that. The two players I find scummiest are Jack and cruelty. I don't necessarily think you're scumpartners - so far my reads have been way off in any case and I've wound up on two mislynches, so there's once again a good chance that my judgement is off on at least one of you (/pessimism). That said, we can't rule out the notion that you're distancing yourselves from one another to try and ensure the survival of at least one of the two of you if one of you busses the other, it gives the survivor more credibility

At this point, we also have to consider that some of the people we've been reading as town are going to flip scum. Add to this the fact that we're LyLo (I believe - do we know for sure we have 3 mafia? I'm not 100% up on game setup types), and things don't look good for us.

[Fat_Tony]

This is me coming into the thread, and acknowledging that not a whole lot has happened since I last posted.

Unvote: Jack

I'm torn. My two strongest scum reads are Jack and cruelty. Jack presents a good anti-cruelty case, but my reading him scummy makes it hard for me to back that. Not saying I won't, but I'm hesitant at this stage.

I also disagree with his apparently strong town read on Zhero, there's something about his play I haven't liked but it's nothing more than gut feeling which is why I haven't really mentioned anything up to now.

I'm gonna re-read at some point when I've got a bit more time and try and get a better handle on this game as it seems to be slipping away from us.

[Fat_Tony]

postulating scenarios is pretty much the only way of scumhunting at this point.

Unvote

as I'm finding it impossible to assess who is scummiest, you or Jack.

[Fat_Tony]

Jazz presents a convincing argument yet again. This is backed up by the fact that I'm growing more convinced that my anti-Jack read seems to be based on personal dislike of playstyle/attitude, rather than evidence. I've meta'd him a little and he's always like this, so I guess that puts cruelty at #1. I want to vote him, but there's the small matter of putting someone at L-1 in LyLo to consider and I'm just not comfortable doing that. It is possible that jazz and jack are both scum (in my jackscum scenario, jazz is a likely buddy), and I'm leery of giving scum the chance to rapidhammer.

Tl;dr: crueltyscum, I am a pussy.

[Fat_Tony]

@cruelty: No, it implies that she thinks you're a hypocrite. Jazz isn't advocating a quicklynch, she's saying that even if they did hurry, it'd be no different to what you did D1 and D2.

Your argument is spurious at best.

[Fat_Tony]

Important to note, that isn't entirely WIFOM from cruelty.

If cruelty is town, scum don't NEED to be careful and can lynch as soon as they see this, winning the game.

If cruelty isn't lynched in the next 24-36 hours, that presents two possibilities.

1) The three players currently on the cruelty wagon are, or at least contain, our scum. That's the only explanation for a delay if cruelty is town. I repeat - scum has nothing to gain by delaying the hammer.

2)Cruelty is scum. Ergo, scum haven't bussed him yet.

Fellow townies: even if you think cruelty is scum as, frankly, I do, it probably isn't in our best interests to hammer yet. We need to wait it out and see what happens.

Even in a crueltyscum scenario, I'd wager at least one of the guys on the wagon will be scum too - bussing cruelty here would lend them great credence on D4. Therefore, by waiting to see if scum quickhammers, we can pretty much guarantee that one of the three guys currently voting cruelty is either scum or cruelty's scumbuddy.

Do you guys agree/disagree with my analysis of the situation here?