Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[redtail896]

Hi everyone, and nice to see you again Hoopla.

[redtail896]

Hey everybody. Alright, I'm ready to get to some scumhunting. I guess I'll start by

Claim:

Paranoid Gun Owner

Discuss.

by...by...oh. Well then. I guess we can start with this.

So, while I can understand why you made this claim immediately, I can see 2 main problems. #1, contrary to what you said, I think this may ensure your survival for the time being. Or at least, I find it incredibly unlikely that you will be night killed. No town PR is going to take the risk of targeting you at night, and of course scum won't kill you. Short of being lynched (you seem more sure that this will happen than I am), you'll be around.

#2, I feel like a disproportionate amount of today's discussion will revolve around you now. I find myself agreeing with AGar that you might've better served town by claiming later in the day, after we already had some discussion under our belts. I'm worried that we'll all get distracted by your claim, when we need to scumhunt elsewhere. Thoughts?

For the record, I've never played with a PGO before (to be honest, I had to look it up to see what it was). I'm curious: is/was there a thread in Mafia discussion about PGOs and how much of a benefit/liability they are to town? If not, I think I'll make one after this game is over; I think it'd be an interesting discussion topic.

[redtail896]

@redtail - Have you read the rest of the thread in regards to what I brought up about his past meta?

I have. I think that, if Hoopla is town, then she probably would've done this anyway, regardless of whether she thinks you would remember this miller incident. And if Hoopla is scum, then it's too easy to play it off as "she probably would've done this anyway, regardless of whether she thinks you would remember this miller incident." I'm aware of the possibility that this is a scum gambit, and the fact that she's pulled this off before is helpful, but I'd rather see her scumhunting and reasoning in this game than go off that one incident.

[redtail896]

Hi every one, yay for RVS!
VOTE: Hoopla

This is not RVS. You just put a 4th vote on Hoopla without a single mention of the last 2 pages? What do you think about all this PGO stuff?

FOS: drmyshottyizsik

[redtail896]

Oh shit i didn't know he had those votes on him when i did that. Sorry my computers running slow i submitted that when there was only like 10 posts. I think that what he did was dumb, but not necessarily a for sure scum read. I'll keep my vote after reading what y'all have been talking about, but I'm really on the fence about it so don't get angry if I unvote.

Your computer is so slow, it takes 12 hours to post?

-_-

Not to mention that the forum makes you read what's been posted since you've gone into reply mode (unless there's a way to turn that off that I haven't found).

[redtail896]

True.. We'll give scums 2 turns to shoot the VI. I don't think vig (if he/she exists) should shoot the first turn though. Not shooting will force the scums to shoot the VI for their own safety.

Uhh, no. If there's a Vig, he should be shooting drmyshottyizsik in the face at the earliest opportunity.

...soooo, any chance of a one-shot day vig?

Wait, but if you think shotty is the VI, then why do you want him shot? Do you think he's scum?

I voted at the beginning randomly. I had no idea there would be a band waggon going, personally I really like RVS's so i thought i would get one going, but what most of y'all think I'm saying about this is that I submitted and then failed to read the 40 other posts before mine, but what happened was I submitted it and it must have been delayed for x amount of time, and then i went to work. So when I submitted it there were no other posts after it yet.

Hoopla's claim was the first thing posted after the mod opened up D1 discussion. So what you're telling us is that, in the 3h 21m between discussion opening and Hoopla's claim, you posted a random vote on Hoopla, your computer took ~12 hours to process this request, the forum didn't show the intervening posts, and you're keeping your vote there because you think Hoopla was being dumb.

I don't mean to be rude, but do you understand why people are suspicious of this?

[redtail896]

So, I have a really dumb question that immediately popped into my mind upon reading you previous post Hoopla. Why did you unclaim?

[redtail896]

Wait, but if you think shotty is the VI, then why do you want him shot? Do you think he's scum?

The point of VIs is that (without very extensive meta information that we don't have) you can't really tell and they are dangerous in lylo. So they die.

This is what gets me. In essence, he's saying that we should lynch shotty regardless of what we think of his alignment, simply because of this one incident and his inability to properly explain it. To that, I say no. If I think shotty is town, then **** it, I'm not voting for shotty, and as Vig I'm not shooting shotty. As for the initial Hoopla vote, basically your argument against Hoopla rests on the meta argument. Plus, there's this gem:

I buy it. Not because of the breadcrumb, those are silly. I buy it because I thought Hoopla claiming PGO was illogical and Hoopla usually isn't, so it seemed out of character.

The declarative statement, "The claim was illogical" has 2 problems: first of all, this is a very arguable point, and many would think it was logical. 2nd, why do you know think it was illogical, when earlier you said that you could understand the reasoning behind it.

In short, I agree with AGar.

VOTE: AlmasterGM

[redtail896]

Claim:

scum

I feel like this is some meta-joke about the whole "early claims and their impact" thing. Or somebody hacked his account. Or he's tired of this game already. In short: I have no idea what to make of this.

]1) I gave very clear reasons in my post why I was voting Hoopla. You can go re-read them if you want, but to say I just agreed with you is rather self-centered. My argument focused more on why I thought claiming PGO was a bad idea, not you. In other words, I didn't just say, "lol I agree with AGar. No no, the people doing that are redtail

In short, I agree with AGar.

And Zach.

Plus this.

I can get behind this wagon.

This is a MUCH more clear cut case of latching. Why aren't you voting for either of these two?

First of all, to the claim that I am latching: yeah, I suppose I am. And it will, of course, do no good to claim that I had independently come up with many of these points, and AGar simply beat me to the punch. I tried to differentiate my case as much as possible, but there's no getting around the fact that we had many of the same points. Such is life. You can't expect every single person on a wagon to come up with a unique, different case. That's neither reasonable or possible. At least I tried: Zach just copied my case and went with it.

Second, AGar already pointed out that your case

was

primarily meta-driven. And once again you complain that the claim was "poor logic," which brings us to the next part:

1) The first point is an appeal to nonexistant authority, who are these "many people" and what are there reasons? You can't cite stats without the stats.

2) I very clearly stated my argument before. I said, I could SEE WHY somebody would do it (e.g., understanding why it is a bad claim is slightly complex, so somebody could have just not thought it all the way out and thought making the claim was a good move), but I thought it was a bad move overall and was surprised Hoopla made the play (because she usually does think things out all the way through). If you want to know precisely why I thought it was illogical, go read my previous post. I explained that it is worth the risk of hitting the doctor in order to nab scum.

1. 2 people that I'm happy to name: myself and Hoopla. I would bet others here would agree, but I don't want to speak for anybody. And there are any number of reasons to think it might be a logical move (as noted by Hoopla, a PGO claim that the town generally believes is rather bad for scum).

2. If you see the pros and cons of such a play, why are you saying that it's definitely illogical? There are logical reasons to do it. It got rid of RVS, and it gave us plenty of material to work with. Even without the unclaim, you don't get to just state that it was an illogical play. That's what I was objecting to.

As for the shotty situation: Surely a strong scumread is better for the Vig to shoot? Maybe we're differing in Vig theory, and likely differing in our shotty reads. What I was really objecting to was this post:

VI's are vigbait. Or D2/3 if there's no Vig.

From what I understand, what you really mean is, "VI's that are unreadable are Vigbait." Is that accurate.

Anyway, the real theme of this post was: there's more to our suspicions that just, "Almaster is latching."

[redtail896]

In response to backtracking, there isn't any. I used part of your argument, part of my argument. Both were nessecary but not sufficent for the vote.

Or, if you insist there was backtracking, fine. My advocacy now is: both parts of the argument were necessary but not sufficient for the vote.

I didn't fully understand this section. Could you elaborate? At the time of the vote, you said the meta argument was the main reason, but now you claim that the claim was the main reason. Which is it? Because the way it was phrased, it didn't seem that both were "necessary but not sufficient."

@Zach and redtail: what do you think of the argument between AGar and AGM now that you're starting to see more of their points? The initial points you both brought against him were based on his statement of an illogical claim AND you were agreeing with AGar. Do you still think AGar's points hold up?

I think AGar was a bit quick to drop the vig thing. My issue (which I tried to explain in my last post but I'm not sure it came off well) is that AlmasterGM seems to think shotty is unreadable VI, and so should be killed by the vig. I disagree with this on 2 counts: I don't think shotty is unreadable, and I can easily see the potential for better targets in the vig's eyes. Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill though; I'd like to see other opinions on this.

However, that's not the centerpiece. I'd like to see AlmasterGM's response to me, particularly to the above question.

@shotty: How can you possibly say this game is going nowhere?

[redtail896]

@shotty: Why are you claiming doctor?

@Elleran:Two questions. #1 (emphasis mine)

he early PGO claim seems odd. I've personally played with PGO before in real life games, and in most of those games, the PGO, even after a no-cc, early claim, ends up getting shot or killing a doctor or cop accidentally. The reason why PRs target the potential PGO is because Hoopla could be a VT (or even cop) just claiming PGO for safety.

In my past life games, I have learned that early claims of PGO is a pro-town move.

However, seeing AGar's argument that Hoopla has fake claimed before, I can't trust her so easily.

Can you explain the bolded sentence? Specifically, I'm interested in how it interacts with this sentence:

Like I've already mentioned, I've played many times in real life games where the early PGO claim has been used before. In almost all of them, the claimer turns out to be fake.

#2: Do you believe that the following 2 paragraphs are contradictory in any way?

Second, I support lynching liars. I cannot disagree on your point that your claim/unclaim has brought many valuable discussion into place. However, I do not want to risk having a suspicious character in any LyLo situation. I understand this is a far-in-the-future argument, but lynching early poses less risk than later.

I don't think ALL liars are deserving of being lynched. I have already admitted that there were clear merits and successes that Hoopla's fake-claim have brought. I support lynching Hoopla because of the reason that she has clarified for me. I basically find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character right now.

@Zach: do you still favor lynching shotty?

[redtail896]

Not so fast Hoopla; you get questions too.

1. Do you think your Elleran vote was an OMGUS? Could it be interpreted that way?

2.

Redtail, you're on fire with catching the inconsistancies. Nice spot on Elleran. That is classic scum talking because they need to, not because it's what they believe.

Had you seen those two examples I pulled up yourself? If not, what "backtracking and flipflopping" had you seen?

3. What do you think about my initial view of your claim (in light of you listing me as those taking a "middling view")? Do you think I'm suspicious and why? For reference, here is my first post after your claim (really, my first post of the game):

Hey everybody. Alright, I'm ready to get to some scumhunting. I guess I'll start by

Claim:

Paranoid Gun Owner

Discuss.

by...by...oh. Well then. I guess we can start with this.

So, while I can understand why you made this claim immediately, I can see 2 main problems. #1, contrary to what you said, I think this may ensure your survival for the time being. Or at least, I find it incredibly unlikely that you will be night killed. No town PR is going to take the risk of targeting you at night, and of course scum won't kill you. Short of being lynched (you seem more sure that this will happen than I am), you'll be around.

#2, I feel like a disproportionate amount of today's discussion will revolve around you now. I find myself agreeing with AGar that you might've better served town by claiming later in the day, after we already had some discussion under our belts. I'm worried that we'll all get distracted by your claim, when we need to scumhunt elsewhere. Thoughts?

For the record, I've never played with a PGO before (to be honest, I had to look it up to see what it was). I'm curious: is/was there a thread in Mafia discussion about PGOs and how much of a benefit/liability they are to town? If not, I think I'll make one after this game is over; I think it'd be an interesting discussion topic.

[redtail896]

@Zach: do you still favor lynching shotty?

Yes.

Why?

I didn't catch your first inconsistancy you brought up on Elleran. You should be following up with a vote on Elleran, though. And if not, explain why Almaster is a better candidate.

I'm waiting to hear Elleran's response before I decide where my vote should be. And I assume you're intentionally ignoring the third question. That's fair for now; you seem to like playing things close to the chest.

[redtail896]

He's claimed scum. He's lied at least once. (And I think more than once.) He didn't seem too concerned about being lynched when he claimed scum, which is very inconsistent with the goals of the role of doctor. His play just says scummy to me in capital letters.

Why isn't just as likely that frustrated and sick of the game, and has decided to screw it. If he was scum, why would he claim doctor like that? And if you want to play LynchAllLiars, then go after Hoopla as well. You seem way too convinced that shotty is scum, simply because he's playing poorly.

@Elleran. Regarding the first point: I agree with Hoopla that the however implies more than just a simple typo. I'm certainly aware that you could've just been on the wrong train of thought while writing the whole thing, but it's a mighty convenient way to retcon. However, I'd like to address point 2 (the one about liars) again.

@Hoopla: Since Hoopla rather have me explain myself, I unvoted because I weighed the following two in my mind. 1. Your claim reek of fake claim as a scum's protective measure. Perhaps because I play more commonly with PGO in real life and that is why only I seem to have more suspicion and cynic about this. 2. Your claim has indeed caused a great degree of discussion. This fiery discussion is infinitely better than any RVS. To do this, you have accepted a huge risk; an action that scums would avoid from.

This is your reason for unvoting Hoopla. The thing that most bugs me about this is that you seem surprised that Hoopla's claim has generated a great deal of discussion, yet you claim to have seen this tactic a number of times IRL. Does it not generate discussion there? Does it not also allow bypassing of RVS? And why are you now willing to "risk having a suspicious character in any LyLo situation"? And even after you unvoted, you still find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character in the game? Then why not vote for her?

UNVOTE: AlmasterGM
VOTE: Elleran

[redtail896]

Sorry for missing the last couple days. And wow, did I miss a lot.

First things first: I claim not a protective role. That should more or less give you my opinions on Hoopla's plan. If you want more, I'll oblige.

Zachrulez I'm suspicious of more for relentlessly pursuing shotty (I'm pretty sure shotty is town, regardless of the doc claim). However, I understand his suspicions of AGM based on that anti-shotty post.

@ Elleran: we need more from you. Much more. You're almost lynched, and you have nothing to say about Hoopla's plan? C'mon.

[redtail896]

Okay. I popcorn to Almaster

[redtail896]

Elleran

has

been scumhunting. It's been almost entirely focused on Hoopla, and it's full of contradictions (see my previous posts/my vote), but it's been scumhunting. Lately he's been slacking off though.

Shotty I agree has not really been scumhunting at all. Moving on.

G&H is certainly scumhunting, although it's rather circumspect and indirect. The thing from what I can tell with G&H is that s/he asks a lot of questions and seems to have plenty of ideas, but isn't informing us of any of them. I, for one, would like to know what they are before we hit deadline. Good and Honest: who is at the top of your list? What conclusions (if any) have you come to?

Also, just to set the record straight: these are the claims on the table:
PR: drmyshottyizsik
Not PR: AlmasterGM, AGar, ConfidAnon, Elleran, Hoopla, gonnano, Kid Know Nothing, redtail896, Vel-Rahn Koon
No Claim Yet: Good and Honest, Zachrulez

In the interest of time (deadline is the day after tomorrow), I send the ball to Good and Honest.

[redtail896]

Elleran has been scumhunting. It's been almost entirely focused on Hoopla, and it's full of contradictions (see my previous posts/my vote), but it's been scumhunting. Lately he's been slacking off though.

So Elleran...

1) Tunnels Hoopla
2) The arguments in the tunnel aren't good at all
3) And she hasn't even done either of those in over a week

I don't see how you two (redtail and KNK) can defend this.

I'm not defending this. I think he's rather suspicious, and I'm voting for him. I'm merely noting that it does actually qualify as scumhunting, even if it's ineffective. Honestly, I feel like we're just parsing definitions here.

[redtail896]

I believe we get a No Lynch if we haven't reached a majority.

Re the "scumhunting" thing: as I said, I think we're just parsing definitions. I agree that Elleran's scumhunting has been awful and unproductive, but it's technically still scumhunting. I'm now leaving this argument, because I don't think it's going to go anywhere interesting. I hate definition wars. The important thing that I think most of us here agree on is that Elleran's "scumhunting" seems to be scum rather than town motivated.

To all non-voters: why aren't you voting? It's a fair question; I'm willing to accept a reason for not voting if you can come up with a good one.

Are you all waiting for me? Although here it's a question of simply saying whether I'm a "Doctor" (or something similar) or not, I'm not going to participate. Sorry. I hope the fact that a single player doesn't participate won't cause too many problems.

I think it will. You had ample time to object to the plan (your last post before this one, for example); it's only when it got to you, in last place, that you objected. The worst part of the mass roleclaim is over; we already have all of the negatives, and you're preventing us from seeing the full range of positives. Please claim Doc or not Doc.

[redtail896]

I also would rather lynch Elleran. Not responding to the massclaim, while annoying, is not a scumtell. Elleran has displayed actual scummy behavior. We are very close to deadline. I'd rather lynch G&H tomorrow if at all. Tomorrow, I'm happy to discuss anybody and everybody that you want. But with deadline in less than 24 hours (as I understand it), I feel that we are stuck with Elleran as the lynch. I don't consider this a negative at all.

[redtail896]

EBWONinjaPreview: Redtail - why do you think refusing to massclaim and not bringing reasoning up earlier is not scummy?

If G&H wanted to pull the scheme you just described, then s/he could and would have done so. Before we jumped to the popcorn scheme, people were simply claiming out of the blue if they agreed with the idea (for example, me). At this point, it would've been the easiest thing in the world for G&H to simply roleclaim doc, and the whole thing would've gone to hell. But it didn't happen.

At this point, it would be simple for G&H the scum to simply say, not a doc. That scheme you described wasn't necessary, and if s/he had just claimed not PR we would've gone our merry way to lynch Elleran. Why, as scum, would G&H have done this? Why call attention to oneself like that? It's just unnecessary, and can achieve no significant purpose as scum other than to get oneself lynched. I think G&H should've raised any objections 3 or 4 pages ago (when s/he was clearly posting) and that waiting this long is bordering on rude, but I don't think it's scummy.

[redtail896]

I encourage everybody to read my last post from yesterday, but here's the summary I want to get across: in my opinion, G&H's refusal to participate in the massclaim, while anti-town, is not scummy. In fact, I almost consider it quite the opposite; if s/he was scum, why not just participate and claim not a PR? This leads to an insanely important question for G&H: How important to you is your desire to not lie?

I second all of Hoopla's questions.

I don't like Zach's vote. First, because I clearly think point 1 is ridiculous. Second, because point 2 does not apply only to G&H. ConfidAnon didn't say much in the early part of day 1, and KKN has posted sparingly, although each post has actual content. Please explain to me the differences between these two and G&H.

[redtail896]

Hey everybody. Sorry for the absence, but I'm back now with a whole raft of thoughts.

Regarding G&H: I refer Zach again to the points I used above in my objection to his vote (btw: in response to your statement directed at that post, G&H might not participate in the claim because s/he disagrees with it or it's against her policy; again, not anti-town, but not scummy). No, I'm not in favor of lynching G&H, even as a policy lynch. I agree that the lack of vote and the refusal to give reads is damaging to town, but in simplest terms I don't think G&H is scum. If somebody puts together a case on G&H that doesn't reduce to "policy lynch," I'd be happy to listen. Until then, I think there are bigger fish to fry.

Regarding Zach: You rode on my arguments for the Almaster vote, your shotty vote never made much sense to me, and your Elleran vote was to prevent a mislynch. And you know my thoughts on your G&H vote. Mafia players can easily throw accusations around that they're pretty sure are true and be misremembering something. Yet, I'm not voting for you. To the people voting Zach: why should I vote for him.

@Kid Know Nothing: Are you voting for G&H for policy reasons?

Regarding Hoopla: For the record, shotty's revelation that he protected you destroyed my pet conspiracy theory that you actually

were

a PGO fake-unclaiming to kill a scum (yeah, I know, it's a dumb theory, but it gave me a good laugh). I am intrigued in your willingness to policy lynch G&H though; I also ask whether you think G&H is actually scum. Do you think it's even possible to accurately read G&H in these circumstances? Also, I'd like to focus on this paragraph of yours:

Almaster's alignment is absolutely crucial in the production of future bandwagon analysis. I've linked several players to him, and though I know my data is sound, the theorems I extrapolate from this data feel very solid too. There is no way there were three scum on that Day 1 wagon if Almaster is town, and that means we can effectively use the Day 1 lynch wagon as a divider for two pools. A pool for those on the wagon and a pool for those off the wagon, which makes process of elimination style cases increasingly more accurate if we can limit the possibilities.

I like your theories, but I reach slightly different conclusions. I'm less sure than you are that Almaster is town, but if we agree for a second on that premise, then your odds greatly improve if we look

off

the Elleran bandwagon at KKN and CA (full disclosure: this is basically me advocating that you not examine me, as I was on that bandwagon and am obviously not listed in green). If I was you, I'd be more inclined to investigate KKN and CA and figure out which is more likely to be scum.

[redtail896]

(EBWOP: I forgot to include VRK in my previous post, although I intentionally left out G&H)

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are 3 scum on the Elleran wagon. AGar is confirmed town, and I'm okay with assuming that shotty is town. That leaves you, me, gonnano, Zach, and Almaster. You're assuming that almaster is town, so we'll take him off. That leaves either you or me as scum, which I think neither of us is comfortable with (and that leaves aside gonnano, which you have a town read on). What I'm trying to get at, and I think you'll agree, is that 3 scum on the Elleran wagon is unlikely.

So, who isn't on the Elleran wagon? Elleran, obviously, is easily eliminated. G&H is a whole separate argument (although probably shouldn't be ignored in voting analysis). So we have VRK, KKN, and CA. I see where you're going (you think you have a higher chance of hitting scum if we go after Zach), but even if you leave off Zach, under your construction 2 of these 3 are likely scum.

Also, what is your case on Zach beyond the vote analysis?

[redtail896]

Yeah, I see what Almaster is saying about Zach's D1 play. And I really don't like his G&H vote (although that can be explained away by policy differences). I'll need to think about that some more.

@Good and Honest: I hear what you're saying, especially about the table tennis. I've know people that have or have tried out very wacky ping-pong strategies, and it can certainly be fun. But I think your analogy falls apart when we talk about soccer. Soccer is a team game, and it's unfair to your team to intentionally handicap oneself (without their okay). By only playing with your left foot, your team starts at an inherent disadvantage.

All we do on this website is play pick-up soccer. But you've decided that you're only willing to play soccer with one foot. You have the right to make that decision, but your teammates have a right to be angry (and possibly kick you out of the team) for playing with only your left foot. It disadvantages the team, and the team didn't really understand beforehand what they were getting into. That's why we believe that you're being anti-town.

Now, right now, I'm not so far as willing to lynch you for it, but others clearly are. If you could explain your current reads, who you think is scummy, who you think is towny, and possibly even vote, it would go a long way to relieving our concerns. This is an olive branch. Please accept it.

[redtail896]

@Hoopla: Did your protective role statistics include mafia doctors at all? (I can't believe I didn't think of this question yesterday)
@KKN: Okay, you make a fair point. But I think scumhunting is still happening. Also, a question: to what extent do you think your case against Zach (and this applies to everybody else with such a case) can applay to ConfidAnon?

[redtail896]

The actual odds is the likelihood of how many scum would be on the wagon if it was random. This is combinatorics, and sadly beyond my mathematical level. Shanba was the one who worked out these odds for me about a month ago on AIM.[/quote]

For the record, I was bored this morning and ran the numbers: your probabilities are exactly right. The only note to add is that A. they assume that the lynchee cannot vote for himself and B. they assume that the lynchee is town. If you assume those things, that's the probability you get.

[redtail896]

EBWOP: The first paragraph of the above post should be quoting Hoopla.

[redtail896]

Now, I understand suspicion of Zach (I have my fair share). But there are a few points in shotty's case there that I can't let slide by:

Here he says that Vigs should kill people they are unsure about... NOOOO Vigs should kill people they have an anti-town or scum read from, only scum wants a Vig to blind fire.

I'm inclined to believe that this is a vig strategy disagreement and not necessarily scumminess. I'm welcome to the possibility that I'm wrong (like I kinda was yesterday with almaster).

Then he blind votes me with no reason other than
"Die"

You had just claimed scum. Now, I think this is a dumb vote, and you can certainly argue with the logic of his reason, but to say that he had

no

reason is disingenuous.

So you want to blind lynch someone? Only scum would want that Zach. Lets the vig take care of him if he must die. You have no indication that he is scum. You will never get G&H to claim so don't try or you will always be trying to lynch him.

Zach is far from the only person suggesting or supporting a policy lynch on G&H. You may disagree, but why is it scummy. And why not call the others out on it?

Ok so now a new wagon appears and what does Zach do???? He jumps on it, and his reason is that we are close to dead line, and killing a towny is better than killing no one at all... Here is when I knew he was scum.

He didn't know that Elleran was town. I didn't know Elleran was town. Nobody on the wagon (except the mafia obviously) knew that Elleran was town. And having a lynch is preferable to no lynch.

And Zach have you claimed yet? Just wondering, cause you are so interested in everyone else doing it.

He claimed not a PR like everybody else yesterday except you and G&H.


G&H: I did not ignore your questions. I merely didn't answer them. I wanted to hear what you had to say first. Thank you for giving us some of your reads in your previous post. I encourage you to continue. I do feel that, due to the unique circumstances of this limited massclaim, your claiming of PR or not PR would not be against the code that you've described. In addition, if you

are

a doctor (or other protective role), it's incredibly important that we know that fact, and adjust the situation accordingly. I implore you to consider this as an exception to your normal refusal to claim.

Although I respectfully disagree with your playstyle (I'm trying to be respectful, so please don't be angry), I am unwilling to lynch you based solely on it. However, I think you do encounter the problem that, by the time you have informed the other players of your playstyle differences, the game has already begun and their only choice is to accept them or lynch you (more likely than not, lynching you will be a net negative for the team). I don't see an easy way around this problem unfortunately, but I believe that it's something to think about.

Now, on to your questions.

redtail896, on Day 1 you interrogated AlmasterGM quite a lot; now you have listed some notable things about Zachrulez's behaviour. In this context, what do you think of Hoopla's suggestion that EXACTLY ONE of them is a mafioso?

As I've previously said, while I agree with most of Hoopla's logic concerning examining the Elleran wagon on D1, I'm unsure of some of her conclusions. If we examine the D1 bandwagon and remove AGar (confirmed town), shotty (very likely town), myself (obviously), and Hoopla (shakier theoretical ground here, but let's accept it for the moment), then we are left with gonnano, Zach, and Almaster. Of these, we're pretty sure that 1 or 2 are town.

Off of that wagon, we have G&H, KKN, ConfidAnon, and VRK. Basically, I think Hoopla is paying too much attention to the first 3, and not enough to these 3. In particular, I think that ConfidAnon suffers from many of the same problems that Zachrulez does.

Also, when discussing the votes from Day 1, you mention that Hoopla considers gonnano an innocent townsperson. What about you? Do you have any thoughts on gonnano you'd like to share?

On day 1 I thought that gonnano was a bit fluffy in his contributions. The biggest element of his play was his anti-AGar case, which I have problems with (yes, I know that that's much easier to say in retrospect). Despite his claim, I think that he

was

tunneling AGar for a good chunk of D1, even while voting Elleran.

The thing I'm most noticing about his day 2 play is that he hasn't posted much analysis, even in his longer posts. Most of it is playstyle and theory discussion with you, G&H (to be fair, I'm guilty of some of this too), and a vote on VRK that hasn't seen much, if any, followup.

[redtail896]

ANYWAY, NONE OF THIS EVEN MATTERS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE LYNCHING ZACHRULEZ BECAUSE HE IS SCUM.

Please explain to me why Zach is scum and ConfidAnon is not. I think CA has flown way under the radar here for essentially playing the same game that Zach has.
VOTE: ConfidAnon
Want to come out and play?

[redtail896]

Thank you for your explanations, drmyshottyizsik! While I don't usually agree with your logic (as you probably know), it's always better when you share your opinions and I think a couple of the points you made about Zachrulez are interesting.

I agree, it's always better to share your opinions. Please practice what you preach. Example: Do you think I'm scum? Do you think Hoopla is scum? Do you think ConfidAnon is scum?

I have to say ConfidAnon's behaviour continues to be peculiar, just like on Day 1. On Day 1 there were some actions of ConfidAnon's towards gonnano but not much else. Now on Day 2 ConfidAnon made immediate accusations against Zachrulez (after I had hinted at their lack of interactions) and there hasn't been much else since... It looks almost as if ConfidAnon's plan is to make only one or two prominent things per Day...

This is great information that everybody can see. But there's no analysis. I'm interested in what conclusions you've reached via this information. What is your

opinion

on these actions? That's what's most important.

About "Do you have a protection role?" - an answer to this question would reveal some information about my role. I have now explained numerous times that I don't want to reveal information about my role.

I don't think you quite understand how limited and important this roleclaim is. All we are asking is whether or not you are a protection role. This does not destroy your metagame. You don't need to lie. I addition, if you are a doctor,

we need to know

. That means that it's very likely that shotty is lying, and I'm building a lot of logic and reads off of the assumption that shotty is town. Others are as well.

So here's the deal. By keeping your silence, you have effectively claimed that you are not a protective role. I will assume that you are not a protective role until you inform me otherwise. If, at the end of the game, you turn out to be a protective role and shotty is mafia, I blame any potential losses in this game entirely on you.

By the way, according to you, you voted Vel-Rahn Koon "because he's been avoiding taking definitive positions like the plague". Now that I think about it, I find this reason quite surprising since on Day 1, just like me and Elleran, you stated that there was nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and considering all possibilities.

He was referring specifically to keeping an open mind about Hoopla's roleclaim.

redtail896, I'm not angry at all that you're disagreeing with my playstyle - after all, I'm expecting that there will be people disagreeing with my playstyle in each game I participate in. You're right that the choice for the other players is to accept my playstyle or vote to lynch me because of it. I can only hope that the group of players in a particular game of Mafia will happen to be tolerant towards me. For example, in my second game on this site the other players accepted me and my playstyle - only one player voted me because of disliking my playstyle (and, as it turned out, that player was a mafioso)...

My worry that I was trying to express is that by the time the other players know what your playstyle is, it's too late for them to do anything except vote you off, which is a poor choice. To continue the soccer analogy, it's like if the other players only discovered that you play one-footed after the whistle is blown. They certainly have a right to be angry, but at that point they have no choice except choose to play with a man down (an unsavory proposition). In addition, I'm not sure that I like that subtle dig at the end there.

By the way, redtail896, I'd like to ask you something about a sentence of yours - "I'm welcome to the possibility that I'm wrong (like I kinda was yesterday with almaster)". Just to clarify - what were you wrong about regarding AlmasterGM?

I was referring to the arguments between myself and Almaster regarding vig play.

[redtail896]

Nothing is jumping out at me except that zach is still scummy. I feel like I should have more content to post, but don't really have much to say.

All of this going on, and you don't have anything to say?

[redtail896]

All of this going on, and you don't have anything to say?

*looks confused*

*reads latest post*

*wonders if you read it*

I did read it. I'm just surprised that you have nothing else to say.

[redtail896]

Oh hey, look at that. The gender thing came back. Has that been there a while? Maybe I just haven't noticed.

Does somebody have a votecount? I think Zach's at L-2, but I want to make sure.

[redtail896]

*sigh* UNVOTE: ConfidAnon

The point of that was never to lynch. I wanted to see CA's (and to a lesser extent, everyone else's) reactions. I have to say, I was rather underwhelmed.

I'd be willing to lynch Zach, less KKN. Actually, my number 2 right now is probably VRK, but I don't see that happening.

I am unwilling to lynch G&H until somebody presents a case that doesn't reduce to a policy lynch. Actually, I might present that case; I think G&H's logic has a bunch of holes (some of which I was trying to point out above), but I don't think it's the best thing to do with this little time left.

[redtail896]

I am unwilling to lynch G&H until somebody presents a case that doesn't reduce to a policy lynch. Actually, I might present that case; I think G&H's logic has a bunch of holes (some of which I was trying to point out above), but I don't think it's the best thing to do with this little time left.

But that's the problem. You CAN'T case him, because 1) he never votes, so there's no wagon analysis and 2) anytime he does something that would normally be considered scummy, he writes it off as part of his self-declared Good and Honest meta.

Not true. Well, kinda true. I agree that bandwagon analysis is impossible, but I can still catch him in misrepresentation, contradictions, and bad logic.

[redtail896]

I'm here all day, and I am willing to hammer. Zach, please claim.

[redtail896]

I'm here. Given this claim, any objections to hammering?

[redtail896]

EBWOP: I have none

[redtail896]

Alrighty then.

VOTE: Zachrulez

[redtail896]

Geez Hoopla. Why the sudden urge to go after me? If you have questions, just ask them. What in your analysis is such a smoking gun?

I agree that generally the Zach flip clears G&H.

@VRK: Zach and KKN had a fair bit of back and forth yesterday. I'm not going to break that post down; KKN already did that, but suffice to say I don't think it washes.

Regarding you, all he said was that he got a town vibe from you (twice) and he responded once to a question of yours. And most of your defenses of him, as already noted, amount to defending him. You never express a suspicion of him. You seemed much more interested in CA

Of course, you've also admittedly ignored me all game, and I give you a "town vibe" as well. In addition, I didn't vote for Zach till the very end, and went off on CA. In short, every point made against you can also be made against me. This admittedly gives me pause. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

[redtail896]

I'll be free at 5 (EST). Feel free to grill me then

[redtail896]

Hey, scratch that, I'm unexpectedly free now. I'll also be here at five. Feel free to interrogate me as you see fit.

[redtail896]

VRK is almost certainly number one. A more thorough case against him will probably be forthcoming, but the general outline is as above.

Number 2 is a bit trickier though. All of my major suspects have huge strikes against them. I guess that I tentatively have to go with Almaster. You (and others) already noted his quick switch from Zach to Elleran on D1. I see no problem with Zach's quick vote on Almaster d1 (after mine and AGar's); he probably saw our bandwagon as relatively weak, and wanted to get on it before it fell apart to separate himself from AGM. The biggest problem with AGM is his quick insistence on lynching Zach yesterday. I am willing to chalk this up to extreme bussing if AGM figured that Zach would be the lynch anyway. (For the record, I consider his venom against G&H interesting, but more of a null tell)

However, AGM gets interesting when we look at VRK. AGM and VRK have little real contact, despite both being relatively active members of the game. VRK has usually viewed AGM as very townie (with the odd exception of his post voting for Almaster (which I believe at the time was a relatively safe vote)). AGM alternates between seeing VRK as kinda scummy and townie enough to lynch G&H over him (along with KKN). So I find this interaction suspicious.

I'd also like to state that my AGM suspicion is much weaker than my VRK suspicion.

Would I be willing to lynch outside of those 2? Potentially yes, if presented with a good argument.

[redtail896]

I admit to stretching my AGM suspicion. My other larger suspicion is CA, but that suffers from the point of view of my VRK suspicion. VRK wanted to shift Zach to CA, which makes no sense if they are scumbuddies.

I agree that AGM would've wanted to shift the Zachrulez wagon. It's possible that he simply wrote Zach off, and wanted to pick up town points. I agree that it's a major, possibly debilitating, sticking point. However, what do you think of the other elements of my suspicion?

Preview Edit: This is true. If you think that this is a hole in my anti-VRK slant, then please say so. As I've said, my AGM suspicion is much weaker than my VRK one.

[redtail896]

I don't own a gun.

[redtail896]

I just double checked my role pm. I don't own a gun.

[redtail896]

I DON'T OWN A GUN.

Now, my interesting question is why you got a false positive. Because I don't think this is a scum gambit on your part Hoopla; it would be an odd time for one. I can imagine 3 reasons that you got a false gun on me.

1. There exists a bus driver. I find this unlikely; my understanding is that bus drivers are generally considered bastard roles.
2. I'm some sort of gun miller.
3. You're not sane.

I promise you Hoopla, I don't own a gun.

[redtail896]

Hoopla: who else did you investigate?

Preview Edit: Ah, beaten to it.

[redtail896]

Do you have a case on me beyond your positive? Because I don't have a gun.

[redtail896]

A gunsmith is a cop, but instead of finding out the role you find out whether or not the person has a gun.

If you got a positive on me, I would be a mafia member, serial killer, or vigilante. A VT, cop, or doc would not have a gun.

Did I miss anything?

[redtail896]

Edit: Oh yeah, cop would probably have a gun.

Doesn't change my answer.

[redtail896]

My answer remains unchanged. I don't have a gun.

[redtail896]

Hoopla: was your sanity guaranteed?

[redtail896]

So besides the positive, what reasoning do you have against me?

In short, how much did you suspect me before you investigated me?

[redtail896]

Oh, nothing personal taken. I'm just trying to figure this out myself. The only possibilities I can come up with are listed above. If I am a miller, I was not told so. And if you're an insane gunsmith, then there would almost certainly be another investigation role. So I've got nothing, except to repeat that I don't have a gun.

Preview Edit: I like gonnano's plan. For the record, if I was scum, I bussing VRK would be suicide. I wouldn't have enough confidence that I was guaranteed town to try it. And I also don't think that Hoopla is scum.

[redtail896]

Well hey now. How about that. I'll run with it.

VOTE: Gonnano

Nice job Hoopla.

[redtail896]

Slow down you two. Let's wait for the others here. We have 5 other players.

[redtail896]

I have no problem with the massclaim. Honestly, I'm just sitting here waiting for others to get here.

[redtail896]

I challenge your assumptions. You haven't explained why you or AGM (or for that matter, me or Hoopla) should be considered town.

I'm happy with lynching you, then lynching Hoopla if you flip town.

I also vote that all 3 of us stop this until the others get here and have a say.

[redtail896]

Wait, what?

[redtail896]

I challenge your assumptions. You haven't explained why you or AGM (or for that matter, me or Hoopla) should be considered town.

I'm happy with lynching you, then lynching Hoopla if you flip town.

Gonnano's town, though.

Why is gonnano town?

[redtail896]

Unvote

For the record, when I made my last 2 posts, I hadn't realized that you had unclaimed gunsmith. Sorry about being a bit slow here.

Hoopla, if you are scum, then this is the most epic, absurd, ridiculous scum play ever

I am curious why you feel that a massclaim is necessary though. If we confirm the three of us as town, surely we can figure out the rest without massing at this moment.

[redtail896]

I'm admittedly a little less in CA now that Zach has turned up scum. If CA and Zach were scumbuddies, I would expect CA to be a bit more involved in the discussion yesterday.

Still, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I still might prefer VRK though.

[redtail896]

I'm also good with the massclaim. I recognize that there might exist info that we won't have tomorrow, and I think we should try to create a core of trustworthy people now.

After the massclaim though, unless something crazy comes out, I still support VRK.

[redtail896]

Whoa there. You don't get off that easily. What do you think about this whole gambit business?

[redtail896]

Wow. So, I miss a day and this is what happens.

Before I vote gonnano, I'd like 2 things to happen.
1. I want G&H here to give a reaction
2. I want the rest of the massclaim to go off.

[redtail896]

VT. Sorry, I thought that was clear from my previous ramblings.

Something about this setup stinks. Only a tracker and a doc? C'mon. I don't buy it for a sec.

Considering gonnano's claim would be anti town, and we only have a tracker and a doc, and there has consistently been only 1 NK, I'm inclined to believe that gonnano-G&H is a scum-town pair. I'm inclined to think G&H is the town half of that pair. Thoughts?

[redtail896]

VOTE: gonnano

[redtail896]

I agree with gonnano's suspicion of VRK.

Hoopla: I'm inclined to think we're in between situations 2 and 4. Either way though, we'll have 1 scum to find in 2 days. I kind of like those odds.

EBWOP: thanks for the confidence. I agree that VRK and CA are the primary people to search for.

[redtail896]

...Just like I still can't decide how to interpret redtail896's question to Hoopla, which I mentioned earlier: "What in your analysis is such a smoking gun?". Especially now that redtail896 has claimed to be a "Vanilla Townie"... I'm wondering about something. When Hoopla accused redtail896 of having a gun, redtail896 denied that and then said: "I just double checked my role pm. I don't own a gun". Has there been any game where a "Vanilla Townie" has had a gun? Did redtail896 really have to double check? It's not impossible, of course - I often double and triple check things I'm sure about - but I find this noteworthy.

I asked for the smoking gun because I wanted to know what it was. I thought that he was far too accusatory of me, and I wanted to know why. And I honestly did check my role pm; I play in multiple games, and wanted to make absolutely sure that I had matched the right role pm to the right game. I don't understand why you find either of these things noteworthy. And again, you simply state that such things exist; you decline to present any actual analysis of them.

I still don't know why redtail896 was so confident Hoopla's "Gunsmith" claim was true. Hopefully redtail896 will explain that at some point.

I had no real reason to doubt the claim. I had Hoopla listed in my personal notes as strongly town. I did question her sanity though, because I knew that a gunsmith positive on me was impossible.

Also, your continuing insinuation that Hoopla is scum has been noted. If Hoopla is scum, then the only town power role in existence is a doc. That is far too weak to be the actual situation.

[redtail896]

I agree with both gonnano and Hoopla above. If the mafia have a godfather just for our

tracker

, that's a bit excessive.

Sorry gonnano, but I'm still in favor of lynching the lover pair here, for all of the reasons above.

I feel like I should have more to say, but it should be pretty simple. We hit the lover pair and tomorrow we try to identify the other member(s).

[redtail896]

I understand what KKN is saying, but it

is

a bit bizarre.

For reasons already explained, I'm not sure that I'm so in favor of CA. Personally, I'm torn between VRK and AGM.

I think it's more likely to be VRK. Reasons later, but read my posts from yesterday.

[redtail896]

Did a bunch of rereading. ISOed VRK, CA, Zach, and G&H (wow, that one took a while).

Iso'd everyone.

Zachrulez and Good and Honest don't look so hot.

Good and Honest needs to answer the question presented to him by Hoopla, and I don't understand why he wouldn't participate in the mass claim.

However, this is could easily be weirdness with playstyle, while Zachrulez is fairly scummy. Lots of fluffy one-liners, hopping between the AlmasterGM and drmyshottyizsik wagons, and eventually "mistakenly hammering" Elleran.

Vote: Zachrulez

This post happens at the beginning of D2. And by beginning, I mean the very first day of D2. And for the entirety of D2, CA never really wavers from this belief. Now I know what you're going to say; Zach was just as jumpy at G&H. However, I find the belief that 2 scum were bussing each other very unlikely.

If we are to believe that the scumteam is CA-Zach-G&H, then we are believing that for the entire game, the scumteam was consistently bussing each other very consistently. Zach, starting at the end of D2, was very strong against G&H. CA was strong against both Zach and G&H on D2, at the expense of really any other suspicions. G&H often pushed the connection between Zach and CA, insinuating that they seemed like a good scumpair (if you read G&H's ISO, you'll see what I mean).

In short, there's entirely too much bussing going on in that scumtrio for my liking. I admit that it's possible, but from D2 onward these 3 continually express the highest suspicion of each other.

In summary, that's why I'm hesitant to lynch CA. Please, break apart my logic.

[redtail896]

I'm clearly leaning more VRK than you. I'm going by process of elimination:

I'm not scum.
I find it insanely unlikely (for various reasons that aren't worth explaining right now) that KKN is scum.
I've explained why I don't think CA is scum.

That leaves VRK and you. I would prefer to lynch VRK.

[redtail896]

You weren't bussed as hard by Zach and G&H though. And anyway, you're just leading me to the conclusion that VRK is the last scum.

More on KKN later today; I have class to go to.

[redtail896]

You weren't bussed as hard by Zach and G&H though. And anyway, you're just leading me to the conclusion that VRK is the last scum.

More on KKN later today; I have class to go to.

What on earth are you talking about? Zach never even VOTED for ConfidAnon, he voted for ME. Multiple times. And G&H never voted, so how could he have "bussed?"

You're right about Zach, but G&H I surmise from reading his posts. It's very clear that G&H was insinuating a connection between Zach and CA.

I admit though that I hadn't looked at you so much during that reread. I focused on the four mentioned above. Rereading yours, the logic I applied to CA could also apply to you. I still think it would be a very extreme case of triple bussing though. In the end, I just think that CA being scum would lead to incredibly unusual interactions between the three scumbuddies. I admit that it might've happened, but I find it unlikely.

Regarding KKN: he presented a long and thorough case on Zach D2, yet didn't vote for him. I find this rather scummy, except that by doing so he kept his vote on G&H. That's an interesting move at best for scum. At that point during the day, no clear alternative to a Zach lynch was being presented, so I would expect scum to jump on the Zach wagon. Especially if their primary other suspicion was also scum. Again, this seems like an action that just doesn't make sense from a scum perspective.

[redtail896]

AGM: separating yourself from the argument for a sec: what do you think about my reason for not wanting to lynch CA?

[redtail896]

Alright, this is stalling up the wazoo. That ends now. We need to decide who the two most suspicious people are. My thoughts:

CA: My problems with CA are stated above. If CA is scum, then there's entirely too much bussing going around for my liking. It's possible, but I find it unlikely. In addition, the case against CA basically boils down to lurking, and I think there are bigger fish to fry.

AGM: As has been rightly pointed out, my reason for not suspecting CA applies equally well to AGM. Okay. I can run with this. If we're willing to accept my CA reasoning above, then I can accept AGM as clear.

That leaves VRK and KKN. On the one hand, Hoopla, our tracker, got nothing on KKN. On the other hand, Hoopla believed VRK innocent on the basis of his seeming giving up. Hoopla wanted to lynch CA.

I did a reread of KKN earlier today. KKN tends to defend G&H during the theory discussions, yet votes for G&H on D2. He posts a long and good case against Zach, yet never votes for him. He only drops 2 votes in the first 3 days. In short, after listening to others and doing a more thorough reread, the only point I have in KKN's favor is the blank tracker result. And that could be G&H sending in the kill. Heck, it could be a godfather (although I bet it's unlikely).

[redtail896]

@VRK: do you then object to my reason for clearing CA?

[redtail896]

Or I'm arguing the point that makes no sense. I've already explained why I didnt vote Zach, if you can't take that as it is, fine. But if I'm going to be lynched, I'd perfer it be for something more with more substance than I voted someone I felt was getting away with discussing little due to play styles.

You have an explanation for your lack of Zach vote, but I still don't think it explains the fact that you presented a well-researched, thought out case against Zach while keeping your vote on G&H for much worse reasons.

What do you think of AGM and CA?

[redtail896]

I agree that CA is getting away with some crazy lurking (

Mod: If there is no response from CA, could we please replace him?

), but I still am loathe to lynch him right now.

As for the Zach thing, I guess the problem stems from my understanding of the vote as who you think is scummiest (barring gambits, lurker pressure, etc.). I understand your vote on G&H as signifying that G&H was scummier than Zach. As scum, I think that's a rather easy stance to take; G&H was unlikely to actually be lynched, while Zach was the overwhelming target. Also, it would've been easier perhaps for scum on D2 to simply accept the loss of one of their own instead of trying to start a bandwagon on a third party (and creating undue suspicion).

I admit that one of my primary reasons for not voting KKN is the tracker result. @everyone else: how much of a bar do you think that should be?

[redtail896]

In hopes that another bandwagon or good opportunity might emerge?

I admit that I'm treading into ridiculous territory here.

[redtail896]

Yeah, we're stuck in a kind of limbo.

Vote: VRK

I'm unsure of my play tomorrow at this stage, but I think I feel most comfortable lynching VRK today.

[redtail896]

Hello again Equinox. Glad to see you. What do you think of this mess?

Unvote

until Equinox has her say.

[redtail896]

Vel-Rahn Koon playing the martyr card so many times has me on edge. Martyr cards are townish, but playing like a broken record... ehh.
I thought the case AlmasterGM brought against Kid Know Nothing was good while I was watching, but now that I have a stake here, I need to look it over again, particularly Good & Honest's play.
redtail896 is playing to his town meta, so +5 trust points.

Meaning I probably have all the wrong reads. I know

The martyr card has become kind of a null thing for me at this point; I think it was too easy for him to play it yesterday, and even easier today. I'm actually surprised that Hoopla placed so much stock in it.

Also, I'm curious how much everybody thinks we should care about Hoopla's tracker result on KKN.

[redtail896]

Also, I'm curious how much everybody thinks we should care about Hoopla's tracker result on KKN.

It's a "meh" thing for me. If scum can choose who submits the kill -- and apparently they can -- No Action results are null.

While I more or less agree, given that G&H was the other mafia member, I just can't ignore it completely. It's not an overriding feature in my thoughts, but it does exist.

The martyr card has become kind of a null thing for me at this point; I think it was too easy for him to play it yesterday, and even easier today. I'm actually surprised that Hoopla placed so much stock in it.

What do you mean by "easy" here?

VRK had been relatively quiet the whole game (particularly before yesterday). He was always in the background of suspicion, and is in a 5 person 1 mafia situation. It's relatively easy for him to play the martyr card, compared to somebody the group is newly suspicious of. I understand that giving up is generally seen as town, but in his situation I think that it's easy for scum to look like they're giving up. That's all I meant.

[redtail896]

Alright. I'll vote before I go to sleep tonight. Just some thoughts real quick (since I suspect I'll be the lynch tonight):

1. For reasons I've stated, I don't think CA is/was scum. Against this is Hoopla's logic, AGM's logic, and my attempts so far to read Equi based on meta. I'm still unsure of this last one: I'd like to see more Equi thoughts soon. However, I understand people wanting to lynch CA/Equi based on the reams of scummy stuff that spot has done.

2. By extension from above, AGM should be cleared of suspicion. Despite the logical extension, I'm less sure of this; others should research this if/when AGM survives to D5.

3. All of this is clearly biased by the fact that I'm probably overvaluing the tracker result on KKN.

[redtail896]

I did unvote VRK. So it should be a lynch. Just to make absolutely sure though:

Vote: KKN

[redtail896]

Sorry for taking so long. Been thinking. Also, holy crap. Birthday.

Warning: absurdly long post ahead. I encourage you to read it, but of course I can't make you.

Purely from a theory point of view, we should vote a no lynch today. Indeed, if the scum then doesn't kill tonight, I think that's technically a happily ever after. However, I'm going to go against my chosen field of study, all game theory, and my own common sense, and declare that this decision is a load of bunk. No, I'm not voting a no lynch. At least not until you all hear what I have to say.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that I am town. If anybody wants to dispute that, feel free to, but I'm going to continue assuming this statement as a generally known fact.

If we have a no lynch and go to night, I think it's pretty clear that I will be the kill. Indeed, I expected to be the kill tonight. Had I been the kill, the town would've been comprised of the following 3 people:
VRK: Probably the most continuously suspected of the 3, and himself against taking him into lylo. I predict that VRK will almost certainly be one of the candidates on the table.
Equinox: Replaced CA, who was also pretty continuously suspected, was Hoopla's parting shot, and who only within the last day has become less suspicious (although I think only in my mind). As for Equinox, I've played with Equi a bit, and although I haven't seen much, it seems to be her town meta.
AGM: Probably the least suspected of the remaining three for various reasons, although I think I've suspected him more than anybody else. Eager for no lynch.

It's hard to predict with certain accuracy, but I believe that the decision with just these three remaining would be between VRK and Equi, with AGM acting as the tiebreaker.

The next question I have is this, and I think it's a very important one that nobody has bothered with: Why didn't the mafia kill somebody last night? Again, from a strategy point of view it makes sense, especially when a target that was generally considered town is available (ie me). We know that it wasn't prevented, because of that massclaim earlier. So I can only conclude that the mafia

chose

not to kill last night. And that decision has my head running around in circles. In what scenario was that a good choice? Why would they do that? What did it achieve.

I have a couple of ideas. One idea is that they wanted somebody to make exactly the argument I'm making and do something stupid. I don't think this is what really happened though. If somebody wanted me to do what I'm doing, then they wanted a confirmed protown player to be making a vote, and why would they want that kind of uncontrollable wild card?

So, assuming I was the intended lynch, why did the scum want to keep me around? Because I'm on the wrong tack? Possible, and such a thing would point to Equinox, as I'm clearly not too suspicious of CA. VRK and AGM have much less of a reason to keep me around in this case, while Equi has a very good one. If I'm correct about the situation described above, then scum-Equi by killing me would be relying on AGM to pick VRK over her. She might not have considered those such good odds.

I'm bordering on rambling now, so I simply ask for other thoughts.

[redtail896]

I know that I'm doing what scum wants me to do. I'm fully aware of the ****storm that I decided to jump into. And I thought long and hard before I posted that.

I still want to know why there was no kill last night.

[redtail896]

Redtail's argument makes lots of sense.

But we still no-lynch.

Because even considering all of redtail's arguments, there is ALSO the microscopic possibility that redtail is scum and that he chose not to kill (I'm assuming no kill was a choice at this point because I'm not doctor either and I VRK wouldn't push for self-lynch as doc) because he didn't want to raise questions as to why he was still around in lylo.

Yes, that's a boatload of WIFOM. And I don't buy it at all. Like, 99.99% sure it's not the case. The most likely possibilities is either 1) scum wanted to drop the WIFOM nuke (70%) or 2) Equinox-scum who doesn't like his odds against VRK, as per redtail's theories (30%).

But we still no-lynch, just to be 100% safe. We aren't going to walk into LOLing scum because we did something stupid.

I knew this would result in some microscopic suspicion of me. And I half think that I wasn't killed to keep that suspicion going. But then the scum should've killed AGM or something.

I guess I'm okay with a no lynch if we need to, but you have to understand my position. Not only do I know I'm town, but I'm generally considered the towniest person here. I would feel safest being involved in the last lynch.

[redtail896]

Prod received. Sorry; unexpected life stuff. I'll post later tonight.

As to that question: I read them as carefully as I can, multiple times. Subsequent rereads are almost always in isos though.

[redtail896]

Alright. Sorry about the unexpected V/LA.

As to who I want to kill, that's tough. And involves a boatload of WIFOM. Here is a short summary of beliefs:

VRK: I think I undervalue the whole "willing to let himself die" thing compared to everybody else, although I grant that his willing to have himself killed is a strong mark in his favor. There are still a bunch of bad marks in his history, all of which have been gone over. And yes, I am still rereading.

Equinox: I admit to being biased by my argument in CA's defense. I do think (here comes the WIFOM) that scum-Equi would have been the most likely to want to keep me alive, for that exact reason. But that's not much. Really, I don't think a whole lot can be placed at CA's feet other than active lurking and general lack of contribution.

AGM: As noted, my CA defense also applies to AGM. I'm inclined at this point to think AGM is the most likely town.

Finally: I just want to note that if all three of you want a no lynch today, I'm okay with that. I understand. I just wanted a chance to say my peace.

[redtail896]

You expect correctly.

[redtail896]

ARGHH!!! This game is still as incomprehensible as ever. Although that might be that **** of a topology midterm I took today. BTW: I can't wait to see Hoopla yell at us about downtime and slow pace when this is done

Okay, here's how it was.

1. I admit to waiting a little longer than I should have to post this, since Equi was so nicely providing me with material to analyze. I didn't realize that our deadline was yesterday though.

2. Scum has clearly decided not to try to go after me. I find this decision curious at best; I still don't understand why there was no kill last night in this scenario.

3. I've read through CA's ISO about a dozen times (what can I say, it's really short). I honestly can't pin anything down on him other than active lurking, and I still think it's insane that scum-CA would've bussed his compatriots like that.

4. Equinox has been, in my mind, significantly scummier than CA. Notably, jumping from

I asked because I caught something on Day 1 that I needed to clarify. If nobody here lied in their answer(!), I can rule out AlmasterGM as scum, who pushed a case on Kid Know Nothing based on something that had already been proven to be false on Day 1. That link points to Good and Honest's post where s/he links to another game where s/he describes his/her meta... and that explicitly states that Good and Honest doesn't like to submit kills unless it's absolutely necessary. Kid Know Nothing probably saw this and it stuck with him.

to

On Day 6, I will lynch AlmasterGM, our final scum. Don't forget to electrocute me tonight, Pikachu.

In addition, scum-Equi has what I believe to be the best reasoning for keeping me alive.

5. VRK's martyr card is admittedly very powerful, even though I don't like martyr cards in general. I have to admit that this one hits me more than most. Especially in this kind of situation.

6. Scum-AGM would also be bussing like it's his job.

So at the end, if I had to pick one, it would probably be Equi. Note that I'm not in the

least satisfied

, but I think it's the best one available.

[redtail896]

Why do you estimate that. He said tomorrow morning on Friday. I assume that means Saturday morning.