Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[Guybrush]

@mastermind

I have some time now, so here are the non-THINK\KNOW related replies.

ISO #1

I don't think it's limiting town that much. It's only postponing something.
When X asks Y something, it's because X wants to get a read out of Y. If Z interferes, X will not get an appropriate read on Y.
Your predecessor agreed with me on that point (#16). Does that make him scummy as well?

ISO #2

When I had noob status, I looked up to SE\IC players sometimes.
So I wanted to share my unusual SE status with town. I don't think it was unnecessary.
And with that I encouraged others not to take my opinion THAT seriously. Which contributes to freedom of opinion you mentioned.

ISO #6

I still disagree.
For me it's important to be able to have a direct conversation with someone I suspect, without others interfering for a post or two.
There could be all sorts of personalities here who could jump in to write when they shouldn't.

ISO #15

I extracted 2 quotes where Michel was talking about the same event, but once used "strong" and later "weak" to describe his accusation.
It IS an inconsistency. Michel responded in his #110, and he seemed to agree with me that his language WAS confusing.

ISO #22

Please, reread 2003's case on zauper and Aurorus at that point.
When he FOS'd zauper, he was suspicious of him under assumption that Aurorus is scum.
In his #115 when he voted for zauper, he connected Aurorus and zauper again through BW and only 2 of them voting.
When he was less suspicious of Aurorus, but was yet confident about zauper, then I think it was a fair question to be made that I asked.
I don't see it as bad logic. His case on zauper was strongly connected to Aurorus.

ISO #25

Akira's #13 was written AFTER the opinion he wanted from town. And that was my point.
When you are hesitant to make accusations, and are waiting for town to interfere, that is a scumtell to me.
Scum would be hesitant, so they wouldn't go into conflict.
And yes - I said that it seems like a scumtell, but it's not a big one. Hence the +1 scum points, and not +10.

ISO #38

Reread the "under assumption you're scum, and Valk is not, of course" part.
I don't think it's fair to take it against me, since I stated the context of my thoughts.

ISO #41

I never said that experienced players are expected to find scum. Nor did I attack him for it.
I said he had some inconsistencies in his game, one of which you quoted. And I found it unusual for an IC to be inconsistent.

"Sudden reaction to 2k3"

#456 is about me wanting to hear his gut feelings. I didn't throw it away. Who said anything about that?
I will consider his reads (like reads from other people) while doing my reread. Since all of my suspects died and turned out to be town.

[theperson]

Hmm, that's interesting going after Guybrush. Hadn't expected that. I kind of understand the argument, but Guybrush's defense seems solid to me.

I haven't finished giving my reasons as to why I think Hinduragi is scum, so this post is just going to explain why I think Guybrush is.

Can you clarify this for me? I don't understand.

[Guybrush]

I kind of understand the argument, but Guybrush's defense seems solid to me.

This is a bit odd thing to say. You can't be on both sides on this one.
My defense mostly consists of that his arguments are bad \ conclusions are wrong.
So if my defense seems solid to you, then you should be confused about his arguments just as I was in my defense.

I can sum up some parts:
#1 - I find it odd that he took that against me, since Akira agreed with me. And he replaced in for Akira.
#2 - It's weird that after I tried to downgrade my opinion in eyes of others, that he felt the need to talk about freedom of opinion.
#15 - It's weird that he finds explanations in Michel's quotes, when Michel himself agreed with me that they were confusing.
#22 - 2003 had his case on zauper wrapped around Aurorus, and the question was in place.
#25 - There is nothing wrong with pointing out a scumtell and saying it's a small one.
#38 - I stated "under assumption 2003 is scum and Valk is not", and he analyzed it further.
#41 - He somehow concluded that I said that experienced people have to find scum, which I never said.
#75 - He drew conclusions about me throwing away arguments, when I didn't.
And not to mention 4 THINK\KNOW quotes which we haven't even discussed yet.

So pick a side - are his arguments weird, or is my defense weak?

[Guybrush]

@mastermind

Two more things I remembered.

(1)
Could you please state your experience?
I see this is your first game on this site, but have you ever played on other sites, or in real life?
If so, how many times?

(2)
And what was the reason that during your reread you were focused on me? What stood out that you began to suspect me?
Or were you as thorough with others as you were with me?

[AurorusVox]

I find most of the arguments that mastermind uses to be based on misunderstandings. I don't know if it's wilful misreadings, i.e. misrepresentations, or just that he read GB's posts wrong. Before I'd read GB's posts, I knew what his defence was going to be :\

I'll wait to see Mastermind's read on ooBAZZoo/hinduragi before deciding whether he just misunderstood (town) or misrepresented (scum).

[theperson]

What I was saying is, I understand what mastermind's line of thinking is, but I agree with what you said. I'm just waiting for what mastermind says in his next post, just about hinduragi and about Guybrush's defense.

[mastermind]

I hope everyone wasn't waiting on me, otherwise sorry for the delay. I just skimmed through guybrush's response, and I know it's going to take me some time to reply back to what he said, but here are some answers to other questions.

Hmm, that's interesting going after Guybrush. Hadn't expected that. I kind of understand the argument, but Guybrush's defense seems solid to me.

I haven't finished giving my reasons as to why I think Hinduragi is scum, so this post is just going to explain why I think Guybrush is.

Can you clarify this for me? I don't understand.

I wrote my reasons as to why I thought Guybrush and Hinduragi were scum seperatly. My intention was to give my reasons for Guybrush and see how everyone reacted. Other than Guybrush, only you and Aurorus had some kind of response.

@mastermind

Two more things I remembered.

(1)
Could you please state your experience?
I see this is your first game on this site, but have you ever played on other sites, or in real life?
If so, how many times?

(2)
And what was the reason that during your reread you were focused on me? What stood out that you began to suspect me?
Or were you as thorough with others as you were with me?

Actually I've played 5 games on this site, but that was more than a year ago. After school ended, I couldn't remember my user/password (mastermind seemed like an easy name to remember ). I've also played 5 or 6 games on another site, but the gameplay is significantly different from each site.

The reason I was more focused on you was to see what kind of response other people had. I saw a bunch of people seeing you as least suspicious so I thought that if I went after the person people saw as pro-town, some people would be overly defensive and I saw that as a scum tell.




Like I said, I know I still have to answer a couple of questions from other people, and respond to Guybrush's defense but here's my case on Hinduragi/Bazz (only reason why Hinduragi isn't on this was because he only posted his analysis which I still have to get to):

What I don't like about bazz is that in the beginning, he first targetted 2k3, but then "felt a bit bad for signling him out after his helpful post." It seemed like he was just too afraid to start some kind of argument. I liked how Aurorus brought up that bazz was backpeddeling, and questioned why bazz choose not to persue it further. Even when bazz mentioned he choose not to go further because of 2k3's mention of having Aspergers, I still don't get why he choose not to question 2k3 on something else, since it appeared that others were questioning whether he was scum hunting, or that strange unvote he made in post 97.

Then, he asked the question "Do my answers satisfy you, or do you still have reason to maintain a vote against me?" Though Aurorus' vote was used as a pressure vote, all I got out of post 116 was that bazz was afraid that a vote was placed on him, and asking for it to be taken off. (This is just my gut feeling, but Aurorus' response about that quote didn't feel right. When I read this, I was thinking of a Aurorus/bazz scumpair, especially when reading his post 394 of trying to put more attention on those who didn't vote on the wagon which would put less attention on them. Plus, michel was on the wagon so I thought if those two were scum, and were to use this strategy, they would want to kill someone on the wagon.)

When bazz voted for zauper, I agree that I thought it was an attempt at a bandwagon, where he just took a couple of quotes from zauper and see how people react, even though I know he had been pressuring zauper way before he voted.

Then, I found bazz complaining about seth to be a bit more personal. When seth said, "theperson, claim" bazz says that "Before the hammer is even considered theperson should have a chance to respond to Zauper's play, answer any of our questions and,

if he then decides to

, claim." What's interesting is that in post 299, Aurorus says that it's "usuaully normal for the player to claim their role before anyone hammers on them." Then bazz decides to put seth at L-1, where Aurorus later goes "You're at L-1. Claim" and no response from bazz whatsoever even though Aurorus said the same thing as seth.

[AurorusVox]

Since some of these "suspicions" point to a Vox/BAZZ scumteam, I'm going to defend some of my actions as raised in your post, and suggest a reason for one of BAZZ's:

Do my answers satisfy you, or do you still have reason to maintain a vote against me?

They did, until I read this. I was all ready to unvote, but now that you're asking, it makes me wanna keep my vote xD

My response to BAZZ's #116 was much longer than the above snippet, but here's my direct reaction to the quote you singled out; as you can see, I found his "please take your vote off me" suspicious too. However, if you read the rest of my #118, you'll see that I had many more reasons to unvote than keep it on (it was quite a lengthy quote-response, quote-response post). So what did you find strange about my reaction in my #118?

As for focusing off-wagon, I feel that the wagon had the least-suspicious people on it, and I believe that there is at least one scum off wagon. I'm not asking everyone else to follow my suspicions, but I'd rather focus on getting one out of the three players off-wagon, when there might even be 2/3 scum in that group.

RE: BAZZ not telling me off for saying "Claim" to seth;
You'll notice that after I posted that, Bazz didn't post anything until D2. So he physically couldn't reprimand me. Moreover, the vote that put Zauper/theperson at L-1 came at a time when theperson hadn't even read the thread in its entirety. I don't think these can be considered the same situations.

[Hinduragi]

I've gotta head out to a meeting so I'm not going to be here. I'll be gone for a few days. Mastermind, make sure to answer my questions while I'm gone. I'll try to address your concern on myself/Oobazoo when I'm back but right now I'm a bit limited on time. Sorry guys, I didn't think I'd have to head off so soon after replacing in.

Mod: V/LA until August 16th

(Possibly the 15th if I'm lucky)

[theperson]

Yeah, like AV said, seth had told me to claim right after I replaced in. It wasn't likely that I would be hammered while I was still reading, and it would have made more sense to catch up and then decide if I need to. In seth's case, he had been put on L-1 because he had also acted scummy in addition to the one he replaced.

[AurorusVox]

Back from V/LA now My internet went down on the 13th, the guys at the phone company made a mistake when they cancelled our subscription, so I got free internet for half a month >:)

My intention was to give my reasons for Guybrush and see how everyone reacted. Other than Guybrush, only you and Aurorus had some kind of response.

The reason I was more focused on you was to see what kind of response other people had. I saw a bunch of people seeing you as least suspicious so I thought that if I went after the person people saw as pro-town, some people would be overly defensive and I saw that as a scum tell.

Okay, you've told us why you went for Guybrush now, but can you tell us what you gained from this? You've said that only two people reacted, and you were looking for reactions - did your attack on GB yield any interesting results?

When bazz voted for zauper, I agree that I thought it was an attempt at a bandwagon.

Who are you "agreeing" with here? So far, one of the confirmed VTs (seth) thought Zauper was scum; the other (Michel) thought BAZZ's case was the most legitimate and honest. I'd like to know who to draw the line between :p

Mastermind, your cases so far have looked pretty weak. I get that you were trying something different with GB - it seems as though your reasons for questioning him took precedence over the actual questioning itself, i.e. you were looking for any reason to build a case against him. Which would explain part of the strained readings/misrepresentations. Unless you stand by your initial statement that GB is one of the most suspicious people in this game? And your case on BAZZ is slightly better, but obviously I've already taken issue with the parts to do with me, so I still find it pretty weak. Not saying that you're misrepresenting a lot, but it does look strained to me.

[Guybrush]

I'm a bit annoyed with mastermind ATM.
And his level of experience is a real surprise to me.
So I'm going to put him low on my priority list, and won't wait for his further response.
I'm going to do my reread during this night. I hope.
I didn't have the time before + I was waiting for mastermind to continue our discussion.

The last time omnino was here was on August 4th, 2003 was on August 8th, Haylen was V\LA, but should be here now.
Those 2 should be replaced or prodded.

[Haylen]

Omnino and 2003 have been prodded. Usual 3 days before replacing. Now I'm going to bed.

[2003041]

Sorry, life came up.
Anyways, to answer Hindu's follow-up questions,

2k3-
Who is your top suspect and why? What do you think of the cases on you and the defense made for you?

1) omnino or theperson. It's a gut feeling, but it's only because I'm so screwed up as to who's what right now.
2) I'm not going to divulge much into this, but I'll say GB summed up what's happening. Also, I re-read the rules in the wiki to have a better understanding of everything.
I also apologize for not posting.

[Guybrush]

Captain's log:

Reread is taking much longer than I thought.
I'm taking a bit different approach than ever before, since I had no suspects.
I'm using process of elimination, but in pairs. I hope I'll be able to find something.
I went through first 7 pages, and didn't find anything special & new yet.
End of day 1 should be the most interesting anyway.

[mastermind]

Sorry, was a bit busier than I expected.

2 cases:
1. Valk is scum - she KNOWS if Michel is her buddy, and she KNOWS if it was his slip
2. Valk is town - she KNOWS that Michel didn't out his buddy (since she IS NOT SCUM)

I understand what you're saying, but as Valk even stated:

And besides, if I had have said I know, I would have just got the whole ‘but we (the rest of the town) don’t know’, so it’s pretty much a lose/lose situation no matter what I put there.

You were the one that put her in that "lose/lose situation" since you made the assumption that Valk and Michel were scum based on what Michel did. If she used "think" then you would accuse her like you did. But if she used "know" then you could still accuse her for case 1.

ISO #15
What I thought Michel was trying to say was that at the beginning of the game, he tries to find something and make an accusation, even though it's weak. Looking back, I guess you're right.

ISO #22
Yes he made his case connecting those two, but 2k3 orignially connected Aurorus and zauper as a scum pair, and then felt that combination wasn't correct but zauper was still scum. You questioned that if Aurorus was less suspicious, shouldn't zauper be less suspicious as well which I didn't get since 2k3 mentioned that he felt zauper was scum.

ISO #25
The two examples you gave were post 5 and post 61. In post 5, given the circumstances that the game hadn't even started, I don't see how you can't wait for other's opinions when making the accusation. Of course, the accusation Akira made was a newb mistake in the sense that he didn't know zauper was joking. In post 61, I saw it as more of a game-related question rather than an accusation. I agree with you that being hesitant to make accusations is a scumtell, but I don't see how the examples you gave relate to the tell other than a newb questioning.

ISO #41
The part where you said "him not being what I would expect from a SE" made me think that you were expecting him to find scum. You had already mentioned him being inconsistent, so what were you expecting from him?

"Sudden reaction to 2k3"
You asked him to do something, and then didn't respond to it. I'm just curious what you thought about what you made 2k3 do, but I guess I'll wait for that from your reread.

...

So what did you find strange about my reaction in my #118?

Just a feeling that if you two were scum buddies then the reaction was more of a joke.

Okay, you've told us why you went for Guybrush now, but can you tell us what you gained from this? You've said that only two people reacted, and you were looking for reactions - did your attack on GB yield any interesting results?

What I gained was a better understanding of the game. I don't know what you were feeling like during those times so the best I can do is attack people's reasonings and see what people think when they posted that response. And like I said, I was hoping for one person to be like "Guybrush is TOTALLY not scum, so why are you wasting time accusing him if we all think he's town?" but none of you really did that.

Who are you "agreeing" with here?

I was agreeing with zauper when he made this quote:

My read on BAZZ doesn't have him as scum right now. Though one could make the same argument on BAZZ that 2k3 is making against me -- largely that he's trying to BW.

...

Akira-
Why did you switch to seth so suddenly? Everyone ganged up on him and you went from theperson to hammering in a heartbeat. =/

I don't think that this should have been a surprise, and I wouldn't consider it a heartbeat. Akira mentioned in a couple posts that he would vote seth if it meant he'd be lynched. The rules state that if a majority isn't reached by deadline, then a no-lynch would occur which is anti-town. Akira mentioned the unlikelihood of getting a majority to switch voting seth to voting theperson in about 48 hours, so he voted seth to confirm that a lynch was made yesterday and gave his reasons (little/no scumhunting; avoiding questions; acting scummy)

[AurorusVox]

So what did you find strange about my reaction in my #118?

Just a feeling that if you two were scum buddies then the reaction was more of a joke.

And so the remainder of the analysis that I made in my #118 was also a joke? You mean, that rather long, detailed explanation of what made me more or less suspicious of BAZZ? Hmm. Okay.

Okay, you've told us why you went for Guybrush now, but can you tell us what you gained from this? You've said that only two people reacted, and you were looking for reactions - did your attack on GB yield any interesting results?

What I gained was a better understanding of the game. I don't know what you were feeling like during those times so the best I can do is attack people's reasonings and see what people think when they posted that response. And like I said, I was hoping for one person to be like "Guybrush is TOTALLY not scum, so why are you wasting time accusing him if we all think he's town?" but none of you really did that.

Yup, I get that is what you say you were trying to do. But I asked what you'd gained - it seems from this response that you didn't gain much. "A better understanding of the game"? Do you mean this game in particular or the game of mafia in general? Please clarify what this "understanding" has been.

Who are you "agreeing" with here?

I was agreeing with zauper when he made this quote:

My read on BAZZ doesn't have him as scum right now. Though one could make the same argument on BAZZ that 2k3 is making against me -- largely that he's trying to BW.

And therefore disagreeing with both of the confirmed VTs? Hmm. Okay.

There are a few things that I've aimed in your direction that you seem to have skipped over. These would be;

#482:
- What do you make of that quote (which you've now called a "joke")

in the context of the whole of #118?

- Do you feel I'm telling people that they

have

to choose their votes between those off-wagon?
- Do you think that seth's "Claim" and my "Claim" were the same thing, and what do you make of BAZZ not having posted at all after I'd told seth to claim?

#485:
- Is GB still one of your top 2 suspects?

[Hinduragi]

Even when bazz mentioned he choose not to go further because of 2k3's mention of having Aspergers, I still don't get why he choose not to question 2k3 on something else, since it appeared that others were questioning whether he was scum hunting, or that strange unvote he made in post 97.

I also have a few suspicions of my own, but will save them untill this business with Aurorus has been addresse

Then, he asked the question "Do my answers satisfy you, or do you still have reason to maintain a vote against me?" Though Aurorus' vote was used as a pressure vote, all I got out of post 116 was that bazz was afraid that a vote was placed on him, and asking for it to be taken off.

Well, there's only 2 things I saw when I read what Bazz said. He was either afraid of the vote or he wanted to test/pressure AV. Noone had a very solid read on AV at the time and so he may have wanted to see what reasons AV had for placing a vote. (It could've been the equivalent of an active lurking vote from Bazz's perspective) That, or he wanted to judge the response AV gave. I find it peculiar you gave AV no response about his #118 reaction, though.

As for your last reason, well, the simple explanation is that Bazz was V/LA for the entire remaining period of Day 1.

Pre-note: I asked Akira many more questions in my wall of text. So, when you read through that, they'll be there. Not all my questions were at the bottom. Those were just follow-ups for me to gain a better understanding of the game at this point.

I don't think that this should have been a surprise, and I wouldn't consider it a heartbeat. Akira mentioned in a couple posts that he would vote seth if it meant he'd be lynched. The rules state that if a majority isn't reached by deadline, then a no-lynch would occur which is anti-town. Akira mentioned the unlikelihood of getting a majority to switch voting seth to voting theperson in about 48 hours, so he voted seth to confirm that a lynch was made yesterday and gave his reasons

Read the parts of my post directed at Akira. (There's a good portion in the spoiler) Then re-answer this question.

2) I'm not going to divulge much into this, but I'll say GB summed up what's happening. Also, I re-read the rules in the wiki to have a better understanding of everything.

...Don't take someone else's opinion. What do

you

think of the cases on you and the defense made for you?

[Guybrush]

@notes

- I did my reread. Hooray. It took me only 3 days.
- I need some time to process all that information and to make conclusions.
- Omnino is getting replaced today.

In the meantime ...

@theperson

During this day, with the exception of your ISO 8, you have made 0 relevant accusations\scumhunting.
All you did today was:
1. Defended\Responded (ISO 9, 12, 15, 16)
2. Repeated other people's concerns (ISO 10, 11)
3. Made observations without getting dirty (ISO 13, 14)

Since you're a SE, you should know a thing or two when it comes down to scumhunting.
Why are you avoiding it?

@Hinduragi

1. If you don't mind me asking, what's your age and your education?
2. What's your experience? Sorry if you answered already, I don't see it.
3. We're 6 days away from the deadline, with only 1 vote given, and no clear lynch candidate.
How do you feel about this idea:
Each of us give +10\+5\0\0\-5\-10 points to all the remaining members, in order of their suspicion.
We count all the votes, and whoever gets the most points, town agrees to lynch that person.

@Aurorus

Same as Hinduragi's 3rd question.

@mastermind

Aurorus asked you if I'm still your top suspect.
I'd like to add one more question - was I ever your real top suspect? (or was it all just a test?)

(I'll respond to your points later. I'm sure you understand since you weren't that quick about it either.)

[Hinduragi]

1. 18; High-school education. I taught myself Psychology throughougt middle/high school. I'll be going to college next year.
2. What's on my wiki in addition to 5-6 games offsite.
3. I'm not sure. I'd like to reach a general consensus but this wouldn't yield anyone's personal opinions in the long-run. It'd just result in someone being lynched without each individual going towards their scum suspect. This would mean that, even if we did lynch scum, the other scum would be forced to vote regardless of role. If we hit town, scum can bandwagon without giving any reasoning. I don't like this. If it comes down to it, it may be necessary. Even with 6 days, though, I'd like to have some vote analysis for later. In the end, I think this would be anti-town, because it withholds information. Anyone can put a number on a player but it won't be anywhere near as solid as a vote.

[AurorusVox]

Jeez, we're six days away from deadline already? Where has the time gone?!

@GB; I'd rather we all said who our top two people we wanted to see lynched today were and see if we can achieve a lynch through discussion and voting normally first, but I am aware that we're running short on time. To achieve a lynch through discussion, we'd need to get a decent discussion going today, hopefully that will be possible, but the pace of the game has stagnated a little the last week or so.

If we use your strategy, it would mean giving full disclosure on everyone's reads, and so I would support your strategy ONLY to avoid a mislynch if we weren't able to achieve a lynch through discussion (i.e. if we're nowhere new in the next couple of days). I would add that there should be some leeway in who gets lynched - we'll probably want to leave room for a claim, for example.

Incidentally, what do you make of the argument that it's bad to give full reads of players at the end of a day?

---

Anyway, to see if we can get some discussion rolling, my top two suspects are: 2k3 and mastermind.

2k3 - his play has been confusingly erratic, which could indicate newbie town or newbie scum. There are a couple of things that he has done that make me lean towards newbie scum (possible role fishing; knowledge of pre-game QT; the NK choice).

2k3

; you've stated that your top suspects are omnino and theperson, and that this is a gut feeling.
(1) Do you think that they are scum together, or do you think that one is, and one isn't?
(2) If you were to place a vote down, who would it be on?
(3) What do you make of mastermind since he replaced in?


mastermind - I've already said that of the players on the wagon, Akira was the most suspicious. Mastermind hasn't really alleviated these concerns by his weak cases and avoidance of questions. I'd like to see my unanswered questions answered.

[Guybrush]

@Hinduragi

RESPONSES
1. Lol. I honestly had a strong feeling that your answer would include Psychology.
2. Ok. Thanks. That makes you a SE as well.
3. I'll comment after Aurorus gives his opinion as well.

QUESTIONS
All regarding your #459, I have couple of questions:
1. Do you really think that 5 references to a dead player (Michel) and your similarities to him were all that necessary?
2. I'm not seeing the towntell you spotted in seth's quote. Could you explain it a bit further why is that a towntell?
3. What was the reason of pointing out that towntell?
4. How strong is that type of towntell in your book?
5. You said "If I saw that crap, my vote would be on you ASAP" referring to omnino. Why didn't you vote for him today then?
6. When you wrote that message (#459), what was the last post you read?

FAKE EDIT: Aurorus just posted, I'll respond to that next.

[2003041]

@AV:
1) I think that only one of the two is scum, but I'm not completely ruling out the idea that they could both be scum.
2) If I had to place a vote at this point, I would probably put it on omnino. It seemed like he was setting up town to get a lynch placed for me. TYPING EDIT: Based on when I was typing this report (I know it may seem flip-floppy), but I would probably vote Hinduragi at this point.
3) mastermind is about fourth on the list right now, but something struck me as a weirdpost when I just re-read a page back.

EBWOP

Well, it's time to go. Everyone, have a good game. I'll definitely follow the game once I get back.

...Lame, he is getting replaced.

I don't know if it means anything more than 'another person getting replaced', but since he himself was a replacement, this could be some sort of scum slip no one's picked up on.

@Hindu: I wasn't taking someone else's opinion. It's my opinion that GB summed up what's happening with me. What's hardto understand about that.

[Guybrush]

Comment to my voting proposition:

It's crap of course. Town wouldn't gain anything.
Other than ensuring a lynch today, but I'm sure we'll manage to lynch someone without that.

I can think of 3 reasons why this would benefit scum:
1. Scum doesn't have to scumhunt anymore, and can call it a day
2. Town loses all the information from "who voted when", "who wagoned", "who hammered". All that information - gone.
3. They get to find out FULL reads of all people, which gives them more information for their NK

Hinduragi focused on #2. Aurorus focused on #3.
Even though I like Hinduragi's answer better, I think they both answered in town's best interest (and from town's perspective).
Guys, was this an obvious trap for you? Can I give you both +1 town point, or was it that obvious that it's a null-tell?

@Aurorus

- I personally don't think it is that big of a deal to give your full reads. But it probably benefits scum more. So why make it easier for them?
- I currently have 3 INDIVIDUAL suspects by simple process of INDIVIDUAL elimination (

omnino, Hinduragi and mastermind

). My pair observations are not yet included in this.

[AurorusVox]

GB;

though it wasn't the best "pro-town" suggestion, I actually thought you were just trying to make something happen, or guarantee that something would happen, before the deadline. Also, I asked about the "full reads" because I too think there's no reason to give them, and wondered what stance you would take (at that point I still believed that you were honestly suggesting the +10/-10 strategy)

- Will your pair observations be ready before deadline, or are you saving those for D3?
- What about omnino strikes you as most suspicious? Will his pending replacement affect whether or not you vote for him, and if so, how?
- Whose case do you think is stronger: hinduragi's on mastermind/akira, or mastermind's on hinduragi?

---

2k3;

I don't really understand what your last post was saying. Can you clarify some things for me?

- Did your suspicion change

whilst

you were typing? Is the reason you would now vote for Hindu the scum slip you mention later in your post? Why did you not vote if you have seen a reason to vote?
- Can you explain this "scum slip" that you've noticed a little more?
- Was omnino suspicious

solely

because you think he was setting up your lynch? Could you point to where you think he did this?