Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!

[Fuldu]

I beat Fuldu!

It's a good thing, because

my

third victory condition is not to be the last person to post in a day. Ever.

Yes, because being involved in the all-important "random voting" portion of the day is valuable, nay, vital to the health of the game.

[Fuldu]

I beat Fuldu!

It's a good thing, because

my

third victory condition is not to be the last person to post in a day. Ever.

Yes, because being involved in the all-important "random voting" portion of the day is valuable, nay, vital to the health of the game.

Dude. That sarcasm is worthless. Did you see my third victory condition?

um...yeah.

Oh, it wasn't worthless sarcasm. I guess I should have mentioned that my third victory condition is to convince scummers that there are better ways to start the day than random voting.

In this particular case, for example, it's bertrand's non-random votes, invariably followed by an unvote, that have piqued my interest. Either he's got some sort of trigger, a minor victory condition that I can't even really see the point of, or is trying to fake something. In any event, I'm happy to apply pressure, because if there isn't a point to it, I'd like him to stop.

vote: bertrand

[Fuldu]

This is rediculous. I was commenting on how stupid it was for "randomly" bandwagoning on Pie because he put a third vote on somebody. That's not random. Pie did something to cause that action.

I could have sworn the sarcasm was forming a puddle under my post.

Anyway - what is too far for a bandwagon. You decided that three was too far for Bertrand? If you like random bandwagoning, like it all the way. Don't pile on the anti-bandwagon bandwagon because you think it is cool.

I thought the sarcasm was fairly apparent, as well, but this is an argument that cuts both ways. TSAGod has said that he's in favor of early random voting, but not random bandwagoning. So at what point does a random vote turn into a random bandwagon? At what point does the fact that players' "random votes" are all on entirely different people indicate that they're only random to the extent that they've chosen one of the players without votes to put a vote on. Real random voting would end up with bandwagons of three votes fairly quickly. In practice, that almost never happens.

This isn't to raise suspicion on TSAGod, but only to point out the inconsistency of supporting random votes, but not random bandwagons, as well as to point out the silliness of random votes. Random votes

ought

to result in random bandwagons; real random bandwagons, not like the one pie started. The fact that random votes almost never result in random bandwagons, and in fact that a player who puts a second random vote on someone is likely to get attacked, means that random votes aren't really all that random. If that's all that's going to come of it, we might as well just start the game with each person having their vote pre-assigned to the player after them in the player list.

[Fuldu]

This may turn into a vote, I wanna think about it (and why is saying that a scum tell)?

Because posting that you're going to think about voting, but not doing it, allows for a later justification of putting a late-bandwagon or lynching vote on. Also, it pushes a bandwagon without actually having to be on it, so if Adele turns out to be pro-town (either by getting lynched or by having this bandwagon die out, but then getting night-killed) and people want to look at the voting record, a scum who said the above wouldn't obviously have been a part of that bandwagon.

In a separate, but related, vein, saying you want to think about it is a classic example of appearing to contribute without really contributing at all, which is an exceptionally useful thing for scum to do. If you intend to think about it, think about it without posting that you're going to do so. Then, once you've thought about it, post.

Also a scum tell: saying "I know X is a scum tell" and then doing X anyway. But, oh, look, my vote is already on you.

[Fuldu]

And as for bandwagons, I'm for them as long as they don't have an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon. Officially scumminess is okay, though, but a mildly scummy thing that very likely isn't a real tell angers me.

Okay, TSAGod, if you want to get all self-righteous about how obvious your sarcasm should have been, you're going to have to work on the clarity of your writing. I've read this five times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. If I were to translate it into brief, coherent sentences you would be saying:

I'm in favor of bandwagons, as long as there isn't a reason for them. Scummy behavior is okay, but mildly scummy behavior isn't.

Unless you've gone totally off the deep end, that's not what you're trying to say. And it doesn't come across as sarcasm this time. It really seems like you're trying to say something valid and reasonable, it just isn't coming out right. Proofreading is your friend.

[Fuldu]

I think he's saying: "bandwagons are okay if they are caused by solid scum tells, not weak ones. Don't bandwagon for the sake of bandwagoning"

Sure, but I'm sick of trying to guess at what I think he's saying. He should learn to write sentences that don't contain grammatically dubious constructs like "an obvious cause as done by the bandwagon" or "officially scumminess."

And, secondarily, I would disagree with his views on solid vs. weak scum tells. In my experience, there aren't many, if any, solid scum tells, but there are lots and lots of weak ones. So my approach is to look for players who've committed several of them and place my vote there.

[Fuldu]

Akonas, bertrand was asking why something he was doing was considered a scum tell. I was explaining it. The use of Adele as an example was solely tied to his behavior WRT her bandwagon. My argument has nothing to do with the relative merits of her bandwagon or the people on it.

[Fuldu]

Scum

my

behavior i

s

okay, but mildly scummy b

e

havior isn't.

Care to exp

l

ain,

f

uldu? (I didn't get any of the other posts either).

Care to reread the whole post in context, Tyfo?

Okay, TSAGod, if you want to get all self-righteous about how obvious your sarcasm should have been, you're going to have to work on the clarity of your writing. I've read this five times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say. If I were to translate it into brief, coherent sentences you would be saying:

I'm in favor of bandwagons, as long as there isn't a reason for them. Scummy behavior is okay, but mildly scummy behavior isn't.

Unless you've gone totally off the deep end, that's not what you're trying to say. And it doesn't come across as sarcasm this time. It really seems like you're trying to say something valid and reasonable, it just isn't coming out right. Proofreading is your friend.

[Fuldu]

If a roleblocker did stop it, would it make sense to out themselves for the scum? The doctor may have done it instead, but it could net us a quick scum.

The roleblocker shouldn't out themself on the off chance that they were the reason for the lack of a kill. Too many other possible explanations, not the least of which is that the scum have second win conditions that make choosing not to kill a feasible strategy.

The only reason I would want a roleblocker to come out at this stage is if they blocked the same person both nights. Then there's a good chance they've found scum. Otherwise, the odds aren't to the town's benefit at this point.

[Fuldu]

The only reason I would want a roleblocker to come out at this stage is if they blocked the same person both nights. Then there's a good chance they've found scum. Otherwise, the odds aren't to the town's benefit at this point.

That's why I said to aim at the same person again.

Except that in the long run that's a bad strategy.

If

the roleblocker did that, then I'd want to know about it because in this particular instance it might mean we got lucky. But that doesn't mean that a roleblocker

should

do that.

[Fuldu]

I'll agree with TSA on this one.

Vote: Thok

Basing a risky short-term strategy on very limited information is bad play.

I don't see Thok as having proposed any sort of strategy at all. He merely suggested the existence of a cult. bertrand was the one proposing a risky short-term strategy.

As of now, though, I'm not sure if I want to vote bertrand for that or vote Pie for placing a vote on the basis of an inapplicable argument.

[Fuldu]

Pie was a sheep, TSAGod had the weird reason. 3 potential lynchs, I'd rather go for Bertrand out of the three but I am in no hurry to vote.

TSAGod's reason for voting isn't a great one, but his description of Thok's actions is factually accurate. Thok did move the discussion toward issues of setup, even if in what I would consider a fairly harmless way. Pie was saying he was promoting a "strategy," which is at odds with any interpretation I can come up with for Thok's posts.

[Fuldu]

@Adele-I've been in at least two mini's with a cult in place of a normal mafia; however in both cases the cult had a limit to the total numbers of recruits and also had the option to nightkill people instead of recruiting.

Heh, yeah that was fun. In Gotham, anyway, I was that cult leader. After recruiting two players, I was no longer able to recruit and became, for all intents and purposes, a de facto mafia group. We were the only scum in that game and I remember the first two days' worth of discussion of "Why haven't there been any kills?" as being enormously entertaining.

But, the fact that that's a possibility doesn't mean we should place too much weight on it. I've been in other games with no early kills that happened for a variety of reasons that didn't have anything to do with an odd setup. Besides which, by this time in Gotham, I had done all my recruiting and we were just a scum group. So if that mechanism is in place now, looking for a mafia group and looking for a cult would be roughly equivalent activities.

[Fuldu]

Players separating others from the rest in terms of scumminess/potential lynches makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Huh? That's how we decide who to lynch. It can be done in a collaborative manner, but it typically starts with one or two players indicating which players they would consider as potential lynches and why.

[Fuldu]

In an abstract sense, yes. When it's done in clear terms there is no room for the valuable chaotic process of town interaction and it becomes easier to manipulate for scum.

Ooh, I completely disagree with that. Partly I suppose it's just a matter of playstyle, but in games where I'm scum I find the "valuable chaotic process of town interaction" to be much easier to manipulate than a discussion in which everyone is expressing their suspicions in a clear and straightforward manner, which is what Nemesis was doing.

[Fuldu]

Well, this game appears to have all but died. I was suspicious of bertrand yesterday, and for lack of a better suspect (since I still don't see what the fuss is about Thok), I'll put my vote there again today.

vote: bertrand

[Fuldu]

Would you be prepared to fully quote your PM?

Generally speaking, this usually results in a mod-kill.

[Fuldu]

I'm thinking that possibly claiming anything other than a SK style role probably would have been wiser. Let's finish this scum off.

[Fuldu]

Huh, interesting. I assumed you were already lynched. I saw eleven people and assumed six to lynch without really looking at where it says seven.

[Fuldu]

No, we're going to have to lynch you eventually. Threatening us doesn't exactly make me more inclined to let you live.

[Fuldu]

Besides which, while threatening to kill the cop is certainly a rational (if, in my opinion, pointless) strategy, actually doing so is against your interests. Your best hope of not being lynched again tomorrow is for the cop to find somebody else for us to lynch. I might prefer to lynch some other scum rather than a largely ineffectual SK. Killing the cop just assures that you'll be relynched tomorrow.

[Fuldu]

So bertrand killed diedraphoenix (for no good reason other than spite, that I can see; using his one and only kill last night pretty much assured that, even had he survived, he wouldn't be able to contribute much to attaining his win conditions), and was in turn killed by someone else. Since bertrand would have been a probable lynch today, it seems unlikely that scum killed him, which means that we're back to the question of where the kills are.

[Fuldu]

Unvote, Vote: Bertrand

Tomorrow's the deadline, and I don't see us getting a claim and having time to analyze it in time.

I had suspicions of Pie_is_good from before, and this seems needlessly cavalier, especially when the very next post turned out to be bertrand's claim.

vote: Pie_is_good[/quote]

[Fuldu]

Bah, bah, bah! Stupid brain!

vote: Pie_is_good

[Fuldu]

I made a slight error in processing night choices last night. They have not affected the dead/alive lists, but nonetheless I have amended the night scene and the first post.

So that changes what I said about the nature of last night's kills. The front page originally had dierdrephoenix as having been sliced in half with a cardboard-tube katana (i.e. killed by bertrand), but now it has her as having been stabbed (potentially, and I'd say probably,

not

killed by bertrand).

[Fuldu]

People? So far it's just me. And yes, pretty much. Why would he be lying?

Because given the potential numbers he's talking about:

Reason - because we have 9 alive and 3 or 4 scum left, meaning someone's going to need to change something or else we are going to lose.

...a one-for-one tradeoff with the town player dying first would probably be pretty good for scum right now. Now, I don't think the numbers are quite as drastic as what he's describing, but I'm not going to vote without a bit more information. I'm not averse to the idea of Thok claiming, but I think he should do it without vote pressure, because it isn't clear that vote pressure is safe right now.

[Fuldu]

But it also describes a valid reason why you might be lying, which was the question of VitaminR's that I was responding to.

[Fuldu]

Seems overly cautious to me. Two votes on him does not spell danger. If he is speedlynched, scum will give themselves away. With the "SK" dead that does indeed mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow, but it'd be a completely unnecessary to take.

My argument wasn't about speed lynching. If people believe Pie and the day drags on to lynching Thok, everything I said still holds. If today is lynch-or-lose, that would be the end, and if tomorrow is then lynch-or-lose, we can lynch Pie and make it to the following day, but then we'd have to get two lynches right in a row without any certainty of where to go.

That said, the last quoted sentence is interesting to me. We've been throwing around possible sizes for the scum group, but you've made a concrete statement that's only true if you

know

that the scum group is made up of three people. I don't know that, do you?

vote: VitaminR

[Fuldu]

Sure, and that's the difference between "might mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow" and "does indeed mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow."

[Fuldu]

Oh, I don't have a problem with Thok claiming, I'd just like to pursue VitaminR in parallel.

[Fuldu]

Maybe. What results (if any) did you get on Fuldu?

I don't know, Pie. This may be a good time for some quid pro quo. I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what your role could be that indicating a night and a target isn't enough for you to determine whether you believe his claim

and

that you'd think it likely that he's scum before that. I mean, if you knew that he'd targeted me Night One, it's unlikely you'd have accused him in the first place. If you were getting information associated with his (hypothetical) cop results, but not the name of his target, again, I don't feel like you would have accused him of being likely scum. And since this has only now come to the point where you thought it was worth bringing up, I assume something came up in your results last night, but you're fishing for information about his Night One choice, not his choice last night. This doesn't really add up, in my opinion, and it makes it look much more probable that you're just trying to out a power role.

[Fuldu]

Sure, and that's the difference between "might mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow" and "does indeed mean lynch-or-lose tomorrow."

I understand that the certainty was probably not justified, but do you genuinely feel this is enough to build a case around?

I like to work around a few basic assumptions as town. It gives me some certainty in an uncertain situation and a method of putting things into perspective.

I don't have anything against working around a few basic assumptions. But a) treating those assumptions like facts is dangerous, and b) scum, who don't have to make assumptions about such things, are far more likely to post statements treating them as fact than townies are. I'm by no means

certain

you're scum on the basis of this one thing, but yes, I'm quite happy to build a case around this.

[Fuldu]

And about the scum group sending out someone different - He could still be an SK. But either way, the odds that I was responsible for one of the kill-less nights are, IMHO, too high to ignore.

Maybe, but if you're presuming an SK (above and beyond bertrand's pseudo-SK), that results in more kills to account for, not fewer. For lack of a substantially better target, I'd be interested in full disclosure from Thok, but I think you're overestimating the value of your information.

[Fuldu]

I suppose I also ought to mention I'm female.

In other words, "don't roleblock me." Subtle.

unvote: VitaminR; vote: Adele

[Fuldu]

I'm not suggesting that you're lying. I suppose it's possible that you're male scum, hoping he'll target you so your female partners won't be, but that doesn't seem like a winning strategy since you'd only get away with it for one night.

But if you're telling the truth, why do you care about his major WC? Coming out as female

for his benefit

is a disingenuous argument, because you have no reason to help him achieve that goal. If, on the other hand, we assume that you came out as female

for your own benefit

, then the question is: who is best served by that gender claim? A female vanilla townie wouldn't care one way or the other. A female town power role wouldn't want to be roleblocked, but even more than that wouldn't want to be publically known as a power role. But female scum wouldn't want to be roleblocked and wouldn't mind being thought of as a town power role. And so I vote.

[Fuldu]

If she's female and pro-town, what has she accomplished by revealing that information? Her argument is that it's good for Thok to know that. And it is, but how does that help the town? If Thok has to give up his major win condition to help the town win

I

want him to do that, and so should Adele. Maybe he won't. Maybe he'll decide it's in his best interests to act selfishly if forced to choose between his major and minor wins. But there's no pro-town reason Adele should make it easier for him.

And, as I argued above, asking not to be roleblocked is only beneficial to scum. Pro-town power roles will do better by remaining hidden and hoping not to be roleblocked than they will by coming out and asking not to be roleblocked.

[Fuldu]

I don't have any idea how many vanilla townies we have, but we might also have masons, who are also largely unaffected by roleblockers and who, given the knowledge, scum would prefer to leave alone for the time being in favor of more powerful roles.

I don't see what good a gender claim is going to do. I don't see anyone going out of their way to make everyone else's individual win conditions easier. What incentive is there to do the same for Thok? Telling Thok who it's safe for him to target and who he should avoid just assures that he's not going to risk his win condition unless it's absolutely necessary. Since he's forced to make a choice every night, why make it easy for him to know which players are safe (and from the town's standpoint, useless) ones to target? If we're going to do that, all we're doing is neutering Thok's role.

[Fuldu]

Wow, Fuldu, you're advocating really selfish play. Shouldn't pro-towner's be interested in win-win, rather than this "oh, I'm okay with screwing over my allies" attitude?

Pro-towners should be interested in doing exactly what this game's goal mechanism espouses, trying to accomplish both win conditions, if possible, and putting the major ahead of the minor, if not.

But that's not the argument I'm making, exactly. Unless Thok chooses to forego his major win condition (and I can see no reason that he would at this point), a gender claim (either individual, like yours, or mass) aids no one but him and any women who claim. Given that, I'm hard-pressed to see any value to it.

Are scum going to lie about their gender? No. Male scum don't care one way or the other what Thok does, so might as well tell the truth. Whereas female scum know that by claiming female, they've pushed themselves well down the list of possible targets for roleblock. If Thok is useless as an investigator and actively attempting to avoid roleblocking anyone, what is gained by divulging this information?

[Fuldu]

I only see it as if a person who claims to be male is roleblocked then it will help us know who is lying... I think it helps as long as Thok is willing to risk his major a couple of times.

But why would anyone lie about their gender? If a player is male, Thok can't block them, so male scum don't care if he targets them, provided they don't lie about their gender. And if a player is female, Thok is less likely to target them for a roleblock if he knows that they're female, so female scum

want

Thok to know that they're female.

[Fuldu]

Unless I've totally misunderstood (in which case, I'll need to reexamine all the arguing I've been doing about this), he's just saying that he learns their gender.

[Fuldu]

Bah. I'm here, I've been here, but I have nothing to say. The last two arguments I made (against Adele and VitaminR) were dismissed and ignored, respectively, so I don't have anything else to suggest at this point, and have been loathe to post saying "I don't have anything to say."

[Fuldu]

We're not going anywhere like this.

unvote: Adele; vote: VitaminR

[Fuldu]

Btw, did anyone else notice Fuldu build a case against me earlier yet join this wagon purely on deadline rush? He's distancing himself already. I haven't seen him come back on his strong earlier suspicions of me anywhere.

You're accusing me of voting on bandwagon rush because I didn't feel like retyping the rationale for voting you before? No one paid any attention to me the first time, so I was content to let that die and pursue someone else I found suspicious (Adele, at the time). But if a bandwagon starts on you via other methods, I'm happy to rejoin it.

[Fuldu]

Well, let me clarify the difference between why I think you're scummy and why you think I think you're scummy, again.

You keep saying that it's because you assumed there are three scum. And that's not the problem, exactly. The scummy behavior was in talking about the game as if you

knew

that there were exactly three scum. It's certainly possible for town to make such a mistake, but someone who

does

know the precise number of scum is far more likely to make the mistake of talking about it with certainty.

[Fuldu]

Coron, either VitaminR is suspicious or he's not (I say he is, obviously).

If he is, then the people on his bandwagon are doing the right thing and are suspicious.

If he's not, then the people on the bandwagon are suspicious but you should back off VitaminR.

How can you logically cast doubt on both? Like Thok says, you're trying to have it both ways but, more to the point, I think there's a true dilemma here between the two.

Allow me to use pretty percentages even assuming that there is no overlap between him being scum and the people voting him being scum

We have nine alive.. let's say 3 of them are scum (making the avg % chance for a person to be scum 33 1/3 %

say(only in theory) I think there's a 52% chance vitR is scum
then, the people accusing him could have as much as a 48%

This is still much much greater than the average of 33 1/3% and could be the second highest.

But of course remember, that the people voting him AREN'T nessisarily town if he is. Even if they are doing the "right thing" voting him, they can still be scum trying to distance themselves some and be seen on the lynch of a scum to try to make them seem protown, and their little content votes still make me suspicious either way.

This isn't even mentioning the possibility of multiple scum groups.


So yes, yes I can have it both ways.

The premise you're promoting here is an accurate one. Since you're not 100% certain that VitaminR is scum, watching the reactions (among other things) of those who join the bandwagon can be useful in gauging their relative likelihoods of being scum. And in this case the way that the bandwagon formed might lead a person to be suspicious of the people on it.

But the math you're using to further that point is wrong in more ways than I care to point out. If you're going to push this argument in the future, I'd try doing it in a slightly less statistics-oriented way, because you've got that part so far wrong that it makes me wince.

[Fuldu]

Strange how I come up with different stats. Why does the amount of players matter?
Is this a scum tell? Voting different players?

Explain why please.

Your numbers are the number of votes each person placed, whereas Coron's are the number of different people who were voted. So, for example, the fact that I voted bertrand on Day One, and then again on Day Two is counted as 1 by Coron and 2 by you.

Scum are less likely (on average) to be cautious in placing votes than town. They care far, far less about exactly who gets lynched than town do, at least if the town is playing well. So, a player who votes for many different people is more likely to be a bandwagon hopper without spending too much time worrying that they might be lynching someone important to them. Of course, the flip side of this behavior is that when someone who places a lot of votes on a lot of players does have a particular individual that they avoid voting, it can be highly informative.

[Fuldu]

Here's a nice shiny claim:

You're Fighter, the fighterest fighter in 8-Bit Theater. You want to help people, which is why you're a light warrior, and so is your bestest friend Black Mage. He's such a nice guy, you can't imagine what life would be like without him. If Black Mage gets lynched, and you're part of that lynch, you'll be so overcome with grief that you killed your besterest friend that you'll commit suicide.

Apparently this is the only thing people react to. I've left out my win conditions, because I'm hoping there is a Black Mage out there, though I doubt it's a red herring, who has a similar mechanic and I don't want to reveal too much.

Not to be too cynical, but with a role like that, wouldn't you want to curb your bandwagoning instincts? Just a bit of inconsistency, but enough so that I'm not immediately inclined to remove my vote.

[Fuldu]

Am I the only who's trying to count Thok's ostensible win conditions and coming up with more than two?

1. Avoid sleeping with women
2. Kill Fighter
3. Win with town

Overall, I'm more suspicious of Stewie, but I wouldn't mind having this explained.

[Fuldu]

Bah, Stevie, not Stewie.

[Fuldu]

Am I the only who's trying to count Thok's ostensible win conditions and coming up with more than two?

1. Avoid sleeping with women
2. Kill Fighter
3. Win with town

Overall, I'm more suspicious of Stewie, but I wouldn't mind having this explained.

Why would I want to avoid sleeping with women? White Mage is hawt!

Incidentally, having gotten my Major, I'm willing to start discussing trading my minor victory condition for other people's major victory condition.

Nemesis, with that many innocens you might as well release them to the public.

So your major win condition isn't "win with town" and, since you have something to trade, your minor win condition isn't "win with town." Why wouldn't we just lynch you?

Also, if we're going to do a mass claim (which I have no problem with), I think it makes better sense to start with the three players you don't have an innocent result on. Since they're far more likely to be scum, I'd rather put the onus of coming up with an early roleclaim on them.

[Fuldu]

I think it makes better sense to start with the three players you don't have an innocent result on. Since they're far more likely to be scum, I'd rather put the onus of coming up with an early roleclaim on them.

Ok, can a couple of people post their thoughts on this please, in case there's something I (and possibly Fuldu) missed please?

Don't count on me too much. Today began the seriously sporadic access I've referenced in my .sig. I'm going to try to keep up and reading, but I don't know how thorough I'm going to be able to be.

[Fuldu]

And, given Thok's actions, that's a credible concern. That's why I'd prefer to discuss options for a limited claim on the part of those that Nemesis doesn't have results on.

[Fuldu]

Look back at the Black Mage image in Fighter's death scene and read the word there. Now compare that to the bolded word in Thok's last post. Thok's at least claiming to try to day-kill our cop, so I'm pretty sure we don't need to take this any further at this point.

vote: Thok

[Fuldu]

If I was actually able to day kill our cop, I would have done it yesterday or at the beginning of today.

Well, no. Typically a power as strong as that in a mini requires some sort of a trigger, and I have know way of knowing that you didn't just meet that condition or, for that matter, that that's only the first half of the condition and that if we lynch you quickly enough it won't happen.

But the very fact that you'd suggest you'd be willing to do such a thing if you could indicates that you're trying to play both sides against one another. I'd rather not see that happen.

[Fuldu]

Thok's still hiding something from us. Given the lack of anything explicit in his role PM about night choices, I have to assume that he's edited that for some purpose. He may have had a limited number or it could be something else, but I'm unconvinced that that's an accurate quote of his PM.

[Fuldu]

Just so that we're clear, we're passing up the opportunity to lynch someone we

know

is scum in order to lynch something we

think

is scum? Consider also that Thok has, that I can see from his claimed PM, no incentive not to attack every night, so if he targeted Stevie a night he didn't make a successful kill, then he knows there's a decent chance he's telling the truth, which makes a Stevie lynch very good for him in achieving his minor.

I'd still prefer a Thok lynch and wouldn't mind a better explanation from Coron and Adele as to why they think Stevie is the better play, but if that's where they want to go, I'll go along. But since I still don't trust that Thok has quoted his PM precisely and because his attack on Fighter had to be a hammer vote and given that despite his stated willingness to go along with the Stevie lynch his vote is still in the wrong place, I'd rather he placed the third vote and not the fourth.

[Fuldu]

I'd rather partially confirm someone without them having to die, thnx.

Huh? Who are you talking about here?

[Fuldu]

So perhaps a better way of phrasing the question, then, is "how are you planning on partially confirming him?" I was associating it with the request that Thok target Coron, which still doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I guess I'll assume Coron knows what he's doing.

unvote: Thok; vote: StevieT92

[Fuldu]

Fuldu at the very least could have come out yesterday, be completely and totally confirmed as Dave and as the vig, and end my shenanigans. (I can understand Adele not wanting to claim, but she's the only person with a legitimate excuse.)

I didn't want to come out because I figured that would put the doc in a position of having to decide whether to protect the vig or the cop. If scum didn't know that

I

was the one performing the kills, then I was better protected. The other concern was that admitting that I was a killing party (even one who had only killed scum) wasn't exactly going to leave me "totally confirmed".

Besides, I was the one pushing to have you lynched and intended to kill Stevie at night, not that that would have worked. And since I knew I could kill you at night if we didn't lynch you and wasn't going to target anyone other than you or Stevie, there wasn't really any value to my coming out. We'd lynch one and I'd try to kill the other no matter what I said, so revealing my identity wasn't really worth anything to the town.