Micro 438: Greatest Idea Mafia - Game Over

[Espeonage]

guille did.

Ok, proceed with lynches considering the resolution order.

Vote: Trow

[Alchemist21]

UNVOTE:

I'll decide later when my brain's not running on fumes. I'm getting paranoidd on a couple levels here.

[Alchemist21]

Btw, Trow, I want a full card claim from you.

[Espeonage]

Btw, Trow, I want a full card claim from you.

This is one of a few reasons why Trow is the go here.

[guille2015]

I wasn't expecting a Lyncher, but in retrospect, it was obvious.

Anyways, Lynching Trow, and if the game doesn't end there I would have to Treestump Esp. That would kill me, but I should be able to take out Scum ESP.

The No Lynch plan would only work if there is only one scum party alive. If there are two, then the party we don't treestump wins.

We have agreed then that Eyestott and Alch are town, cause that means that regardless of what we due, if we are wrong about that, then we lose. I am up for that risk.

If Trow is town or scum and the game carries on, that would mean that either I or ESP is scum. Me treestumping ESP would clear that off completely. There is no way that I know of for a PGO to outlive a vig.

Is this the plan we are running with?

[Espeonage]

I get trigger happy in endgames.

My gut is saying that stott is scum. I win games by throwing my gut out the window in endgames.

Sounds like a plan.

[MrTrow]

We have agreed then that Eyestott and Alch are town

We most certainly have not.

Alch is indeed extremely unlikely to be scum (having discarded the 'pwn any and all powerrole card')
Eyestott on the other hand:
just because slimer is confirmed as being

"the 'shenanigans' in

at least one

of the following is true"

• esp roleblocked slimer
  
• slimer didn't actually roleblock eye
  
• eye didn't really get a cop-result

does nothing to dent my 'eye is probably a werewolf-alligned cop'-case in the slightest
He still

• Claimed cop, for the sake of claiming cop
  
• Pushed a lynch for no reason better than poetry
  
• Went through quite some length to be seen as reasonable on the diego-hammer without allowing it to walk away from him
  
• Vanished when he was the only one with votes(ok 1 vote) on him
  
• Surprisingly didn't vote slimer despite the dipole they were in

If there is a second person we can safely assume to be town (or at least 'should be willing to bet the game on'-safe)
It is you.
The person who picked a (confirmable) ability which blocks any factional nightkill you may have.
Heck AFAICT you are more confirmed town than Alch is.
The only reason it isn't completely confirmed at the moment, is because of esp's instructions.

also:

There is no way that I know of for a PGO to outlive a vig.

This isn't exactly true.
We just got mod-confirmed (his) regular factional kill CAN in fact 'outlive'(or rather 'outdraw') this particular vig

Now as for the best case VOTE: espeonagehas found willing to put forward this entire game:
'trow must be scum because:
- he didn't follow an instruction given by his top scumreads only
- i feel eye is scum therefore trow must be'
Especially the last one is interesting coming from someone who assumed the game solved to the point where one(slimer) shouldn't even fight being lynched(vigged) with 6 players alive and up to 3 of them anti-town, with the exact same set of players which had (at least) 5 out of 9 anti-town(at least partially by choice) last draw.

Btw, Trow, I want a full card claim from you.

Now that someone who isn't my top2-scumread has considered it a good idea to ask me to reveal this, sure.

discard: lynchbait
allignment: lover
ability: 1-shot governor (do not lynch me yet, for some reason it is a public-day-role instead of its usual hidden-twilight-counterpart )

the plan was as follows:
in prob-mylo vote likely town inviting a quick-hammer, reveal play in twilight: win
however upon receiving the role i got informed this wouldn't work as the governor has been reworked into a 1-shot-day-unlynchable-maker (the

reworked

was not in the description i had to ask micc if he was sure about using this interpretation of the governor: he was)

@Townies (for those who (chose to?) not pay attention, i mean alchemist and guille here) if you have considered this situation and need me to confirm this power i will. (voting me will have the same effect, except it allows esp and eye a shot at a quickhammer should they be aligned, so please, just ask)
Leaving them to handle the prospect of going into the night with a 2 confirmed townies and a potential unlynchable to choose between, would make their next post interesting though.

[eyestott]

He still
1 Claimed cop, for the sake of claiming cop
2 Pushed a lynch for no reason better than poetry
3 Went through quite some length to be seen as reasonable on the diego-hammer without allowing it to walk away from him
4 Vanished when he was the only one with votes(ok 1 vote) on him
5 Surprisingly didn't vote slimer despite the dipole they were in

1: I made a mistake, and claimed impulsively. Okay, that warrants suspicion.
2: No. You dont believe that, and no one else does.
3: Where? Explain.
4: Do you actually think this is scum indicative?
5: I learnt my lesson. You know, that what looks to be a contradiction isn't necessarily one?

[Alchemist21]

.@Trow, do you have to announce making a player unlynchable in the game thread BEFORE the hammer? Can you self-target?

[MrTrow]

.@Trow, do you have to announce making a player unlynchable in the game thread BEFORE the hammer? Can you self-target?

I have to announce before the hammer, correct.
self-target: it doesn't say, i assume so (confirming now(thought i already had), but you should assume so regardless of outcome) this assumption(even if false) does nothing to diminish the confirm-potential though.

[MrTrow]

As it turns out, i may not self-target and basically because-vote-stuff-shenanigans the deadline will be extended if i use my ability today.
As such i'm running low on reasons not to confirm (pretty much down to 'leaving eyestott guessing')

So as i see it eyestott and espeonage are the 2 remaining scum.
The question remaining, which of the 2 is more likely in the event only 1 scum is left
for which i'll go with:

• spearheaded a quick-lynch on a newbie-town-cop based on (among other crap) 'that crumb started accidentally and was completed based on discussion ongoing at the time(despite no discussion on the matter happened between the start and the end of that crumb'
  
• claims to have not read the rules (rules which would have shattered the diego-case 'newbie should know mason>>cop') yet was fully aware the aliens-factional-kill is a 1-shot (either lying about not reading the rules or got 1-shot-kill info out of role pm)
  
• requests mod-clarification on that very 'mason>>cop not true by rules' directly after i bring up the point above while claiming not to read my posts. No inspiration nor purpose of this question was ever given
  
• Claims the game is 'solved' while needing to push 'i think stott is scum, therefore trow must be scum' to actually solve the game
  
• Is committed to ignoring everything i put out(including the above, several times), yet considers me useful enough to treestump-over-lynch.
  
• Pushed for claims based on a dipole(shenanigans) while aware there are no pro-town roles which could have possibly caused said shenanigans

over

• claims cop for the sake of claiming cop
  
• delayed a quick-lynch several times for no good reason other than 'appearing town'
  
• pushed a massclaim for no reason what so ever
  
• assumed shenanigans in dipole

Now i'm writing this:
espeonage: why do you consider only one of me/eye scum AND assume it is (time for(or in your case

against

) gut)endgame

eye: yes i do consider choosing to vanish while having the most votes scum indicative.
True the 'alignment neutral motivation' checked out, thus making it less than a stand-alone case. Doesn't change the fact, there was a possible scum-motivation for it, there was no possible town-motivation for it and it was closed off with an 'appeal to emotion'-defense (in this case: pointing out the town-lylo-loss) sounds surprisingly similar to the 'claimed cop for the sake of claiming cop' and the 'considered dipole-partner possible-town' situations

[Espeonage]

I think eye is town, I think guille is town, I think Alch is town.

You are the only person I am not town reading.

[eyestott]

Grow, when you're in 6 or so games, and a bunch of them are near deadline, do you spend more time in them?

[eyestott]

What I mean is, do you prioritise your games depending on the state of them?

[MrTrow]

I think eye is town, I think guille is town, I think Alch is town.

You are the only person I am not town reading.

If that is the case, would you (for a change) explain
- why do you think eye is town?
- why did you claim the exact opposite 6 posts earlier?

I know you have no intention what so ever to address the arguments i brought up against you. So i won't even ask.
I know you have no intention what so ever to actually bring up any argument against me. So i won't even ask

[eyestott]

Why mention it then? That's just passive aggressive.

[MrTrow]

What I mean is, do you prioritise your games depending on the state of them?

Yes i do. (the fact that i do it differently (alive in 2: therefore not joining a third) isn't really the point)
As i have stated.
For the 'chooses to disappear when the holder of the most votes' the 'alignment neutral motivation(otherwise occupied)' holds up, making this the weaker argument.

The fact remains: i do see a scum motivation and no town motivation. So to the question: 'is it a scum-tell' the only honest answer is yes.
yes it is a scumtell, yes it is a weak scumtell as there is a confirmable alignment neutral aspect. no it doesn't completely reduces the tell because:
- scum-eyestott would have jumped to this excuse
- whether or not town-eyestott would have tried to live up to the promise he made when signing up for this one is not nearly as clear.

Nice way of making it all about my least convincing argument though.
the 'claimed cop, for the sake of claiming cop' has no possible town-motivation and has a possible scum-motivation still stands
the 'i will hammer later'-posts have no town-motivation i see or ones you bothered pointing out and has a possible scum-motivation still stands as well
the 'tread starter of the 'Should you breadcrumb?'-discussion considers a newbie not knowing the answer to this question a reason to call him scum' has a possible scum-motivation but no possible town-motivation
do you see a patern here?

or alternatively, can i get your read on 'at least 1 flat out lie on this page alone and flat out refusal to address anything'-espeonage?

p-edit

Why mention it then? That's just passive aggressive.

i could throw in a speech how 'active aggressive' has proven ineffective, 'violent aggressive' is against the rules and actually ignoring the issue is 'blatant anti-town and by extention a violation of play-to-win(thus against the rules)'
But the truth is:
He is playing blatantly anti-town and i don't want alchemist and guille to even have a chance of missing or forgetting it.
If it results in your help taking taking him down, that would be nice, but not the main goal.
In the event

hell freezes over

this does actually get him to answer stuff, that would be a win too

[Micc]

VoteCount 2.05

MrTrow (1)

: Espeonage

Espeonage (1)

: Mr Trow

Not Voting (3)

: guille2015, Alchemist21, eyestott

With 5 players alive, it takes 3 votes to Lynch or No Lynch.

Deadline

: The deadline for Day 2 is in (expired on 2015-01-25 02:02:00).

[guille2015]

Half a day left. Ill log on later to vote. I think Trow is unlynchable but can be killed at night.

I'm ok with lynching Esp. If would have procededed with what he proposed then we would have had Issot dead, and him alive tomorrow.

[Alchemist21]

VOTE: Espeonage

I feel better about Esp being scum than Trow.

[guille2015]

And between Istott and Trow?

[Alchemist21]

Trow.

[guille2015]

VOTE: Espionage

Ok

[MrTrow]

Alch: Will that make you the first to actually bring up an argument against me?

guille: at least go over the arguments i gave thusfar.
And add to that the fact eyestott didn't seem to think there was scum left after the slimer-vig.
He neither showed concern i might be right in espeonages deliberate refusal to discuss stuff
Nor considered the possibility my 'passive aggressive'-response to it being non-genuine.

That last question seems to indicate you do see eyestott as not confirmed-town.
Should the death of espeonage not end the game, don't give scum-eye the guaranteed win by telling him he doesn't have to fear you
(and him killing alch is enough to even prevent a D3 from happening)

[Micc]

bump