Open 21 - Friends and Enemies (Game Over), before 453

[Jalyn]

OK. I'm probably going to end up triple posting here, with details and analysis and such, but here's my current suspicion list:

Sir Tornado
Adel/Lawrencelot
Lowell
----
Ripley/ABR

Here's the interesting thing I noted from day 1 reactions to the mason claims.

1. Accepted - Theo & Ripley (obviously)
2. Completely rejected - Ryan, Adel & Lawrencelot
3. Accepted and then stopped posting - Lowell (I don't remember if there was a reason for this or not)
4. Never posted about it at all - Aimee, Me
5. Accepted and kept bringing up reasons to lynch the masons the next day? - Sir Tornado

I realize people have started to think he's scum as of today, but I spent my reading time of day one thinking "How can people think he's pro-town?!"

Anyway, I can't see a scum group of Ryan/Adel/Lawrencelot. Not even the most misguided scum group would have all attacked two masons confirming each other.

I'll post quotes from Sir Tornado from day showing what I'm talking about.

[Jalyn]

The point I am trying to make is -- and what I think Lowell was saying is -- I feel that A Papaya's claim will not really help the town at all unless he is a scum. It is, I feel, anti-town and will cause only trouble for us.
That is the reason why I am keeping my vote on A Papaya for now.

Having said that, I would still keep my vote where it is (on A Papaya), at least until we get a confirmation or a denunciation of A Papaya's claim.

Two posts keeping his vote on the claimed mason and a request for confirmation or counter claims. Counter claims make sense, confirmation should NOT have been necessary. (I understand why ABR did it, and I'm not commenting on that.) No protown player should have been looking for a second mason to come out to support A Papaya's claim - a lack of counter claim should have been sufficient proof for day one.

I had no idea the Masons and the Scum could PM each other during the day. If that is the case, then we must take that into account. Before this, I assumed that the Scum had made their plans at night and were simply implementing it during the day. If they can PM like the Masons, then it means that they can change their plans in coordination with each other even during the day. Did we take this into account?

On ARB

First of all, I must say I am convinced by Albert's mason claim that Papaya and he are masons, which is why I took my vote off Papaya. I believe in ABR's claim 100%.
For the reasons I gave in my second last post, I do not agree with ABR's countdown to "reveal" the third mason. I confess to being torn on ABR right now -- on one hand, I don't think ABR's claim to being a mason with Papaya could be false, and on the other, I am surprised that a mason would actually want to reveal the third one.

I believe ABR 100%. I confess to being torn on ABR right now. In two consecutive paragraphs! This reads to me like, "I'm protown, I believe the masons but here's this little niggling of doubt that I'd like to introduce to the town and see if anyone runs with it."

If the scum do not NK him, then it would be proof positive that he is the scum and is lying, and we lynch him on day 2.

Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?

These are the same posts, but I chopped out the middle, so I seperated them. He again supports the mason claim but now if they aren't NKed, the town should lynch them. Sir Tornado went on this for a while, I'll have more quotes about it.

The PM question is interesting. I'm not sure why it would be brought up again except by a mafioso a) making sure that the mod caught a potential rule violation (though you would think that this would be handled by a PM) or b) "I don't know what's going on, I don't know what the rules are for the scum group"

Put it this way: If we get a scum right now, and they don't get a mason in NK, their chances are really very slim. 9 players, 2 scum, 3 masons, and that on day 2 when we have some information on everyone. It really becomes too easy for us after that.

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie? Ok, so, you've claimed mason, and I believe that for now, but I will have major doubts over that if your lynch does not turn out to be a scum.

The second case Why is it important for Scum to bump off one mason if we strike out one scum today:
Assuming they don't:
scum/masons/vanilla townies
Day 1: 3/3/5
Day 2: 2/3/4
This is at a time when we have a good idea about who is who at least for half the vanilla townies too. So, the masons just have to shift through a couple of townies before hitting their mark. It becomes too easy for the town after that.
Plus, there is this one other thing:
Supposing in the next 2 days, we have 1 townie lynch and 1 scum lynch and even 2 mason NKs...
Day 4: 1/1/3.
With 1 mason NK...
Day 4: 1/2/2
If all the masons are made known at this juncture, the game is as good as over (with the amount of information we would have on the players at that juncture) with a town win.
I will not say that my reasoning here is air tight. But, it is quite close to the truth.

Three posts attempting to set up the lynch of masons the next day. Two of them continue with the "if they aren't NKed" theme and one of them implies that if they guess wrong in the 1/3 chance to hit mafia they should be killed.

Firstly, we have to assume that you and A Papaya are telling the truth. Fine. Right now, there is no counter claim, so we do.
But, what happens if Bird or Aimee turns out to be the mason and you do not, and he is, for some reason holding a counter claim? You take out Adel, and she turns out to be innocent. Then, you go and take out Ryan. HE turns out to be innocent. So, you go after Bird or Aimee and they turn out to be mason. At this point, the town realises that you are scum and have taken them for a ride.
This was, primarily the reason why I was deeply suspicious of your 72 hour deadline early on. You see, the players on vacation would not have been back in those 72 hours. So, if either one or both of them were masons, then the third one, who could be active right now, would not have any way to counter claim, because there is no one to verify it. And, in the mean time, in order to get your quick lynch (before the vacationing players turn up) you set up your 72 hour deadline to get one townie out. Then, you NK a mason at night, and the game swings in your favour.
I realise that what I have said in the last para or so would sound highly fantastic to a lot of people, but that was my actual thoughts when I read about that deadline. (But it sounded a bit far-fetched to me because it would mean you being sure of the identity of the three masons, which is would be hard to detect)
Then there is another matter: Even if you are not masons, I don't think any counter-claim against you could actually stand right now. The general tendency has been to believe you, and I doubt whether it would be stemed if we get a single counter-claim from anyone at all... in fact, that counter-claim may be the first to be lynched, followed by a possible mason NK, which would be disasterous. Plus, I don't think revealing masonry on day 1 is a very nice play at all... I wouldn't have done it if I were a mason. And, even if I was a mason in this situation, I would not counter-claim two mason claims, not on day 1 anyway. It's foolish to reveal all your cards on day 1.
The only reason I believe your claim, despite all this foolishness, is not because there is no counter-claim, but because I find it hard to believe that a scum -- let alone

two

scums -- would make a mason claim on day 1. That would be a height of foolishness surpassing all others.

More far-fetched reasoning on how/why to not believe the mason claims.

If A Papaya/ABR's choice of lynch for today turns out to be a townie, my trust in their claim will be shaken.

Yes but what if

they are the scum

?
I will not consider this possibility right now because both of them have claimed. Unlikely if they were both scum. But, if their lynch for today is not a scum, then I will have to consider it. (and, we may have a counter claim too by then, if indeed there is to be one)

Ok, the way I see things:
1) Adel, Ryan and one of Lawrencelot/Lowell may be scums. We lynch one today, see if they turn out to be innocent. If they do, we go after the scummiest looking person on board: A Papaya (I would definitely be voting A Papaya right now, had he not been a claimed mason)
2) A Papaya, ABR and a third person are scums.
Now, why would they claim otherwise?
The theory would go like this (I have a thing for making up unbelievable theories, so please bear with me)
It could be possible that the above mentioned trio could be scum. In the ensuing persecution of Papaya by Adel, Lowell and Ryan, we saw ABR jumping to his rescue one time too many. Despite that, A Papaya had reached -1. So, if the hammer were to drop then, and A Papaya were to turn out to be a scum, who would be his most likely scum buddy? Based on the situation at that time, I would have said ABR. So, A Papaya panics and claims, and, left with no option, ABR claims with him.
However, I will not be believing in anything like this unless the first lynch turns out to be a townie.
On another note, I would like to see

A Papaya

post

something

. I feel that, as a claimed mason he should be on the forefront trying to hunt the scum down. Why the heck is not doing it right now? I am, frankly speaking sick of A Papaya's behaviour in this game. Had I been a vig, and he not been a claimed mason, I would have got him night 1, I swear, I would have. He is, basically a scum's dream mason.
So, A Papaya: May I have your views on what you think of all the players? And, please don't give any of your

"I don't think there is anything to comment on"

bullshit anymore. Because, I would seriously begin to question your sanity if you do so.
Sorry if the attack on A Papaya sounds too personal, but I am totally frustrated by his behaviour in this game.
Sir T.

Again, if we lynch one of this group of three people and they are innocent, lets start lynching the claimed masons.

Gah. Long. Sorry, I trimmed three times and this is as short as I could get it.

[Ripley]

Welcome to the game, Jalyn.

Do you have any thoughts as to Sir Tornado's most likely partner, if he is scum?

[Patrick]

Votecount

Lawrencelot (2) -- Lowell, Albert B. Rampage
Lowell (1) -- Adel

Not Voting: Ripley, Sir Tornado, Jalyn, Lawrencelot
7 alive, 4 to lynch.

[Lawrencelot]

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

[Lowell]

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

Interesting.

This is the first thing Lawrence has said that wasn't completely scummy...

Also, new perspective from Jalyn. Nice.

[Jalyn]

Do you have any thoughts as to Sir Tornado's most likely partner, if he is scum?

Well...

It's highty WIFOM, but the fact that he pointed at three people and said "if we lynch one of them and they are innocent, we'll start lynching masons" tends to indicate that the majority of the people being pointed at weren't guilty. I

think

Adel was more likely to be lynched at that point than Lawrencelot, so I guess I'd put the list at:

Lowell
Lawrencelot
Adel

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

A possibly valid point, but Sir Tornado was asking this in direct response to ABR saying that he had PMed A Papaya and told him not to reveal that he was a mason. Both of the posts where he mentions the Daytalking are on page 13, posts 311 & 315.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Adel...Lawrencelot...Adel...Lawrencelot...which one to choose ?

1) Adel
2) Lawrencelot

Original Roll String: 1d2

1 2-Sided Dice: (2) = 2

[Sir Tornado]

OK. I'm probably going to end up triple posting here, with details and analysis and such, but here's my current suspicion list:

Sir Tornado
Adel/Lawrencelot
Lowell
----
Ripley/ABR

Here's the interesting thing I noted from day 1 reactions to the mason claims.

1. Accepted - Theo & Ripley (obviously)
2. Completely rejected - Ryan, Adel & Lawrencelot
3. Accepted and then stopped posting - Lowell (I don't remember if there was a reason for this or not)
4. Never posted about it at all - Aimee, Me
5. Accepted and kept bringing up reasons to lynch the masons the next day? - Sir Tornado

I realize people have started to think he's scum as of today, but I spent my reading time of day one thinking "How can people think he's pro-town?!"

Anyway, I can't see a scum group of Ryan/Adel/Lawrencelot. Not even the most misguided scum group would have all attacked two masons confirming each other.

I'll post quotes from Sir Tornado from day showing what I'm talking about.

I said, many times over, that:

I would back ABR and A Papaya's mason claim and vote 100% on day 1,

but

if they got their day 1 lynches wrong (about which, I might add ABR and A Papaya -- especially Albert -- were very confident about), I might begin suspecting they were not really masons and propose lynching them.

However, because one of the persons they accused (Ryan) turned out to be the scum, you would see that I believed them totally and never again even hinted about lynching any of them again.

What you have to take into account here, is that A Papaya was tremendously scummy on day 1 with his non posting. It was very hard for me to believe at first that he was a mason, and I had serious doubts over A Papaya's claim until ABR confirmed it, and even then, because of his earlier behavior, I still had a small doubt at the back of my mind (until Day 1 end that is)

The point I am trying to make is -- and what I think Lowell was saying is -- I feel that A Papaya's claim will not really help the town at all unless he is a scum. It is, I feel, anti-town and will cause only trouble for us.
That is the reason why I am keeping my vote on A Papaya for now.

Having said that, I would still keep my vote where it is (on A Papaya), at least until we get a confirmation or a denunciation of A Papaya's claim.

Two posts keeping his vote on the claimed mason and a request for confirmation or counter claims. Counter claims make sense, confirmation should NOT have been necessary. (I understand why ABR did it, and I'm not commenting on that.) No protown player should have been looking for a second mason to come out to support A Papaya's claim - a lack of counter claim should have been sufficient proof for day one.

For the same reason, I was not willing to accept A Papaya's claim alone. However, I don't think ABR claiming mason really made much difference to the scum. Here is how I saw it:

1. Only a scum could possibly claim a mason. A townie would have absolutely no reason to. And, if one claims, he should get lynched on Lynch all liars principle

2. So, if someone claims mason, then a vanilla townie could possibly in doubt regarding whether he is scum or a real mason. However, a scum would have no such doubt. They would KNOW that it is a real mason.

3. If the scum knew, after A Papaya was a mason, then, going from previous posts, they would have easily guessed it was ABR. So, me "fishing" for another claim wouldn't have been more helpful for the scum. They would already have known it. What it did do was that it convinced me to follow ABR and A Papaya that day to see what happened.

That was my reason for not lifting the vote on A Papaya. It wouldn't have helped the scum at all.

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

I asked that question on June 9th on Page 13th. Ryan was modkilled 30 hours later in page 21. We had a vote count from the mod in between that (much before the modkill in fact), and I assure you that I would not have waited that much time to inform the mod had I been a scum and had ryan tried to communicate with me outside the game.

[Adel]

Interesting. I don't agree with all arguments against Sir Tornado, but there was one quote that I found very interesting:

"Are Masons and Scum allowed to PM during the day time?"

In case some of you forgot, and Jalyn didn't read it yet: ryan was modkilled for pming someone during daytime, right? Ryan was mafia. Sir Tornado could be the one who ryan pmed. Jalyn, could you tell me the page of this quote?

A possibly valid point, but Sir Tornado was asking this in direct response to ABR saying that he had PMed A Papaya and told him not to reveal that he was a mason. Both of the posts where he mentions the Daytalking are on page 13, posts 311 & 315.

This is a very interesting topic, one that I had completely missed. We know that ryan claimed that he was modkilled for pm'ing a scummate during the day, post 526 on page 22. Most of us seemed to decide that since we had no way to know if he were lying or not, we would just stop thinking about it. I now think ryan was telling the truth.

What I think happened: Sir Tornado had a PM (probably unread) from ryan sitting in his inbox, and he wasn't sure what to do with it. He knew it was illegal, but was hesitant to get his scumbuddy modkilled. Along comes ABR, with a post that may imply that he sent a daytime pm to A Papaya. Sir T tries to draw out evidence that the masons were cheating, fails, and finally did the right thing by reporting the our mod that ryan was cheating, or our mod saw Sir T's post and asked him about it in a PM and then Sir T fessed up.
If ABR received any PMs from our mod either Day1 or Night 1 asking if he was cheating with A Papaya by sending daytime PM's, then I will be fully convinced that Sir Tornado is scum.

An alternate possibility is nagging me though... what if ryan read Sir T's posts, decided that since the Masons were doing it he would to. That would mean that Sir T is town.

Just to be clear: I fully believe that the PM from ABR to A Papaya was sent during the night before Day 1, when it was legal. That doesn't mean that ryan did. (in post 2 or mod said " Masons and Mafia may talk during the confirmation stage if they wish, even though the game starts in day.")

unvote:Lowell vote:Sir Tornado

even though I fully believe that Law will be today's lynch, I think it is a good idea to bring some attention to this significant issue which may be proof that Sir T is guilty.

ABR: did you receive any PMs from our mod regarding daytime PMs?

[Albert B. Rampage]

No. Neither did Papaya.

[Adel]

So what do you think of Sir T's day 1 questions and post at 783? I just looked back through his posts, and he wrote

pages

between asking about the daytime PM and when ryan was modkilled. Am I being too cynical when I think that he waited on purpose to turn ryan in so that there would be more room between his brainfart (asking about the PMs in thread rather than via PM to the mod) and when ryan was modkilled?

My spidey-sense is totally tingling.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I wonder.

[Lawrencelot]

No, after these 2 quotes from this page my suspicion of SirT is gone:

A possibly valid point, but Sir Tornado was asking this in direct response to ABR saying that he had PMed A Papaya and told him not to reveal that he was a mason. Both of the posts where he mentions the Daytalking are on page 13, posts 311 & 315.

I asked that question on June 9th on Page 13th. Ryan was modkilled 30 hours later in page 21. We had a vote count from the mod in between that (much before the modkill in fact), and I assure you that I would not have waited that much time to inform the mod had I been a scum and had ryan tried to communicate with me outside the game.

And I have a new argument for my own defense, yay! (although attention is going away from me now). ABR, you are hesitating between Adel and me again. You were doing that on D2 as well iirc. Now, scum decided not to kill you. Maybe it was because you were going after me and Adel. Wait, now that I think about this argument, it has some flaws because scum killed A Papaya (who also went after me and Adel). But anyway: if I was scum, I would have killed ABR.

[Albert B. Rampage]

WIFOM.

[Lawrencelot]

No, then I would have said it earlier, because I'm not under pressure now. But the argument isn't that strong, I admit.

[Ripley]

No, after these 2 quotes from this page my suspicion of SirT is gone:

Really? You thought the only valid point against Sir T was that "PM'ing during that day" business?

And I have a new argument for my own defense, yay! (although attention is going away from me now).

I wouldn't be too quick to celebrate if I were you.

But anyway: if I was scum, I would have killed ABR.

Well, anybody could say that, couldn't they? It seems to me that the scum, whoever they are, would have every reason to leave ABR alive after what happened Day 2. Maybe it would happen again. You say that ABR was "going after you and Adel", and that therefore you'd have NK'ed him, but in fact "going after you and Adel" turned out in practical terms to mean "lynching Aimee".

Interesting here that you're picking up on Sir T's argument in post 754:

Look at A Papaya's posts on day 2. They clearly say many times over, that he wants to lynch Lawrencelot on day 3. And, he gets NKed on night 2? It is too obvious that Lawrencelot is being framed. (which is why I settled on Adel being scum, but at this instant, it is still close between Adel/Lawrencelot for the scum position for me)

This was his response to my pressing him for reasons why the nightkill of Papaya caused him to change his suspicion from Adel/Lawrencelot to Adel alone. He claims that you (Lawrencelot) were obviously being framed, though somehow despite this he has reverted to the position where it's close between Lawrencelot/Adel in his supicions. I already asked him (Post 761) how a player that was being framed could be scum, but I got no answer.

I've found Sir T's responses to my many questions to be evasive and unsatisfactory. He was far too quick to do an about turn yesterday and jump on the lynch wagon of a player he believed innocent "because it would yield us such useful information". It was painfully obvious that with all the voters except himself voting under orders from ABR, that it would yield us almost nothing.

I asked him to tell us what useful info he'd got from Aimee's death. Since this was his alleged reason for joining in her lynch, you'd expect him to have been bursting with this key info for which he sacrificed Aimee, but actually I had to persevere to get it out of him at all. He said after the nightkill, he thought the scum were Adel and Lowell. (This is his ninth post of the day, and he hadn't mentioned Lowell at all. I really think SIr T is making this up as he goes along.) Immediately after Aimee's death but before the NK results, his scum choices were Lawrence/Adel and bird. The fact that he discarded these choices after the nightkill show that Aimee's death turned out to be entirely useless in determining Sir T's scum picks, which are in fact based on the NK of Papaya.

Therefore I believe his attempt to justify his lynching of Aimee for the info we could gain from it is demolished. He gained nothing, we gained nothing and the comments he makes when pressed about Lawrence and Adel are confused and unconvincing.

Jalyn also makes the excellent point that Sir T pushed hard for reasons to get a claimed mason, ABR or Papaya, lynched Day 2. The reasons:

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie? Ok, so, you've claimed mason, and I believe that for now, but I will have major doubts over that if your lynch does not turn out to be a scum.

If ABR and Papaya didn't pick a scum to be lynched, Sir T wants one of them lynched next day. Where's the sense in this? They were masons, not cops. Did they strike you as efficient scum-finding machines? I somehow doubt it. Looks like a plan to follow ABR and Papaya in the lynching of a townie, hold them accountable and lynch a mason next day. Here are the votes at the time of Post 345:

A Papaya (2) -- ryan, bird1111,
Aimee (2) -- Lowell, Sir T
ryan (1) -- Ripley
Adel (3) -- Albert B. Rampage, Papaya, Theopor
ABR (1) – lawrence

Both masons on the Adel wagon, joined by Theo, With several other possible Adel voters on the scene. A mason-led lynch of Adel looks like a real possibility. If Adel is innocent it's all set up for a mason lynch tomorrow. Double whammy for the scum.

Then there's this:

If the scum do not NK him [ABR], then it would be proof positive that he is the scum and is lying, and we lynch him on day 2.

It wuld be proof positive of nothing of the sort. The scum could try and take out the third, unknown mason, A no-lose strategy for them. Either they kill a mason, or else a player strongly supportive of the masons, with the bonus that suspicion will fall on the claimed masons because they survived. Of course, the ryan modkill incident basically screwed all this up, but Sir T wouldn't have known that was going to happen.

I'm also suspicious of post 729 where Sir T tries to set up a vote on whether we should lynch someone right away. Maybe he didn't want bird, or bird's replacement, taking part in the day (if so, judging by Jalyn's posts, he was right not to want it) But just a few posts later, 751, he is very firmly in favor of a longer day 3 and waiting for bird. Maybe, with absolutely no takers for the idea of the immediate lynch, he thought it wiser to declare his allegiance to the other camp.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Woah, three gigantic waves of attack from me, Jalyn and Ripley! Sir T is in trouble.

3. If the scum knew, after A Papaya was a mason, then, going from previous posts, they would have easily guessed it was ABR. So, me "fishing" for another claim wouldn't have been more helpful for the scum. They would already have known it. What it did do was that it convinced me to follow ABR and A Papaya that day to see what happened.

That was my reason for not lifting the vote on A Papaya. It wouldn't have helped the scum at all.

Unless it was the

third

mason who claimed, or if we

all

claimed.

[Jalyn]

I think it has pretty much stopped, but I'm not particularly comfortable speculating on how a player may or may not have reacted to the knowledge of someone else cheating.

Sir Tornado's post hasn't altered my suspicions at this point, but I'd like to hear more from Lowell than "nice perspective."

[Sir Tornado]

Hi.

I need to re-read day 1. Not being the one to keep notes, I feel that memory is not serving me well. Will post something in the next 12 hours.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Time's up.

[Adel]

Does that me you will be joining me on Sir Tornado's bandwagon? If he turns up scum, and I think he will, do you expect Law or Lowell to be his buddy?
My current odds for scum:
Sir T: 70%
Law: 65%
Lowell: 35%
Jalyn: 15%
Sir T + Law is by best guess for the scum duo, and Sir T + Lowell would be my second best guess. If Sir T is town.... we'd be at lynch or loose tomorrow, right? Lets get the post activity up a little so that we can hash this decision out without deadline pressure.

[Adel]

EBWOP: Does that

mean

that you will be joining me on Sir Tornado's bandwagon?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Law/Sir T would be my first choice too(70%). Law/Adel is second, but 30%.

[Adel]

Lowell hasn't posted since Friday. I would like to see his analysis of possible scum groupings.