Mini 521 (SMSM, Ended)

[Adele]

Doesn't everyone know how in games people give random votes for reasons such as "I was in a game with him", "He nightkilled me in game 1", "He's obv scum he made the first post". I don't see how mine is any different. If someone disagrees with what I

know

what I said and what I meant by it you deserve to be lynched for it

But you claimed such-and-such that we don't know how you could've known and it turned out to be true.

And, we deserve to be lynched for not trusting that your backtracking is honest? We're applying professional skepticism here, max. It's now about what

you

know; we can only act on what

we

know.

[Max]

Put it this way the most likely reason for a reroll would not be because of a player? Unless mith sent a PM to the wrong person by accident, The only other reason I can think of would be something to do with metascum discussing something they shouldn't. Neither are strong enough arguments so I'll continue with my basicness of believing that A) It's the first post, How would I, and not anyone else, know why the PMs had to be resent?
B) And secondly, what would the point be in voting someone because of a re-roll, Admittedly I do play better as scum, but I never was scum as on night 1 my role changed along with everyone else's. Why would

anyone

vote about another game, this is C++ mark 2 that was C9++ mark 1 it's a different game, but random votes are based on facts no one knows for sure, theoretically if I aroused suspicion everyone who random voted should I had no information just like everyone else, so my statement

^took 5 mins to write may be spelling errors

[kabenon007]

But didn't you leave your vote on Fiasco until he told you to remove it?

[Fiasco]

It's the first post, How would I, and not anyone else, know why the PMs had to be resent?

The role PMs for the scum are different this time around; they now say scum have to choose a killer. It seems possible that this came up in PMs with the mod somehow. It also seems possible that it really was a random vote and it's just a coincidence.

[kabenon007]

Is that a claim of you as scum, Fiasco? Or do you mean when you first received the PM it said you had to choose? Cuz it seems like you are claiming that you know what the scum PM's say now, for the second role assign.

[WaterboyWaldo]

I don't know if that's subgame-scummy or metagame-scummy.

vote: fiasco

[Fiasco]

Cuz it seems like you are claiming that you know what the scum PM's say now, for the second role assign.

They're right there in the setup post.

[ryan]

I don't know if that's subgame-scummy or metagame-scummy.

vote: fiasco

Is there actually a difference? I mean if it's scummy, it's scummy right?

[Fiasco]

Yes, there's a difference -- for example, if you're investigated guilty, that's subgame-scummy but not metagame-scummy.

[Fiasco]

I can see five possible explanations for the lack of a scum kill:

1. intentional no kill by the scum
2. successful doc protect
3. successful block
4. scum missed the deadline
5. scum hit a kill-immune SK

In case 2 the doc should probably not come out. In case 3 the blocker should probably come out. Agreed?

[Fiasco]

Ebwop: case 5 doesn't work unless the SK is not-killing intentionally, of course.

[Max]

or the mafia hit the sk the sk is blocked or the sk's kill is protected

[Fiasco]

I thought that was too much of a coincidence to list, but actually it turns out that in this setup docs and blockers don't work on SKs at all.

[Xdaamno]

I don't know if that's subgame-scummy or metagame-scummy.

vote: fiasco

Is there actually a difference? I mean if it's scummy, it's scummy right?

"Rather obvious" mistake (As in I suspect it could be intentional, though I have no clue why >.<)

I can see five possible explanations for the lack of a scum kill:

1. intentional no kill by the scum
2. successful doc protect
3. successful block
4. scum missed the deadline
5. scum hit a kill-immune SK

In case 2 the doc should probably not come out. In case 3 the blocker should probably come out. Agreed?

Uh, I don't get it. Why?

[Fiasco]

1. Doc may have an innocent, blocker may have a guilty = more info
2. Doc will get nightkilled if out, blocker less so.

[Xdaamno]

1. Doc may have an innocent, blocker may have a guilty = more info
2. Doc will get nightkilled if out, blocker less so.

There's four other possibilities, and we can't tell which one it is; so this is up for all sorts of confusion. Though I could just be naturally suspiscious.

[Sammich]

1. intentional no kill by the scum
2. successful doc protect
3. successful block
4. scum missed the deadline
5. scum hit a kill-immune SK

In case 2 the doc should probably not come out. In case 3 the blocker should probably come out. Agreed?

5 is impossible.
The SK would've killed by all means, which means there's like TWO doctors.

[ryan]

The Doctor (especially in this setup) should NOT come out and I'm not sure why Fiasco even brought up this fairly obvious point

[Fiasco]

It happened to come up in a convo with myself. I agree it's fairly obvious.

The SK would've killed by all means

Why? I'd consider not killing as an SK.

Looks like we're heading for another no-lynch. Still interested in hearing more discussion of Pooky's meta plans. I don't think I could stomach having to come back to the site daily for the next several weeks just to post in subgames that everyone agrees don't matter.

vote Max

[Thorned Rose]

Really sorry for the lack of posts in this game. I'll be honest, I'm not too sure what's going on. But Max's backtracking was scummy IMO, and is syill backpedalling now.

Vote: Max

If Aimee posts and feels that the vote could be better placed, I'll let her, since I'm not feeling too confident in this game atm.

~Jordan

[Fiasco]

Pooky, I'm having more doubts about your meta plans. Let's say the scum give themselves away and we all vote on meta lynches. If you're a metatownie and you happen to disagree with the majority meta lynch choices, why would you even help throw the game? "Because otherwise you'll get lynched in the metagame as a punishment"? Perhaps, but if I happened to agree with your actions why would I want to punish you?

[Xdaamno]

Rose's jump on the wagon looked opportunistic, and for some reason targeted the weaker point (Max backtracked on what could easily have been a weird joke), rather than the, IMO, stronger one (We need to lynch

someone

before the deadline).

That said, I'd vote for that second point. How long is it until the deadline again?

[Max]

Fiasco you want to lynch someone to prevent a no-lynch.

That means the only reason your voting me is because you don't want a no lynch.

[kabenon007]

They're right there in the setup post.

Oops...

My bad. I agree with Fiasco's avoidance of a no lynch. We cannot afford to let a lynch go by and count on whatever happened last time to get us through the night without another kill. A no lynch provides us no information, while a lynch, even a townie lynch, provides us with some information. Otherwise it is just like the scum getting a free kill and we do nothing. So, I will

unvote

and vote for the scummiest person on the block...

vote Max

[ryan]

kabenon007: I'm not sure I agree with your statement about a townie lynch giving us information, shouldn't we be aiming for the scummiest player at the time?