Mini 535: Pick Your Poison 2 (Game Over!)

[Bookitty]

vote: two shot Mafia roleblocker

vote: encryptor

Not as sure on the second. Willing to be convinced otherwise.

[Bookitty]

I think it's unlikely that the scum gave us a cop. I was thinking they likely gave us a Vig, which the GF would be vulnerable to, but that's a long shot, so in retrospect, I think the others were right about GF and I was wrong. I'm already voting for Encryptor.

[Bookitty]

EBWOP: which the godfather WOULDN'T be vulnerable to. Hmmm. Early morning posting for the win. -sighs-

[Bookitty]

@Ether:

I don't really see what's scummy about changing my mind after thinking it over. How useful daytalking is to the scum would depend on the scum in question, I guess. I was looking for further impressions on that.

I realised I was most likely wrong about preferring the roleblocker role to the godfather role, and I said I thought I'd made a mistake. I think that's fair enough. It's difficult enough (at least for me) to try to figure out the roles we've probably been given, and then to try to figure what roles present the least risk and most benefit given the roles we'll have as town? I thought other people understood it better, so I deferred to their better judgment.

I think that's fair.

[Bookitty]

vote encryptor

[Bookitty]

To clarify, I was thinking they likely gave us a Vig, which the GF would be vulnerable to (by means of the Vig's kill not working, pointing him out) but it would be a long shot that the Vig would 1) hit the GF, and 2) that he would be certain the GF wasn't protected by Doc or Roleblocker. I've gone back and forth on this. If I were sure that the scum had picked the way I would have picked in their position, I would have more certainty, but as it is I'm not going to pretend to certainty I absolutely don't feel.

I think they gave us a Doc, a Weak Doc, and a Vig. I thought I'd said this before, but maybe not. The scum know what they gave us, so I don't think there's any harm in giving my opinion.

I don't think they gave us a Masoniser because I think that would be a quick one shot investigation when we need it most. And I surely don't think they gave us a cop.

So there's my reasoning, for what it's worth.

[Bookitty]

vote: Skitzer

because there's only room for one kitty in this town.

@Chaz: I see what you did there.

[Bookitty]

So, given that you had discussed the setup with others quite extensively before you made your choices, Ether, why is it so suspicious that others who had not done so might not see it as clearly as you did?

You're wrong about this. Additionally, I don't think I generally post as if I'm certain about things (I might be wrong, remember) so your pointing out my "uncertainty" as uncharacteristic is not only wrong, it's something you should know is wrong.

Admitting that you might be wrong about something is not a scumtell. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint it as one.

[Bookitty]

@Ether:

I was having some difficulty thinking about the possible combinations that scum would likely give us. As I said, I didn't have a great deal of discussion beforehand. I was the first person to vote, the first person to state what I thought the scum had likely given us in the way of roles. So far as I recall, no one else has even bothered to answer your questions, perhaps because you addressed them only to me.

You thought that a roleblocker/encryptor was a good idea at first as well, yes? You stated as much in your post.

So then, what precisely is your point with this? That I preferred your original choices, and when I heard the arguments of other people, and thought about their points, I decided they were right and I was wrong? I'm not so experienced at playing scum that I feel I know with certainty what they would have chosen, so I deferred to the opinions of people who seemed to understand more than I did. I think that's a reasonably pro-town thing to do, and surely you're not arguing that all the people who favoured godfather over roleblocker are scum.

Why did you post this:

So, uh, I made this big post about supporting a roleblocker/encryptor combination and believing that there could easily be a cop.

when in fact you never made such a post, and you never argued your case for this combination? You changed your mind at some point, just as I did, yes?

I was willing to put my own opinions on the line and post first. Other people disagreed, and I thought their reasoning was better than mine. You didn't put your opinions on the line at all, you just attacked mine, even though my original thoughts were the same as yours. I'd like your reasoning on this.

And yes, originally I did think they'd given us a cop and thus I was against a godfather. But I realised after reading other people's arguments and thinking it over that my theory was fairly unlikely. I'm not at all sure they gave us doc/weak doc/vig, either, but that was my best guess

at the time you asked me

. Trying to backdate that to my original votes after I've already admitted my logic was probably faulty is incorrect at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst.

[Bookitty]

@Skitzer:

Ether was not voting me for random voting. She gave her reasons above. I don't agree with her reasons, but I don't think random voting was one of them.

[Bookitty]

This contrast, along with some general assumptions about your behavior, makes me think that you

would

have been thinking about the scum roles, and had a reasonable degree of certainty on the roleblocker.

That's right, but I was WRONG about being certain on the roleblocker. I hadn't fully thought about the possibilities, I admit that. I was persuaded by the arguments of others, and when they're right I think that's a good thing to do. I don't mind being wrong, but I do mind this crusade you've made out of my being wrong.

It seems to me that scum would be more likely to do what YOU have done, Ether. They wouldn't voice their own opinions first, they would wait and see what the general consensus was, and then they'd attack the people who weren't in perfect step with that consensus. It would be an easy yet baseless case to make, and scum are all about the easy cases.

Additionally, you seem determined to ensure that this is the sole topic of discussion. You don't feel the need for a random vote, you don't want to talk about anything except this, as if you think there's only one scum in the game and you have found it. You're stifling discussion by the rest of the town. Perhaps that's your point.

I still would like an explanation for why, originally, you stated that it felt uncharacteristic for me to be uncertain, when you know this not to be the case, and in fact you yourself nominated me for a title based on precisely the opposite. Because that feels like you were trying to invent a case out of nothing right from the start.

Also, can you explain the benefit of your hypovig idea, please? Because I'm not seeing it.

[Bookitty]

All right, Ether, can you restate your questions in a clear manner? All I've seen so far are accusations, and most of them don't make sense to me. It's like you're manufacturing a case out of nothing, and I don't know why you'd do that as town.

You're wrong. I don't know if you're scum being deliberately wrong, or town suffering from confirmation bias, but you're wrong.

Additionally, if one person is giving a name, and the other people are usually, but not necessarily, reporting "no choice", I think that pretty well outs the vig, doesn't it? One result of your plan is that it causes people to make themselves targets of the scum (as town) and allows them to draw the doctor protection as scum (this assumes that we have a doc, but I am okay with assuming that). Since most people will be reporting "no choice" per your instructions, then the only reason to give a name unless you're the vig is to attract the attention of scum for the NK (essentially martyring yourself to distract attention from the vig) or to try to attract the doc protection as scum (which will kill the weak doc, if I recall correctly).

If the vig attempts to kill someone who does not die, then we know that

1. either he hit the godfather
or
2. he hit someone who had doc protection.

Thus, if the vig hits someone who does not die, then I believe he should claim that result immediately. The doc can only protect himself once, so the odds are in our favour that the vig did not hit the doctor. The doctor will then know who to protect (there's really no reason to protect anyone else) and while we may mislynch a townie who had attracted the doc's protection, we aren't setting up situations where that's repeatable.

As always, correct me if you see flaws in my logic. (Well, except Ether, because I'm getting more and more suspicious of her motives.) I just don't see the reason to make this overly complicated and I don't see that we gain very much, if at all, by this plan.

[Bookitty]

Ether, at this point, I'm not going to go back over every one of your posts and try to figure out what it is you feel I haven't responded to. You don't like my responses, fine, you're voting me, you're lobbying for my lynch. That's certainly your right. If you can convince enough other people, then you may well be able to get me lynched, and again, that's your right.

But consider for a moment your position when I come up town, as I WILL, and you've wasted all of Day One or however long you keep up this weird vendetta, and gained absolutely zero information about anyone else.

It's possible you're scum. I don't really think so, but your persistent tunnelling is really weird, Ether. If you're town, you're tunnelling to the extent that it's derailing all other discussion.

Make your case clearly, ask your questions

in question form

, and I'll respond. So far your arguments boil down to "Bookitty was uncertain, and that makes her scum! Then she responded to my accusation, so now she's double scum!" and that's not a rational argument, and not one to which I can make any response. If you can't distill your own arguments into question form, I'm not doing your homework for you.

[Bookitty]

Keep the original statements in mind, and understand that it's unlikely that I'll unvote regardless of your answers.

These weren't really meant to be questions;

I'm just drawing attention to how thoroughly you're skipping my posts.

In honesty, I don't really care if you unvote, Ether. I do wonder why, if they weren't meant to be questions, you objected to my not responding to them in the first place.

This contrast, along with some general assumptions about your behavior, makes me think that you would have been thinking about the scum roles, and had a reasonable degree of certainty on the roleblocker.

Yes, I thought I was right. I was thinking about the early game, and the possibility of a two-shot roleblocker wasting their roleblocks on the wrong people, and it seemed like a low-risk situation. Then others pointed out that in certain situations (when people were outed, for instance) it could hurt us a lot, I thought about that, and I absolutely agreed with them. I still didn't like the godfather option, but that's more a mental block on my part than a valid reason.

I think you looked kinda certain in your first post. A healthy level of certain. An "I was thinking about my decision" level of certain. You acted more uncertain later, to a degree at which the original certainty felt off.

I had thought about it. I had realised I was wrong, based on the arguments of others. I admitted as much at the time, and repeatedly when you badgered me about it.

Read: you never actually did post your rationale for the roleblocker, which makes for a blatant contradiction when you accuse me. I said what I supported, even though I clearly stated that I didn't want to end the day yet. I even gave opinions on people instead of just roles.

How did I not put my opinions on the line?

You jumped on me for changing my mind, something you yourself did. You didn't bother to post your rationale for this, and you were attacking me from your very first post, Ether, before I could possibly have avoided any of your questions. You didn't post your rationale (though you claim to have written a very lengthy one) but you insist that it's scummy that I didn't do so. Do you see how that might seem hypocritical?

Read: so, uh, what

were

you thinking in 5?

I thought that a two-shot roleblocker was more likely to block nothing than to block an actual action. I had stupidly not put myself in their place, and thought about a situation where our powerroles were outed. The risks were pointed out, I thought about them myself, and I realised I was being an idiot. And I would have plainly said so at any point if you'd simply ASKED, instead of making all these accusations about how I'm always certain (which is false and known to you to be false) and how my shift from roleblocker to godfather (a shift you made yourself, by your own admission) is scummy when I do it but not when you do it. You admit to having a lot of discussion about the possible roles, but are quick to jump on the mistakes of those who did not.

Read: how did I try to stifle discussion?

You're not interested in anything but this topic. You're wrong, but even if you were right, you are getting precisely no read on anyone else, and in fact keep dragging the subject back to this. YvonneSeer told you she didn't understand what you were getting at, you didn't bother to answer. Other people commented on a Skitzer bandwagon that you endorsed and you promptly abandoned it.

I'm trying to get people involved so I can read them. I'm trying to scumhunt, period. The contrast is funny--you don't even have a non-random vote out yet.

You aren't trying to scumhunt. You're only hunting me, and I happen not to be scum. I mean, I could ignore your unjustified attacks and try to pretend you're not here, in this game, but that's about the only option I have, since every time I post you commence to shrieking about how that's even MORE scummy.

Read: Bookitty, why are you such a lying hypocrite in this game?

Okay, first, that's not what a Straw Man fallacy is. If what you were saying was true, it would be misrepresentation. You're building an argument against me based on false premises, but that isn't a straw man argument either.

Secondly, I'm not the one constructing an entire case out of uncertainty and an inability to decipher when you want a response and when you're just making attacks (you said it yourself, "

These weren't really meant to be questions;

" until you decided that it was suspicious that they weren't being addressed in their entirety.

Name call all you like, it doesn't make your case any better. I'm done addressing this with you, since you can't even be civil.

[Bookitty]

It's a good point, scotmany. I simply hadn't removed my vote from Skitzer from the random phase, because I've been concentrating on trying to figure out what Ether was getting at with her posts directed at me. I will do that now, though.

unvote

I'm not sure if Ether is scum. She's very focused on me, but that doesn't necessarily paint her as scum in my eyes; being wrong is not a scumtell in my view. Additionally, my read of Ether's playstyle is that she's very aggressive, and this wouldn't be out of character for that, so even though she's tunneling on me fairly exclusively and pushing for my lynch, I can't really read that as a scumtell either. I do not know if she is scum, and I'm not going to push for her lynch simply because of her accusations of me.

About the vig idea, here's how I envisioned it playing out, assuming I understood it fully:

• Every day that there was no previous night vig-kill, each of us state who we would have targeted.
  
  If all of us state no-choice, we have no possibility of outing the vig, which is good, but we gain no new information from it.
  
  If one person states a choice, then it's the same as them admitting to being the vig. This draws the doc's protection immediately, assuming there is one; if not, then we just killed our vig, most likely. If we trade our vig for the godfather, that's good. If we don't, then that's not so good.
  
  If several people state a choice, then any of them could draw the NK, martyring themselves to hide the Vig's identity. However, if he targeted the godfather, and he says so honestly, then the Vig's identity would immediately be known to scum, though not to town and any doctors that might afford protection.
  
  Additionally scum might state a choice in hopes of attracting weak-doc protection (assuming there is one) and killing a threat to themselves. This scenario leaves the doc (assuming there is one) unsure of whom to protect, but this is not significantly worse than if the vig does not reveal himself at all.

My own thought is that the vig should only reveal his NK attempt if it is unsuccessful, because in that case, either a doc protected his target, or he has hit the godfather. If it is the first, then the doc can switch his protection to the vig immediately. If it is the second, then we are trading vig for godfather, and at least if I were the vig, I'd make that trade for town in an instant. In any case, I think this plan minimises the problems associated with multiple people claiming no-choice and is much simpler as well.

[Bookitty]

Read: are you even reading my posts? How was my answer to that not completely obvious?

How did I not put my opinions on the line?

You wrote a long post defending your roleblocker idea, but you didn't share it. I don't understand why, having put the work into that, you didn't feel that your thoughts would be useful to the town. I mean, it was already written, and I know for myself when I write something lengthy, I tend to post it just on the basis that I put a lot of work into it.

In preference to actually sharing your own ideas (and apparently opening yourself up to attack), you chose to attack someone else who had had the same idea, and make a case out of that person changing their mind. You claimed that I usually expressed certainty, which you know isn't true, and when confronted on this, you made some vague justifications, none of which really made sense to me.

As to why your points aren't obvious, it's because you're posting them in a fairly random and confusing manner. I read your posts carefully, since they are mostly directed to me, and I didn't get the sense of what you were getting at for a long time. Other people have said they didn't understand your point. You've had to clarify pretty much every point you've made, and that's why I asked you to make your points in question form, so I knew what was rhetorical accusation and what you actually wanted a response to. You apparently had your mind made up well in advance of any possible response on my part, so most of your posts were filled with accusations about my usual playstyle (false, and I believe you knew them to be false if you'd considered it) and accusations about my motives (which is false, but clearly can't be proven to be false, since I can't prove my motives).

If your posts were clear and your questions obvious, then surely you wouldn't need to make a general statement like:

I should probably start quizzing people on my posts to make sure they're paying attention. This is ridiculous.

while you yourself are ignoring posts like this:

Ether, I have no idea what you're trying to get at. Sorry!

which arguably is about as specific as your posts directed at me have been, but apparently didn't merit a response from you.

Read: how are you not stifling discussion?

I absolutely agree that this argument has derailed useful discussion, cost the town the random vote phase that might have allowed some analysis on other people (though I don't accept responsibility for that part), and has largely monopolised the conversation. However, I note that you stated this:

if you posted an attack against me, I would consider myself obligated to respond to the attack

So I would argue that if I hadn't participated in trying to decipher what you were talking about, and tried to respond to it, you'd have decided that was scummy and tried to construct a case out of that. So I think that while we're both guilty of stifling discussion on other topics, I'm doing so by defending myself against baseless attacks, while you are the one making them.

On a related theme, if I were sure you were scum, or even moderately convinced of it, I wouldn't care about you calling it OMGUS. I'd just vote you. But with the bandwagon building on you, I'm viewing that as a point in your favour, ironically enough.

[Bookitty]

I am going to buck the trend and say that trying to provoke discussion and reaction by jumping on bandwagons is not really anti-town in my view. Especially in a situation where two people are arguing and derailing all other discussion, sometimes that is exactly what's needed to try to get back to some sort of normalcy.

Skitzer, what roles do you think the scum likely gave us? And back to your original justification for your scum-role choices, in what situation do you think it would be advantageous for the town to mass claim?

[Bookitty]

Hmmm, on a reread, I'm going to agree with JDodge on this, and add this:

FoS: YvonneSeer

She is possibly weak doc who doesn't like her role, but still...

Pointing out a possible powerrole is NOT pro-town play. Why would a townie EVER tell the scum who they think ANY of the powerroles are, much less a possible doc, deliberately pointing them out for a nightkill?

vote: Skitzer

[Bookitty]

Skitzer, do you think it's a protown action to identify and point out a town powerrole when you think you've spotted one? Why or why not?

[Bookitty]

My vote for Skitzer was not for forgetting the abilities of the various power roles. I've done similar, and I'm not going to fault someone for a mistake.

I voted for him because he seemed to be deliberately trying to out a power role, and that seems an anti-town thing to do. I'm going to say, tentatively, that this is Skitzer's playstyle. I don't feel that excuses it, but I do think it makes it less likely he's scum. I hoped my vote (and the wagon too) would have pressured him to put more thought into this game, but I don't see any result there.

I didn't much like the wagon against Ether. I don't know if she's scum. She's a smart player, and I'm not going to secondguess her motivations for her suspicions on me, but I will point out that it looked like Ether was trying to scumhunt to me, even though I knew her to be wrong. If I had to guess right now, I'd put her as town.

I don't see scum doing what YvonneSeer did, either. Announcing that you're bandwagoning first one person, then another, with the motives she expressed? I believe her, I think. It's too obvious a move for scum to make, and she didn't seem overly concerned about the votes on her.

Gorrad and thedragonsprincess both attracted some suspicion from me, for their slipping onto the YvonneSeer wagon without giving much reason. Bandwagoning is not anti-town, especially in the early stages where town should be looking for reactions.

Something I REALLY don't like: Porochaz votes Skitzer early, for some weak responses, says that he still finds Skitzer scummy (doesn't give reasons this time), and THEN says: "I feel that his latest weak doc thing justifies my vote." He also points to some other things Skitzer has done, but he's aware of Skitzer's general playstyle, I think, so why is he waiting until well after he votes to "justify" it?

Need more posts from Jordan and ckillor. They're not giving much to work with. Perfect seems pretty disengaged from this game, as well.

Scotmany seems to be pretty much going with the flow of this game, not making waves, changing his mind and agreeing with the more vocal players, and hasn't given a lot of his own opinions. So I'm going to shake up that flow, a bit, and

unvote; vote Scotmany12

[Bookitty]

Skitzer, do you think it's a protown action to identify and point out a town powerrole when you think you've spotted one? Why or why not?

I meant to point out that there is a possibility she isn't scum and we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

But... you voted her. Is that not jumping to conclusions?

My fault, you fosed her. I could have swore you voted her but nm then. Still though, why would you point out a powerrole? As town, we want to keep them hidden from the scum.

Ether has a great point. There is an encryptor, so the scum really have no reason to want to out powerroles. Instead, they would just talk about it among themselves. I'm starting to view skitzer as just a really really confused townie.

Okay, here's an opinion shift that looks to me like you didn't have a clear reason for suspecting Skitzer in the first place. That's what I meant by changing opinions.

Gorrad, ether is right. It is a stretch. To think that scum will forget the roles that they have, especially when they were voted on, is ludicrous if you would ask me.

Ether is right again... well, you know, I'm not surprised that Ether is right, but you're basically tagging along here TWICE, without posting any of your own suspicions. That might not be such a big deal except that you really haven't posted much content at all. These may be your own opinions, but in that case you need to support them better than simply saying, "Ether was right."

[Bookitty]

Who is Ever, please?

[Bookitty]

I don't agree that you should be replaced, thedragonsprincess. I would very much value your input. In addition, I don't think you should take Skitzer's opinion very much to heart, considering his complete lack of attention to this game.

It's likely that he's just trying to distract attention from his own failings. You are valuable to this game and I for one would like you to stay.

[Bookitty]

@Ether:

This is the problem with trying to answer your questions, Ether. You "have a feeling" or get "a vibe", and how am I supposed to answer that? You don't provide any evidence for it, it's all gut reaction, so far as I can see, and then you expect concrete answers?

Two quotes from me that you have ignored, though, in making these vague and unsubstantiated "vibe" accusations.

You're wrong. I don't know if you're scum being deliberately wrong, or town suffering from confirmation bias, but you're wrong.

It's possible you're scum. I don't really think so, but your persistent tunnelling is really weird, Ether. If you're town, you're tunnelling to the extent that it's derailing all other discussion.

I don't really think you can complain when you come in accusing someone of being scum with counterintuitive reasoning, and they think your case is crap and wonder if you're scum as a result. I think that's a normal reaction.

That said, do you really want to derail the discussion back to this again?

[Bookitty]

Okay, at this point, I'm getting the distinct impression that Ether is just picking out targets based on preconceived ideas. I never understood her attacks on me, but I know that expressing certainty and then attacking repeatedly is part of her playstyle. That certainty isn't always right, but I was willing for a time to write off her attacks on me as an honest attempt at scumhunting. That's why I didn't place my vote on her.

However, I do find it interesting that she is doing something in this game I haven't seen from her before. She's picking quotes of mine out of context and repeatedly demanding an explanation for each and every one of them, which I

think

is an attempt to keep me busy defending myself against her accusations so that I am distracted from the rest of the game. Her posts are unfocussed and unclear, not just to me, I think. Her insistence that every "aside" comment that she makes about me must be answered, when she's not making equal demands on other people, seems pretty odd to me as well.

She suggests a plan that seems designed to out a vig, if one exists, and when I point out this fact, simply abandons it.

It's actually not that great. The best plan is probably just "let the vig do whatever it feels like and hope the rest of the town doesn't find other ways to claim not-vig."

By her own standards, that's an unexplained change of heart.

I don't like this comment to Gorrad: "Bad motto, by the way. Smart towngoers get nightkilled." The wording sounds threatening in an odd way, and is she arguing that towngoers should behave stupidly? Because that's the alternative.

The Perfect/Mizzy case seems odd, as well. It nearly looks like bussing to me. Ether's pushing a case on Perfect, who seemed pretty disconnected from the game, and Mizzy votes for... YvonneSeer, and says it might be OMGUS? If you're going to own up to OMGUS, why not put your vote on the person who most actively pushed your case?

The whole thing feels wrong. As Ether would say, I don't like the "vibe", so I'm going to:

unvote; vote Ether

[Bookitty]

In response to Ether:

No, I do not find Setael scummy. She made a well thought out, decently argued case against someone, and then shifted her vote to a bandwagon that she also agreed with. I thought ckillor was mildly lurkery, and she inherited that, but that's about all I have against her.

[Bookitty]

@Ether: From my perspective, you manufactured a case against me based on very shaky logic. You then demanded answers to every picayune point you could find, and railed against me for not answering them. Your points were not clear to me (or to others, I suspect) and it looked very forced. I could see two reasons for that to be true. One was that you were trying to force conflict to derive information for the town, and the second was that you were scum trying to throw me off my game. I went back and forth on which I thought it was. I'm still not certain.

You seem very eager for a Perfect/Mizzy lynch, and you seem to want it right away. Perfect gave us nearly nothing to work with in terms of interactions and arguments. Mizzy is more talkative, and willing to engage in the give and take of discussion. Why would you want to have her lynched right away, given that fact? Why cut off the flow of information, rather than ask Mizzy questions, and derive connections from her comments on others? If you think she's scum, she's talkative scum, and why are you in such a rush to kill someone anyway? (I refer here to your "Why is he still alive?" post.)

You've been tunneling on first me, and then Perfect/Mizzy, and for my part I haven't found it helpful, or conducive to productive discussion. Setael made a decent case against Mizzy, and unfortunately Mizzy can't explain Perfect's behaviour, but she still owns it by way of replacing him. I'm willing to give her some time (since we're not under deadline) to make an impression of her own. I don't understand why you're so unwilling to do the same.

[Bookitty]

Mizzy:

Why do you think it's possible that Perfect might have lied about that? What other reasons could he have had, in your opinion, that would have created the need for a lie?

[Bookitty]

If Perfect lied for out of game reasons, it's irrelevant to the game. And thus isn't really worth addressing. If Perfect had other reasons to lie (and scum are about the only people who could know that) then it becomes relevant to the game. We can't know anything about Perfect's reasons for leaving the game, if they are not game-related. But saying that Perfect might have lied looks very seriously like scum-uncertainty and not town-uncertainty. Town would not respond in such a conciliatory manner, in my view. My own response as town would be something like, "How should I know why he really replaced? I would ASSUME he was telling the truth, do you have evidence to the contrary?" Yours was "You might be right, I just don't know." It looks a little too appeasing, to me.

You can see how this is so, yes?

I'm still not happy with Ether and I still have no level of certainty that she's town OR scum, but I'm pretty sure this response wasn't one a townie would make, especially given your ability to argue quite forcefully regarding other points.

unvote; vote Mizzy

[Bookitty]

It sort of argues that YvonneSeer isn't scum, though. JDodge stuck to his case on Skitzer right through the Perfect thing, and threw some suspicion at Ether (though not even FOS-worthy) during that, but when Mizzy started getting tough questions, he makes a "wall-o-text" comment and votes YvonneSeer.

Could be just a playstyle thing, but it also could be trying to take the heat off Mizzy.

I am not ready to dismiss the second possibility, especially if she comes up scum.

[Bookitty]

Have you ever played with JDodge before, Mizzy?

And there is only one relevant reason why Perfect would have asked for replacement: if he was scum under pressure. All other reasons are irrelevant to the game. Saying "he might be lying" is meaningless if you don't mean it in context to THIS game. If you don't mean it in context to this game, what's the point of the statement?

And I've been pretty clear that I don't know if Ether is scum. She's made arguments I don't agree with (and one that seems more and more valid to me, actually), but my vote is on you because to my mind you're more a sure thing than she is, based on your recent posts. So that argument isn't holding up either.

[Bookitty]

Now, uh...this one's weird. I'm all for Bookitty's vote, but I don't get her specific reason. I thought it was transparent from the start that Perfect was replacing out due to pressure--he's still officially in Mini 530, and he signed up for a new mininorm on Thursday, and in general that was just too much coincidence--but I don't actually regard that sort of thing in particular as a tell.

(The timing does, however, imply that Setael's town if Mizzy's scum.)

I mostly agreed with Setael's case when she presented it. Yours was not as clear as hers, and I am less suspicious of Setael than of you. That said, I felt Perfect might have replaced out due to being pressured (as town or scum) and Mizzy's response to Setael's comment was not one I thought town would make. It's certainly not what I thought of, when I read Setael's comment, but it was oddly conciliatory and in my view was a fairly serious scumtell, given the combative nature of her responses to you for what was essentially the same case.

[Bookitty]

That said, I felt Perfect might have replaced out due to being pressured (as town or scum)

What makes you feel that way and do you still feel this way after I presented the information in my last post? Do you not think it more reasonable, due to the timing of his posts and his lack of participation in other games, that he did not replace out for pressure and instead actually had no time?

Because it's not uncommon for scum to flake under pressure. They feel they have been found out, and they don't want to face that situation, so they ask for replacement. It happens quite a bit, and so I'm not ruling it out.

What DID you read from Setael's comment, and her comment directed to me? Here it is for ease of finding and please note the bolded parts, which were what prompted the response that you seem to hate so much:

The fact that he was replaced does not necessarily mean that he didn't have time and wasn't attached to the game.

It kind of makes me raise an eyebrow that you'd try to get us to assume that. It also is very possible that he wasn't dealing well with the pressure and didn't think he could talk his way out of a lynch. Not wanting to let his scum buddies down, he opted to replace out.

All kinds of possibilities.

So no, I won't be reviewing his comments in the light you suggested. Other than that, I've liked your posts so far and I'm keeping my vote on Yvonne since she's scum.

How can I refute, with any amount of sanity, that all kinds of possibilities exist?

You can assert the possibilities you think are most likely. If you felt as you apparently do in the paragraph above, that it's unlikely he replaced out under pressure, then it seems odd you wouldn't have asserted that opinion more strongly then, at the point of the accusation. You seemed to be more conciliatory than I expected, and Setael's case (and Ether's by extension) was reasonable in my view. The two things combined made me more suspicious than either by itself.

As far as why I was not hostile towards Set, and why I was towards Ether, was due to the presentation of the questions and concerns. I am always more willing to talk with someone rationally, even when they think I am scum and want me dead, when they provide arguments that are not, well, bitchy. If Ether had said, "Hey look, I think you're scummy and here's why...can you explain it please?" then I'd have been much more inclined to answer back the same way. My personality tends to meet fire with fire...so if you ask me a question in a level-headed manner, you get a level-headed answer. You, yourself was a victim of Ether and felt what her attacks are like...they raised similar reactions in you.

I agree with this, actually. That seems a reasonable explanation for the difference in tone.

I don't agree with the wagon on YvonneSeer. I don't like JDodge's recent comments, nor his recent vote shift. I don't find bandwagoning to be a scumtell, and my meta on JDodge is that he doesn't either. Additionally, I'd like to see more comment from him on the walls of text he so abhors.

unvote; vote JDodge

[Bookitty]

And I'm not desperate to end day one, far from it. If anything, I'm desperate that you people will stop allowing me to lurk.

Are you seriously blaming the town for your lurking?

[Bookitty]

Generally speaking when someone replaces into a game, a grace period is generally observed to allow them to catch up, read, and post some insights. I assumed that was what she was doing.

Lulubelle doesn't want us to let her lurk, and I don't want her to lurk either, but if she intends to lurk unless she's pressured not to, then

unvote; vote Lulubelle

Don't lurk.

Mizzy, do you feel Lulubelle is justified in not commenting on any cases regarding you or others? Do you feel that it is in the town's best interest to lurk and not post content and then blame the town for not stopping that behaviour?

I don't really understand your response.

[Bookitty]

I didn't say whether or not it was pro-town or anti-town. And the mechanisms with which YS and Lulu gain themselves attention are vastly different and can't be compared very well.

I agree that gaining too much attention if you're townie doesn't help the town, but neither does a dead game. Although, there are times when a townie would want to gain attention and it would be a pro-town move...but we won't get into that. It's too WIFOM.

@Mizzy and Lulubelle: Do you think that the way in which Lulubelle gained attention was a pro-town move in this case? How does Lulubelle's behaviour differ from YvonneSeer's?

@YvonneSeer: How do you think the way that you attracted attention differs from the way Lulubelle attracted attention?

Should the town HAVE to pressure supposedly pro-town players to provide content? Why or why not?

(These questions are obviously open to anyone; I just especially want an answer from the players mentioned.)

[Bookitty]

Mizzy:

Who do you think is most likely to be scum?

Lulubelle:

Do you have any thoughts on your reread? Now that you're not lurking anymore, do you have any suspicions other than Porochaz, whom you are voting?

Ether:

Do you think YvonneSeer is likely to be scum?

Setael:

You originally voted Perfect/Mizzy for what seems a reasonable scumtell to me. Do you still think that's valid and do you still find Mizzy suspicious?

[Bookitty]

Ouch. I had missed that. (And as an aside, ouch to the fact I can't get a connection to this site for more than a minute at a time.)

unvote; vote Skitzer

[Bookitty]

My apologies for not posting more lately. I've had consistent problems reaching the site, and then this weekend (when they cleared up) I've been really busy.

Gorrad did a ridiculously scummy thing. I'm just not sure it makes him scum. I for one had not seen Skitzer's claim until after he was lynched. Quickhammering, though, only makes sense if the scum gave us a doc. The absence of a nightkill points to that. We know that the scum sent in a night choice, because night ended early.

You've all been pretty fast getting in nightchoices, which is awesome.

I can't see any advantage to scum in not making a nightkill. So we have a doc of some sort.

So the scum would know we had a doc AND a cop, and they'd have a motivation for wanting the cop dead as soon as possible, because otherwise we'd be in the position of outed cop, hidden doc, which is completely favourable to town. Skitzer's play was pretty horribly scummy, but I imagine the scum wouldn't feel they could take that chance. Still, I don't see them being as blatant as Gorrad was. If Gorrad KNEW there was a cop, then he knew he was making himself a target by hammering. Now I'm into WIFOM, and I can't say with any certainty, but I think he wouldn't have done that.

An inconsistency I would like explained:

Right now, I am suspicious of everyone in here but one person.

You already know how a town alliance could help...you already said it, yourself. Secondly, I DON'T know they are town...it's just a guess based on information.

Are you suspicious of them, or do you think they are town? What makes you think each of them is town, apart from them having called a lot of attention to themselves in different ways?

And a few other questions I have:

JDodge, why do you think I'm likely town?

Porochaz, what's your opinion on Gorrad?

Ether, do you think Mizzy and Gorrad are likely scumbuddies?

[Bookitty]

Bookie: I think Ether said it best, you'd better have a damned good reason if your going to go after a claimed cop no matter how unlikely it sounds...

True, but not exactly what I meant. It's clear that most of us don't agree that Gorrad was right to quickhammer. But do you think it's more likely that he was town who got overeager and overly certain, or scum looking to kill off the cop before the cop could attract the (now nearly certain to exist) hidden doc's protection and do some investigations?

Sorry the question was unclear.

[Bookitty]

The disadvantage of claiming and outing your partner, Mizzy, is that you've just narrowed down the possible docs for scum. The upside of this is that I was about to vote Ether for abandoning her case on you without an explanation, and now I don't have to do that.

However, considering the doc claim vs not claim (I'm still trying to wrap my head around this), there are a few possibilities.

• 1) The doc does not claim, and is not instructed to protect anyone specifically. The problem with this scenario is the possibility that the doc will choose to protect someone who is scum, and thus die without giving any of his pseudoinvestigations.
  
  2) The doc does not claim, and is instructed to protect one of the masons. This doesn't really help town significantly in my view at this time. If we can keep the doc safe til endgame, it's brilliant, because we'd likely be able to keep two known pro-town players in the game (I doubt scum would try to kill either of them if we didn't say which to protect), but I don't know that we can.
  
  3) The doc does not claim, and is instructed to protect/investigate someone by the town without revealing himself/herself. This in effect gives us a cop investigation at night, that would work on the Godfather as well. If the doc turns up dead, then we know who he/she investigated. If the doc is alive, then we have one more pro-town player to add to our list (I don't know that I would try this beyond one more night, because then the possibilities for a NK become a little too favourable to scum, perhaps.)
  
  4) The doc claims, and then is the target for the nightkill. If the doc protected Mizzy or Ether, we gain nothing by this really except keeping our masons alive another night, and the best we gain, assuming the doc protected someone else, is to add another confirmed townie to the roster. I don't favour this option personally, UNLESS the doc fears being lynched to a significant degree, or is afraid they might have outed themselves somehow.

I'm preferring option 3, but option 4 is also viable if option 3 seems too risky.

Please correct my logic if it's wrong or if there are other significantly different alternatives I didn't consider.

[Bookitty]

There is no advantage whatsoever in claiming if it is not a weak doc, is there?

[Bookitty]

JDodge:

I am having trouble with this. I think I would have protected Ether, but I'm not sure how much of that is because I know her role now. Leaving the masons aside, I guess I would have protected Setael or you as having the most "town" reactions.

[Bookitty]

I can pretty easily see a Gorrad/Porochaz link.

I have no idea what Mizzy and Ether think they're doing, or why either of them think it's a good idea.

I've gone back and forth on whether or not I think scum would hammer a cop so blatantly, and I guess I think it's possible, especially given recent comments by both Porochaz and Gorrad.

vote: Gorrad

[Bookitty]

Considering your own reaction to Ether's aggressive behaviour when it was turned in your direction, Mizzy, and how scummy you came off in responding to it in a LOT of people's eyes, are you sure this is a tactic you want to adopt for yourself?

[Bookitty]

How am I being a hypocritical bastard, exactly?

[Bookitty]

The problem with the doc discussion (and the reason people, regardless of their alignment) are either shutting up or saying they can't talk about it, is because all of us have an idea who the doc is or isn't at this point. Those ideas might be right, and they might be wrong, but I think all of us are a little reticent about giving away our personal theories.

Mizzy and Ether are confirmed town in my eyes. It's pointless to argue with Mizzy about her playstyle choices, because it doesn't gain any new information on actual suspects, but serves as a distraction from scumhunting. It's the sort of meaningless debate that only hurts the town in my view.

So I'm going to

unvote; vote Porochaz

I'm not sure that Gorrad is scum, because I can somewhat see his logic in disbelieving the cop claim and hammering. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it to an extent. But I see no pro-town reason to keep haranguing Mizzy about her alliance, when you know she's town. It gains nothing for town in terms of advancing suspicions.

At this point, we're pretty sure there is a doc of some sort, the masoniser has claimed, and the cop is dead. If there is a town powerrole that is not one of these three, that has not claimed (just trying to think of all possibilities) then and only then would Porochaz's questioning of Mizzy be justified. I don't believe this to be the case, but if it is, that powerrole (NOT the doc) should claim now.

[Bookitty]

Mizzy, the only way that this would apply is if Porochaz was right to question you, because you and Ether are scum together. In that case there would be a third pro-town powerrole unaccounted for.

Otherwise he's wasting our time questioning you about your actions, when you're confirmed town and he's debating about your playstyle.

Hope that is clearer.

[Bookitty]

I was headstrong and sure of myself. There was no doubt in my mind that Skitzer was lying through his teeth. So I

voted right away without thinking.

Sorry, that is not pro-town. You are scum.

Hmmm... whats that I smell... oh yeah, bullshit.

Not pro-town =/= scum. I love the way you can automatically get scum from the most crappy places. your arguments are worse than the arguments for going into Iraq... Im currently wating for the "your scum because my cat says so" argument... (althought thats probably what skitzer would of said...)

Your analogies are amusing. Stop trying to defend your scumbuddy so much.

Gorrad's hammer is not something a pro-town player would do and I'm rightly telling him that it is something scum would do.

You are still very much as scummy as you are during D1 and on the contrary, scotmany is starting to look good.

Let me add this up...

I am arguing against you about something you said to Gorrad. Therefore I am defending Gorrad...

WRONG!!!

Im not arguing Gorrads alignment, I am arguing about yours.

It certainly caught my eye and I would be voting for him if I didn't feel Mizzy-Yvonne-Lulu were scummier... I feel that whilst Gorrads vote was scummy the "don't vote for skitzer even though Im not unvoting to make sure" was more scummy... I don't feel theres an valid excuse for that. Anyway, your question was about gorrad and my answer is town for now, however if Mizzy or Yvonne were to be lynched and come up town I would certainly take a closer look.

That's why, Lulubelle. We know Mizzy is confirmed town, even though she hasn't been lynched, so why hasn't he taken a closer look at Gorrad?

[Bookitty]

Porochaz, my point is, that you are not questioning Lulubelle or YvonneSeer significantly, as would seem sensible if you're actually hunting for scum. You are questioning MIZZY, the nearest thing we have to a confirmed townie about HER interactions and opinions of them. In essence, you're yelling at her for her playstyle. It is equivalent to me, upon finding out that Ether is definitely town, spending a few pages yelling at her for making cases I don't agree with. It's a waste of time. It gains town no new information.

You're not scumhunting, you're townhunting. What good is this doing for town? It's taking up space with no real purpose.

Chaz is willing to claim if you are going to remain voting for him

I don't get what you mean.

[Bookitty]

Lulubelle, leaving Porochaz aside for the moment, who are your main suspicions? If you had to vote for someone else, who would it be, right now?

[Bookitty]

Porochaz, I already brought up this possibility and asked that if there were a third power role that was not the doc, that they should claim. No one did so. I take it you're not doing so.

The only other possibility is that the scum gave us both docs and the cop, and neither one of the docs wants to claim because they each think they are the sole doc. That's a possibility, one that the scum would know, but ... why would they risk two people on such a gambit, when the possibility exists that they would kill (or we would lynch) one of the two, and the other would then claim... trading two scums for two docs? It doesn't make good sense. I considered it, and discarded it.

Mizzy did seem to defend Lulubelle. But that doesn't prevent anyone else from saying or doing whatever they want. I think Mizzy's confirmed town, but that doesn't make her infallible, her word unquestioned. I've been fairly quiet because of the situation with the weak doc, but I haven't felt intimidated by anyone really (well, maybe Ether at the start of the game, but that's a playstyle issue I think) and I think no one can prevent you from making your points if you want to. If you feel Mizzy was answering for Lulubelle, tell her to stop it.

Porochaz, leaving YvonneSeer and Lulubelle (and Mizzy and Ether) aside for a moment, who do you think of the rest of us is most likely to be scum, and why?

[Bookitty]

Setael, if there are two docs, they have no way to know that there are two docs. That's the point of why they wouldn't claim. But I find that scenario farfetched in the first place. I presented it as a possibility, but it's highly HIGHLY unlikely.

I think we can be pretty safe in thinking Ether and Mizzy are town.

[Bookitty]

Okay, I'm not clear. Are we all going to come to a consensus on whom the weak doc (and ONLY a weak doc) should protect tonight? So that when night falls, we have an investigation on someone?

I still think that's a decent plan. Decide who we'll lynch, and who'll be protected, and then we get an investigation out of the deal. If the weak doc doesn't die, we can be pretty sure that the person investigated was innocent (I think. If there's a flaw in this, please point it out now.) and if they do, we know who they had a guilty on.

Nothing in my question should be in any way construed as a request for a claim.

What do you think?

[Bookitty]

Hmmm, okay, this third-order thought thing is making my head hurt. But I'm going to try it.

• Weak doc targets scum. Scum kills weak doc. One death, scum identified.
  
  Weak doc targets town. Scum kills weak doc. One death, town mislynched.
  
  Weak doc targets scum. Scum doesn't nightkill. One death, scum identified.
  
  Weak doc targets town. Scum doesn't nightkill. No deaths, town identified.
  
  Weak doc targets scum. Scum kills non-doc town. Two deaths, scum identified.
  
  Weak doc targets town. Scum kills non-doc town. One death, town identified.

This assumes that the town agrees on who will be investigated, and that the scum don't know for certain who the weak doc is.

Those are the only possible results I can think of. I still think it's advantageous to town, because the possibility of the weak doc being killed is the same regardless of whether we use this night or not. But I could be wrong.

[Bookitty]

But not all victims will look identical. That's my point. We'll know who the weak doc is, when they die, and we'll know who they targetted.

If the scum know who the doc is, they will target them anyway. If they don't, they'll either give up their nightkill, or they'll kill a townie, and we'll have a result from our doc.

That's how I'm seeing it. How am I wrong?

[Bookitty]

In that specific case, yes, assuming that the Mafia know who our weak doc is, then we mislynch. But they give up their nightkill to do it.

But if the Mafia know who our weak doc is, then he's dead anyway, right?

[Bookitty]

Wait, no, I misread that completely. Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say:

I'm the weak doc. The town decides to protect Setael. I protect her, and I end up dead tomorrow. "Bookitty is dead. She was the weak doc."

Now Setael might have been scum. Or the Mafia might have killed me. You can't tell, but the chances are you would lynch Setael tomorrow anyway, because in this scenario she's the scummiest, hence the investigation/protection. (I don't really think she is, so don't read into this.) Obviously you wouldn't ask the weak doc to protect someone you actually thought was town.

If the scum choose to kill Setael-townie, to prevent the investigation doing us any good, it will protect Mizzy/Ether from the nightkill. And if the weak doc protects someone randomly, they may end up dead anyway because they protected the wrong person, and we lose them without ANY advantage to town.

If scum know who the weak doc is already, there's nothing we can do to protect them in any case, and if we agree that someone is the scummiest, we likely would be lynching them anyway.

The flaw comes up if the weak doc is asked to protect himself/herself. I don't know what happens then.

Anyway, I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

[Bookitty]

The two masons ARE as confirmed as they can be. If the doc dies? Then the third power role (and we've established that this third possible power role can ONLY be another doc, or they would have claimed by now) would claim at that point. There wouldn't be any mislynches, in that case, but we definitely aren't lynching the masons WITHOUT a counterclaim.

If we're not going to direct the doc to investigate, I agree with Porochaz's plan for the weak doc to protect one of the masons, with the caveat that if the weak doc ends up dead, it does NOT disprove the masons. Only a third claim can possibly do that.

I believe the mason claim, for the record. I suspect that's obvious at this point.

[Bookitty]

Don't these options basically amount to the same thing? Or am I missing something?

Is one way significantly safer for the doc?

I think they end up being the same thing. Don't they? Town knows who the doc protected, if they die, and if scum kills the doc, we're still not worse off than we would be if they just killed the doc anyway, right?

JDodge's plan and my plan both seem to amount to the same thing. The opposing plan is Porochaz's, to protect the masons (despite his suspicions, it's still a good plan). So there are two plans under consideration. If I'm wrong, please say so, but I don't see any difference (better or worse) between JDodge's plan and my plan, in its general effect. So I don't care which one is chosen between those two.

Mizzy: Or the scum are already all on his wagon (or afraid to hammer?). This can't be ruled out.

[Bookitty]

Okay, so the advantage of JDodge's plan over mine, assuming the scum haven't spotted the weak doc, is that they can't be certain of which player is actually being targetted, so they can't no kill if it turns out to be scum. That said, doesn't it put players at higher risk if they do say they're going to protect scum? And we have no way of knowing that.

Plus, if we're going to "protect" the person we find scummiest, doesn't that mean a lot of people will be "protecting" the same people?

[Bookitty]

Okay, does anyone think it's likely that in either case, the weak doc should not claim tomorrow assuming he/she is still alive?

There is the flaw in your logic, Mizzy. We can't assume the scum haven't figured out who the weak doc is already. If the weak doc has an innocent to give us tomorrow, we NEED that info, and if the weak doc protects someone and is dead, we NEED to know who they protected.

JDodge is presenting his ideas, I'm presenting mine, Porochaz is presenting his and you are presenting yours. I'd like to hear what other people think too, but no one is being a tyrant and preventing other people from doing just what they want to do. If they don't want to claim who they would protect, JDodge can't make them do so.

And I don't feel it's beating a dead horse, because, what's the useful alternative? Are you supporting Porochaz's plan?

[Bookitty]

What if they have an innocent on you or Ether?

That's the problem.

I'm trying to outline the plans so they're clear, with their advantages and disadvantages, and when I've done that, I would ask EVERYONE to pick them apart and find the mistakes in them, so that they are correct and complete before we ask people to choose between them.

If there are other plans, I'll include those as well. But we need to be clear on the advantages/disadvantages/ramifications of ALL the plans before we choose any of them, in my view.

[Bookitty]

Okay. The plans, as I understand them.

• JDodge: Everyone claims who they would protect.
  
  Advantages: Regardless of who the weak doc is, we know who they protected, and the scum may not know who to target. Allows for more autonomy on the part of the doc.
  
  Disadvantages: If the weak doc lives, he/she needs to claim and out themselves to clear a townie. If the weak doc dies, and there is no other nightkill, then the person they targetted has only a 50/50 chance of being scum and may be mislynched. Players who target scum may be at higher risk. Everyone has to claim their target (excepting the masons) for this to be a viable strategy.

• BooKitty: Everyone decides by majority who should be protected.
  
  Advantages: This runs little risk of outing the doc. Additionally, the person protected would be the person the majority felt was most scummy.
  
  Disadvantages: If the doc dies, and there is no other nightkill, the person targetted has only a 50/50 chance of being scum and may be mislynched. The scum may unduly influence the choice of target (this is major and should NOT be overlooked).

• Porochaz: The weak doc remains in hiding and protects one of the masons.
  
  Advantages: Least chance of outing the weak doc.
  
  Disadvantages: No chance of finding scum with this method.

• Mizzy: The weak doc claims now and reveals his/her innocent.
  
  Advantages: We have one more confirmed innocent.
  
  Disadvantages: No chance of finding scum with this method. Weak doc dies tonight in this scenario, pretty much guaranteed.

PLEASE pick these apart and tell me if I've made mistakes or overlooked something.

[Bookitty]

Currently I prefer JDodge's plan to my own because of this fact:

There are three scum left in a pool of eleven people. That means that approximately 27 percent of the people voting for any candidate are scum. If we allow the doc to choose their own target, the percent of scum choosing the target to be protected is zero. That seems to me to be a big advantage for his plan. My opinion is that the best case scenario involves getting one more night of information from the doc before he/she claims, and the worst case scenario is... well, Lulubelle's plan, actually.

Lulubelle's plan (let the doc actually try to protect someone without giving us any information at all) is the worst of the lot. It actually is ANTI-town, as was previously discussed with Mizzy, because it combines gaining no information from the doctor with the high risk that he/she will either be nightkilled or will protect the wrong person. Additionally, it assumes that the doc would protect someone who would otherwise be targetted for the nightkill, which is an extreme long shot in my view.

Actually, this makes me feel better about something I've wondered about for a while. I have become less and less certain that Porochaz is scum due to his contributions, and I've wondered about a Scotmany/Jordan/Lulubelle scumteam. These people (with the exception of Lulubelle, who seemed to come under suspicion that didn't go anywhere) have mostly flown under the radar. I could be wrong, but Lulubelle's suggestion of a plan that not only doesn't gain town any further information, but also threatens to lose us the information we've already gained, is very telling in my view.

unvote; vote Lulubelle

[Bookitty]

Additionally, Lulubelle, if the doc protects the wrong person and dies, and the scum nightkill, as is possible in your scenario, we lose two townies. If the doc targets someone as discussed in JDodge's plan and mine, and the scum either nightkill him or refrain from their nightkill, the doc may die (losing one townie) and we may mislynch his target, but that target has a fifty/fifty chance of being scum. So we have a 50% chance of lynching scum, and even then we still only lose two townies.

The scum refraining from their nightkill is NOT a point against either plan. The worst case scenario loses us two townies either way. With your plan (or lack thereof) we would lose two townies with no information gained at all.

If I'm wrong, please point this out.

[Bookitty]

Okay, hopefully last time:

UPDATED AND CORRECTED:

• JDodge: Everyone claims who they would protect AND who they would have protected last night. I think these should be done in separate posts to make more work for the scum in sorting through the targets.
  
  Advantages: Regardless of who the weak doc is, we know who they protected, and the scum may not know who to target. Allows for more autonomy on the part of the doc, who is 100% town.
  
  Disadvantages: If the weak doc lives, he/she needs to claim and out themselves to clear a townie. If the weak doc dies, and there is no other nightkill, then the person they targetted has only a 50/50 chance of being scum and may be mislynched. Players who target scum may be at higher risk. Everyone has to claim their targets (excepting the masons) for this to be a viable strategy.
  
  Worst Case Scenario: Scum kill the doc. We mislynch the doc's target. In this scenario we know who the doc protected last night, but if that's Ether or Mizzy we gain no further information. Narrows down the possible doc targets for scum due to the possibility that people will claim they targeted scum, ruling them out as possible docs.

• BooKitty: Everyone decides by majority who should be protected.
  
  Advantages: This runs little risk of outing the doc. Additionally, the person protected would be the person the majority felt was most scummy.
  
  Disadvantages: If the doc dies, and there is no other nightkill, the person targetted has only a 50/50 chance of being scum and may be mislynched. The scum may unduly influence the choice of target (this is major and should NOT be overlooked).
  
  Worst Case Scenario: Scum kill the doc. We lose the information of who the doc protected last night, and mislynch his/her target.

• Porochaz: The weak doc remains in hiding and protects one of the masons.
  
  Advantages: Least chance of outing the weak doc.
  
  Disadvantages: No chance of finding scum with this method.
  
  Worst Case Scenario: The scum kill the doc. We lose all information.

• Mizzy: The weak doc claims now and reveals his/her innocent.
  
  Advantages: We have one more confirmed innocent (unless they targetted Ether or Mizzy).
  
  Disadvantages: No chance of finding scum with this method. Weak doc dies tonight in this scenario, pretty much guaranteed.
  
  Worst Case Scenario: Guaranteed death of the weak doc.

• Lulubelle: The weak doc protects whoever they like without any claims whatsoever.
  
  Advantages: Possible protection of the person Mafia happens to target.
  
  Disadvantages: No chance of finding scum with this method. Weak doc dies if they target Mafia without having claimed their current innocent, may be nightkilled by scum.
  
  Worst case scenario: The weak doc protects someone who is scum. The scum kill a townie. Tomorrow we have lost all information and two town.

[Bookitty]

There are three scum left in a pool of eleven people. That means that approximately 27 percent of the people voting for any candidate are scum.

There are 3 scum left in a pool of 9 people, if you believe Ether and I are confirmed town.

I do, but you and Ether would still have a vote as to who would be protected. That's where the figures come from. 11 people would be voting.

Assume that Porochaz is town and that my scumteam is correct (which is by no means certain, but for the sake of argument). If Lulubelle hammered (Jordan and Scotmany already being on that wagon) all three scum would be on the wagon, and if Porochaz came up town, we'd all be looking very closely at that wagon. If not for that, all scum would pile onto every townwagon, and experience shows that's not the case. It's too obvious and points out the scumteam far too well when the alignment of the lynched person is known.

So the argument about hammering is a two-edged sword. I could be wrong about Lulubelle, and Porochaz might be scum. But I don't think so at the moment, and I'm not voting for someone I don't think is scum.

And while not agreeing with a plan, or preferring one over another, is not proof of anything, suggesting a plan that has already been discussed as the worst possible plan for town can't be viewed as a pro-town move, can it?

[Bookitty]

All of the plans have drawbacks. I think your plan is better than mine, but I think mine is better than Mizzy's because it at least gives the chance of another investigation.

And in response to your question, I vote for your plan, JDodge. It has bad risks, but at least it's not going to lose us information we could already have. It doesn't definitely confirm two more players, but it certainly could.

vote: JDodge's plan

[Bookitty]

Vote count on plans so far:

JDodge's plan

: JDodge (obviously), Bookitty, Scotmany, Setael

All other plans

: No one voting yet.

Corrections, additions requested and welcomed.

[Bookitty]

Vote count on plans so far:

JDodge's plan

: JDodge (obviously), Bookitty, Scotmany, Setael, Gorrad

All other plans

: No one voting yet.

Corrections, additions requested and welcomed. Thanks, Gorrad!

[Bookitty]

I would have protected JDodge last night.

I will protect Jordan tonight.

[Bookitty]

@Porochaz:

To forget why your opinion was unnecessary, either you had to forget you'd claimed vanilla townie already, or you forgot why we were doing the cycle of claims. Either way, it looks like you're not paying attention. A townie in your position (in my view, at least) would be paying very close attention to see who the scum were, in order to point it out for the town (and perhaps save his life).

Do you agree or disagree?

[Bookitty]

I would start reading here and just follow it for a couple of pages, Yosarian.

[Bookitty]

Unvote

I'm going to vote Chaz as soon as Yos posts his did/will protect post. The Yvonne wagon's going nowhere and Chaz is my second choice. I don't care if this is L-1 or hammer vote, the only thing holding up the day is Yos.

I don't like this post in context with your previous quickhammer of the cop after his claim. While I do feel that I probably would not have believed his claim either, you made a decision for the entire town and you were wrong. What is the harm in having more discussion?

The attitude you show in the post I just quoted is not any different than the attitude you had regarding hammering Skitzer without any further discussion. In my view, that indicates little consideration or reflection on your previous actions, because you haven't changed at all that I can see. I think town would be more mindful of their previous actions and behave differently in future; you haven't done that.

unvote; vote: Gorrad

[Bookitty]

I do disagree with you on this. I think that there might be any number of things that would merit discussion, and to say that "I don't care if this is L-1 or hammer vote, the only thing holding up the day is Yos" indicates the same attitude that you demonstrated when you hammered the claimed cop.

I've found Yosarian's input helpful, personally, and don't regard it as "holding up the day".

[Bookitty]

Did Yvonne ever post her protect claims? I can't find them.

I think we should put all the protect claims in one post for easy finding for tomorrow when it comes.

I disagree with the second part, Mizzy. Why make it easy for lazy scum to pick out the doc either today or tomorrow? If the doc dies, we can just search for their posts in isolation at that time, right?

[Bookitty]

I don't think Yvonne said who she protected last night.

And doing that for yourself is great, Mizzy. I just don't think we should giftwrap it and give it to scum in post form.

[Bookitty]

We could stipulate that anyone who said they'd target Gorrad would instead target Porochaz. That would fix it, yes?

[Bookitty]

Ok..so, I gather this is the situation:

1. There's a scum kill missing. Either the scum chose not to kill, or the kill was prevented by one of the two possible doc roles either one of which might or might not be in the game, the weak cop probably being more likely.

2. If the hypothetical weak cop targets scum tonight, the weak cop dies.

3. Therefore, the stratagy Jdodge is suggesting is that everyone play hypothetical weak cop, and states that if they are the weak cop, who they would have protected yesterday and who they will protect tonight.

Makes sense. The big problem is that if the weak cop did prevent the scum kill from last night, then that claim will almost certanly give him or her away and get him killed, and that also makes the "who will they target tonight" info much less useful.

Hmm. I guess the question is, what is more useful to the town right now? The weak doc's innocent from last night, or the possible info a weak doc might get tommorow night, or keeping the weak doc alive? If it's #1, then we either want the weak cop to claim or everyone to play hypo-weak cop like Jdodge is suggesting; if it's #2, then the best bet would be to have everyone claim what they'll do tommorow but not last night, and if it's #3, then it's best to not have anyone claim anything at all, and let the weak cop choose what to do while suggesting the masons might be good doc targets. DOes that about sum the debate up?

That's the reasoning behind it. If the scum have spotted the weak doc (and I by no means think there's 100% chance that they have) then the best bet we have is that now we have the weak doc's innocent from last night and the weak doc is dead anyway, no matter what we do. If the scum haven't spotted them, or have made a mistake, then we have either another innocent, or two kills and a possible mislynch.

This has all been discussed before, and I thought everyone was clear on the various plans. No one is telling the weak doc who to target. They've decided that on their own.