Mafia 72: Peril in Panama - Game over!

[vollkan]

Hello everyone. I will reread the thread and post my "rough notes" as I go through things. Then at the end, I will summarise my thoughts.

Page 1

Randomness

Page 2

Unright's statement about townies making scummy joke votes doesn't really seem particularly telling to me, though my assumption is that Jordan's vote for unright on that basis is just pressuring. Same with CKD's vote. DP places a major FoS on those voting Unright - justifiable, though they aren't really "scummy", more just that they don't have a proper voting basis (again, I'm going by its appearance as an early pressure wagon). BM places a weird vote on Jordan for bandwagoning - Jordan was the first to vote and, moreover, two votes is not a bandwagon worthy of suspicion (despite having taken the same view as CKD had expressed). Unright doesn't think the voting is necessarily serious and then votes BM for his messy attack on Jordan. CKD makes a good point about Unright putting words into ABR's mouth and votes, with ABR qft-ing and also voting Unright.

Page 3

DP is fine with lynching any of the self-voters - I don't like this. Jordan and ABR voting for DP is reasonable. MoS thinks Jordan is "stretching" because it is never to early to be serious about lynching - I disagree, since lynching one of the self-voters, regardless of the amount of justification, would short-change us in terms of information for D1. ABR FoSes and then votes MoS. MoS explains that DP has a meta for this, in which case MoS's response to the votes on DP makes sense. BM deflects a point about him accusing of BWing by joking about grammar - this I do not like. He then attacks unright, calling him "blatant scum" and of buddying up to ABR. This echoes other people's attacks on unright. BM again deflects with a personal attack on ABR.

Page 4

MoS, ABR and Gage rightly criticise BM for the "blatant scum" thing. BM and Unright argue, with BM taking the same line as CKD against Unright. Unright then admits that he misconstrued ABR. DP makes a large post analysing everyone and concludes that ABR is scummiest. He makes his "scummy" category very broad, but refuses to refine it. ABR points out an apparent double-standard between DP's treatment of BM and ABR. I see his point, but DP did seem to be metaing BM.

Page 5

As I thought, DP puts the difference to meta knowledge. People attest to ABR playing to form. Unright refuses to accept playstyle excuses. Attacks gage for not scumhunting. He thinks BM, unright and MoS are dodgy...*headdesks* and seems to hint at mason Aside from the fact that he was not under pressure of lynch, a pseudo-claim is just ridiculous.

Page 6

What the fuck?! - He claims mason because it will "confirm" his partner, it is better than the cop or doc and town wins even if he's dead. ABR thinks it is a scum gambit. Unright says his vote for gage remains until "partner clears you or someone else somehow manages to act more scummy." This implicitly consents to a SECOND mason claim and I do not like this. Jordan makes a sensible analysis and ends with a FoS. DP is confused (rightly). I agree with the sentiment of the complaining about the SAers *grumbles*

Page 7

I am amused by the discussion on religion but will resist the tremendous urge to comment. Mandalorian thinks the logic of gage's claim is screwed up, sensibly. Gage says his mason buddy is bussing Idiot...if he is bussing that probably means you should not identify that fact because he might be trying to salvage his identity to make use of the safe claim, the only thing left now that you have outed yourself. DP votes gage. ABR claims mason and calls Unright out as scum - I think this is a reasonable suggestion; he's at least a reasonable contender at this stage of things.

Page 8

Gage makes a surrendering post based on his play. BM votes gage. CKD votes BM for voting a claimed mason. BM unvotes, realising his vote was ridiculous. BM makes a dodgy thing about cop direction, just to save face is my guess. Jordan obviously skimmed, but he seems to be thinking right.

Page 9

BM votes gage again?! Jordan votes BM. BM asks why scum would repeatedly vote the claimed mason. BM then gets put to L-1. I agree with DP - BM is being dopey as all hell wrt the votes, but I don't know if this particular incident is really all that scummy. Jordan votes ABR, making the same error as BM.

Page 10

BM PBPAs people. Thinks Nekka is probably pro-town for sound reasons, MoS is slightly pro-town (seems to be just because he hasn't posted enough to look scummy), thinks mandalorian is newby town (again, hasn't said much), and is neutral on CKD.

Page 11

Unright thinks that seeing BM as scummy depends on injecting wifom. I disagree, since BM could easily have screwed up in the voting as a scum. That isn't to say that I think he is scummy for the votes, just that I don't think it is a town-tell. Whilst people tend to be more careful as scum, I don't think that it is really a wifom. CKD gets points for realising this. MoS thinks it is a null-tell. BM moves MoS to pro-town for the accurate meta - this is being overly generous with townie brownies. CKD, sensibly, doesn't buy this.

Page 12

ABR agrees with CKD. BM argues that the fact MoS is metaing accurately (I agree that he is) and is not twisting it against him is a town-tell - still being overly-generous. Defending people as scum is one of the easiest ways to get people on side if you seem sincere, so I am always very skeptical of such supposed "town-tells". Jordan points out a bogus contradiction from CKD - I call it bogus because he suggests there is some inconsistency with CKD unvoting BM and CKD asking pete d why he thinks BM is OK. Jordan thinks DP is scummy - whilst DP hadn't jumped out to me, I think Jordan's points are valid.

Page 13

ABR comes back with an unexplained vote for Jordan. Pete D casts a weird explained vote for Nekka - I don't see why Nekka's redundant question is scummy. I am more skeptical than Jordan who thinks unright keeping his vote on gage is a towntell. Pete D puts his vote to previous FoS reasons which he reminds Jordan that Jordan agreed with.

Okay, now thoughts on each player. As usual, I will give each player a rating from 0% = total guaranteed town to 100% = obv scum. All people are at 50% by default.

1. Battle Mage

As you'll see from my notes, a number of instances occur where I find BM's behaviour weird (chiefly the early Jordan BW vote and the "blatant scum" thing). I disagree that BM's voting for gage is a towntell. 65%

2. mandalorian

Not enough for me to get a read on. Seems like a newb. 50%

3. Gage

Strikes me as a clear newb. His mason claims makes me cringe. 0% due to claimed status, but his behaviour is 55%.

4. Unright

Misrepresented ABR early on. I really did not like his subtle fishing for a partner claim. I also take issue with his belief that thinking BM as scum relies on WIFOM. 60%

5. Nekka-Lucifer

Very short posts and much noise with little to no quality analysis. This merits a 60%.

6. Kakeng (now me)

Only game related post was a jokey No Lynch call. 0%.

7. JordanA24

A good amount of analysis without much noise. Not necessarily a town tell in my eyes, but always a promising start. My only issue was with the dodgy contradiction. 50%.

8. richman99

Total lurker. 50%.

9. Mastermind of Sin

Seems rather short on full analysis. Little to go by in terms of an assessment. 55%.

10. Dragon Phoenix

He never really stuck out to me on my immediate read, but Jordan's analysis of him raised some valid questions. 55%.

11. curiouskarmadog

I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%

12. Porochaz

Very little content despite a fair few posts. 55%

13. pete d (replacing Sir Tornado)

He is forming opinions about who he would vote for, but most of his arguments seem rather ambivalent. Everything he discusses he describes as that it "seems" a certain way, rather than actually being scummy. For ambivalence, 60%

14. Albert B. Rampage

Same thing as CKD. 0% due to claim. 50% on behaviour.

To rank according to %:

BM
unright
pete d
Nekka
Porochaz
MoS
DP
CKD
Lowell (nee richman)
Jordan
mandalorian
gage
ABR
vollkan

[vollkan]

Can't see how any of this equals scumminess.

It's a form of being non-committal. Things like:

Some of Jordan's first few posts were a bit scummy, mostly his overreaction towards DP in #2 (I'm searching posts by user here), but he seemed better later on.

He hasn't really done anything to make me think he's scummy. Although, post 271 seems a trifle convenient.

Rereading over BM's posts, he does seem a little scummy. the early votes on Jordan and Unright seemed a bit exaggerated eg "blatant scum", "latched onto someone elses argument completely", later pulls out some WIFOM

I don't think these points are really valid. The "selfvote=scum, we must lynch them" seems like a bit of an exaggeration, imo he was just saying for early day 1 it was scummy behaviour. As for listing "too many people", the real issue is whether or not his arguments for putting them there were valid.

Majorly scummy? Not at all. FoS-worthy? Not at all. The point is that it is rather ambivalent and that strikes me as note-worthy. Currently, my biggest issues are with those who are posting very little content, of which you are not one.

[vollkan]

This game is crying out for a kickstart...

Vote: BM

[vollkan]

jordan is a better vote.

Why do you say that? I found him fairly benign on my read.

[vollkan]

Unvote: BM

I don't believe him, but he's claimed, so lynching is out of the question for the moment.

[vollkan]

Even if he's scum, what's the point? He's not going anywhere.

What do you mean by this?

[vollkan]

He means if BM does not get NK'd then we can still lynch him.

Ah, of course. I forgot about the doc claim, so it didn't make sense to me.

[vollkan]

I dont understand why people (Gage, pete d, Albert B. Rampage) re still voting for our claim doc..any reason why those voting for him want to do the mafia work for them?

Why are you assuming that mafia will automatically take him out? When I was scum and there was a suspicious claimed doc, we left them alive for day 2 to screw with everyone (but they got vigged anyhow).

but I would be more inclined to lynch him tomorrow to see if mafia bags him tonight.

With statements like this, why would mafia get rid of BM if he was a doc?

I'm really tempted to vote for pete d based on this. It looks to me like an excuse in advance for Battle Mage not being nightkilled.

The reason for Mafia to get rid of doc-Battle Mage is the same as for any other doctor... because they don't want their nightkill interfered with. That doesn't change just because Battle Mage is likely to be lynched tomorrow. Additionally, if Battle Mage is scum, you've just provided an excuse for him when he's not nightkilled.

Why would you suggest the scum-strategy you employed in a previous game if you're town, pete d?

I have to agree with ABR on this.

Pete makes a good point about the possibility of scum not killing BM to wifom the town (a fairly ordinary strategy) and you turn what is pretty much innocuous into something scummy.

It doesn't look like an excuse - it looks like him pointing out a scum strategy to rebut something that CKD just assumed. It only looks like an excuse if you approach it with preconceived ideas.

As for suggesting strategies, it isn't scummy. At all. I personally think it is helpful, since it can raise awareness of potential scenarios arising - which can only help the town.

FoS: Bookitty

[vollkan]

333 Vollkan extremely noncommittal – nearly everyone at 50% (neutral) Highest he goes is 65% on BM, while giving several reasons to think he’s town. Seems too safe – no real stand on anyone. 341 calls pete d noncommittal. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I have to disagree with you here.

Let me quote my scumdar:

1. Battle Mage
As you'll see from my notes, a number of instances occur where I find BM's behaviour weird (chiefly the early Jordan BW vote and the "blatant scum" thing). I disagree that BM's voting for gage is a towntell. 65%

2. mandalorian
Not enough for me to get a read on. Seems like a newb. 50%

3. Gage
Strikes me as a clear newb. His mason claims makes me cringe. 0% due to claimed status, but his behaviour is 55%.

4. Unright
Misrepresented ABR early on. I really did not like his subtle fishing for a partner claim. I also take issue with his belief that thinking BM as scum relies on WIFOM. 60%

5. Nekka-Lucifer
Very short posts and much noise with little to no quality analysis. This merits a 60%.

6. Kakeng (now me)
Only game related post was a jokey No Lynch call. 0%.

7. JordanA24
A good amount of analysis without much noise. Not necessarily a town tell in my eyes, but always a promising start. My only issue was with the dodgy contradiction. 50%.

8. richman99
Total lurker. 50%.

9. Mastermind of Sin
Seems rather short on full analysis. Little to go by in terms of an assessment. 55%.

10. Dragon Phoenix
He never really stuck out to me on my immediate read, but Jordan's analysis of him raised some valid questions. 55%.

11. curiouskarmadog
I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%

12. Porochaz
Very little content despite a fair few posts. 55%

13. pete d (replacing Sir Tornado)
He is forming opinions about who he would vote for, but most of his arguments seem rather ambivalent. Everything he discusses he describes as that it "seems" a certain way, rather than actually being scummy. For ambivalence, 60%

14. Albert B. Rampage
Same thing as CKD. 0% due to claim. 50% on behaviour.

I have 5 people on 50%, and another 4 on 55%.

If you read my comments on those who have a 50%, there are either people I have scant suspicion of (Jordan, CKD and ABR) and lurkers who I have no read on. Do I think they are necessarily pro-town? No. In the cases of the former 3, it is just that their behaviour says nothing to me which, at this stage of understanding, is suspect. Thus, I have no reason to suspect them, or to put them below 50%. For the lurkers, the meaning is slightly different, in that it is simply that I have NOTHING on them at all. Thus, the 50% ranking is not me being neutral or uncommittal. It entails me making a clear position of saying either: "I have no reason at this stage to suspect this person" or "This person has not said enough for me to take a position". Thus, this is not uncommittal.

As for the 55s, those people are ones who I have minor reasons to suspect. In all those cases, they are people who have behaviours which seem scummy, without having necessarily done anything I consider notably scummy. Again, this is not being non-committal. In those cases, I am saying that I see nothing pro-town in their behaviour and that I see hints of scumminess.

As for my highest being 65%, I don't know why you seem to think that is a problem. Meta, I can't recall ever going to 80% and I usually only go 75% in later game scenarios when I have stronger ideas and more to judge upon (or if I really don't like someone). Unless I have a lot of evidence to consider or something major, I'm not going to be throwing out the big numbers. As such, BM struck me as the stand-out contender, but nothing he did was sufficient to render him obvscum to me.

As for the PeteD apparent hypocrisy you suggest, you are again wrong - this time by virtue of the fact that you are taking my usage of the word "noncommittal" in the context of Pete to mean the same as yours right now. You have accused me of being "noncommital" in the sense of taking "no real stand". This I have already rebutted. When I accused Pete of being non-commital it was because his language was such that he was subtly second-guessing himself in a number of his arguments - that he was not committing to any particular interpretation of things, but was just leaving things open.

As I said at the time:

Majorly scummy? Not at all. FoS-worthy? Not at all. The point is that it is rather ambivalent and that strikes me as note-worthy. Currently, my biggest issues are with those who are posting very little content, of which you are not one.

372 vollkan votes BM to “kickstart” the game. He’s careful to not give real reasons or take a stand – it’s a vote that’ll be easy to back out of. Then fosses Bookitty rather than voting. Looks self conscious, noncommittal – playing extremely safe and not taking a firm stand on anyone.

I like wake-up wagons, and I had already given my reasons against BM. And I FoSed Bookitty for the simple reason that, since she was not my number 1 candidate, I wanted to hear reasoning from her before voting. I've taken my positions in this game quite clearly already. I've said who I suspect and to what degree. I have taken firm positions on each player. I even gave each player a number ranking that position.

Now,
Posted as I read through the latest:

3) Scum try to look suspicious of someone that is in no danger of being lynched so they are uninvolved with the lynch of a townie.

Then she "paces" my reality, a subtle manipulation technique studied in NLP:

But I can see on a reread how you would think that pete d was saying we should just lynch Battle Mage now.

IOW she feigns agreeing with me to make me think we are on the same page even though she logically claims to be on opposite sides from me. AKA appeasing me and sweeping it under the rug, as you might say.

I find your explanation here a tad unclear. My reading of what Book says here is that she is basically just pulling a "let's agree to disagree" sort of thing - saying that she sees your point, but stands by her own. That avoids conflict and ends debate on the issue.

I don't get what you mean by she "feigns agreeing" with you, though. She acknowledges the validity of your position, but still disagrees with it.

I didn't find it especially clear.

Is ABR right? Is suggesting scum strategies generally considered a pro-town tell, and not to be questioned? I'd like some other people to weigh in on this point.

This is equally horrendous. Seeing this, I would be freaked out if I were her mafia partners. What kind of horror-movie-worthy post is this ? How can you make such a daring attempt at discrediting someone with pseudo-rhetoric and false dichotomies ?

Where's the false dichotomy/ies?

ABR:

You've thought every case you've had, in this game at least, to be the "be-all end-all". You were convinced enough that Battle Mage was scum to try to wagon him despite his claim, and now you're saying "I am not saying BM is 100% townie"... what happened to "lynch him anyway"?

AGAIN WITH THE NINJA MOVES. My point is not that I am always right, my point is that I back up what I say with my reasoning and my vote. Like with Unright, like with BM, whenever I said something I pushed the wagon. Something you've failed to do. You fail at even appearing like you want Pete D lynched. Nowhere do you say you want him lynched. You are too cowardly a mafia to try that.

You don't actually answer Book's question here. Book is saying that you are overly-certain, and you respond by saying that you substantiate your arguments and back them with your vote. The question of your certainty is separate from your level of argument or voting.

You could be right about Boo, but one reason I think I think you're wrong is I think vollkan might be scum and he's supporting your wagon in a non-bussing kind of way

I have made just one post since the whole Book thing began in which I FoSed Book for what is an entirely sensible reason. Thus, I don't see how you go about saying you think I am scum supporting the wagon.

[vollkan]

GUYS, WE NEED TWO VOTES ON BOOKITTY NOW. ANYONE WHO LETS THE DEADLINE PASS WITHOUT VOTING WILL DIE a horrible death in my imagination. Setael, that includes you. ESPECIALLY you. No-lynch is the worse possible outcome for the town and you all know it.

Feck. I had the deadline here mixed up with another game.

Vote: Bookitty

I had Nekka on 60% and did not like him, and, as I have already indicated, Book has been keeping to Nekka's form.

[vollkan]

shoot I forgot about that... however I am still not discounting the theory that gage panicked when under suspicion and claimed mason and ABR not wanting his scumpartner lynched needed to claim mason as well... however I am not sure as of yet... so Im downgrading unvote and fos ABR and then vote Lowell for his post.

vote: porochaz

Why is that post suspicion-worthy? And why is that suspicion worthy of a vote?

You're wrong about me, so I'm willing to bet you're wrong about him as well.

The lack of logic in this post is astonishing. Let me just add in one little fact: ABR was right about Book (Setael has conceded this herself).

Therefore, is it not just as feasible to argue by Set's messed-up logic that ABR is right about Set and Poro?

Whether or not ABR is wrong about you has no bearing upon whether or not he is correct about Poro. The fact that you would make such a dodgy argument (which is a classic example of deflection as well) is scummy in the extreme.

Do you really think because he was right about Bookitty I should assume he'll be right with the rest of his hunches? I happen to know he's wrong about me, so where is the logic in trusting his gut read on Porochaz? I think Porochaz is scum and the post I quoted was super scummy. ABR disagreeing is not going to influence that just because he was right about Bookitty.

It's a no-brainer that you should not assume ABR is correct BUT the argument you just made was that ABR allegedly being incorrect on you made it more feasible he was incorrect on Poro. You are effectively making the same argument, only in the inverse.

To make what I am saying clearer-
Set #1: ABR was right on Book
Set #2: The incorrectness of ABR in relation to Set indicates his likely incorrectness on Poro.

Problem #1:

If #2 is valid (it isn't) then why should it not be equally valid for the rest of us to conclude that "since ABR was right on Book, he is likely right on Poro and Set"
Set #3: ABR being correct on Book does not mean he is correct globally (this is true, of course)...BUT-

Problem #2:

There is a direct contradiction between Set #3 and Set #2.

Notice: We still have no explanation, but now it's "super scummy".

HoS: Setael

PBPA forthcoming.

[vollkan]

PBPA of JordanA24/Setael

{Post numbers are from viewing him/her in isolation in "Oldest First" order.}
0: Votes Unright for using the word "townies". Not a good start for Jordan - this being a

really

dodgy attack.
1: Jordan has been accused of copying CKD, who questioned the use of "townies" (cf. Jordan voting on it). Here, Jordan says "CKD got to it first" - a sufficient explanation. Then, Jordan goes on to vote DP for arguing that self-voters should be lynched. I can't recall having played with Jordan before, but is he a regular vote-hopper? If he isn't, I am inclined to see this as him trying to jump off Unright so as to dodge the questions about CKD-plagiarism. Of course, I don't assume that to be the case - but the sudden change of vote for a meta policy of DP's seems odd.
2: Says self-voting is "not particularly helpful, but it hardly deserves a lynching." I agree
3: MoS makes an excellent jab at Jordan. I shall quote:

Jordan is stretching like a motherfucker. It is *NEVER* too early to be serious about lynching. Just because DP is willing to lynch a self-voter does not mean that he's trying rush the day, nor does it mean that he's willing to let everyone blindly bandwagon without giving their own opinions. You're bullshitting us this early? Nice try.

Unvote, Vote: Jordan
FoS: ABR for following him.

Jordan responds by saying:

So, you'd lynch someone because they voted themselves in the random voting stage?

Basically, Jordan ignores MoS's entire argument and, instead, assumes that MoS's vote for him means that he supports self-voter lynches. I don't like this AT ALL.
4: Doesn't like DP's analysis because he had half the players as scummy. This is another weak attack from Jordan.
5: Suggests that DP make a "scummy/slightly scummy split. Does it matter?
6: Comments that Albert is playing to form.
7: "Gets a feeling" of OMGUS from DP who voted Jordan despite finding other people scummier.
8: Suggests hypocrisy from DP for favouring Jordan as votee over a self-voter. DP's response is good: "Nope. I said I would be happy to see a self-voter lynched. That is not the same."
9: FoSes Gage; seems to be for a dodgy mason claim
10: Celebrates the leaving of the SA group
11: Nothing particularly interesting here except for the fact that in 9 Jordan said:

But Gage is not a newbie is he. He's very experienced on another site he claims.

But now he says:

Besides, Gage is a newbie, so I'd cut him a little slack.

12: Votes BM for voting a claimed mason
13: forgot to unvote
14: Votes ABR for demanding that BM claim
15: Unvotes - having forgotten ABR was a mason
16: Suggests BM is giving up.
17: Thinks the amount of claims we have had is bad.
18: Misrepresents ABR by implying he wants BM lynched regardless of claim
19: Flavour speculation
20: Big analysis. Has no suspicion of ABR due to his mason status, thinks BM is a "bit scummy" and is neutral on CKD.
21: Suggests reasons why scumMoS might want BM to think he is protown
22: On analysing DP, he concludes he is scummy - primarily due to the self-vote thing (which I don't consider scummy from DP) and for DP not being convinced one way or the other on the claims, which Jordan twists as "fence-sitting". Thinks Kakeng is scummy because Kakeng voted No Lynch WITH A SMILEY FACE AFTER IT (hell, Jordan even quoted the smiley). On Mandalorian he can't find anything scummy, so he assumes Mandalorian is pro-town...
23: Asks whether DP would lynch someone who was told by random-vote dice to vote himself.
24: Thinks MoS needs more content, on

Nekka

(Bookitty) he thinks he is reasonably pro-town and makes just two very light points against him. Thinks PeteD is scummy, mostly for behaviour to Nekka.
25: Porochaz is "kinda protown". Richman is lurker. Thinks unright is protown for keeping his vote on gage.
// Exit Jordan. Enter Set//
0: Promises content
1: She agrees with Jordan about the Unright thing, which is dodgy as I have already said. Makes a valid point about MoS not mentioning the meta of DP in his vote, but also ignores the validity of MoS's argument against Jordan. Calls me noncommittal - this I took issue with at the time and stand by what I said then. Votes unright. Her scumlist:

Unright
Porochaz
DP
vollkan
MoS

This means we have no effort to distance from Book.

2: Asks for clarification
3: Wonders why she has been asked to defend Book. Also prods Albert to say what he thinks of Unright.
4: Would prefer to lynch one off the list.
5: Thinks the attacks on her stance towards Book are inconsistent with the lack of attacks on anyone else.
6: Thinks I am scum supporting the Book wagon in a "non-bussing kind of way". Then asks whether Albert thinks I am wish-washy (the second time she tries to get Albert to comment on someone else, with a leading question). Equates my FoS of Bookitty to the "I intend to vote" thing
7: Will be pissed at ABR if Book is protown.
--LYNCH--
8: Concedes ABR was correct. Votes Poro - reasons are unclear
9: "You're wrong about me, so I'm willing to bet you're wrong about him as well. " I said my piece on just before. Needless to say, it isn't good reasoning
10: Again, I just commented on this before. It is inconsistent with 9. The only oter interesting thing is her point about her blatant defense of Book. If Set is scum, then she really has made no effort to distance. That troubles me, since I would have expected something in the way of distancing/bussing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusions: Jordan makes quite a few really dodgy attacks, and none which are actually well-reasoned or persuasive. Set seems to continue this trend, chiefly with her attacks on me for being "non-committal" and her unexplained attack on Poro. The one thing detracting from her scumminess in my mind is the lack of distancing, but I suppose this is really a wifom point.

[vollkan]

ARRGGGHH stop calling me ABR. That's reserved for people that think I'm a monster.

I actually made a conscious effort to call you "Albert" at points in that massive post, but force of habit forced me to type "ABR" at points as well. I'll eventually get the hang of it.

[vollkan]

Not only do we have all these compliments of CKD's play, we also have absolutely no negative comments from vollkan about CKD. No stated suspicion, no implied suspicion. The logical conclusion would be for vollkan to list ckd on the town end of his scum list, but he didn't. I didn't catch this at first since his whole analysis post was so wishy washy and noncommital, but he pointed it out himself when he said:

11. curiouskarmadog
I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%

This attack by you is dodgy for a number of reasons.

Firstly, you make it sound like my attitude towards CKD was unique. Let me quote some other summaries of people that run in a similar vein:

7. JordanA24
A good amount of analysis without much noise. Not necessarily a town tell in my eyes, but always a promising start. My only issue was with the dodgy contradiction. 50%.
...

11. curiouskarmadog
I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%
...

14. Albert B. Rampage
Same thing as CKD. 0% due to claim. 50% on behaviour.

There were 3 players who I did not find scummy.

Secondly, you wonder why I did not list him (the same goes for for Jordan and Albert as well) as town. The reason is simply that whilst they were

not scummy

going by my initial read, I had seen nothing which suggested to me that they were more likely to be town. If you meta-check me, you will find that it's only in very special circumstances that I will put someone below 50%.

Thirdly, you keep calling it "wishy-washy" and/or "non-commital". We've already been over this once before. I took definite positions on each and every of the players. I even came out with a main suspect in BM. None of my suspicions were earth-shatteringly strong, that ought to be obvious, but I was fairly unambiguous in what I thought of people.

Maybe this is a matter of semantics. I take "wishy-washy" and "non-commital" to mean things like: "X might be town but could also be scum because X did...I need to think a bit more" - not taking any position at all but simply leaving the door open to flip-flop.

[vollkan]

My case on Setael is earth-shatteringly strong.

My PBPA also made a strong case, which as of yet doesn't seem to have received any response.

Anyway, I am going to do another PBPA, this next one on CKD, before I consider voting for either of them. It's clear that a significant number of people find him much scummier than I did in my initial read.

[vollkan]

Volkan, Hitchens rocks. I'm glad you know him. Read any of his books ?

I've read "God is not Great" and "The Portable Atheist", and I regularly read his column in

Slate

. I'm currently trying to find his other books, but I haven't had any luck in bookshops or libraries.

[vollkan]

The reason is simply that whilst they were not scummy going by my initial read,

I had seen nothing which suggested to me that they were more likely to be town

.

The part I bolded is a direct contradiction to all these statements you made:

CKD makes a good point about Unright putting words into ABR's mouth and votes…

CKD gets points for realising this.

CKD, sensibly, doesn't buy this.

Jordan points out a bogus contradiction from CKD - I call it bogus because he suggests there is some inconsistency with CKD unvoting BM and CKD asking pete d why he thinks BM is OK.]

11. curiouskarmadog
I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%

I love that you cherry-pick. Let me take the entire paragraph from which you have quoted.

Secondly, you wonder why I did not list him (the same goes for for Jordan and Albert as well) as town. The reason is simply that whilst they were not scummy going by my initial read, I had seen nothing which suggested to me that they were more likely to be town. If you meta-check me, you will find that it's only in very special circumstances that I will put someone below 50%.

I don't mean to mischaracterise your position, so let me just address what I understand you to be saying:
"Vollkan finds nothing bad with CKD and expresses two occasions of agreement with CKD. Therefore, it is contradictory and suggests distancing that vollkan would place CKD at 50%"

Again, remember that I did the same thing in respect of Jordan and Albert.

I know full well that just because somebody does a few things which seem "right" to me does not in any way make them more likely to be town. Jordan (Bookitty) is proof of this point.

Nothing that CKD did was enough to make me think that he was probably pro-town. I did not suspect him, but I had seen nothing which would be

highly unlikely to come from scum

(my criteria for judging a town-tell).

[vollkan]

I've read the first. You are subscribed to Slate ?

No.

Slate

is free online. You don't need to subscribe. I read it for Hitchens and it's the main way I keep up with US politics.

Also, an EBWOP:

I know full well that just because somebody does a few things which seem "right" to me does not in any way make them more likely to be town. Jordan (Bookitty) is proof of this point.

Needless to say, "Bookitty" is "Setael, but I thought I should point it out to avoid confusion.

PBPA of CKD

{Order is when viewed in isolation, Oldest First}
0: Random vote
1: More random jokiness
2: Ditto
3: Ditto
4: Questions Unright's use of the word 'townies'. Whilst not quite so bad as Jordan's vote on this point, it's still a dodgy swipe nonetheless.
5: This is something I missed in my read of Set (a consequence of reading in isolation). CKD actually DOES vote for Unright here based on the townies thing. The criticism therefore applies to both. Also questions about why Unright doesn't like random voting. I don't understand what the point of questioning about someone's view on random voting is, since plenty of people (myself included) don't think random voting helps.
6: EBWOP
7: A whole barrage of questions about the random voting thing. This is like pseudo-scum hunting, in that it seems to pressure Unright, but it adds nothing
8: Disagrees with Unright on Jordan. CKD argues Jordan was agreeing with him and accuses Unright of putting words into Albert's mouth. I looked at Albert's posts on this, and CKD is correct on this.
9: Says he restated his point in order to make sure people knew it was his
10: More of the above. Re-questions on the putting words into Albert's mouth issue
11: Acknowledges that the question was answered
12: Unvotes Unright because he isn't "feeling it". After all the questioning, it seems odd he just jumps off once it no longer looks like going anywhere.
13: Swipes at Gage for criticising game pace.
14: Wonders if there is a way to "confirm him [Gage] or his partner without a lynch?" Decides Gage's behaviour is a newb play, but thinks it is a null-tell.
15: Comments on the SA people
16: Ditto
17: Asks whether or not mandalorian believes the claim; ironic given CKD himself took no position of belief or disbelief
18: Will be on LA
19: Votes BM for voting Gage and offers his own explanation for Gage's behaviour
20: BM has unvoted, saying he was confused but does not agree with CKD's logic. CKD then says he will unvote if BM can explain why the logic is wrong.
21: BM accuses CKD of directing the cop. CKD retaliates by saying his suggestion of a cop investigation was just an alternative theory
22: Confirms BM vote
23: Points out an error by BM in his analysis of NL
24: Asks why MoS thinks BM is protown
25: Is confused by MoS's wifomy point that BM's errors suggest he is protown
26: Ditto
27: Accepts it is a nulltell and unvotes.
28: Asks why Pete doesn't have any issues with BM
29: Reiterates the above. Says his reread turned up nothing (This is a true example of someone being non-committal)
30: Notes the fact he is noted
31: Is amused by the fact BM thinks MoS is protown because he thinks BM is protown. Criticises why BM finds him scummy, this seems alright since BM doesn't explain why.
32: Asks for Richman to be prodded or replaced.
33: Notes that he isnt voting unright
34: Questions Albert's writing "asdf"
35: Asks for BM's opinion of Jordan's analysis of BM and Nekka
36: Criticises Lowell for not posting much
37: Criticises Aimee for her modding
38: Criticises Nekka for his replacing out. Asks for a deadline
39: Thanks Patrick for entering
40: Votes BM and asks for claim
41: Unvotes BM
42: Makes another swipe at BM for voting the masons. He asks this question and does not make any negative comment about Albert's suggestion to lynch BM anyway. This looks like implicit support of lynching BM, which I don't like.
43: "waiting on flavour"
44: Asks Gage why he thinks MoS is unhelpful
45: Asks who has been more helpful between Gage and MoS
46: "still waiting for flavor...or post from Mod. "
47: Will be on LA
48: Doesn't understand why people are voting BM. "any reason why those voting for him want to do the mafia work for them?" This begs the question as to why he didn't question ABR's support for lynching him anyway
49: Would prefer to lynch BM tomorrow. I really dislike it when people try and plan lynches in advance
50: Asks whether someone would prefer BM lynched that day
51: Can't get a read on the game, since all his suspects claimed
52: Vague attack on Pete D. He says "I agree with her theory, but I dont think PeteD was scummy for saying it. That said, I think what Pete D didnt say could be viewed as scummy." It's basically wishy-washy. Concludes he is at a loss and asks for thoughts
53: The hammer
54: Refuses to vote with Lowell so unvotes
55: Keeps this attack on PeteD, which I don't follow. Says he would have voted Pete if he had more votes
56: Okay, here he explains the weird PeteD thing. He says he thought Pete was scummy

"for another reason" - What reason/s?

His view seems to be that whilst Book was correct about Pete's post being a potential excuse, it wasn't scummy. Doesn't buy the case on Set.
57: Asks why ABR suspects Set
58: "well great, better jump on my wagon while you can before it looks scummy to people tomorrow. any reason?"
59: Doesn't think Set is scummy, but does recognise her jumping on the CKD wagon as self-preservation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My biggest problems with CKD are:
1) The Unright vote - this goes for both
2) Continued questioning for opinions despite not giving much of his own. This is a major problem here, since CKD rarely offers his own attacks.
3) The vague and contradictory Pete posts. He has explained this one, but it still doesn't make much sense. Also, I don't see what his reason for suspecting Pete is.

There are good arguments against CKD, but in comparison with the PBPA on Setael, I believe the arguments against Set are significantly more persuasive.

Thus,

Vote: Setael

[vollkan]

Can you link me to his column ?

Sure.

Click here!!!!!

His most recent article (on the role of the race card in Obama's success) is at the top)

[vollkan]

Alright. May she rest in peace and her dying wishes be granted.

Vote: Volkan

Do you have a case perchance?

[vollkan]

Do you have a case perchance?

[vollkan]

Do you have a case perchance?

[vollkan]

I've been tossing up whether to wait for a wagon to form before doing this but I've decided to go ahead and claim:

I'm the vig

On N1 I chose not to kill. Last night, I killed Setael.

[vollkan]

I want Volkan dead, on the counts of the classic bus-1/save-1 attitude he had in regards of our two dead mafiamates charged with attempting to derail the Bookitty wagon, to hammer her in a moment of distress with his tightly clutched page 5-ish case on Nekka, and on the minor charges of choosing Setael over Karma on day 2, of not claiming when the town asked it but, instead, when he thought he would have a better chance at survival for claiming earlier than later, and finally for drawing attention to Bookitty with a simple FoS when a vote would have been appropriate.

That is not a case. That is you assuming that I am scum and then telling a little story to explain my actions.

The only way I can actually respond to that is to simply counter it with my own perspective on my actions. I'll begin at the post where I FoS Bookitty:
~~~~~~~~~~
I agreed with what had been said regarding Bookitty and found what she had said to be suspect. I chose to FoS rather than vote for the simple reason that I didn't consider Bookitty vote-worthy at that stage of things. She had done that one thing I addressed which stood out, but nothing else seemed particularly damning to me.

As far as the hammer goes, I was basing it in a large part on what I had seen of Nekka. My FoS reflected my opinion of Bookitty, and the fact that I had a few problems with some of the charges levelled against her by yourself ("false dichotomies" and the "feigns agreeing" thing) which made me wonder if it was just you being a little over-exuberant. So, when it came down to hammer-time, I sincerely needed to refer to my own view of Nekka because I did not think that the case on Bookitty was lynch-worthy at that point (but, given the deadline, there wasn't any more time).

Then D2 comes around with Setael and CKD as the standout suspects to me. I reviewed both of them in detail and came to the conclusion that Setael was scummier. Thus, I kept my vote on Setael. After CKD was hammered, night came and I acted on my suspicion by killing Setael - knowing full well that if Setael was not scum (and possibly even if she was) it would result in me being on the defensive today.

Now I will address my decision to claim at the time when I did. When I saw that Albert had called for anyone to claim it as a vig kill I actually typed out a claiming post but ended up deciding against it because I reasoned that it would have more sensible to wait for a wagon to form. However, the fact that Albert had called for claims was weighing pretty heavily on me as pressure to claim - since I figured he would not have made such a call without good reason. As I saw people claiming that it was

not

their kill, I decided that I was probably being unreasonable in my refusal to claim, and so I went ahead with it.

[vollkan]

Anyway, vollkan - if you're a town vig that can kill every night, why didn't you vig me after the Bookitty lynch? What about me made you think I wasn't scum to the point of not vigging me, and how did my play yesterday change your mind so quickly?

I was hoping that this question did not get asked, but I will answer it (In fact, you guessed it yourself on the previous page):

I'm only a one-shot vig. My hope was that if I kept quiet on this matter the mafia would NK me thinking I was a normal vig, when in fact I am basically only a vanilla now. Additionally, I figured that getting NKed would remove any risk of me being lynched and of a day being wasted. For those that like meta - I attempted a similar move in Mini 486, where I was a vig-mason that could kill each night, but I claimed one-shot vig (with no mason part) in the hopes of avoiding the scum NK. On N1 I was yet to make my proper analyses and decide on somebody confidently enough to want to kill them. As you saw, I did those two PBPAs of yourself and CKD. They weren't just to help me for the D2 lynch, it cemented my suspicion of Setael I for the NK.

Another few PBPAs coming soon.

[vollkan]

I call BS on Volkan.

Unvote, vote Volkan.

sigh... ABR, you just had to change your vote after my speech... but I agree BS on vollllkan

vote vollkan

That puts me to L-1.

I find it truly beyond comprehension that I am at L-1 despite there not actually having been a case raised against me - other than Albert's narrative which I have already addressed. And now I am being accused of BS, as though that in itself constitutes an argument.

[vollkan]

On one hand, I can't see vollkan scum admitting that he lied about how many kills he has. If he was scum, it seems more likely that he'd pick a story and stick to it in order to avoid getting caught in a lie. Seems like he either would have claimed one shot from the beginning or stuck with the story that he can kill every night. Scum fake claiming would not want to risk the town ganging up with a LAL policy.

However, I guess it's possible that he claimed he could kill every night thinking that would keep the town from lynching him since he's valuable, and then realized he could not defend against the fact that it made no sense for him to not kill N1. Could be just a slip up.

Set, you do the same thing as Albert here when you speculate about me possibly being scum slipping up here. Put yourself in the shoes of "One-shot vigvollkan" - I'm curious as to whether you would have claimed one-shot vig immediately, or whether you would have done what I did?

Also, it makes no sense to me that he's saying that he lied in order to attract a NK. If we are believing that he's the town vig the scum would consider him confirmed, and he'd be a target for a NK anyway without having to lie.

Don't forget, though, that we have claimed masons and a claimed doctor. Moreover, I am now powerless and under strong suspicion - making me a significantly less sensible NK target. Claiming "vig" with no specification at least makes me a much more viable target, which not only protects the others from NK, but stops the town wasting a day by lynching me.

I also find it odd that vollkan is completely ignoring me and only stating that there's no case on him and albert's doesn't count. Everything I brought up about his scummy interaction with ckd still stands. Though the more I look at it, it doesn't seem like scum would be as complimentary to a scum buddy as he was. He tried to downplay it later though so meh.

I haven't ignored you. I'll go through your all arguments against me and show where I addressed them. This is not only to respond to your suggestion I have ignored you, but is to show people that I have rebutted the arguments made against me.

Issue #1: "Wishy-washy and noncommittal"

Setael

In 477 you first raised the argument about me being non-committal, as well as accusing me of hypocrisy in my treatment of PeteD (I called him 'noncommittal') and of trying to avoid taking any firm stance by my wake-up wagoning. In 496 you then say that you think I am scum pushing the lynch of Bookitty in a "non-bussing kind of way" (I guess this is a case of damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't ) to the point where you say that this "undermines" the Book wagon. You then ask Albert if he thinks I am wishy-washy.

Vollkan

I respond in 501 by explaining that, by virtue of my % system, I in fact committed to a clear stance on everybody and formed a definite prime suspect in BM. On the matter of Pete, it was a matter of his language being such as to subtly-second guess himself - and I drew attention back to the fact that I did not think it was majorly scummy at all. On the matter of wake-up wagoning, I explained that I had already given my positions on BM - so there was a point behind the wagoning, contrary to what you had said.

Issue #2: Vollkan's treatment of CKD vs. treatment of Setael

Setael:

In 599, Setael draws attention to the facts that I had no negative comments on CKD after my initial read and that, in spite of this, CKD merited a 50% on my scale. She also resurrects the charges of me having been noncommittal and wishy-washy in my first analysis

Vollkan"

In 602, I make 3 points of rebuttal to Set's arguments:
1) I had a very similar attitude towards Jordan (Setael I's predecessor) and Albert.
2) There was nothing prima facie "pro-town" in CKD's (or Jordan's and Albert's) play which would justify me placing them below 50%.
3) On the subject of me being wishy-washy and non-committal I referred to the fact that this point had already been dealt with, and reiterated my previous rebuttal.

Issue #3: "HOLD IT! Contradiction!"

Setael:

In 608, Set accuses me of a contradiction because of these two posts:

he reason is simply that whilst they were not scummy going by my initial read,

I had seen nothing which suggested to me that they were more likely to be town.

CKD makes a good point about Unright putting words into ABR's mouth and votes…
...
CKD gets points for realising this.
...
CKD, sensibly, doesn't buy this.
...
Jordan points out a bogus contradiction from CKD - I call it bogus because he suggests there is some inconsistency with CKD unvoting BM and CKD asking pete d why he thinks BM is OK.
...
11. curiouskarmadog
I have no issues here, since I find myself in agreement with him on most of the matters I look at above. 50%

Vollkan:

I respond in 609 with this:

I don't mean to mischaracterise your position, so let me just address what I understand you to be saying:
"Vollkan finds nothing bad with CKD and expresses two occasions of agreement with CKD. Therefore, it is contradictory and suggests distancing that vollkan would place CKD at 50%"

Again, remember that I did the same thing in respect of Jordan and Albert.

I know full well that just because somebody does a few things which seem "right" to me does not in any way make them more likely to be town. Jordan (Bookitty) is proof of this point.

Nothing that CKD did was enough to make me think that he was probably pro-town. I did not suspect him, but I had seen nothing which would be highly unlikely to come from scum (my criteria for judging a town-tell).

Issue #4: *yawn* Speculation

Setael

This comes in 665:

I think there's a good chance that vollkan NK'd me with the intention of claiming vig. Risky, but worth a gamble since they've already lost 2 members of their team. They knew ABR would likely push my lynch today, with me targeting vollkan the whole time and then when I came up town it would look very bad on vollkan. Perfect solution = NK me and claim it as a vig kill. Might give a chance at a win to a scum team that has been dropping like flies.

I also think if he was town he'd be more likely to be a 1-shot. Oh, and if he was town I think he'd have vigged me after Bookitty came up scum. I see no reason for a town vig with a nightly kill to have left me alive after Bookitty's lynch. As scum, he'd definitely claim to be able to kill every night to keep us from lynching him. All signs point to vollkan scum.

vote: vollkan

Here we have an Albertesque speculation about what vollkanscum might do.

And then in 686 we have:

Anyway, vollkan - if you're a town vig that can kill every night, why didn't you vig me after the Bookitty lynch? What about me made you think I wasn't scum to the point of not vigging me, and how did my play yesterday change your mind so quickly?

Shanba (and anyone else who's active but not posting), what do you think of my case on vollkan in post 665, as well as my earlier cases pointing out the link between him and ckd?

Vollkan:

I can understand why you might think I ignored this, but I didn't. The concerns you raised here were addressed by me in 672 where I gave my testimony in the context of Albert's speculation. I then addressed the matter of why I chose not to NK you after Bookitty's lynch in 695 where I revealed that I am only one-shot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I have missed anything you have said please let me know, because I am quite sure I have refuted every argument that has been against me.

[vollkan]

we don't need any evidence or case to lynch you

This seriously ought to ring alarm bells.

Your play is ridiculous.

How?

Your claim is preposterous. If you really made this kill last night, then where is the mafia?

Good question.

Let's look at the list of players from my perspective:

Totally unknown

Streeflo
farside22
Setael
Lowell
Mastermind of Sin
Dragon Phoenix
curiouskarmadog
Porochaz
pete d

Claimed town

Albert B. Rampage
Shanba
Battle Mage

Confirmed Town

Vollkan

Assuming that Albert, Shanba and BM are telling the truth, that places scum in the "Totally unknown" section.

BM is on leave of absence without reading the thread. His protection choice would have obviously been me or Shanba. The mafia have a much stronger incentive to cophunt than to miss a kill by going after me or him. The probability of them missing their kill twice in a row is less than 5%.

I'm a tad uncertain as to what you mean here, so let me try and run through your reasoning as I understand it.

BM is awol (Relevance?). He would protect either Albert or Shanba, most likely - I agree. I dispute that the mafia have a "much stronger incentive" to cophunt. It is not ridiculous that scum would NK yourself or Shanba, and I think a strong case could be made for scum wanting to NK BM.

I'm curious as to how you deduce your probability of less than 5 percent. Are you assuming that there was an equal chance of scum NKing each player, and of BM protecting each player - because I don't believe such assumptions would be valid.

You don't have any outs left, Volkan

That tends to happen when one is accused of being scum for no reason other than the fact that another player can conceive of a scenario where one is scum.

I've responded to every argument raised against me. I've given an explanation which is coherent and consistent. I truly fail to see the basis for this.

Barring the option that Porochaz just randomly killed someone without reading the thread, you are the top-most suspect and most assuredly scum.

Sorry. I've been labouring under the illusion that there are 9 other unclaimed players in this game (including Porochaz) when, in fact, it seems (by virtue of the fact that Albert says so) that the only possible scum are Porochaz or myself (reason?) and, moreover, that I am the most suspect (This is no doubt in vain, but reason?)

Therefore, using Occam's razor, you are the best lynch today. Hammer him please.

And what does Occam's Razor have to do with this?

[vollkan]

I was watching T.V. today, and something hit me: Prison Break takes place in Panama. I'm calling dibs on T-bag. Shanba is Bellick. Who're you, Volkan ? The woman in black with the scratch on her face ?

I've never seen Prison Break, so I can't answer this.

You know I'm going to make fun of you until you vote yourself, mate

I'm not going to self-hammer. The only good thing that can come of my lynch is for the wagon to be a fly-trap for the scum. Me self-hammering would deny one such opportunity to ensnare a scumbag (if the scum aren't on me already )

[vollkan]

Don't gloat Albert - you were wrong about Setael and you are wrong about me. Seeing as it has been acknowledged that there is no need for a case against me, and that everything I have said has been dismissed as BS, I don't think there is anything I can actually defend against.

Therefore, I have a little thought experiment that I want each person on the wagon, and anyone considering hammering, to answer:

Imagine you are a one-shot vig. Imagine that, on D1, you weren't totally persuaded by the case on Book initially (and you were actually being criticised at the time for showing

any

support). Imagine that, on D2, you found Setael more suspect than CKD. Entertain me with an account of how you would have acted in the position of this hypothetical one-shot vig.

[vollkan]

Nah, I like you Volkan. There is just no way you will ever survive this game. As town or scum, you must realize this. First, you have to give up. You have to know -not fear, but know- that one day, you will die. Until you know that, you are useless.

I'm more useful to you if I know that my days are numbered? Moreover, usually I hear the opposite sort of thing - people get lambasted for being "defeatist" and acting like the a dead man walking.

[vollkan]

Okay, now here is my understanding of this:

If I don't keep fighting, I effectively give any scum a license to hammer me (hence my post reviewing the fact that I have rebutted every argument against me, and my thought experiment - which you answered so informatively ). I am not going to let that happen and intend on making it pretty damn explicit that this wagon is, quite literally, baseless.

I

know

that I am very likely going to die, but I intend on forcing this wagon to answer the yucky questions as much as I possibly can

[vollkan]

I haven't seen Fight Club. That ought to answer your question.

I can see I'm not going to be able to convince you that "Lynching without a case is bad".

Another question - When I come up town, then you will have to construct some other scenario. What will that scenario be, and how likely is that scenario? (see, if my death is inevitable, we might as well move on and discuss other matters )

[vollkan]

Second Albert to be forced to admit his inferiority to farside

I'm considering hammering vollkan for the simple reason that his claim sitnks to high heaven

But why?!? (Consider my little thought experiment, for starters).

[vollkan]

@vollkan: If you're telling the truth, why do you think there haven't been any NKs?

Well, let's look at the facts:
1) We have 2 claimed masons
2) We have a claimed doc

This is the most likely explanation I can see:
Mafia targets masons twice and both times picks one that BM protects. The chance of this occurring is 1/4 if the mafia is only targeting masons and if BM is only protecting from the masons. Albert has suggested that the mafia would cop-hunt, but I'd have to query how likely that is. I mean, keeping all of Albert, Shanba and BM (assuming all their claims are correct) alive means having 3 "confirmed" town which can control discussion - and the odds of actually hitting a cop are miniscule without "coptells". I'm a little surprised that they wouldn't target BM (to avoid having their kill stopped), but I suppose that could be a case of WIFOM games.

Oh, @Setael - Did you read my post where I looked back over my responses to your arguments?

[vollkan]

*sigh*
Nice to see Pete making such a well-explained hammer - particularly given that he has expressed no prior suspicion of me.

Go town!

Patrick

- If you want me to replace any of the lurkers I am ready and willing.

[vollkan]

Oh, and whodhavethunkit - lynching without a case isn't a good idea

[vollkan]

I just noticed this game had finished, and we won.

Good game, especially ABR (despite his lynching of me ) and thanks Patrick