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

[Sir Tornado]

Give me one reason why we shouldn't lynch YOU or ABR if your choice of lynch turns out to be a townie?

Sir T, you seem convinced that the scum will NK a known mason if possible, so you must surely believe that if ABR and A Papaya are masons it will be apparent to everybody on Day 2 by the fact that one of them will be dead.

I don't quite get the connection between what you have quoted me and what you are asking me.

You were saying (or I thought you were) that if ABR and Papaya led the lynch on someone who turned out to be town, they should expect one of themselves (ABR/Papaya) to be lynched the next day. But you had earlier said you were sure the scum would Nk a claimed mason (if they are indeed masons). Therefore according to your own theory (which I don't support) we would know by Day 2 whether ABR and Papaya were masons. Therefore their choice of lynch on Day 1 would be irrelevant towards the issue of their innocence.

Or maybe I've misunderstood you somewhere along the way. Actually I see ABR has answered you as well, maybe his answer is the one you wanted.

If A Papaya/ABR's choice of lynch for today turns out to be a townie, my trust in their claim will be shaken. See my post above this one (I think I posted it while you were typing this one) for more.

Adel is either scum or the most disastrously deluded townie I've seen in a considerable while. I still think, and I believe somebody else has agreed, that she's trying all she can to bait ABR into revealing the third mason, or if that doesn't work to build up pressure on him to do so by campaigning to have either him or Papaya (uncounterclaimed masons) lynched today. Scum, or a townie blinded by the inability to accept that she's been totally wrong? I'm still not sure.

I am not sure. She seems scummy to me. But I am not 100% sure because of one thing: She hasn't really wavered much. Has kept her "lynch all lurkers" line right till the end. And, I think that the feud between ABR and Adel got a bit too personal that it may be interfering with their perceptions of each other.

[Adel]

By not lynching me for a start:)

Thanks for giving me an opening to be useful, if you are a mason. It is frustrating being on the outside when I want to help.

What should you do if you are a mason? Get posts out of our vacationing players but silence Papaya (your earlier post should do a good job of that) everytime he posts I think he is scum.
Consider the possibility that an innocent player would have good reasons for being skeptical of your claims. Consider that scum would jump on the chance to target an innocent that you are voting for. Look at ryan, since his posts in response to your claim were similar to mine I can understand where he is coming from if he is innocent, but I cannot vouch for him for obvious reasons. Did Lowell announce that he was going on vacation before he left? His timing seems a little fishy to me, but if he posted elsewhere it is probably on the up and up. I trust Lawrencalot more than my former lurker-posse more right now.
Yes I am new here, but the current meta seems slightly broken in favor of Mafia to me. All they have to do is post enough to not get replaced, and let the active townies pressure each other enough to out the masons. Then, if an outed mason is not killed night 1, and was on the wagon for a mislynch, accusations of "fake claim" tend to stick, resulting in a mislynch of a mason on day 2. That leaves town in day 3 nearly in a lynch or loose position. That is why I still believe in the "lynch the lurker" meta tactic. i am really sorry about outing Papaya if he is a mason, there is no way I could've expected a mason to play that poorly. I don't expect to identify a scum just though following "lynch the lurker" either, but when you force all players to produce theories, original opinions, votes and FoSs the result is enough information to be confident in a lynch. My best case scenario would look just like the Papaya situation did before he claimed- a player that finally begins to post but his posts seems very scummy. I don't know what should happen when we out a player with an opposing claim to your mason-claim in that event.
I suspect the present lurkers more than my former lurker-posse right now. I distrust Sir Tornado and Ripley less than theopore_OCD more less than the lurkers, about the same as my former posse. The lurkers I want to pressure, not because I have any specific reason to suspect them, but because they are big holes where information does not exist. Until that information is there, it does us no good to just continue on with a lynch, unless something as convincing as what we had against Papaya comes up.

[Adel]

Adel; I think you'll find I did answer, maybe not in so many words. I don't think it makes sense for Albert and Papaya to both claim masons if they're not masons. Therefore I think they're masons, hence I'll believe them ahead of a counter-claim, which still hasn't arrived, you were the most likely counter-claimant to me, you've claimed your not a mason. The absence of a claim just means its more likely Albert and Papaya are telling the truth.

The second question was also answered because I think ABR and Papaya are both town. I don't see them as scum hence why would be lynching a fake-mason? Who's a fake mason? You mean lynch either of Papaya or Albert right? As I say I'd rather lynch you.

So you haven't considered the possibility that they are scum? I asked you what what the best course of action would be if they are lying. It is a possibility.

[theopor_COD]

I've considered it. I just think it's very unlikely.

Papaya's claim alone yes - there'd be more of a case for thinking possibly scum. Scum I think would just as likely claim townie than mason. Albert's second claim is totally non-sensical if he isn't a mason. If Albert's scum he is seriously stupid, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he's a competent player.

Go back and re-read around page 8 or so pre-Payapa claim, Albert acts like he knows Papaya's innocent, the scum ain't stupid they had probably figured if Papaya was a mason, then Albert was likely to be one aswell.

[Sir Tornado]

I've considered it. I just think it's very unlikely.

Papaya's claim alone yes - there'd be more of a case for thinking possibly scum. Scum I think would just as likely claim townie than mason. Albert's second claim is totally non-sensical if he isn't a mason. If Albert's scum he is seriously stupid, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he's a competent player.

Go back and re-read around page 8 or so pre-Payapa claim, Albert acts like he knows Papaya's innocent, the scum ain't stupid they had probably figured if Papaya was a mason, then Albert was likely to be one aswell.

Yes but what if

they are the scum

?

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

[Albert B. Rampage]

Sir T, if there is a group of masons that are not papaya and me, please read what I posted at the end of the previous page and tell me what you think. Counter-claiming would be the best possible scenario for the town.

[Ripley]

Sir T, if there is a group of masons that are not papaya and me, please read what I posted at the end of the previous page and tell me what you think. Counter-claiming would be the best possible scenario for the town.

The plan of having both teams of claimants reveal all 3 members for a guaranteed win would be brilliant if there was any way to force the second team to reveal their third member once the first team had revealed theirs.

[Sir Tornado]

theo you are by far the most just and objective person I have ever played with. You never cease to impress me with your air of detachment in the middle of all this chaos and bickering. You sure set the bar high, even tough I know you were tempted at least a few times to attack me. Please do not respond to this, as I'm only speaking my mind.

Sir T, that was a very sharp observation, and you bring a fresh perspective to view this situation from. Indeed, I agree with most of what you say, however, I invite anyone to counter-claim. This is what will happen if someone counter-claims:

1) We will ask that person one of his partners. We will need confirmation from both players that they are indeed mason to eachother.

2) I will reveal the third member of my masonry, and each member will confirm this.

3) We will ask the third member of the counter-claimant party to reveal themselves. At this point we can lynch me, Adel or whoever you want in the two opposing parties, and then it will be a straight lynching without possibility of error from that point, with an resonant town victory.

Hmm.. I like it. For it, I think we should postpone any lynchings till all the players come back from vacation. We need to have all of them active and posting for this purpose.

Now, that brings be back to saying exactly what I was saying 6 hours and 3 pages ago... we do not need a quick lynching. So, stop the adel-wagon till we get everyone on board and have all possible pay-dirt on everyone.

[Adel]

I've considered it. I just think it's very unlikely.

Papaya's claim alone yes - there'd be more of a case for thinking possibly scum. Scum I think would just as likely claim townie than mason. Albert's second claim is totally non-sensical if he isn't a mason. If Albert's scum he is seriously stupid, I know he rubs people up the wrong way but he's a competent player.

Go back and re-read around page 8 or so pre-Payapa claim, Albert acts like he knows Papaya's innocent, the scum ain't stupid they had probably figured if Papaya was a mason, then Albert was likely to be one aswell.

You are totally using my logic but reaching a different conclusion. The reason I doubt their claim is that I linked Albert to Papaya before Papaya claimed! If we lynched Papaya, revealing his him to be scum or later revealing his claim to be false then Albert would hang the next day. When neither of them died following a quicklynch of a vanilla townie (me) they would still hang but their partner would have an extra day... later came the suggestion that following a mislynch of me they would hand ryan! A possible second mislynch! How does this not make you doubt their claim? Now Albert is asking for all three real masons to reveal themselves in order for a counter claim to be valid! How is that pro-town! I was doubtful earlier, but more and more scummy stuff keeps on coming up.

If I was scum why wouldn't I have counter claimed when Papaya did? I quickly backed off, and tried to turn the mob into looking for other potential scum. All of you who are accusing me, please tell me why you do not address this.

Being skeptical of a cornered scum's claim? Check.
Giving the claim the benefit of the doubt before anyone else? Check.
Being suspicious of co-claim by the person I identified as being the most probable scum buddy of the cornered scum? Check.
Giving the two of them the benefit of the doubt? Check.
Being astonished when a claimed-mason threatens the rest of the town with blackmail if they refuse to quicklynch me? Check.
Not making a counter claim since I am not a mason, even when the votes started piling up on me? Check.

How am I still the chief suspect? Astonishing.

[Sir Tornado]

Albert:

So, if you are the masons, and the scum do counter claim, you reveal your third member.

But, what happens if the scum refuse to reveal their third member

?

I change my opinion. I am not too sure about this plan...

[ryan]

Ryan what do you make of Adel and the fact he "was actively looking to clear you"?

The first thought honestly was that Adel was scum and she was targeting me for a night kill (by saying she was trying to clear me it'd be a good cover if I died in the night) I still don't appreciate the fact that ABR threatened the town and is basically getting away with it, but apparently they've given enough proof they are masons? Not in my mind they haven't. Adel is at least posting content in this thread which is more than I can say out of alot of our current players. I'm gonna stay on the fence when it comes to Adel because I'm honestly torn about her innocence/guilt, I'm predicting right now (if hard pressed) that she's town that's been targeted by some scum.

[Adel]

Sir T, if there is a group of masons that are not papaya and me, please read what I posted at the end of the previous page and tell me what you think. Counter-claiming would be the best possible scenario for the town.

No, the best possible scenario for real masons would be to not reveal their identity. If the result of today is a mislynch under your wagon, you are revealed as probable scum if you are not NK'd tonight. The best possible scenario if you are not the real masons would be the lynch of one of you, revealing your alignment, following by a day 2 lynch of the other, with small risk of a mason dying tonight.

[Adel]

I think we should postpone any lynchings till all the players come back from vacation. We need to have all of them active and posting for this purpose.

Does

anyone

disagree with this?

[Albert B. Rampage]

Albert:

So, if you are the masons, and the scum do counter claim, you reveal your third member.

But, what happens if the scum refuse to reveal their third member

?

I change my opinion. I am not too sure about this plan...

Lmao then we have 2 correct lynchs, 2 dead masons, and one confirmed mason.

1 mafia, 5 townies and 1 mason. Very good odds of winning, I must say.

Adel, you fail to remember that papaya was not cornered, and his claim was not going to lead to a lynching.

[Albert B. Rampage]

No, the best possible scenario for real masons would be to not reveal their identity.

If the result of today is a mislynch under your wagon, you are revealed as probable scum if you are not NK'd tonight

. The best possible scenario if you are not the real masons would be the lynch of one of you, revealing your alignment, following by a day 2 lynch of the other, with small risk of a mason dying tonight.

My plan is bulletproof. Your plan is shaky at best, but eh, life's a bitch. You heard the woman, let's lynch her as soon as Aimee and Bird catch up.

[ryan]

Albert. I am still waiting to hear why you imposed that 72 hour deadline. I know you backtracked later on, but could you please explain why you imposed it in the first place?

Out of pleasure to see Adel languish in fear, of course

To see how different players would react. Who would turn against me, who would contradict themselves (like how we caught ryan), to gain information.

Caught me? Caught me doing what Albert? Calling you out on your horrible play maybe? Or disagreeing with your little idea of outing the last mason, on day 1 with NOBODY close to being lynched. You are hurling alot of insults around in this thread and not really taking any blame for your terrible play. Insulting people because they don't agree with your "theory" is not good town play. So even if your "mason claim" is true, you've done enough scummy things to be a very unuseful mason. You seem to have no problem outing the 3rd mason IF you are nightkilled on night 1 but yet you haven't really said WHY you claimed early when Papaya wasnt close to being lynched. You've made some mistakes Albert that makes you less than innocent as well.

[Ripley]

Suppose we do this: we state that if the current claimants are not to be accepted as masons, two more masons must come forward and confirm each other.

We decide to lynch one of one pair. If we get it right, there follows a straight exchange of two scum for two masons, leaving for Day 3: 5 town, 1 scum, 1 mason. We get 3 shots at finding the scum. I strongly believe ABR and Papaya are masons, for reasons already given, and that lynching one of the new claimants would result in this scenario.

If we get it wrong, we still get two scum, but because we lynched a mason first we now end up on Day 4 with 1 scum, and either a) 3 townies + 1 mason or b) 4 townies (more likely). This is actually not such a bad position. We get two shots at picking out the scum.

As I said, I never guarantee my numbers are right, but if so, is this worth considering?

[Adel]

Your plan could also be a desperate ploy by cornered scum, which is working out just as you had hoped even though your attempted quicklynch of me failed. I love how you never consider that I may be innocent. If you weren't scum how could you be that confident of my alignment? If you are scum the only way a mislynch could turn out better for you is if you targeted a mason, but I bet you are wondering if maybe I am a mason who is playing the role correctly.


Again, as a mason, how can you be confident of my guilt? Your confidence is damning, as is your relentless targeting of only me.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Caught me? Caught me doing what Albert?

Ryan, I love playing with you. Your just so awesome. Here you go, my friend:

The only thing that sticks out to me as you could be scum trying to save A Papaya with this claim. I'm feeling more confident in my vote on Papaya but this new claim does make me wonder a little more about you now.

Are you serious? We have two masons confirming each other, as against

zero

counter claimants, and you're now

more

confident in your vote on Papaya? Sounds to me like you're so pleased with the success of disbelieving one uncountered claimed mason - it brought out a second - that you're sticking to the tactic in the hope of smoking out the third.

And if you're

more

confident in your vote on Papaya, how can you be just "wondering a little more" about ABR?

I feel confident that Papaya is our scum and am a little surprised my comments all of a sudden turned you on me.

As anyone not confused by looking at things through scummy eyes can plainly see,

if Papaya is scum ABR is scum as well

. You didn't get this right in your previous post and you haven't got it right now. You continue to refer to Papaya alone as scum, and then you say this:

To the rest of the town, ABR should NOT reveal the 3rd member of the mason and I ask of you to post and tell him to stay quiet.

If you are confident that Papaya is scum, you would also be confident that ABR was scum, and you would therefore know it's not possible for him to reveal a mason. This concern is all faked on your part.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Your plan could also be a desperate ploy by cornered scum, which is working out just as you had hoped even though your attempted quicklynch of me failed. I love how you never consider that I may be innocent. If you weren't scum how could you be that confident of my alignment? If you are scum the only way a mislynch could turn out better for you is if you targeted a mason, but I bet you are wondering if maybe I am a mason who is playing the role correctly.


Again, as a mason, how can you be confident of my guilt? Your confidence is damning, as is your relentless targeting of only me.

Lynching you is the best possible thing for the town, because I believe a) your a masterful liar and b) you have hurt and will continue to hurt the town.

Look at you, your jumping on masons at every turn, but you cannot direct blame at anybody else besides lurkers. With the knowledge that me and papaya are masons, it is naturally my duty to off your head before somebody decides to listen to you. Even if your town, it is my belief that you will try to incriminate my mason team by any means necessary, and that is enough to warrant your death.

[ryan]

So claiming three mason on the first day is good town play? That's basically what you were threatening to do Albert.

[Albert B. Rampage]

So claiming three mason on the first day is good town play? That's basically what you were threatening to do Albert.

Dude your 97% confirmed scum lol. I don't have to defend myself from you.

[ryan]

So claiming three mason on the first day is good town play? That's basically what you were threatening to do Albert.

Dude your 97% confirmed scum lol. I don't have to defend myself from you.

Ah yes, Albert percentages. Who else but you has claimed me scum Albie? You are trying to start a bandwagon on me and I don't appreciate it. I'm as town as they come and you have continued an assault on a townie and that is why I am having problems believing you and your mason (alleged) friend.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Dude your 97% confirmed scum lol. I don't have to defend myself from you.

Ah yes, Albert percentages. Who else but you has claimed me scum Albie? You are trying to start a bandwagon on me and I don't appreciate it. I'm as town as they come and you have continued an assault on a townie and that is why I am having problems believing you and your mason (alleged) friend.[/quote]

I don't want a bandwagon on you my friend. I'm hunting big game right now.

[Adel]

By my numbers, depending on the Mafia figuring out the third mason.

If Day 1 lynch hits:
1mason, 1mafia, 5town, with the remaining mason either known or unknown
or 2mason, 1mafia, 4town

If Day1 lynch misses:
Best case outcome: 1 mason, 1mafia, 4town
Worse case outcome: 1mafia, 5town

However, if we can establish that the scum are already fakeclaiming:
Day 1 lynch hits, Day2 lynch hits, and the scum don't know who the masons are, so on day 3 we would likely have: 2masons, 1mafia, 3town or even 3 masons 1mafia and 2 town.

Can 1 mafia win against 5 town or against 1 mason and four town? Doesn't Sk performance suggest it is possible?

Offering this alternative is much better if the scum are fake-claiming then what was about to happen before their fake-claim, which would've been a Papaya-lynch followed by a ABR-lynch without flushing the masons from cover.

That is why I suggest that the masons wait until tomorrow to claim. No mason exposure today, less risk in the long term. In the event that our claimed masons are for real, they should be able to build a real case against a real scum, and not be promoting the blind lynching of a person of unknown alignment.

So for me the question will be, is another player revealed to be more scummy than Papaya. Which will take time. If we can't reach a consensus that either another player is more scummy than Papaya, or that no other player is more scummy than Papaya, then I would agree that the mass reveal is in the best interest of the town.

If seven players can agree to lynch Papaya, or can agree to lynch another player, I feel confident that that lynch will hang true.