Mafia 64: The New "C9" - Game over!

[LoudmouthLee]

Guardian was nary a doc, a SK or scum.

He was a townie.

NIGHT! Sunrise at 5:00pm EST in 4 days. 9/5

[LoudmouthLee]

Manaspryte, Doctor has been shot.
HackerHuck, Townie, has been chainsawed.

[LoudmouthLee]

10 alive, 6 to lynch!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Now we see how a townie lying can fuck a game up.

I'm gonna be a little more active today.

[Kinetic]

Vote:TCS

Your inactivity up until now, coupled with my previous points on Day 3 still stand.

[Glork]

A mislynch here could mean, worst case scenario, 7 alive with 2 Mafia and an SK still out and about.


We should probably consider a massclaim at this point in the game.

[Kinetic]

I don't think mass claim is a bad idea at this point. Although I think I have an idea of what is remaining. The only thing I'm unsure about is masons. However, having two masons alive at this point would be a very good thing.

[BillyTwilight]

Glork, I'd like to hear a response to my post #2171, if it please ya.

I'd also like to hear a lot more input from MBL, inHim, and YB at this point. inHim was fairly vocal but completely dropped out of the conversation when the Guardian fiasco started. MBL had zero posts on day 3, and little to no input in day 2 other than popping in to vote for Sarcastro. YB has been posting sporadic 1 or 2 liners for the last couple of weeks as well.

Jack, I'd also like some input from you on the game as a whole. You had quite a bit yesterday in regards to Guardian, but I'd like a more thorough analysis of the game as a whole.

TCS, I'm holding you to being more active.

And everyone else, hold me to being more active, too. (Talk about pointing out your own faults in others...)

I am not opposed to a mass claim.

Kinetic, would you mind going through your case against TCS again?

[Yosarian2]

As I did not get an answer before the day ended yesterday...

Also, hackerhunt: I'm not sure I believe your explination about the sarc thing. Could you be a little more specific on how his play here reminded you of his play in old maid? Note that I'm not going to read all of old maid mafia, I barely manage to keep up with the games I'm in right now.

[Jack]

...

hh died yos

[Jack]

As for massclaim: clearly we have no doctor. At most one cop, and his innocent results are nearly useless at this point. I don't think we want to make any masons claim, ideally we want them to stay alive as long as possible. Obviously no vigilante.

With no doc, any power role claims will get killed, and scum will just claim townie. There's a small chance of scum trying to claim a role and getting countered, and I suppose it helps prevent fake claims in the future, but all in all I don't think it's a good idea.

[Jack]

@Billy: odd request since I haven't seen any sum ups from you. Don't see the point of one either really. I would say day one was a normal day one, day 2 the sarcastro lynch came out of nowhere. Day three guardian got lynched while outing the real doctor. I don't really think about the game like that, I think of it in terms of individual players.

[Yosarian2]

... Yes, yes he did. Sigh.

[Jack]

That kind of "missed who got killed thing" always smells to high heaven. It seems so obvious though.

[Yosarian2]

And I agree with Jack; I don't really see the advantage to a massclaim at this time. There's 10 of us left, 2 mafia, and 1 Sk. If we out any masons or cops now, they'll just die tonight or tommorow night with 2 anti-town nightkillers active. We'd be better off waiting until it's more end-game-ish; and/or until a mason, cop, power role, or cop-investigated innocent is about to be lynched.

[Jack]

It's a double disadvantage really. Not only are they possibly killing off power roles, they

aren't

killing each other.

[Glork]

Vote: MrBuddyLee

Response to Billy forthcoming.

[Jack]

@glork: did you think massclaim was a good idea? Why did you ask about it?

[Glork]

As to the first paragraph (regarding your inactivity), there's not much to be said, I think. I've noticed that you've been relatively inactive. You've explained that you've been busy/away, and fairly disinterested. Unfortunately, it's really hard to assess a response like that. (I went after Thok early in Calvin & Hobbes when he was inactive, but he turned out to be town in that game... but then, I've seen players -- Sarc here, Thok in LO2 -- lurk as scum.)

This goes more towards my argument against you than it does as a defense. If this is the way you have decided to play this game, why the hard-core stance on Sarc? (By hard core I mean your current stance that he was doomed for a lynch and the way that you stayed on his wagon with a lack of real evidence, especially any evidence that you really made against him.) It doesn't make sense to me, as I just find his play (or lack thereof) in this game to be a difficult read at best.

I would hardly describe my stance as "hard-core." You yourself looked back over the interactions, and I was definitely hunting about elsewhere... as indicated when I went after MBL briefly.

I just don't see it. You are retroactively trying to tell us that you had a very strong case against Sarc at the time that you neglected to inform us of. I went back and looked at your posts that have something to do with Sarc or his predecessors. You were very wishy-washy on BBB, saying you'd take a look at him, he might be scum, agreeing with him on some issues involving MBL, etc. Overall I get the feeling that his play was sticking out to you but you weren't making a lot of effort to comment on it. You never mentioned Plessiez as far as I can tell, and you only had 3 comments on Sarc leading up to your initial vote of him.

As stupid (and probably hypocritical) as it sounds, I never made a case against Sarc because of a slew of real-life events. If you care to reference, you can check the plethora of V/LA posts I've been making in the past month and a half or my post in the Dantes in Fresno signup thread.
Early-game, I just had my focus elsewhere. It was mainly on Shteven, with Guardian, Albert, BM, and a couple others catching my attention from time to time. I didn't comment on Plessiez because his only posts were his "hey, glad to be here" and his "Still rereading the thread" posts. I could pretty much tell that he'd just end up getting replaced, so I didn't bother.

So yes, I didn't put as much pressure onto Sarc as I could have. I fail to see how this is, by any means, a fault of mine or an indication that I might be scummy.

My comment in 1302 was more pointing out how hotly contested Albert's wagon and lynch were. It seemed rather pivotal. I can't honestly remember why I put those three names. Looking around, nobody seemed to suspect AE, and Yos/Sarc were fairly inactive... so it seemed like a random lynching of either of them would have yielded less information.

1716 -- I didn't avoid answering them... if you honestly think that I deliberately avoided in-plain-sight answering those questions and then caved to a single pressure vote from AE, you're delusional. As I stated, I had forgotten that she asked those questions... and obviously I had no qualms about answering them. Anyway, what I said about Sarcastro was truth. I had noticed his inactivity, but hadn't looked at him to see if it was indicative of him being scum.

1829 -- To say that I hadn't looked at Sarcastro is an absolute lie. There is a very specific reason that I cited SARCASTRO and MRBUDDYLEE among the players who were lurking. They were the two who struk me as most likely to be scum. This is evidenced by my subsequent votes on both players, my support of the SarcLynch D2, and my current vote on MrBuddyLee.
Just because I don't say "I think that Sarc is scum because of X, Y, Z, and YourMother" does not mean that I hadn't examined his play. Sometimes, instead of laying it thick on somebody, you call for pressure and see who responds to that call. Seeing which players openly and willingly join you in pressuring a scumbag into activity (and/or an eventual lynch) can give you an assload of information. I wanted pressure on Sarc because A) I wanted to see Sarc actually do something; and B) I wanted to see who was willing to go after him.

The reason for my vote was essentially the same. I suspected him enough to lay down a vote, and I wanted to see who else would answer my call regarding Sarcastro. While you're right in that it was to encourage Sarc to talk more, that was not

"simply"

the case.

You are in some ways underestimating your sway in this forum. You were on a successful lynch to end day 2. You suggested at the start of day 3 that "I believe that both other Mafiates were off of the Sarcastro-lynch." I think a lot of players, perhaps without even thinking it through, would think "Glorktown is paragoning the mafia, lets follow his lead and not look at people on the wagon." The fact that people ignored that and still looked at the full set of players, and thus forced you to also look at the full set of players (example, Shteven: you said in that post, "Surprisingly, I don't think Shteven is a member of the Mafia right now," and you have since reneged when other players continued to look at Shteven) doesn't change anything. In your first day 3 post you suggested that we don't look at Sarc's wagon for mafia and at the same time quasi-cleared Shteven, the player you have fought with the most in this game. I think you were trying to say "I don't think we need to look here anymore; see, I'm even clearing Shteven who I've been gunning for this whole game".

Perhaps you are right in that I underestimate my level of influence around here. I tend to label my influence as what I

think

it should be, rather than what it

really is

sometimes. (Case in point: McDonald's Mafia, where like four or five players just followed me blindly, and it became really hard to get decent reads with just a bunch of "Yay, Glork voted X so we should vote X" posts.)

Your paragraph here makes it sound like I intentionally tried to get everyone to clear six players while failing to understand my own influence on the game. I see these two points as being contradictory.
If I were intentionally trying to influence the town's thinking, then I must necessarily believe that I have a significant level of influence on the town.
Contrapositively, if I don't think I have a whole lot of influence, I likely wouldn't be trying to influence everyone by way of a single side-comment or a gut-reaction post.

I think that you're missing the pink elephant on the coffee table, Billy, while attempting to swat the gnat on the windowsill.

Then why did you make it? Why state what effectively comes down to "we don't need to look here now" if you were perfectly ready and willing to go look there then??

Because as I said,

I wanted to note my gut reaction

. I didn't yet know if I thought I'd *REALLY* end up believing it, but the very first thing that went through my head was "Man, the last two scums were probably pissed about that lynch." That, to me, implied that they were probably off of the lynch.
I felt the need to note that reaction because my gut is usually fairly accurate. There are, however, exceptions, and MBL is likely one of those exceptions. (More on this in my

next

post.)

I still don't understand this. Maybe I'm just at a meta-disadvantage here for not having played with Sarc or most of these other players before, but I honestly can't see such a strong case against him... and you have never, ever laid out what that case was.

This is my main problem: Anytime I see a player who exhibits far different play with regard to one wagon than on any other wagon that has happened in a game this large, and especially when that wagon lynches scum, I become extremely nervous about that person's play. When that person's first post on the next day hints that town shouldn't look at the lynched-scum's voters from the previous day, indirectly including them self, it makes my skin crawl even more. My FoS stands.

I really truly can't fault you for this reasoning. I didn't explain myself, and that's my own damned fault. You don't understand how I could have been so certain that Sarc would be lynched on D3, and it's not completely unreasonable for that lack of undersatnding to lead to suspicion. I understand exactly why you don't like my behavior towards Sarc. Unfortunately, I really don't think I have any explanation that can properly satisfy you. Suffice to say, I fucked up and didn't nail Sarc down when I had the chance. I would've gotten him D3, had it come to it, but that just didn't happen.

I would, however, like you to explain one thing. You stated that my behavior being different,

especially since it led to a scum lynch

, made you nervous. I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that I was

suspicious

for my behavior towards Sarc, as opposed to simply being right (for once). If you'll note, my track record as a whole isn't that good, and when my behavior percievably changed, I helped lead a lynch on scum. Why was your reaction "Wow, that's suspicious" rather than "Wow, he changed things up and finally did something right"?

[Glork]

@glork: did you think massclaim was a good idea? Why did you ask about it?

I think it's a good idea in that there are about three players whom I would like to see claim, and having only half of the remaining players claim doesn't make much sense to me.

I also come from the unique perspective of knowing that I am A) a likely scum target, based on the failed mafia kill and Spryte's protection of me; and B) a protown player. So I see the massclaim as being less destructive than you or Yos would. I'm essentially confirmed as non-Mafia, and while a couple of people have expressed Glork-SK sentiments, I know that's not the case. I won't be lynched today, and I'll be killed tonight, so making some suspicious players (MBL, Sarcastro, possibly inHim or something) claim would be beneficial in my eyes.

[BillyTwilight]

As to the first paragraph (regarding your inactivity), there's not much to be said, I think. I've noticed that you've been relatively inactive. You've explained that you've been busy/away, and fairly disinterested. Unfortunately, it's really hard to assess a response like that. (I went after Thok early in Calvin & Hobbes when he was inactive, but he turned out to be town in that game... but then, I've seen players -- Sarc here, Thok in LO2 -- lurk as scum.)

Tic for tac, I suppose. It's one of the major disadvantages that I see for town in a large game. You had RL issues when the Sarc wagon happened and that's resulted in my suspicion of you, I've had RL/boredom issues and that's led to suspicion of me on your part. I would like to note however that this is the first "large" game I've been in. I wasn't really prepared to play when so many different threads of interactions occurred in the first couple of days, which in part led to my disinterest in the game. I complained about it several times in thread; there were just so many posts and so many interactions that I couldn't concentrate or pin down anything on any one player, except for YB, who seemed to stand out like a sore thumb. After my enormously long post against YB on day 1, which took hours to research and write, there simply seemed to be a mostly "blah" response in regards to YB. It felt like even a lot of the people that were voting for him early in the game were only really there because of a deadline being imposed. After that much (what I thought to be good) work on that post and a lackluster response from the players, I got a bit frustrated and simply didn't want to read so many posts and compose replies to them anymore. Now that the number of players have dropped into the more mini-game size I am getting a lot more "into" the game than I have been to this point.

I would hardly describe my stance as "hard-core." You yourself looked back over the interactions, and I was definitely hunting about elsewhere... as indicated when I went after MBL briefly.

That's not the point I was making. To this point in the game you have been fairly wishy washy in regards to your opinion on other players. I didn't see that with Sarc. Even when you jumped off him for a while, there was never a "maybe Sarc is, maybe he isn't, etc." feel to your posts that I got from other people you have targeted. For instance, I think you had some arguments about Albert or YB on day 1 saying something along the lines of you calculating him to be a slightly better than random chance at being scum, or the like. There was never any of this kind of give with respect to Sarc. You switched your vote to MBL, and when he voted Sarc you had a statement like "Now, there is a vote I can get behind," or the like and you went straight back to Sarc. That is what I meant by "hard-core". You never had any analysis that made me think you had a real reason to be so ready to lynch Sarc, as you obviously were.

As stupid (and probably hypocritical) as it sounds, I never made a case against Sarc because of a slew of real-life events. If you care to reference, you can check the plethora of V/LA posts I've been making in the past month and a half or my post in the Dantes in Fresno signup thread.
Early-game, I just had my focus elsewhere. It was mainly on Shteven, with Guardian, Albert, BM, and a couple others catching my attention from time to time. I didn't comment on Plessiez because his only posts were his "hey, glad to be here" and his "Still rereading the thread" posts. I could pretty much tell that he'd just end up getting replaced, so I didn't bother.

So yes, I didn't put as much pressure onto Sarc as I could have. I fail to see how this is, by any means, a fault of mine or an indication that I might be scummy.

Glork, I simply disagree. You have made cases against players, or otherwise gunned for players like TCS about their playstyle. You say that you had RL issues to deal with, and maybe you did, I can't argue against that. But for the purpose of this game, you treated the Sarc wagon differently, IMO, than any other in the game. I'll get more to a fluent answer on this later, you kinda ask the same thing again at the end (

vide infra

).

My comment in 1302 was more pointing out how hotly contested Albert's wagon and lynch were. It seemed rather pivotal. I can't honestly remember why I put those three names. Looking around, nobody seemed to suspect AE, and Yos/Sarc were fairly inactive... so it seemed like a random lynching of either of them would have yielded less information.

1716 -- I didn't avoid answering them... if you honestly think that I deliberately avoided in-plain-sight answering those questions and then caved to a single pressure vote from AE, you're delusional. As I stated, I had forgotten that she asked those questions... and obviously I had no qualms about answering them. Anyway, what I said about Sarcastro was truth. I had noticed his inactivity, but hadn't looked at him to see if it was indicative of him being scum.

1829 -- To say that I hadn't looked at Sarcastro is an absolute lie. There is a very specific reason that I cited SARCASTRO and MRBUDDYLEE among the players who were lurking. They were the two who struk me as most likely to be scum. This is evidenced by my subsequent votes on both players, my support of the SarcLynch D2, and my current vote on MrBuddyLee.
Just because I don't say "I think that Sarc is scum because of X, Y, Z, and YourMother" does not mean that I hadn't examined his play. Sometimes, instead of laying it thick on somebody, you call for pressure and see who responds to that call. Seeing which players openly and willingly join you in pressuring a scumbag into activity (and/or an eventual lynch) can give you an assload of information. I wanted pressure on Sarc because A) I wanted to see Sarc actually do something; and B) I wanted to see who was willing to go after him.

I can't disagree with your theory; I think it's fundamentally sound. Unfortunately, it does nothing to clear you from being scum. You and I both know that the best scumplay approximates town play as closely as possible. The point of citing those posts was to show that you had very, very little interaction with Sarc at all, up until that point. There were many players whom you have gone back and forth with A LOT in this game so far. By the time day 2 ended you had 231 posts to your count. A very, very tiny percentage of those even mentioned Sarc or his predecessors. You've gotten into multiple discussions/attacks against many players, most notably Shteven, but also Guardian on day 1, inHim, to some extent TCS, and various other players. But you barely mentioned Sarc. Yet it seemed from your play that you were far more ready to lynch Sarc than any other player up to that point.

Your response to my point about post #1829 is overboard. How could I possibly have lied? I said you hadn't looked at Sarc (meaning presented a strong case against him or had some kind of dialog with him, trying to gauge his alliance). You call me a liar, implying that I was supposed to know that you

did

look at Sarc when you yourself have admitted that you made no really concrete case against him or otherwise engaged him in conversation (at that point) to ascertain that he was scum.

This whole thing emphasizes my argument. The "I think that Sarc is scum because of..." part shows exactly what I am talking about. You simply haven't done this with anyone else in the game, at least, you didn't do this and then turn around and become one of the biggest driving forces for their lynch. Your MO this game has been analysis, questioning, pressure, dialog. Not so with Sarc, yet you were more than ready, in fact slightly eager to lynch him.

Perhaps you are right in that I underestimate my level of influence around here. I tend to label my influence as what I

think

it should be, rather than what it

really is

sometimes. (Case in point: McDonald's Mafia, where like four or five players just followed me blindly, and it became really hard to get decent reads with just a bunch of "Yay, Glork voted X so we should vote X" posts.)

Your paragraph here makes it sound like I intentionally tried to get everyone to clear six players while failing to understand my own influence on the game. I see these two points as being contradictory.
If I were intentionally trying to influence the town's thinking, then I must necessarily believe that I have a significant level of influence on the town.
Contrapositively, if I don't think I have a whole lot of influence, I likely wouldn't be trying to influence everyone by way of a single side-comment or a gut-reaction post.

I think that you're missing the pink elephant on the coffee table, Billy, while attempting to swat the gnat on the windowsill.

Misinterpreting what I said. When I said you were underestimating your sway on the board, I meant that the argument you were making into my questions about that post were underestimating your sway on the forum. I never meant to imply that you really were underestimating your sway, but that the argument you were making underestimated it. I think it would be rather easy for Glorkscum to think that people might follow where he leads based on his board presence and try to misdirect town, and just as easy for Glorkscum to make an argument based on the fact that "no one would just blindly follow me in that kind of suggestion."

...
I really truly can't fault you for this reasoning. I didn't explain myself, and that's my own damned fault. You don't understand how I could have been so certain that Sarc would be lynched on D3, and it's not completely unreasonable for that lack of undersatnding to lead to suspicion. I understand exactly why you don't like my behavior towards Sarc. Unfortunately, I really don't think I have any explanation that can properly satisfy you. Suffice to say, I fucked up and didn't nail Sarc down when I had the chance. I would've gotten him D3, had it come to it, but that just didn't happen.

I would, however, like you to explain one thing. You stated that my behavior being different,

especially since it led to a scum lynch

, made you nervous. I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that I was

suspicious

for my behavior towards Sarc, as opposed to simply being right (for once). If you'll note, my track record as a whole isn't that good, and when my behavior percievably changed, I helped lead a lynch on scum. Why was your reaction "Wow, that's suspicious" rather than "Wow, he changed things up and finally did something right"?

Because you emphasized the wrong part. Should read (from my perspective), "You stated that

my behavior being different

, especially since it led to a scum lynch, made you nervous."

The whole point is that teamscum know who each other are. They can also tend to overestimate the danger that their buddy is in, and think there is a really strong case against him/her when their really isn't one. I guess your play reminds me a little of a game referenced in the Too Townie wiki entry, where Stoofer was lynched in the late game because he had been on every scum lynch and on none of the town lynches. Whoever was left in the game felt that there was no way Stoofer could be 100% right on every lynch that had occurred in the game without inside information, i.e- he new who all the scum were because he was scum. They were correct. Now, I don't think your play is nearly that obvious with respect to Sarc, but what I

do

see is a player whose style was completely different with respect to Sarc, who turned out to be scum; that player has made several statements saying that they felt Sarc was doomed for a lynch, and the whole thing screams "inside information" to me. The only way I can see that is if you are teamscum or if you are a cop, and the rest of your play on day 2 (before the Sarc wagon) is inconsistent with you being a cop with a guilty on Sarc.

---

I also come from the unique perspective of knowing that I am A) a likely scum target, based on the failed mafia kill and Spryte's protection of me; and B) a protown player. So I see the massclaim as being less destructive than you or Yos would. I'm essentially confirmed as non-Mafia, and while a couple of people have expressed Glork-SK sentiments, I know that's not the case. I won't be lynched today, and I'll be killed tonight, so making some suspicious players (MBL, Sarcastro, possibly inHim or something) claim would be beneficial in my eyes.

I (obv.) don't consider you to be confirmed non-Mafia. We don't know that there isn't another doc in the game who could very well have protected another player on the night when there was apparently no mafia kill. Also, did the mod ever answer the question about if both scum groups target the same person will the death scene include both kinds of deaths (chainsawing and being shot)?

[Jack]

Dude, if there was another doc in the game they would have protected manaspryte no question.

[Kinetic]

BT: I'm too lazy to re-write it all. Here is a link to the original post/case.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 651#727651

[Shteven]

I've been saying it all game, and it's time to get it going:

Vote: Glork

.

Seriously, his time should have been up long ago. Here's a gem of his from day 3:

I think that HH is very likely Mafia (prolly the last Goon), and that Guardian is the SK. I'm not sure who the Godfather is yet, but after those two are out of the way, we can figure that out.

GG, scums. You've been paragon'd.

Funny, I had HH as the ONLY cleared townie in my mind. I've mentioned I thought he was town several times, although as far as proving the "only cleared townie" part, well, you'll have to wait for my PM to LML to be revealed. I said something to the effect of "I hope and pray that HH isn't scum" ie, because I'd be completely wrong.

Glork also made some comments about guardian not providing info; ie, don't look at his lynch because you may see that I'm scum, so I'll just discount the wagon as a whole. True, it's not a very telling lynch, but let the town look at it themselves, don't tell them there's nothing there ahead of time. He's been directing, aka stifling debate all game, leading people down incorrect directions, and simply hasn't been "paragon"ing anything.

From my posts only post counts:

My post 13:

HackerHuck - You are my hero. You're either very pro-town or the best scum I've seen. I really hope I'm not wrong about this, but hey, you're town.

My post 89:

Hacker should post more, but is usually helpful when he does.

(he did start to get a bit less active than I would have liked, but never said anything that bothered me while he was here)

Compare the reads, see the result, lynch Glork. I realize this alone isn't proof, but just add it to my already strong case and let's just end this.

P.S. A mass claim is far too early and another very bad idea from Glork.

[Glork]

I'm not sure how "I was right about HH, and Glork was wrong, so he must be scum" works out, Shteven. But the fact that you've launched a fresh attack based on that, right after HH dies, suggests to me that you're the one who made him die.

Instead of citing two posts where you call HH town earlier in the game, I'd like you to explain exactly why (citing posts of HH's, interactions with other players, and his behavior towards the two dead scums) you thought he was protown.

That's not the point I was making. To this point in the game you have been fairly wishy washy in regards to your opinion on other players. I didn't see that with Sarc. Even when you jumped off him for a while, there was never a "maybe Sarc is, maybe he isn't, etc." feel to your posts that I got from other people you have targeted. For instance, I think you had some arguments about Albert or YB on day 1 saying something along the lines of you calculating him to be a slightly better than random chance at being scum, or the like. There was never any of this kind of give with respect to Sarc. You switched your vote to MBL, and when he voted Sarc you had a statement like "Now, there is a vote I can get behind," or the like and you went straight back to Sarc. That is what I meant by "hard-core". You never had any analysis that made me think you had a real reason to be so ready to lynch Sarc, as you obviously were.

I'm going to just kill this entire thing with a claim, since I'm growing irritated, the mafia very likely already knows who I am, and I was going to be killed this coming night anyway.


I am the town's second Cop. That is why I kept backing off of other players.
That is why, on D1, I kept hesitating to vote for TCS in spite of my opinion of his play,
That is why I backed off of inHim at the start of D2, placing him "in the exact same category" as TCS, and refused to vote for him in spite of his play.
That is why I mentioned Yos as the start of D3 as someone I wanted to look at, and then said "at most one of TCS/inHim/Yos is mafia" (because only one could be a Godfather).
Last night, I investigated HackerHuck as an innocent, so there's not really anything to gain from that.

The reason I said that even if Sarcastro hadn't been lynched that day he would have been lynched the following day is because I had already slated him for investigation. I would've gotten a guilty result on him, claimed it partway into D3, and it wouldn't have been an issue. Sarcastro was not long for this world because he was going to have me, a Cop with a guilty on him, all over his ass until he was lynched. I even said that I was certain that Sarcastro would not only be "

looked at

" but also lynched. I know it doesn't explain my behavior towards him at the time (one would think I had a guilty result on him -- I didn't), but again, all I can say is that I never got to properly articulate my case because of outside restraints.

Anyway, I've been dropping hints on my role throughout the game (such as when I mentioned playing "Good cop/bad cop" with somebody, insinuating that Guardian would be suicidal to fake-claim Cop -- because I was the cop) and so on.



For the record, of the three I investigated, I find inHim most likely to be scum. (Note how he has backed off from posting much at all lately -- I think he skipped out on all of Day Three.) I think that MBL and Shteven are most likely to be the other two scums.

Mod: Prod MrBuddyLee, inHimshallibe, YogurtBandit, and Yosarian2

Truth be told, I wouldn't mind seeing replacements for some/all of these players. You stated in the initial post that there would be staunch restrictions, and that lurking as a playstyle wouldn't fly. That seems to have fallen by the wayside.

If I'm going to get killed tonight, I'm going to raise a little hell (in a good way) before I die.