Mini 1390: Game Over

[Idiotking]

Vote: IdiotKing

It had to be done

This may sound kind of silly, but while I remember your name, I don't really remember anything else. What game(s) did we play together? And did I do something stupid in them?

By the way,

Vote Cheery Dog

Stalking me, are you!?

[Idiotking]

Sorry I've been out guys, the weather's been interesting.

UNVOTE: Tommy
VOTE: Idiotking
RVS is pretty much over, dude. Why the seemingly random vote instead of something a little more substantial?

I can never tell these things. I don't really pay attention to RVS.

I've been leaning scum on Cheery Dog because his flimsy case on Abaddon looks artificial. But this admission of potential fault has a townie feel:

Confusion, though that may actually have been caused by me.

I don't think it's a town tell, it just isn't a scumtell. Scum have no reason to be bullish about things. Townies actually do sometimes, when they're sure about a case they're making, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I'm liking Abaddon so far. His post 64 is right up my alley. It's always important to explain your arguments when you make them. Waiting for others to do it for you or withholding them intentionally is utterly anti-town.

I do not like Parama's posts for that very reason. He's making a lot of quotes and such and acting as though everything he thinks is obvious (post 47 for example, implying that toxictaipan had contradicted himself, but not explaining how and reacting with sarcasm when questioned), but there's remarkably little in the way of argumentation. I'd point out that he's gone MIA from this thread, but then who am I to talk?

Unvote

Vote Parama

I'm going to keep rereading the thread to get better reads on everybody else. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what's going on for the most part.

[Idiotking]

UNVOTE:
My small semblance of a case about forgetting a vote isn't enough to leave my vote there at the moment.

Ithink this is basically a prod dodge post, currently the only players I read as having got out of being null are Tommy & toxic both of whom have headed town.

Why do you have a null read on Parama?

[Idiotking]

Responding to prod. Sorry again guys.

@IdiotiKing

:

I can never tell these things. I don't really pay attention to RVS.

To clarify, what exactly couldn't you tell? When RVS has ended?

Yes. I don't pay attention to RVS so I don't notice when it ends, except for when I start to see a lot of posts that don't have votes changing, and that hadn't started yet.

(regarding toxictaipan's reaction test)
How someone's alignment affects their reaction is irrelevant.

Ok.

I said that's how I might expect smart/cautious town to react. I also said that a townie could react the same way I figured scum would react.

Wait, doesn't that contradict the notion that the effect their alignment has is irrelevant? If a townie is smart or cautious you can expect him to react in that way. Thus being a townie matters. I don't get your argument here.

We're dealing with people here, and you ultimately can't predict exactly how people will react to a given situation. I realize there is room for error, and I'm not basing my reads 100% from this. However, it is still valuable information -- it just has to be examined carefully.

If you can come up with legitimate reasons for why people would react how they do regardless of their alignment, how is it valuable information? You say it has to be examined carefully, but that doesn't really mean anything, given that there's a substantial margin of error.

I was saying a generally cautious approach could be indicative of town,

That's just plain wrong. Cautious people are cautious, bold people are bold. Bold townies exist. Cautious scum exist. If anything it would be fair to argue that scum should be more cautious because they have more reason to be.

@TheTrollie: Could you do us all a favor and explain all of your reads from post 140 (except for the ones you've already done)? Posting reads and then not explaining why you have them isn't useful at all. It's just making noise.

Same thing to Sherlock, actually.

[Idiotking]

@Radelle:

It doesn't contradict. Slandaar was trying to argue that the reactions would be totally different depending on whether or not Sable Tip or I was scum. My test doesn't care about the random nature of role distribution. It doesn't matter if the reactions differ in any case. Again, what's important is getting those reactions, and reading them accurately.

I still don't get the point. You seem to be saying that the reactions don't matter in regards to the roles, but that it's important to have the reactions. Then why have them if they are not indicative of roles? Isn't that the point of the game? Or will it fill out in some extremely indirect way?

But for now I don't really see this line of conversation going anywhere, so I'll let it drop.

In regards to Cheery's play, so far as I can tell he's acting in basically the same manner as he did in the last game we played (it's completed), where he was a cop (I'm assuming it's just his townie thing). I don't know how he plays as scum, so I don't know if this is necessarily a town tell, but at least it isn't a scumtell on his part.

VOTE: Radelle

to whoever was asking me to explain my reads: I have explained whichever ones I feel are important (or possible) to explain

Ok, just no.

Unvote

Vote TheTrollie

Why are you voting for Radelle? You haven't said one damn thing about him (her?) all game, and then suddenly you vote for him (her?) without giving any sort of a reason. And then you turn around and say that you've explained all of your important reads! Well, WHAT ABOUT THE PERSON YOU JUST VOTED FOR, HUH?

Anyway, for the second part, that's a crap answer. You should explain your reads regardless of whether you think it's important or not. That's for the town to decide. Withholding information, including reasoning for reads, is anti-town. If you went by gut then just say so.

Absta what is your take on Radelle?

She seems town. I had a read through her ISO.

Ok people, this is getting old. EXPLAIN YOUR READS, even if it's just gut. How useful do you think this is? Does it give you any real information when I say "I think IK is town hurr"? NO. It's far better to say "I think IK is town, because X, Y, and Z." When you do that you're making arguments for or against someone, and new arguments lead to more informed discussion.

I could kiss you right now, Jacob.

[Idiotking]

---

@Idiotking

Radelle seems town for Post #81 and #105 where she shows that she's checked Parama's "recent posts". Going this far to get someone to contribute without calling them scummy makes little sense from scum's perspective, especially considering Parama is an easy place to keep your vote. Do you agree?

I'll buy that. The only thing I could think of is if scum were trying to wake their buddies up and get them to post more, but then I realized that would be stupid.

@idiot: Radelle was always on my scum list and an ISO gave me more confidence in that read. Here is a cut&paste copy of the notes I made leading up to the list of reads you keep asking me about:

Spoiler: notes

Abaddon - slight town
Toxictaipan - null
Idiotking - slight scum
Parama - town
Deltabacon - null
Tommy - scummy
JasonWazza - nullscum
Sable Tip - slight town, bad reaction to toxic
Radelle - scum overjfication
Cheery Dog - dumb
Jacob Savage - oye
Slandaar

I'm not withholding reasons btw, I am just trying to use my mafia time most efficiently. If i had the time to ISO everyone and make full cases I would, but since I don't I am focusing on those who I have the most to say about.

You never made any argument against Radelle before voting for her. I refuse to believe that you are so busy that you have time to read the thread and make votes, but not enough time to explain them. The "stating reads without explanation" is bad, but not voteworthy. You outright voted without an explanation, and that's way worse.

I agree with Deltabacon, Trollie has been utterly inconsistent with his statements concerning CD, switching from wishy-washy scumreads to meta-defense, which is just bad to do for someone else unless you've got a damn good reason (like you know he's a power role or something). That, plus his reasonless vote on Radelle, means he is far and away the scummiest player.

[Idiotking]

Radelle:
- overjustification
- picking easy fights
- too cautious

Those are words, yes. Now make them explanations. HOW was Radelle overjustifying? WITH WHOM and IN WHAT WAY has Radelle been picking easy fights? HOW was Radelle too cautious? Cite examples. I'm guessing the accidental quote was you looking for sources to back up what you're saying, but then you never cite any of them. I don't see how you can possibly think we would be satisfied with "overjustification" and just leaving it at that.

@Idiot

- Can you replace out please. Your low activity and contributions are hurting us.

This is insulting. I'm doing my best to refrain from flaming you right now. I know I have been comparatively inactive and that I could contribute more, but don't you dare tell me to replace out. If you think I'm intentionally lurking then lynch me. If I'm lurking enough to have to be replaced then it'll happen whether you ask me to leave or not. But don't ever tell me to leave.

[Idiotking]

As it stands, I'm actually have a few hours at the moment, so I'm going to go through and do an in-depth examination of every player thusfar. If I finish it it'll definitely be a wallpost, but I'll try and keep it organized.

[Idiotking]

At the moment I'm still working on my wallpost (it wound up being much bigger than I thought), but I'm going to pop in and answer that real quick.

Obviously I don't agree with your logic, because it assumes that your reads are accurate. I don't think I'm scum, and I think Deltabacon is town. While I do see CD as scum (will explain in my wallpost) and I see Abaddon as leaning scum (ditto), I still think Trollie is scum. Your argument only holds up if Trollie is town, and I frankly cannot understand why you think Trollie's play would be town thusfar. I should also state here that I haven't gotten to my read on Radelle yet, so I don't know if I agree or disagree with you that Radelle is scum, but for now I think Radelle would actually be the counterwagon to Trollie scum.

Did that make sense? I'm a little addled right now.

[Idiotking]

Relatively soon. I've got nothing to do all day, so I've got time to focus on it. I just finished my read on Parama, and now I'm moving on to Radelle (I'm going from top to bottom on the "display posts by user" thing). After that, editing and post.

[Idiotking]

Well, it's bad form not to answer questions when asked. It indicates uncooperativeness, which is anti-town.

[Idiotking]

Ok, so here goes. I tried to keep it relatively organized for easy reading. If anybody wants me to elaborate on my reads or anything then I will, because I know that by the end of this I was a little dazed. Also, since this post was made over the course of two days, the later reads will be ever so slightly more up to date than the earlier ones.

_Sherlock_

Replaced JasonWazza in post 173, and admitted to being new to online Mafia. As with several players thusfar, he made a list of reads in 176, but didn't explain them. This is a pet peeve of mine, because it doesn't contribute to the town, but I'll let it slide since it's all over the place and therefore not necessarily indicative of alignment. However, Sherlock also voted for Radelle without giving any kind of explanation other than gut. This is scummy, but since he admitted to being new to online Mafia I'm going to let it slide for now. Then in post 211 he explains his thoughts on the whole game. It's basically the same sort of thing I'm doing now, examining everyone else's play. He continues this in 262. His arguments for how people are playing match his reads in 176, so at least he's consistent.

A lot of his playstyle seems to be based on feeling. For example, his gut reads, and his talk about Sable's 57 and Tommy's 115 feeling genuine. I'm going to assume this playstyle is a holdover from playing mafia in real life. This is also why he claims to have a town read on Trollie, saying that Trollie seems to be genuine about what he's saying, but is making weak arguments (see post 262). All in all I get a town feel from Sherlock, since he does seem to be trying to contribute, and the only slips that I can see (his gut reads) are easily explained as playstyle. Not a playstyle I like, but legitimate.

Null/Leaning Town


-----

Abaddon

Makes some one-word statements and reasonless votes until 29. Or at least that's where I'm going to say RVS is over for him, because I still can't tell where RVS stopped. There should be an announcement or something. Anyway, that is when he in his argument against CD about whether CD is scum or an idiot. His arguments with CD are very short posts that are based largely on assumptions ("I'm assuming CD is new town because of his play", when he could have just glanced at CD's wiki to see how many games CD's played) and game theory. In 62 he rightly calls out toxictaipan for fishing for explanations for why Sable is scum instead of just doing it himself. This is toxic's so-called reaction test, which I'll look at more when I do my read on toxic. In 86 Abaddon says he doesn't buy toxic's explanation for the test, but doesn't push him. This confuses me. He had is vote on Radelle ever since the RVS, but didn't put it on toxic, even though he had a much stronger reason to vote for toxic (or at least, Abaddon hadn't explained his post 19 vote on Radelle beyond saying that Radelle's post 15 was fake and overdoing it). This is unusual behavior, especially considering the fact that he also left his RVS vote on toxic while arguing against Radelle.

In 121 he does the "post your reads on everyone" thing, and while he gives some sort of explanation for some of his reads, they're all weak (for example, his read on me, which he says is "positive behavior." What does that mean?). Fortunately his scumreads are explained more fully, but I'd prefer to see specific examples. He goes on to argue against Tommy's case on Parama and arguing with pretty much everyone over the next few days. After November 2nd his activity takes a nosedive.

Abaddon's play is mostly laconic. He doesn't go into long arguments about things, and seems to be poking his head here, there, everywhere, making short statements about everything. He also talks a lot about playstyle and game theory, which is nice, but shouldn't get in the way of analysis. He does seem to have a slight relation to Parama. He defends Parama against Tommy in post 123 by arguing against Tommy's case. His actions in conjunction with Parama during the RVS also seem cooperative, but that's mostly a feeling, and I feel hypocritical even mentioning it.

Null/Leaning Scum


-----

absta101

(note that because I am currently pissed at absta this will probably be harsher than it would have been under normal circumstances)

Replaced Parama in post 127. His post 157 consists mostly of agree/don't agree statements, and isn't very useful. As with several other players, he has a problem of not explaining his reads until questioned, and frankly you shouldn't have to be asked. In post 200 he argues that Abbadon is faking 82. I don't necessarily buy that, because it may have just been bad phrasing on Abbadon's part. Then absta does very little of note until post 294, where he votes Cheery but doesn't give an explanation, instead asking Cheery to answer two questions. Asking questions isn't an explanation for a vote. It's scumhunting, sure, but I want reasons for votes.


Absta asks a lot of questions but gives very, very little substance. Also, in post 200, he also acts like townie players shouldn't call out bad play if said bad play was in line with one of their own statements (player A and player B agree that player C is scummy, but B's argument is crap. Even so, A can't call B out for crap arguments). This is retarded, and absta should be flogged for saying it. BAD PLAY IS BAD PLAY, and should be called out whenever it happens. This makes me think that absta is new (plus his blank wiki and join date), so it may just be newbishness talking, but still.

Scum


-----

Cheery Dog

Opted not to join in the RVS, then voted for Abaddon for not voting Radelle while seeing her as scum, as noted above. He says that Abaddon was likely intentionally leaving his vote off of Radelle for appearance's sake, but then doesn't really develop it any further and then drops it in post 110. Then he votes for Parama for lurking (post 119) after Parama already replaced out. He has also repeatedly suggested that people lynch him for his playstyle (for example, post 167). In all honesty, after that, I don't even pretend to follow what he's doing.

CD is incredibly hard to read. There is an entire circle of Hell where sinners are forced to figure out CD's alignment. He's been hedging a bit (examples include his post 30), and has expressed that he is a largely reactive player, using that as an excuse to forego scumhunting (such as his post 182). I suppose if I had to make a read on CD, it would be

Scum


-----

Deltabacon

Didn't post until post 77. In post 92, saying Sable Tip was being wishy washy in his arguments against Abaddon and Parama in post 57. Then he votes Sable Tip, also calling him out for improperly attacking inactives. His next post, post 161, attacks CD for coasting and not being very useful (this is something I also noted, see above), and votes for him. He also complains about Sable "chainsawing" him in post 109. Deltabacon then argues back and forth for a bit with CD and his gallant defender Trollie. In post 203 his attention shifts over to Trollie for defending CD. Deltabacon argues that Trollie has been shifting his view on CD back and forth between town (defending him) and building a half-assed case against him. Deltabacon later discounts the meta-defense for CD, saying that in previous games CD was more coherent in his posts, and continues to call Trollie out for defending CD with insufficient evidence. He keeps hammering Trollie from then on. In post 275 he again calls Trollie out for being inconsistent, citing his constant defense of CD while having him as a scumread. In post 280 he makes what seems to me the most damning argument against Trollie.

Deltabacon has certainly been less active than some, but his posts are invariably substantive. He accurately calls CD out for coasting, then consistently blasts Trollie for defending CD for crappy reasons. I have to say Deltabacon looks incredibly

Town


-----

Idiotking

Me, obviously.

S'up to you.


-----

JacobSavage

Does practically nothing of note except prod dodge until post 138, where he links to his spreadsheet and explains how it works. His biggest scumreads at this point are CD and Trollie, though he does not explain why until later, and then it's mostly just feeling. Then in post 202 he posts an update on his spreadsheet and gives full explanations for his reads. In post 218 he votes Trollie. Then in post 263 he unvotes, saying he buys Trollie's more recent statements as being town. He latersays we should hold off on attacking CD until later, and says he doesn't really endorse any lynches at the moment.

I have mixed feelings about Jacob, mostly because his posts were largely insubstantial until 202 (even his 138 post with the spreadsheet was lacking, because it was essentially no different from listing reads without reasons). Then post 202 happens, and he swings hard over to the townie side. Unfortunately all of his posts are based around his spreadsheets and contain remarkably little analysis. I would have a more positive read on Jacob if he gave more posts like 202. Then again, he currently does not want to lynch anyone, which is strange, given he's repeatedly expressed scumreads on CD and Trollie, and didn't explain in detail why they changed. I'm going to have to wait and see more before I make a decision.

Null


-----

JasonWazza

Didn't come in until post 52, where he votes for Radelle, saying that she was implying CD's anti-RVS attitude was scummy, and saying that Radelle was trying to distract the town. He then proceeds to do nothing else until getting replaced by Sherlock.

He didn't really stick around long enough for me to form an opinion, so my read on the slot is entirely based on Sherlock. For Sherlock, see above.

Null


-----

kwll

Replaced Sable Tip in post 258, and has done nothing since. It's been five days.

Null


-----

Parama

Voted for Radelle in post 16, then said CD was scum, neither of which he explained. What followed thereafter was a series of extremely sarcastic and utterly worthless posts. He replaced out in post 117 after being active in all of his other games but lurking in this one. His replacement is absta.

Parama didn't explain diddly when he was here, always acting like whatever he thought was obvious to everyone and generally acting like a jerk. Normally I would go after him for not explaining any of his posts, but I'm going to assume he was just a terrible player. For my read on his replacement, see above.

Null


-----

Radelle

Voted for toxic in post 15, saying he didn't make a serious vote on CD even though he was questioning him. She continues working on toxic through to post 68, also questioning toxic's reaction test, and getting into a big semantic argument with a lot of players over either/or and game theory. In post 80 she gets into a pointless fight with toxic over who gets credit for ending RVS, and says toxic is overthinking where his vote goes, and says Jason is town. Later Radelle calls out Parama for being active in other threads but not this one, and argues with Abaddon over whether the town is justified in arguing against bad arguments, even if said bad argument is against someone you find scummy. Then in post 97 she votes for Abaddon, arguing that he is somehow not being aggressive enough in going after her (?) while attacking other players. This is what Abaddon calls a strawman argument. In post 131 she lays down her case against Abaddon while responding to Abaddon's argument against her. Her argument mostly rests on Abaddon being entirely reactionary in his responses and not seriously pursuing his argument against Radelle. In post 135 she defends her argument against Abaddon (which as toxic points out only used posts prior to 97 and ignored all subsequent posts). This defense continues in post 142 and post 184 and post 259. This defense is also a sort of passive attack against toxic, who was her biggest critic. She has been MIA since November 7th.

Radelle has been on the defense ever since 97, going over the same stupid points about the timing over her argument and whether toxic is scummy for his reasoning concerning Radelle's argument being scummy. While I agree with toxic that Radelle should have been quicker in explaining her argument and should have used more recent information in it, this entire argument makes my head hurt, so instead I'm going to focus on the fact that Radelle hasn't posted anything original (repeating old points doesn't count) since 97, and therefore has stalled scumhunting. Thus I'm going to say that Radelle is

Null/Leaning Scum


-----

Sable Tip

Comes in at post 57, saying that Abaddon's defense for not immediately voting for Radelle was overstating that there is no reason for scum to do so. Sable argues that while it was most likely just a mistake, scum might have still done it. Sable then calls Parama out for arrogantly acting like what he meant in post 47 was obvious, when it wasn't. Sable then voted for Parama. Post 109 is a massive defense of 57, and votes for Deltabacon, saying that his entire argument against Sable was crap. Sable didn't really do anything more until replacing out.

As with other people who only posted a few times before being replaced out, I don't really have any strong read on Sable.

Null


-----

Slandaar

Votes for Abaddon in post 39, saying that there was no scum motivation for arguing against Radelle without laying down a vote, but still seeing it as scummy somehow. Then in post 45 he asks CD why scum would want to do what Abaddon did (all the while still having his vote on Abaddon). Strangely he continues to side with Abaddon, saying that Abaddon responded to toxic's reaction test appropriately and that Abaddon's response to Tommy's case on Parama was correct. Admittedly, Slandaar also made points against Abaddon during this time period (posts 130 and 220 are examples), but in general he doesn't make any strong stands. After that Slandaar is all over the place.

Slandaar's play has been incredibly non-committal. He hasn't made any determined arguments against anything at all, a prime example being his scum-have-no-reason-to-do-it-but-its-still-scummy-anyway first vote on Abaddon. His play is extremely weak because he isn't making strong stands on anything, and just seems to be coasting, though less obviously than CD.

Scum

------

TheTrollie

Doesn't really post anything game-related until post 140, where he lists a bunch of completely unexplained reads. In post 160 he quotes post 119 as CD's scummiest post, saying that CD is illogical and lacking good judgment, but then makes a big deal about how players like that always turn out to be town. His

very next post

, post 162, says that there is no good case on CD, exclusively using assumptions on CD's playstyle and meta as a defense. Post 166 basically says that it's OK for townies to forego scumhunting. In post 196, he votes for Radelle, having never made a single argument ever against Radelle, and saying that he's explained the reads he felt were important (when he obviously hadn't, given his vote). Post 229 did a fantastic job of not answering my question about what his reads meant, all the while saying that he thought CD was scum, but that there was no reason to see CD as scum. Once I finished picking up the pieces of my shattered psyche and went on, I hit post 233, which basically reiterates that the case against CD is bad. After that he gets in a brief discussion with Jacob over how Jacob's spreadsheet worked, until post 266, when he digs back into his meta defense of CD, again insisting that there is no good argument against CD, and claiming that it is his personal crusade against all of MafiaScum's “faulty logic.” Note that in all this time Trollie has never even mentioned Radelle. Then, finally, in post 291, he lists a few words that he mistakes for being a case against Radelle. Later he says that he has a null read on CD (without giving a reason).

Trollie is by far the scummiest player thusfar, doing his best to both buddy and distance CD, and failing miserably at both. His defense of CD is entirely based on meta, acting like it gives CD free reign to be as scummy as he damn well pleases, because all of MafiaScum must be wrong and that meta must be an invariably solid defense for everything anyone ever does. But in my mind even this pales in comparison to his utterly unexplained vote on Radelle, when he insisted that he had explained all of his important reads. I absolutely refuse to believe that he didn't think his read on Radelle wasn't important

when his vote was on Radelle

. Trollie is completely, obviously, blatantly

Scum


-----

Tommy

Voted for Parama in post 37, in response to Parama's unexplained read on Radelle and misinterpretation of CD's case against Abaddon. Post 50 continues this case against Parama, and includes Parama's unwillingness to defend his votes. Tommy also says he has a town read on CD because CD admitted to maybe being mistaken (this isn't a towntell, it's just someone being waffly). Post 75 is another rejection of toxic's reaction test. Tommy afterwards puts out a few feelers against Jason, Jacob, and Sable, and calls out Deltabacon for being inactive, though retracts that after a while. Then in post 115 Tommy lays out his full case against Parama (the one Abaddon dismissed). The arguments are based mostly on the fact that Parama didn't do anything at all useful throughout his entire stay, but as I mentioned above, I see them as mostly just Parama being bad at the game. In post 169 Tommy calls Trollie town without giving an explanation, and sides with Deltabacon's case against CD. In post 219 Tommy calls absta out for supposedly making a bad case against Abaddon, then assumes that absta has ulterior motives. He doesn't explain why the case against Abaddon is bad, he just says it is. He does this again in post 242, saying absta's argument was made up, but not presenting any evidence for it. In post 252 he unvotes absta (he had never voted for absta), even though absta was his strongest scumread, and switches over to Radelle.

Tommy makes broad statements, like “this is good, this is bad, this is bad because {assumption}”, none of which are very useful. Admittedly Tommy's been active, but activity isn't a good measure of someone's alignment. I am annoyed by his lack of explanation for why he thinks the way he does about things (why is Trollie town, for example). I am also annoyed by how in 252 he dropped his biggest scumread (absta) in favor of Radelle, saying that Radelle was one of the only three lynch choices. That's blatantly retarded. As of this post we're still about 6 days away from the deadline, there's still plenty of time to make cases for people that we think are scummiest. Why then does Tommy want to begrudgingly hop on a wagon so early? This is just bad. Tommy is

Scum


-----

toxictaipan

Voted for me in post 32, saying that I should have noticed that RVS was over by then. In post 53 he sides with Abaddon in the CD vs Abaddon argument, saying that scum wouldn't argue against someone without voting for them since there is no motivation to do so. Toxic also points out that his earlier statements, which Parama quoted in post 47, didn't contradict, and continues his argument that I should have been more useful and not made a random vote so late. In post 61 toxic makes his famous reaction test. Apparently the point of the reaction test was to see who would jump on him for making such a post, implying that those people were cautious town. Starting in post 73 he gets into his stupid argument with Radelle about who gets credit for getting us out of RVS, or in what way RVS should end, or some other nonsense that is essentially a game theory discussion. In post 85 toxic explains his reaction test, saying that smart or cautious townies would act like Abaddon did (calling out toxic's bluff). He also calls out Sable for having Radelle as a null read when Sable's three scumreads all listed Radelle as scum. Later he states town reads on Abaddon and Tommy, thanks to their reactions to his test. In post 133 toxic says that the alignment of players responding to his reaction test is irrelevant, it's the reactions themselves that are important. In post 134 he points out that Radelle's case against Abaddon exclusively relies on posts before 97 and ignores all subsequent posts, in addition to waiting to post a reason for the vote. In post 139 he elaborates on this reasoning and votes for Radelle. For the next little while he continues his back and forth with Radelle. In post 154 he argues against Tommy's case on Parama, while continuing his argument with Radelle. In post 317 he says he doesn't like the wagon on Trollie, claiming that he read Trollie's ISO and found his reaction to CD reasonable (he didn't respond to the argument against Trollie's unexplained vote on Radelle).

While I absolutely love the fact that toxic is talkative and explains most of his thoughts when appropriate, I can't say that I have a town read on him. I don't like toxic's argument that Sable should have seen Radelle as town in post 85. I'm assuming what he's going for is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and that Radelle should have been a town read, but that's just bad, because it requires you to ignore your own read and base your reads on what your suspects think. I'm guessing that this is also why he didn't mention the argument against Trollie's vote on Radelle. I also don't think his reaction test is useful at all, since he says both that alignment doesn't matter and that the test helps you figure out who is town. That's idiotic, but it's not a scumtell, since I can't imagine scum coming up with such an elaborate ruse for doing post 61. Then again, I agree with him that Radelle should have been more forthcoming in her reasons for voting for Abaddon and should have used more recent evidence when she finally did explain it. Overall I don't really have any strong feelings about toxic's alignment.

Null

[Idiotking]

Sorry, there are a few typos that I see already, but you can still get my point via context clues. Some were inevitable.

[Idiotking]

That's a side effect of getting really deep in your reads of everyone. Suddenly everyone starts to look scummy, because you begin to nitpick the hell out of everything.

[Idiotking]

Blatant prod dodge. I'll try and make a more useful post sometime tonight. I want to revise my reads a bit, like Sherlock suggested, because I need to see who I actually want to pursue at the moment.

[Idiotking]

Which does absolutely nothing to help your case. Thanks for playing!

[Idiotking]

Thoughts before the end of the day:

Kwll aping me in post 344 was pretty bad, but I'm going to assume it's because he's brand-spanking new. However, WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT NEED TO HAVE KWLL ALIVE IN THE EVENT OF LYLO. Newb players are terrible in those situations because they drop scumtells all over the place, and we won't be able to know which, if any, are genuine. I would absolutely support a kwll lynch.

Changes to my reads:

I think I'm going to upgrade my toxic read to Town. On rethinking it he doesn't have any scumtells, and I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if his reaction test becomes useful in the future. He's been very active in driving discussion, which is also good, and analyzed the crap out of Radelle. His posts in the last few pages have also been extremely pro-town.

I am also going to downgrade my Slandaar and Cheery scumreads to Null/Anti-Town. What they are doing isn't necessarily scummy, but it is antithetical to what the town is supposed to be doing (ex: playing reactively is anti-town). If Trollie is lynched and flips scum, however, then Cheery is the obvious next lynch.

Also, a policy I am OK with anti-town lynches on the first day. I'd rather be in LYLO with good players than with bad ones (see kwll).

Now, on to recent pages:

kwll is town for reasons that I may reveal later. Carry on.

Please don't do that. Just tell us what reasons you have. I'm getting tired of dragging this soapbox around.

{In reference to toxic's argument that kwll is not cleared as town just because he is incoherent}no, ur wrong, you try hard to sound comprehensive and make arguments as scum.

Try and fail. New players honestly don't know how to make arguments, so no matter their alignment, they will play incompetently (excluding the occasional Wunderkind).

@Slandaar - That took you awhile to answer. I'm surprised.
---
VOTE: Kwll

I am afraid I am inclinded to side with you absta in this case,

Why "afraid"? Why not just "I agree"?

WHY ARE YOU VOTING KWLL? I mean, I totally agree with the goal here, but WHY?
Damn, people! Why don't you ever explain why you do anything!?

As for the first question, that doesn't bother me at all. I don't have a problem with a two-person wagon having no solid evidence.

WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU OK WITH THAT? No, seriously. Why? In your point of view, exactly how big does a wagon have to be in order for players on it to start acting like they're town? This is abominable.

VOTE: Trollie

GODDAMMIT

VOTE: Kwll
Lynch this please.

Hmm?

Ok, so in a matter of 3 pages, absta switched his vote 3 times, none of which had any sort of explanation. This is obvious vote hopping.

-----


In conclusion, my top lynches for today would be in order: Trollie, kwll, absta. Seeing as how my vote is already on Trollie and he's the largest wagon, it looks like I'm leaving it there, barring some unforeseen calamity.

[Idiotking]

Naturally I'd rather lynch an actually scummy player, hence my vote staying on Trollie. I'm ready to lynch kwll, but that doesn't mean he's the preferred choice.

Also, kwll, it's not anti-town thinking. Imagine yourself as a townie in LYLO with a player you literally cannot read at all, because they don't know how to play the game.

1. It would be impossible to predict how that player would lay down their votes, so you can't expect him to follow good wagons over bad ones.
2. In LYLO that person would have a fair chance of being scum, but you would never know until you lynched that person.
3. Invariably, a lot of attention will be focused that player. That player may be the only thing that is being discussed. This is a terrible thing for the town, because even if that person is a townie, he's acting as a huge distraction.

Yes, normal scum will try to go for easy lynches. Yes, you would count as an easy lynch. However, it's far worse for the town to have an easy lynch alive in LYLO. It's a nightmare scenario. So while scum may go after you because they like easy lynches, do understand that there is a pro-town reason for it too.

[Idiotking]

Quick note after reading the first part of Sherlock's post: You shouldn't use meta as the only defense of another player. I'm going to reread Sherlock's ISO to see if he's said anything else specifically about why he thinks Trollie is town, but I just want to throw that out there. One of the big accusations on Trollie is that his defense of Cheery was exclusively meta. Using meta to defend Trollie's meta defense of Cheery would create a daisy chain of bad play.

[Idiotking]

If you were defending yourself using meta, it wouldn't be scummy. Ineffective, bad, sure, but not scummy. It's the fact that you defended another player using meta as the only defense. And I want to make something very clear here: if you had defended Cheery using

good reasons

(I.E. reasons directly related to the game, not meta), you wouldn't be scummy. Defending another player from retarded arguments is fine. Your problem is that 1. the arguments against Cheery aren't retarded and 2. you didn't have good reasons for digging in as deep as you did.

Hell, at one point I even suggested a meta defense for Cheery, but that's just it. It was once. I didn't pretend that it automatically cleared Cheery of being scum. And don't tell me you have a scumread on Cheery. You've been so half assed in your scumread of Cheery that it just looks like an act.

[Idiotking]

Sherlock, your reasons for why Trollie isn't scum had better be phenomenal.

[Idiotking]

FOS JacobSavage

Weak. Just weak. It's too hard to make a decision, so you run away with your tail between your legs and settle for a lynch that is very unlikely at the moment.

[Idiotking]

Ok guys, we are less than 17 hours away from the deadline, unless the mod changes it. If we wind up no-lynching then I am going after everyone not on one of the major wagons. I hate to say it, but WE DO NOT HAVE TIME FOR ARGUMENTS.

Whenever we get to L-1, wait to hammer until the mod's made a decision about extending it, and if he doesn't extend it, we need to be ready to go.

[Idiotking]

Sherlock, that Trollie argument doesn't cut it at all. Going just by his join date and blank wiki, it doesn't look like he's experienced, and inexperienced scum would do the exact sort of Cheery buddying defense thing that he's done (forgive me if Trollie said he was an alt somewhere). If his buddy was getting pressured on D1 it makes sense for inexperienced scum to try and save said buddy, because they wouldn't necessarily know to just let the guy die and look townie by bussing. You also imply that scum try to look town more than townies do. That's not necessarily true. Smart scum know that if they look TOO town then when they never get nightkilled it'll look suspicious. Regardless of theory discussion, your defense of Trollie relies entirely on assumptions that contradict our evidence in the actual thread. I don't like assumptions unless there's good evidence for them, and just like Trollie's meta defense of Cheery,

there is no good evidence for your assumptions

.

And as I said before, I'd be fine with an absta lynch, but I'd prefer a Trollie one. Since Trollie's is the largest at the moment that's where I'm staying. I'm totally OK with both of the major wagons, though.

[Idiotking]

I should point out that my line about smart scum trying not to look too town was not meant to imply that I think Trollie is smart. It was just part of the theory discussion.

[Idiotking]

How many games have you played?

Also, drop the attitude. You are not God.

[Idiotking]

Then I'll switch my argument from inexperience to just being bad at the game. Still applicable, and given your arrogance, probable.

[Idiotking]

CHEERY IS NOT NECESSARILY TOWN. ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE BASING YOUR ARGUMENTS ON UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSUMPTIONS.

You are essentially using Cheery as a shield to protect yourself. I.E. we have to go through Cheery to get to you. That's complete crap. I can come up with a perfectly good reason why you would be scum anyway, even if Cheery is town. As scum, if Cheery was being pressured, you might go along with the town in the hopes of scoring a mislynch. However, you would also want to distance yourself from town lynches. Part of the problem with your relationship to Cheery is just the fact that it was so wishy-washy. You said you had a scumread of Cheery, but kept saying that you couldn't come up with scum motivation for it. You were simultaneously pushing for a Cheery wagon and distancing from it.

Regardless of Cheery's alignment, this looks scummy as high hell.

You should not be allowed to get away with using another player as a shield to defend yourself.

[Idiotking]

Once again for clarification: I'm not assuming that the above argument about you trying to distance from Cheery-town is true. I'm saying that since it's a possibility, you must not pretend that Cheery-scum is a requirement for the case against you to be valid.

[Idiotking]

We have to confirm trollie's story. I say have him kill Cheery.

Vote Absta

[Idiotking]

Shooting N1 is a terrible idea in the first place.

Besides, what the hell kind of fakeclaim is one-shot vig? I may have confirmation bias, but that's a pretty bad role to claim as scum.

PEdit: I'll count.

If Trollie is a legit 1-shot vig then mafia will be gunning for him from the very beginning. Doctors are becoming increasingly rare on Mafiascum, so there is no guarantee we will have one. A roleblocker is more likely, but since roleblockers have a much lower chance of preventing a scum attack, we have very little chance of a roleblocker helping keep Trollie alive.

[Idiotking]

... maybe you are right, Sherlock, but it's gotten me thinking.

I have a theory now. Sherlock/Trollie scumteam.

This is based on the fact that Sherlock has been absolutely adamant about keeping Trollie alive in these last few hours using extremely weak arguments. This is 50% of the case against Trollie himself. Now add into that the fact you are saying that he is town because he has claimed an easily confirmable role,

but you are against our efforts to get it confirmed

.

Your actions close to the deadline are very peculiar, Sherlock. If absta flips town I'm going to be highly suspicious of you. I could see a Sherlock/Trollie/Cheery scumteam.

[Idiotking]

Sure, that's a reasonable conclusion. However, my reasons for not wanting Trollie to shoot are perfectly substantiated. You'd also have to assume I'm not into the whole distancing thing.

You didn't cite evidence directly from the thread, and I am not too keen on meta as a defense. Your reasons are unsubstantiated because even if you legitimately believe them, they rely on gut assumptions. I do not make unfounded assumptions. I don't do gut. I analyze evidence presented in the game thread only. I accept meta as part of defense only because there is widespread agreement that it is legitimate. I completely ignore gut, because it's impossible to argue against. If you want to change my mind on something, you have to argue in a way that I can agree with. You haven't, and

can't

in this case because your assumptions

are not based on game-related evidence

. Like I said, that's the sort of thing that made Trollie look suspicious at first, and you're doing the same thing to defend him. I'm a little more willing to accept it from you just because you're new to online mafia, but my patience is very limited. Your specific defense of Trollie was:

I know it's the worst timing, but I'm not going to have time to make a

good

case for why Trollie is town. I can sum it up. Most of it is stuff that involves his motivations for posting, as a lot of his posts really don't make sense from a "I'm trying to trick the town into thinking I'm town" thought process. He's an experienced player; as scum, he would be putting more of an effort in to make himself look town. There's also the fact that I really don't like his wagon.

There is no evidence for any of this. It's 100% gut and assumption. This exact same defense can be used to defend literally every player who does anything, ever, and

it will be just as bad, every time

. And as I said above, it's honestly impossible to argue against. Any attempt to do so would just turn into a theory discussion about how scum, experienced or not, would likely react under certain stimuli, as in my little exchange with Trollie over this. If it's gut, I can't magically make you feel differently. You've already seen all the arguments and tossed them aside because you don't think they feel right. You don't like the wagon. How do I argue against that? "No, Sherlock, you really

do

like the wagon!" Do you see what I'm getting at? This is pet peeve number 2 for me: people mistaking gut for actual analysis.

[Idiotking]

Sherlock's an alt? But in his first post he said he was new here.

[Idiotking]

I agree. There is no point in not confirming a confirmable role.

[Idiotking]

Ok, so I've talked it out with my associate, and we've agreed that this is the best course of action.

ROLECLAIM: Neighbor with JacobSavage

.

Now, since we're not masons, we don't know each other's alignment. Since there are only two of us, however, unless there is another neighborhood, it's most likely that we're both town.

I also recommend a massclaim at this point, because a whole lot of vanilla townies have died, so scum will have to claim actual roles, increasing the chance of counterclaims. At the very least, we at least need to know if there is another neighborhood.

I am willing to buy that Trollie is at least not scum. I'm not sold on him being a vig necessarily, as he may still be a SK. For now if he still needs to do what the town as a whole says. If we hit 3 scum, obviously Trollie will be scum.

First, I think we need to agree whether we should massclaim or not. If the majority agrees then we can do it popcorn style.

[Idiotking]

Should rephrase that post a bit: If we hit 3 scum, Trollie is definitely

SK

.

So 1 vote for massclaim, 1 against.

I'm going to have to go back tomorrow and find out who I think is scum. A whole lot of them just died. I'm leaning scum on Sherlock, though, primarily because of his defense of Trollie and refusal to let him be confirmed. But come to think of it, Trollie was confirmed as at least a night killer, and has said that he isn't just one-shot, so a one-shot mafia killer is not true. Meaning, he's not scum. So scum-Sherlock wouldn't have been defending his scumbuddy, and he argued against Trollie shooting last night, which is the opposite of what he would have wanted if he'd known Cheery was town. I can't go after Jacob either, because unless there is another neighborhood, Jacob is very likely town. Tommy and Cheery are dead now too, so I can't even go after them.

Dammit

people, don't do this to me.

[Idiotking]

Basically in the quicktopic we discussed whether to claim or not. I also questioned Jacob why he retreated from voting on one of the major wagons on D1. We also briefly discussed a Sherlock/Cheery/Trollie scumteam, but that idea seems to have been blown to Hell.

[Idiotking]

Prod dodge. Will try to post something meaningful sometime tomorrow (today?).

[Idiotking]

Responding to prod. Will catch up tonight.

[Idiotking]

I know I'm a terrible person for missing so much, but I'm definitely going to catch up tonight and post a quick synopsis of my thoughts. This weekend I'm going to do a complete analysis of everyone who I think is scummy, which last I remember was Slandaar and Tommy.

[Idiotking]

First of all, sorry for my absence guys, the past few weeks have been absolute hell for me.

That said, here are my thoughts on D2 thusfar (as always, they are partially stream of

consciouness; also I should note that I'm running on three hours of sleep in the past 48, so

this may very well be garbled gibberish):

Of my scumreads from yesterday, Sherlock, Abaddon/Thor, Kinetic, Slandaar, and Trollie are

still alive (you're right, Trollie, Tommy does appear to be dead).

As I've said before, Trollie is definitely not scum. He is not necessarily town, but we can

deal with that later. I think it would be good for the town to vote on who they think Trollie

should kill (I.E. treat it as a second lynch). At this point even if Trollie is a SK he will

want to kill mafia.

Slandaar is active lurking like always. His utter uselessness makes me sad. Like an onion

made of sadness.

Thor hasn't really posted any dramatic arguments so far, but it's only been a few days. I

also have difficulty with his jokes (for example, did you actually not read the thread, Thor,

or was that a joke?), but that's obviously not scummy. I think I'm just going to wait and

watch more of his play. Or at least wait until I can examine his play in the context of

Abaddon's play. I would like to point out though that he's right, nobody has made an argument

about Thor's actual play since he replaced in. They just want to go after him for his slot.

That's fine and all, Abaddon was scummy, but you can't really say Thor's deflecting anything

when nothing has been firmly said against him.

Sherlock is most likely not scum, almost completely due to Trollie's claim that he isn't one-

shot. The only way I can see for Sherlock to still be scum is if he had just decided to

protect Trollie for some reason or another (maybe just to irritate the town or something).

Even then though, it would not make sense for him to be against Trollie shooting on N1 (unless

that was just a front, but then things are getting way too convoluted; he'd have to be faking

opposition to something that would directly benefit him and was being actively supported by

the town, all to build town props somehow). I think Sherlock is best left alone for now. If

he is scum, he is either a complete genius or a complete lunatic.

Kwll's play is still completely unreadable to me, as any new guy's play is. I am still ok

with using him as a last resort for lynch, because as I've said before, we absolutely do not

want him around in LYLO. I'd actually appreciate it if Trollie killed him, unless there's a

clearly better option.

Kinetic appears to have gotten into a big old slapfight with toxic. Isn't this, like, the

fifth one of these toxic's been in this game?. I get the feeling that toxic is kind of like

how I used to be, back when I got into arguments over ridiculous little things that lasted for

ages. Anyway, I agree that regardless of whether Kinetic was correct in his read of toxic, he

should have had his vote on toxic if that was his strongest scumread. I don't think it's

necessarily scummy, because he hadn't caught all the way up, but it is still something to

consider. Then later he votes Thor after getting into his big thing with toxic, saying that

he was really waiting for his other major scumread to pop back in.

W...

why?

That's just... odd. I can't imagine any sort of town reason for doing that.

If you've got two scumreads and you don't want to vote for one of them just yet for some

reason,

vote for the other one, dummy.

This leaves me with Kinetic, Slandaar, and kwll. Of these, Kinetic and Slandaar are my two

main picks. I just got out of a game where the last two scum were lurkers, so I may be a bit

paranoid about it, but I just don't like Slandaar's blatant active lurking. Then again,

Kinetic has been actively scummy, and since I didn't really like his slot anyway,

Vote Kinetic

That may change when I get to do my reread thing, but I doubt it.


Now to respond to a few things specifically addressed to me:

FOS JacobSavage

Weak. Just weak. It's too hard to make a decision, so you run away with your tail between

your legs and settle for a lynch that is very unlikely at the moment.

were there things in the QT that supported this FOS as well?

Not really. There wasn't very much discussion beyond roleclaiming and the

Trollie/Sherlock/Cheery scumteam thing. I mentioned it, but Jacob didn't really say anything

about it (I doubleposted with the second and much longer post being about the roleclaiming

thing). I basically decided that the best way to see if Jacob was town was to have us claim

neighbors and see if there was another neighborhood. Since nobody's mentioned anything I'm

going to assume we are the only one, and the mod would have to be a bit of a jerk to have only

one 2-person neighborhood with one of them being scum.

Also, toxic, for future reference, you may just want to drop the whole reaction test thing.

You may have had good intentions and whatnot, and it may be useful somehow, but it's

controversial as hell, and if it worked how you intended we shouldn't still be having big

arguments about it. As for my opinion about it, I still don't understand what exactly it's

meant to achieve, since it relies on an assumption that I don't agree with ("scum would be

less likely to jump on bad play than townies", or at least that's my closest estimation of the

point of the reaction test). But at this point I'm just sick and tired of hearing about it.

It makes my head hurt to even read the words reaction test. Nor do I really see any point in

Kinetic or toxic caring about my opinion of the thing. It's more like Kinetic and toxic are

just trying to win arguments rather than catch scum, digging themselves deeper into a pit of

stupid that will be impossible to crawl out of. I've been in a lot of holes like that, I know

what it looks like.


As I said, I do intend to go back and re-examine the whole thread, so I will be also

reevaluating the rest of the players. For now though, I cast my net wide enough yesterday to

have caught at least one scum. If not I need to lynch my town reads from now on.

[Idiotking]

Ok, remind me never to try to format stuff in a .txt document again.

[Idiotking]

If its not scummy, why is it something to consider?

"Not necessarily scummy" is not the same as "not scummy." It just means that it does not

have

to be scummy. It's possible that you were just catching up, in which case I could see it being not a scummy thing to do. However, it is also possible that you were just scum trying to hold off so you could vote on a likely wagon. That would be scummy.

Under such circumstances it is best to look at other play, in order to get a better idea of where the motivation came from. Hence why it should be considered.

[Idiotking]

Assertiveness is not a scumtell. Players of all alignments are like that. So far the only thing wrong with Thor is his predecessor.

[Idiotking]

OK,

FOS half the damn town.

Thor replaced a scummy slot and is unreadable so we're lynching him.

Lets lynch thor since he close and we will have trollie shoot either shoot slandaar who his lurking or Kintiec to see his flip.

These are not the reasons we should be lynching Thor.

We should not lynch Thor because of convenience. If we do it has to be because of something he's done. There are scummier players than Abaddon, and since Thor hasn't added to Abaddon's scumminess it would be

stupid to lynch him over Slandaar or Kinetic

. Why the hell isn't Slandaar being more heavily suspected? What the hell makes people think that Kinetic isn't scum?

Under such circumstances it is best to look at other play, in order to get a better idea of where the motivation came from. Hence why it should be considered.

I will figure out the motivation of X when I have decided the motivation of all your other posts!

Nice and pointless waffle; if it could be either its null ie not worth considering.

Doesn't context matter?

[Idiotking]

Like seriously, holy shit. This is wrong on so many levels.

[Idiotking]

When did I say that, Kinetic? How can you possibly think that I said that?

[Idiotking]

Notice that that post was a tl;dr towards Konowa and that "scummy slot" implies Abaddon did scummy things that I have yet to mention.

Then

why don't you mention them?

Are you always this hesitant to mention relevant information?

That is a pattern in this game. Nobody is really explaining why they think what they think. Trollie's "I think 807 looks town" comes to mind. He treated that like a reason for deciding that Kinetic was town. Ok, how do we discuss that? I think human sacrifice is a good thing because it looks like it. How do you argue against someone like that? And the fact that nobody really seems to be interested in hammering out a genuine case against Thor. Nobody's making arguments, citing examples, quoting, or doing anything at all that resembles argumentation. It's appalling.

Idiot, I see some redeeming quality in every one of my suspects but Thor. Kinetic's catch-up post was towny for reasons mentioned previously. Toxic and Slandaar were previous townreads. Jacob is a Neighbor, and also a previous townread. Thor...

Process of elimination does not make up for insufficient evidence.

[Idiotking]

It's bad that I have to defend Thor from crappy arguments, but good Lord, people. This is the literal definition of taking the easy way out.

[Idiotking]

But his POE doesn't.

Bad arguments are bad play. Bad play is easily manipulated by scum.

[Idiotking]

Idiot, you're acting like I haven't explained anything all game. I'm not doing it now because I'm busy and don't have time to do it fully.

It's not just you, but you've done it a few times. You won't explain who you are an alt of, so people can't examine your meta. You didn't give a good reason at all for Trollie's town-ness. It's only because of his claim and your reaction to it that I think you maybe aren't scum. Then there's this. At least in this game your play has heavily relied on gut, not argumentation. And as I've said before, gut is utterly impossible to argue against. If it is impossible to argue against, it is a crappy way of scumhunting. Just like in science. If someone claims something that can neither be proven or disproven, from a scientist's point of view, it's worthless.

[Idiotking]

The walls and absta things don't really make up for it when you don't give reasons. They're nice, but separately. You don't build up credit to blow on missing explanations later.

And I didn't really mean to imply proof was possible in this game. It was for the metaphor. What I mean is that for something you say to be taken seriously, you should actually present strong evidence to back it up. You don't really do that often.

[Idiotking]

I'm trying to find time to do it properly. Would you rather me half-ass it right now?

Forgive me if I get twitchy when a bad wagon is at L-1. That's really not the time when you should

start

making arguments.

@Jacob: can you link please?

Doesn't context matter?

Context: He says he caught up at X I think he could catch up quicker and was stalling!

How does any other posting ever change the fact you can't prove it either way? (hence null hence not worth considering)

I'm not even going to go down this road.

Where is your case on me exactly IK?

It hasn't really changed since my megapost. You are active lurking. Nothing's changed since then.

[Idiotking]

To be more elaborate: You haven't made any actual cases so far as I can see, you've made very short, very half-assed posts, you've made fewer posts than freakin' replacements have, you've made fewer posts than

I

have (I, who have been prodded twice), and you've done your absolute damnedest to stay out of the spotlight.

[Idiotking]

I'm going off the activity overview thing though. Slandaar, who has been with us the entire 36 pages of this game, who has been playing for over a month, has fewer posts than someone who joined four days ago. And very few of Slandaar's posts are actually substantive.

[Idiotking]

Oh hell, people. Don't get into a wallposting fight when I'm barely keeping up with the game as is. You people are terrible.

I'm going to have to catch up late tomorrow night. Sorry, it's the usual end-of-semester chaos.

[Idiotking]

Ok, I skimmed the last page or so, and I've got a few thoughts.

1. In my experience there isn't necessarily a set time to claim. It could be at L-1, L-1 with intent to hammer, L-2, hell, I saw a guy claim with only two votes on him out of about eleven players. While it's a good idea to claim when you're about to be lynched, I think it should be the person about to be lynched who decides when and how. Kinetic's insistence on Thor claiming is obvious fishing for a PR.

2. From what I can tell, Kinetic's made a series of bad assumptions about the game setup, and pretends it is valid. As far as actual knowledge about game setup, we can reasonably assume that there are about scum (from past experience with games of this size), and that there are at least two killers (one of them being mafia, the other very probably Trollie, whose alignment is still unknown.)

That is it.

Any argument beyond that goes into pure, unfounded speculation.

3. I note that Kinetic still hasn't explained why Thor is scum.

4. I'm going to take a wild, unfounded guess here that Kinetic just took the December LSAT, so he thinks he can strut his analytical stuff.

[Idiotking]

*there are about three scum

[Idiotking]

@Kinetic:

Holy ego, Batman! How come the last two games I've been in had someone trying to play the alpha dog? I don't care how awesome you think you are at decoding setups. You are making absurdly broad assumptions, childishly insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong about the damn L-1 claim thing, pitching fits when things don't go your way, putting words in my mouth (I

never

said you were right about the claim thing, I said it's up to interpretation), and

still withholding your entire case on Thor

. I don't care what your credentials are, this is just obscenely bad play, and you should be lynched for it.

[Idiotking]

You keep using that word, you and Thor. I'm "withholding" my case on him. When I've explained it simply, I don't have time to put together a case. I've said what I can about how I feel, and I've attacked what Ic an of his shit logic, what else do you want me to do? Where is Thor's "case" against me? Where is your or Sherlock's case? What is your preoccupation for something that no one else has provided either?

I didn't push to become an alpha dog, it isn't my preferred method of play at all, you kept poking me, you and Thor, and finally I snapped and decided if really, the bullshit numbers game he was going on about and all the bullying he was doing was going to be allowed to fly then I finally snapped. I don't have time to do anything but react right now, and barely any time for that.

Ok, literally no one believes that you don't have time to make an argument. As toxic mentioned, you've been getting into massive and long winded arguments since you joined. Clearly you have time.

You want to attack my play, fine, but don't even try to act like you know a damn thing more about setup speculation than I do. That is my baby and as far as I've seen there are few that can even grasp my assumptions. That isn't me chest beating, that's just fact. What you see up there is stuff I usually never post, those are what my private notes will look like because that is very difficult for most people to grasp, but it leads to finding scum more often than you believe.

Do you think it helps your case if you are condescending to everyone else? "Oh, my special magical unicorn notes, they must be blinding to lesser mortals!" Get over yourself.

The issue is, I have one piece of information that you don't. I know my own alignment, and that allows me to make assumptions that you can't. That assumption shows me that one of me or Thor virtually MUST be scum, I've gone over it again and again in my head, and the likelihood of it not being the case is extraordinarily low. And I know for a fact that I'm not scum. If I'm wrong, well then, there are three scum at least that have played either very well or completely sub-optimally. That's one thing I have trouble predicting: poor play. But it happens.

But

we don't know your alignment.

This is a key point. You act as though we should also take your alignment for granted.

We can't.

Right now you are looking way, way more scummy. Additionally, any time you use "must" in a situation like this just shows that you are tunneling. I mean, that's the literal damn definition of tunnel vision. You are insisting that it has to be true because it is (in your mind) the most likely scenario.

Do i have an ego? Yes. But it's well deserved. It might be a little rusty, but this sword is made of good steel.

If you admit you have an ego then what makes you think that you can form an objective opinion about your play? "Oh, I know that I'm proud, but that's just because I'm God's gift to mankind."

But all of this is tangential to what we're supposed to be doing. You're dodging and stalling and making posts but not

cases

. You aren't actually arguing against play, you're arguing against the players. You're nothing but a troll.

[Idiotking]

That's about the only thing that Thor's done questionably so far. Thor, did you actually read the thread, or no? Was that a joke or was it serious? Because if it's serious then that's really, really bad.

I also want to look at a possible connection between Kinetic and Slandaar (who has been tacitly defending Kinetic by attacking his attackers). I probably won't have time until the weekend though, and then it will be night.

Mod: Is there like, any way I could bribe you to extend the deadline?

Barring an extremely unlikely extension, I think it would be best to lynch Kinetic and have Trollie shoot Slandaar if Kinetic flips scum. I'm going to do my best to look at a Kinetic/Slandaar team tonight/tomorrow, but I'm running on two hours of sleep, so don't count on it.

[Idiotking]

Yeah, who exactly

isn't

scum to you, Kinetic?

[Idiotking]

Yeah, who exactly

isn't

scum to you, Kinetic?

I've been calling Thor and Toxic scum. I'll admit I was a bit OMGUS on IK and Konowa, but I would be willing to bet one of them is the third one. As for town reads: I'm pretty sure the people on my Thor are pretty town. Yea, that's kind of confirmation right now, but that's my answer.

So... people who agree with you are town, people who disagree with you are scum?

That's hella convenient, isn't it?

[Idiotking]

I didn't ask them. I asked you. I know what their reads are. It took about 10 seconds reading through their ISOs to find them. You're welcome to do the same.

[Idiotking]

Watch, he'll come in screaming about my unwillingness to cooperate or something like that.

[Idiotking]

I'd be fine with a Slandaar lynch, if we can get it fast enough.

Vote Slandaar

[Idiotking]

Of course if I need to in order to prevent nolynch I'll switch back to Kinetic in 5 hours, assuming that no Slandaar wagon picks up.

[Idiotking]

Well, we really don't have a lot of time, so

Vote Kinetic

[Idiotking]

I should note that we're in LYLO if there are 3 scum, so we should be extremely suspicious of claims, especially claims like Sherlock's. He may very well be the cop, but we need to be careful.

[Idiotking]

More specifically,

Bodyguard - Thor (dead, confirmed)
Neighbor - Idiotking (claimed)
Neighbor - JacobSavage (claimed)
1-shot Bulletproof - Slandaar (claimed)
Vigilante - Trollie (claimed)
Cop - Sherlock (claimed)
Vanilla - Kwll (claimed)
Vanilla - Tommy (dead, confirmed)
Vanilla - Absta (dead, confirmed)
Vanilla - CheeryDog (dead, confirmed)
Vanilla - Kinetic (dead, confirmed)

[Idiotking]

Because we need to keep track of the dead guys too, y'know.

[Idiotking]

Mod: If we're allowed to know, if someone targeted for a kill a bodyguard and the bodyguard protected someone else who was targeted for a kill, would the protected person survive? Or would that be too much information?

[Idiotking]

Too late, Klick.

[Idiotking]

So here are my thoughts:

1. We need to do an analysis of the NK's up to this point. Given that night actions are definitely randomized if one isn't sent in, we need to figure out why only Thor died.
2. It is possible that scum intentionally left their NKs unsent so that they would be random, and NK analysis would thus be useless. However, this would intentionally be giving up their control over who dies, which trumps any benefit from truly randomized NKs. Has anyone here ever seen scum who actually, truly just picked some random guy to NK? All of them that I've ever seen had scum talking about who specifically to kill.
3. Trollie claimed to kill Cheery N1, and we have no reason to doubt him. Why, then, would scum kill Tommy? He was hardly the most townie of players.

For the Thor thing, here's the possibilities that I can see.

1. Scum and Trollie both targeted Thor. This would be silly, since Thor was easily one of the most suspected players in the game. However, I've seen scum do stupid things like this before, so it's not impossible.
2. Scum targeted someone else, Trollie targeted the same person, and Thor protected that person. This would lead to the question, who did they both target?
3. Scum targeted Thor, Trollie targeted someone else, Thor protected that person. Again, this would be stupid, but not unheard of.
4. Scum targeted someone else, Trollie targeted Thor, Thor protected person that Scum targeted. I could see this, because Trollie seemed to want to kill Thor yesterday.
5. Scum targeted Thor, and Trollie is 1-shot.
6. Scum targeted someone, Thor protected them, and Trollie is 1-shot.
7. Scum targeted Slandaar, Trollie targeted Thor. Why the hell would this happen? Incredibly unlikely.
8. Scum targeted Thor, Trollie targeted Slandaar. The first part would be stupid, the second part would make sense, because Trollie would have an interest in confirming Slandaar's story.
9. Scum targeted someone, Thor protected that person, Trollie targeted Slandaar. This would make a lot of sense.

Most of these would be resolved by Trollie telling us who he targeted.

[Idiotking]

Idiot & Jacob - Neither of you are claiming to have any other powers besides having a QT correct?

True for me, at least. Jacob hasn't mentioned anything in the QT about being stronger, and unless he's mafia I doubt he'd get two powers.

[Idiotking]

So I've got another idea I'd like to vomit out here.

We need more information from Sherlock before we lynch either him or Slaandar. If Sherlock dies tonight and flips town it confirms Slaandar as scum, which scum don't really want. So Sherlock has a chance to survive the night if he's telling the truth. If he's not telling the truth, we lynch Slaandar, he flips town, and we're basically dead.

Going along with this, Konowa is off limits, because lynching him would be stupid without some sort of confirmation about Sherlock's alignment. Even if Sherlock's right, Konowa might be a godfather, so I want to play it safe.

I don't want to kill Jacob, because doing so would be a complete shot in the dark from my perspective. Scum in a single two-man neighborhood is extremely unlikely, and we'd be playing Russian Roulette with it.

Trollie should obviously not be lynched, because we need to assume he's not scum for now. He also needs to do what the town as a whole agrees, because 1. that would lead to more discussion, which we really damn well need right now, 2. it would allow the town as a whole to decide rather than a single person, and crowdsourcing is actually a good thing, 3. if he's a SK he needs to be chained.

This leaves toxic and kwll. I do not at all buy Sherlock's argument that kwll is town, because from what I can see it's based on gut, and as I've said many times, I don't buy gut. Since my reads up to this point have been complete crap, I'm going to just have to go on pure setup analysis, which is something I really hate doing. I say we lynch kwll, partially because he's completely unreadable to me, and partially because of the process of elimination.

That leaves toxic, who may or may not be NK'd by Trollie. I can't say I have a scumread on toxic, but as I've said, my reads up until now have been complete crap, so I don't know. The only strong read I still have is on Slandaar.

So I suppose going against what I said up there, Slandaar may be the best bet for a Trollie NK, if kwll flips scum. We'd definitely have survived the night, and it would give us a clear indication of Sherlock's alignment. While we wouldn't know about Konowa (it's possible for scum claiming cop to buddy a townie in order to get props), it would at least cut down scum's numbers.

Assuming we lynch scum today, it will probably be in scum's best interests to kill Trollie, simply because regardless of his alignment, he's another night killer, and scum won't want more opportunities for him to kill them. If he's vig, well, we'd really have no way of knowing. If he's a SK, hooray.

Assuming we lynch kwll and he flips scum, Sherlock should investigate either Jacob or toxic. Since Jacob's more up in the air for me, he may be the best bet, because like I said, I don't like Russian Roulette.

Assuming we lynch kwll and he flips

town

, well, we need a backup plan for what Sherlock and Trollie should do. Sherlock may still want to investigate Jacob, because hell, why not. Trollie should still probably go after Slandaar. We'd be in a far worse position, though.


Ok, so that was a lot of thoughts.

[Idiotking]

We would be in a crappy situation if we no-lynched, because we'd be no closer to finding out whether or not we can trust your claim, and we'd be out a vig/SK, who we need. No lynching is a terrible idea.

[Idiotking]

How likely do you see the possibility of a full Vig and a full Cop in a Mini Normal?

I just got out of a game that had two cops and a vig (cops alternated days), so it's not unheard of for that sort of thing.

Though I am curious here. Why did you wait to switch your view of Trollie until you claimed? If you suspected him, why didn't you investigate him?

[Idiotking]

See, all of this is starting to stink of someone who doesn't want his claim to be confirmed.

[Idiotking]

Wait a minute, I'm overthinking things here. Just lynch Slandaar and if he flips town have Trollie NK Sherlock. If he flips scum then scum will have two PR's to choose from, meaning one of them gets to survive until tomorrow and continue to be useful. Ta da.

Vote Slandaar

[Idiotking]

No.

[Idiotking]

Dude, calm the hell down. He's at L-3. You've got time to say what you want, but you'd better get to explaining.

I'm going to overlook the obvious AtE ("If we lynch now it's literal end of the world!") for now.

[Idiotking]

If they try to rush a quicklynch it will be obvious,

and you can kill them, can't you?

It's like you don't even remember your role anymore.

[Idiotking]

Assuming we have three scum, and assuming you are vig, and that Slandaartown is quicklynched:

8 players - 5 town 3 scum
-1 town from lynch

N3 begins

4 town 3 scum

-1 town from NK

3 town 3 scum

-1 scum from NK

3 town 2 scum

D4 starts.

[Idiotking]

In my experience scum only win,

only

win if there is literally no other possible conclusion than they win. If we have a night killer then that isn't the case if we lynch town today. And we really need to confirm Sherlock's claim.

And you are still not telling me why Slandaar is town.

[Idiotking]

Slandaar is a claimed bulletproof, you said you shot at him. It's entirely possible for him to be bulletproof scum when there's a vig.

We still have no real reason to buy that there is a roleblocker. Until we have evidence it would be stupid to assume that there is one. You're going to have to try harder.

[Idiotking]

*mafia roleblocker

[Idiotking]

What reason, then?

I still don't see why Slandaar is likely town if he's bulletproof.

[Idiotking]

Straight from the Wiki:

"In games with Serial Killers and/or Vigilantes, one member of the Mafia is generally Bulletproof so as to grant the team some measure of protection from being routed at Night. As Townies are not generally Bulletproof, this is only a small respite as the shooter can find a way to claim a guilty result of some kind on the Bulletproof Mafioso. "

I doubt Thor targeted Slandaar. If he did he's an idiot.

[Idiotking]

I mean for me, that basically seals it. He's probably scum just from his claim, and he's been fingered as scum from a claimed cop, who can be NK'd if for some reason disaster strikes. I'm OK with this.

[Idiotking]

But you have no evidence to back that up. You said you shot a claimed bulletproof, and he didn't die,

which is the exact thing that would happen if he were bulletproof

. As you said, scum would have had a better reason to block Thor, not you, so why wouldn't your kill go through?

Because you shot a freakin' bulletproof, dummy.

And how does what you're saying even mesh with what you

just posted?

I see two possibilities:

1. Slandaar is Bulletproof scum
2. The Mafia have a Roleblocking ability and used it on you

I find the first one more likely, simply because 1-shot Bulletproof makes sense with the given roles in nhammen's ruleset.

lets assume slandaar is not bulletproof scum cause as jacob said its probably not the case.

Mafia would roleblock me u think? id say not. I never said who I was gonna shoot. I doubt they killed thor cause he was gonna be an easy lynch today which means they probably shot someone (me) and thor protected that person. A mafia roleblocker would have roleblocked THOR then.

So is someone a town roleblocker and not telling us?

p-edit: YOU ARE ASSUMING I SHOOT TONIGHT AND HIT SCUM. I SHOT LAST NIGHT AND NOTHING HAPPENED...come on think about this.

I am not saying Slandaar is town, i am saying you NEVER let the vote get to L-[number of scum] in this position this early in the day....EVER

So mafia wouldn't roleblock you, they'd have blocked Thor and tried to kill you, but since Thor died, it means either scum shot at Thor or Thor wasn't roleblocked. But now you're screaming that mafia totally might have a roleblocker guys, and we should totally be freaked out by this,

even though it doesn't mesh with the scenario you just posted

.

Holy COW, dude. The logic part of your brain just shut off.

[Idiotking]

And seriously, I can't stress this enough,

Jacob isn't that great of a player, so why are you taking advice from him out of hand?

I mean, no offense to Jacob or anything, but his play in this game is pretty good evidence that he won't be winning any Scummies this year.

[Idiotking]

TOWN ROLEBLOCKERS HAVE NO DAMN REASON TO BLOCK YOU IF SLANDAAR FLIPS TOWN.

[Idiotking]

All the gloom and doom you're posting is based on the assumption that you won't get a NK off. If mafia have no roleblocker then you've got nothing to worry about.

[Idiotking]

Then GG and thanks for all the fish.

One of Sherlock and Slandaar is scum. If Slandaar flips scum then we're

fine

. If Slandaar flips town then you NK Sherlock, and we're

fine.

.

[Idiotking]

Feel free to shoot me if you no-lynch; you'll be left with confirmed scum in you and a Vig/SK who can get rid of another scum for a night. Meanwhile, if Trollie is killed, I just get an extra shot at finding scum, and we dual it out again.

Can't you see why it would be a bad thing to no-lynch? As it stands we have no reason at all to trust you. You've claimed cop, but why should we believe you? You seem to have this thing against confirming things, and it's terribly anti-town. We need to know if we can trust you before any results you have are useful.

[Idiotking]

I dont want this game to rely on my shooting scum tonight...

Too bad. Grow a spine and do your job.

[Idiotking]

How would lynching toxic and shooting kwll confirm your role?

Lynching Slandaar would work regardless of whether we trust you, thanks to Trollie's NK. That's

how

we would confirm you.

It's really obvious how you've been against us confirming things. Neither of the suggestions you've made today would confirm your role, which we desperately need. You were against Trollie shooting someone on N1 so that we could confirm his role. You're like the cockblock of confirming things.

[Idiotking]

Basically, yes. Slandaar's flip will basically tell us your alignment. Trollie can shoot you if Slandaar flips town, because that means you lied and are scum. If Slandaar flips scum, dandy.

[Idiotking]

The reason Sherlock isn't voting me is he doesn't want to vote with his buddy Konowa until an actual townie votes me otherwise it is too obvious who the scum are.

Well, we'd have more evidence to trust his claim. We would still be taking a risk in trusting him, but it would be much less, enough to make me comfortable with it.

[Idiotking]

Ignore that Slandaar quote. Phoneposting.

[Idiotking]

A bulletproof miller would be silly. Anyway, stop hinting at some big argument you plan on making. If you've got one, make it, otherwise I'm leaving my vote where it is.

[Idiotking]

Another thought just crossed my mind, which is that Sherlock's suggestion of a no-lynch no-shoot would let scum kill the vig, meaning LYLO and having to go on blind faith with his claim, which is a good situation for scum.

[Idiotking]

Ok, Konowa is definitely town. If Slandaar flips scum then Sherlock's result on him is confirmed, which would be absolutely fine from Konowascum's perspective. If Slandaar flips town then Sherlock would be lynched as scum, which is against what Konowascum would want. However, Konowa is ok with both lynching Slandaar and having Sherlockscum get lynched if Slandaar flips town, which is only something Konowatown would want.

[Idiotking]

*Sherlock would be shot as scum

[Idiotking]

WE WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE YOU.

[Idiotking]

Your perspective is flawed. You have to look at things from the town's perspective, because otherwise you are working with information we don't have and cannot assume. That's why Kinetic was so crappy.

[Idiotking]

I like how the two most critical people to our plan are the two most against it.

[Idiotking]

I'd rather have something finally be confirmed in this game.

My vote is staying on Slandaar.

[Idiotking]

@kwll: Do you have even realize what impossibly huge balls it would take for two scum to claim neighbors on D2? I mean, holy crap. If even one of them is killed (remember, in this game the town can perform two kills per day/night cycle), it confirms the other one as scum, because the dead one wouldn't have the Neighbor trait when flipped. It would be tantamount to suicide.

@Trollie: You're an idiot. Sherlock may be bussing scum, but it'd be both unlikely and unnecessary this late into the game. Besides, I don't do blackmail. If you want to throw the game then it's your own damn business.

[Idiotking]

It would be an utterly retarded gamble.

[Idiotking]

Hell, if you want confirmation for that, feel free to shoot Jacob (not me, please) tonight if Slandaar flips town. I'd rather you didn't, given my reservations about the whole neighbor-probably-being-town thing, but if you're paranoid about it there's nothing stopping you.

[Idiotking]

*Slandaar flips scum

I have a fever.

[Idiotking]

Unvote

Ok Trollie, you've got my attention.

[Idiotking]

This doesn't confirm anything, it just makes a roleblocker (town or scum) more reasonable.

[Idiotking]

But then scum would likely have roleblocked Thor to prevent him from protecting anyone and shot someone else. I still have trouble believing the whole roleblocker thing, or at least if there is one it's not mafia.

[Idiotking]

So yeah, what I'm beginning to think is that BOTH Trollie and scum targetted Sherlock, making him a very popular individual. Again, we'd be well on our way to confirming this if Slandaar died, because Sherlockscum may have been afraid of Thor for whatever reason and went ahead to kill him anyway.

Vote Slandaar

If there's a town roleblocker, for pete's sake, don't block Trollie tonight.

Bodyguard isn't passive. He chooses who to block, which is active.

[Idiotking]

You have to deal with probabilities sometimes. Yes, Slandaarscum flipping does leave the possibility open that Sherlock was bussing, but it's more probable that Sherlock is town in that case. This can be greatly reinforced by an examination of their interactions together. It's not like we'd be completely in the dark anymore.

[Idiotking]

Also Sherlock, if you're telling the truth, I'd really love to have info on Jacob tomorrow. Now that I think about it, having scum in a neighborhood when there are already a fair number of town PR's may be more probable than I thought.

[Idiotking]

We don't necessarily. I'm going to wait to see Slandaar's flip before I trust him.

As for the whole night action stuff, if you actually shot Sherlock, and there are no roleblockers, then the only possible answer is that Thor protected Sherlock. That means that either both you and scum targeted Sherlock, or scum targeted Thor, which we've established would have been stupid. Sherlockscum may have killed Thor, but since the Slandaar flip is the best way of determining Sherlock's alignment, we should lynch Slandaar.

I honestly don't understand why you don't get that.

[Idiotking]

Not the only options, but the most likely, as we've already established, a mafia roleblocker would have been better off blocking Thor.

[Idiotking]

IDIOTKING

i do not get you. i really dont.

STOP SAYING "oh we will figure that out once slandaar is gone.

(1) once slandaar is gone we dont get to see him post. that means we cant see how he interacts with other ppl during this intense 1 v. 1 with sherlock

Are you honestly pretending that Slandaar will suddenly start posting? I mean, one of the main reasons people suspected him to begin with was that he's comically lurky.

(2) if slandaar is town, and i CANNOT KILL SHERLOCK, as i was unable to kill him last night, the GAME IS OVER

That supposes that the same thing will happen tonight that happened last night. Since we still have no evidence of a roleblocker, and a protective role died last night, that seems very unlikely.

why dont u see that?!?!

Because I'm not in goddamn freakout mode. I'm looking at things rationally, unlike you apparently. Sure, we may lose if we screw up,

but that is going to be true regardless of what we do today.

You're hardcore AtE'ing, and that's exactly the kind of breakdown we do NOT need right now.

Also, you

just lied

to us about who you targeted last night when you said you targeted Slandaar.

[Idiotking]

Wanna hear my theory? Either there is a RB or...

Sherlock is a godfather, he comes in claiming cop. He says he wants to wait to see if anyone counterclaims. If someone counters, he can say, ok ok fine I was just reaction testing. We dont believe him. He says, "have counterclaimer investigate me tonight to prove im tellin truth" then tomorrow when cop reports inno sherlock is safe. OR no-one counterclaims, and he gets to say YADAYADA I'm a big boy cop.

This is literally the most retarded thing I have ever heard.

[Idiotking]

Ok, he'll make posts, but they will be utterly worthless, as have the rest of his posts ever. His MO has been to stay in the background, and even now when he's one of the major topics of discussion today, he's in the background. Consider that.

[Idiotking]

@Trollie: I'm confused as to why you're so determined to twist everything to make Sherlock look scummy and leave Slandaar alive. You keep going on about "moar discussion", but everything you've ever said so far has been an attempt to twist things to make Sherlock look scummy,

when you actually have better reason than anyone to believe he's town, since nobody claimed a roleblocker, you yourself proposed that mafia roleblocker would have blocked Thor, and Sherlock survived you shooting him.

[Idiotking]

So Trollie, are you like trying to make fallacies now? First appeals to emotion, now confirmation bias, what next, fighting strawmen?

[Idiotking]

So what this tells me is that even if we lynch Slandaar and he flips scum, Trollie's just going to shoot Sherlock anyway, because he's got a hardon for Sherlockscum. Ok.

Well this was a nice game.

[Idiotking]

Let me try to hammer this out one more time:

Either you were roleblocked, or Thor protected Sherlock.

We have

no fucking evidence

that there is a roleblocker

for either alignment.

This is all speculation you've pulled

straight out of your ass.

Since you don't think that there's a mafia roleblocker, you think that there may be a town roleblocker

EVEN THOUGH NO ONE CLAIMED IT AND WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO HIDE IT AT THIS POINT

. You are automatically assuming Sherlock HAS to be scum

because you're not even considering the possibility that Thor (THE ONLY PERSON WHO CLAIMED ANY ABILITY TO BLOCK YOU) protected Sherlock.

If we lose the game because of you I'm going to die.

and AS YOU SAID, the bps in this game will be scum, not town most likely.

maybe slandaar is scum too, but i cant let u guys lynch him and hope that ur terrible, short-term plan works. what if all mafia members are 1 shot bp to balance out power. or if they have a 1-shot group bp or something.

Both of those suggestions are laughably overpowered, and the Mod should be lynched if that's the case. It would completely kill the worth of a vig,

and is completely fucking unheard of

. That's not the sort of thing that would ever be put into a normal game,

ever

.

idiot, you are the one subject to confirmation bias here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are saying thor protected sherlock, who was really not in danger of being NK'd and also who THOR WOULD NEVER HAVE LET LIVE OVER JUST NOT PROTECTING ANYBODY AND SAVING HIMSELF.

and that Mafia shot SHERLOCK when they could have easily shot me (a threatening power role). also sherlocks hopping all over the place made him a potential lynch target for today

If, if, if, maybe, maybe, maybe. Again, all idle speculation you've pulled out of your ass. Shall I counter?

Scum wouldn't have shot you, because there was reason to believe you would have shot Thor. Scum also didn't know that Thor's role guaranteed that whoever he protected would live even if Thor himself was targeted. Thus, scum wouldn't have targeted you, because they'd have figured you'd be killing a townie. Thor wouldn't have held off on using his PR,

because he's not a damned coward

. Not very many people actually voiced scumreads on Sherlock yesterday, so scum wouldn't necessarily be sure if he'd be lynched today. Thus, he's a possible target for them.

I suppose I was right, you really did go after a strawman argument. It's not confirmation bias on my part. I know it's possible that I'm wrong. I'm going based on probability, and my understanding

based on available evidence

is that Thor was riddled with holes last night.

p-edit: what do u mean about slandaar?

Here's what I think happened:
Mafia shoots me, because they know town will never lynch me because i am no threat to them right now, and that Thor will be an easy lynch target tomorrow.

Thor protects me because DUHHHHHH

I shoot Sherlock who should have died. But he didn't.

U are the one with the confirmation bias. Use ur head, it is not a big mystery about how thor died last night.

Are you saying that you don't have confirmation bias, when you've basically said Sherlock

has

to be scum, because there is no other possible solution than Thor protected you because you're God's gift to the human race?

YOUR RETARDED SPECULATION ABOUT BULLETPROOF NIETZSCHEAN UBERSCUM IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE SHERLOCK IS SCUM.

[Idiotking]

Basically my beef with you is this:

I'm going on evidence presented in-game.
You are going on speculation, leading you to conclude things that are both ridiculous and completely unbalanced. I could just as easily speculate that scum have

two

NKers and that you're scum. But that would be stupid, just like all of your ideas.

[Idiotking]

I mean, you're really grasping at straws in your speculations about what happened last night. You're saying that Thor

had

to have protected you, but you argue against my theory by saying that

Thor might not have protected anyone

(which I might add is impossible according to the Mod's randomized rule). You can't keep your story straight at all.

[Idiotking]

BECAUSE YOU ALREADY LIED TODAY. DON'T YOU THINK THAT KIND OF SCARS YOUR RECORD?!

[Idiotking]

What about the rest of my argument? What about the fact that you are saying Thor had to have protected you, while using a different scenario to argue against my theory? That was kind of the more important part, don't you think?

[Idiotking]

Oh to hell with it. Trollie is the kind of stupid that will never listen to reason even if I bash it over his thick head.

So now we need to come up with alternate strategies for when he inevitably shoots Sherlock and (possibly) kills our cop. Thoughts?

[Idiotking]

Not today we don't, and once you're dead maybe he'll stop being so thick.

[Idiotking]

Oh, and if Sherlock flips scum, I will

relish

rubbing it in your face, Trollie.

[Idiotking]

FLIPS TOWN I MEAN

GOD

[Idiotking]

Oh shit, you're right. Unless one of the scum busses then we couldn't do it, because at most there are 5 townies, and it takes 5 to lynch.

[Idiotking]

A thought just crossed my mind.

Trollie may have a townread on Sherlock (or at least want a claimed cop to live until tomorrow) and be trying to steer scum away from shooting him.

[Idiotking]

I don't like keeping thoughts to myself. It's anti-town to withhold one's views.

Anyway, the wifom's there, so scum would still be taking a stupid risk shooting him even now that I've said it. So congratulations, Trollie, you're almost guaranteed to be the NK. If you're a SK, screw you, but if you're a vig, good job.

[Idiotking]

I'm ignoring you, Trollie.

[Idiotking]

The way you went about your reaction test doesn't make much sense to me, though.

Oh the IRONY

Proddodge, will catch up tomorrow.

[Idiotking]

Unvote

Thoughts incoming. I don't like the idea of lynching Slandaar without having a clear plan of attack tonight.

[Idiotking]

No, Trollie shoots regardless. At this point I'm convinced that he's a vig, so that makes 5 town vs 3 scum.

3 scum - 1 from lynch = 2 scum

at worst 5 town - 2 from NK = 3 town

and we're still afloat with 5 players and either a vig or a trustable cop.

Having done my best to follow Trollie's argument against Sherlock, I'm not convinced. I'm still willing to trust Sherlock if Slandaar flips, and for god's sake, Trollie shouldn't shoot Sherlock even if there's a

possibility

that he'll be killing our cop. Why? If he does it opens up the possibility for both of our PR's to die tonight, and that is

literally the worst possible thing that could happen.

.

I still say Trollie should shoot kwll and Sherlock should investigate Jacob. If Trollie is afraid of Sherlock being lying scum then lynching Kwll is fully possible, given Sherlock's apparent love Kwll, basically being convinced he's town since he showed up.

[Idiotking]

And let me put it this way:

Cop + Bodyguard + 2 neighbors

vs

SK

vs

3 scum

is unbalanced for town.

------

Vig + Bodyguard + 2 neighbors

vs

3 scum

is also unbalanced.

-----

Cop + Vig + Bodyguard + 2 neighbors

vs

3 scum

Is doable, but I'm admittedly leery.

-------

Cop + Vig + Bodyguard + 1 neighbor

vs

2 scum + 1 neighbor scum

Seems very possible.

[Idiotking]

For N1 the only thing Jacob mentioned about those names was an agreement with my theory about a Sherlock/Trollie/Cheery scumteam. Awesomely, he actually opened N2 by suspecting a Kwll/Toxic/(Slandaar or Konowa) scumteam. Specifically he mentioned that toxic spent too much time rattling Thor's and Kinetic's cages. That's about it.

[Idiotking]

- Their reads on one another seemed to come out of nowhere, and Idiot's scum read on slandaar seemed very forced, he calls slandaar scum but doesn't seem to go at it, or really support that read/use it in anyway. I think at some point that read disappears

Was that supposed to be me or Toxic?

And while I'd prefer it if you shot kwll, toxic's a good second choice.

[Idiotking]

Nothing, I guess.

Vote Slandaar

*crossed fingers*

[Idiotking]

So here's the thing:

After rereading the QT I'm pretty much convinced that Jacob is town. This is because on N2 his scumlist included two confirmed scum, and only a truly desperate scum would do that (on N2 they had no reason to be desperate).

We've also basically confirmed that I'm town, so that's nice. Either Sherlock correctly identified me as town or Sherlock is scum claiming cop, and I am therefore town. Konowa is in a more curious position. Either Sherlock correctly identified him as town, he is the Godfather, or he is town and Sherlock is scum claiming cop with a townread on him to gain confidence. 2/3 of these scenarios have him as town, and his play combined with his predecessor's play has me fairly sure that he's town.

This leaves Kwll and Sherlock. I'm certainly willing to give Sherlock the benefit of the doubt now, so Kwll should probably be the lynch today. However, I don't at all like him investigating me last night, because seriously, why the hell would he do that? He'd have been far better off investigating Jacob, because if Jacob flipped scum then we'd have our scum neighbor, and if Jacob flipped town then that means we're not two scum fakeclaiming neighbors together. I was basically universally seen as town, so doing so fits the "scum trying to hide a bad investigation" thing.

And more: If he knew Trollie was going to shoot his buddy, then he'd have at least one mislynch in his way beforehand. Thus, claiming to have found scum last night would be impossibly dangerous, because when we lynched that person and they flipped town he'd be dead within moments. So, he would have had to fake an investigation on someone who was seen as obvious town, leaving the possibility that the not-obviously-town people would be available for lynching.

On the other hand, kwll is independently scummy.

So here's what I'm thinking: We kill kwll, and if that's not game over, Sherlock investigates Jacob. If Sherlock gets a town read on him, we have a seriously high probability of there being a Godfather. In that case, I think Konowa would be the Godfather, because as Sherlock said, neighbor Godfather would be silly. OR, we lynch Sherlock tomorrow, and cross our fingers.

I want to wait at least a few hours before lynching Kwll so that we can discuss this stuff and so that the Mod can respond to Jacob's second question.

[Idiotking]

I saw the correct choice here as the person that would be of the most use if confirmed town.

I also had doubts. If everyone thought Idiot was town and he wasn't, me investigating him would have pretty much been the only way for him to be caught.

See, I just don't buy part 1 of this, because what more good am I if I'm confirmed town than if unconfirmed town? What new benefit is there?

And part 2 would have just as easily been dealt with via an investigation of Jacob, given our situation as neighbors.

As a side note, we've confirmed now that the remaining scum is not a roleblocker. If we assume that the last scum is a PR, it basically has to be a Godfather, because I don't know of any other scumroles in this sort of setup that would be considered normal. This means one of two things: either Sherlock is scum, or there is a Godfather, and Sherlock's investigation is useless. This is a bridge we'll have to cross at some point.

[Idiotking]

So I'm going back and looking through previous posts to try and wrap my head around this game, and I've noticed some stuff that helps out my read on Sherlock a bit.

On D1 he seemed to have a generally town read on Toxic and Slandaar (our two confirmed scum), but by D2 not only had that lessened, his scumpool in post 704 contained both confirmed scum, and his suggestion of a scumteam again contained both of them. As with my Jacob N2 thing, this should only come from desperate scum, and since nobody even seriously pushed for any of the scum on either D1 or D2, that's stupidly unlikely. He kept hammering a toxic scumread through D2 and D3, again unnecessary for not-desperate scum.

So yeah. If Kwll flips town I highly suggest killing Konowa, because at this point since a Godfather is incredibly likely and I have strong reasons to buy that both Sherlock and Jacob are town thanks to analysis of both of their scumreads from previous days, Konowa is the only other option.

[Idiotking]

And now that I've read through more, Konowa did the same thing, what with having scumreads on both toxic and Slandaar. Son of a bitch.

[Idiotking]

Oh to hell with it.

Vote Kwll

[Idiotking]

So were you scum?

[Idiotking]

*swagger*

[Idiotking]

GG to everyone.

Slandaar was too lurky, but I think Sherlock's investigation of him was the only way he was getting lynched. So I guess he played just right as scum, especially since townies were lurking like hell too. I was pretty much sure that Toxic was town all the way up until I threw out my reads altogether, so definitely good play from him. As for kwll, to be honest, I didn't try to get any sort of read on him, just because I know I can't read players like him. That's why I was "shoot kwll, shoot kwll" since he replaced in. Of course, congratulations are in order for surviving until D4. Having the cop completely on your side is awesome when you're scum.

[Idiotking]

Just as a point of curiosity, kwll, if you had survived until tonight, who would you have NK'd?

[Idiotking]

Sure. I'm curious to see what the scum talked about as well.

[Idiotking]

Man, the scum QT went from optimistic to pessimistic real quick.

[Idiotking]

We may have both done it. I know I kept arguing that meta as the only defense is complete crap.

[Idiotking]

You really shouldn't.

[Idiotking]

Yeah, to be perfectly honest we shouldn't have won this one. Like Toxic said in the scum QT, we only won because we stopped scumhunting and focused purely on process of elimination via "confirmed" townies.

[Idiotking]

I think of scumhunting as being more focused on analysis of play. We basically stopped that by D3. While what we did from then on may be considered scumhunting, since we didn't really gain new information and instead worked purely on what we had already accumulated, I'd say that was something else. I don't know what exactly, but to me it's distinctly different from normal scumhunting.

But maybe I'm overthinking it. That's something else I noticed from this game, is that I overthink the shit out of stuff all the time. On the plus side, it seemed to make me look awfully town.

[Idiotking]

So, how do you think I did on my analysis of the Night 3 kill? I feel kinda bad because I basically gave up, but I don't think I was really wrong about what I said. I probably should have left the decision up to kwll.

Honestly I think killing Trollie was still your best bet. With 3 townies 1 vig vs 1 scum you would have been completely boned on D4, because we were obviously not going to kill Trollie, Konowa would have been basically confirmed, and I was almost certainly not going to be shot or lynched, meaning at worst kwll and Jacob would have died (lynch one, shoot the other). There was the possibility that Sherlock would investigate someone other than kwll (which happened), and the WIFOM over his role might have been useful (as evidenced in my flailing just before I hammered kwll). And as you said, there was the possibility that Trollie's anti-Sherlock rampage might have been real or whatever, and if he shot Sherlock you'd be in a wonderful position. Ultimately you did the right thing.