Mini 1452 - Inevitable Mafia (Game Over)

[Rob14]

/confirm

This is my first cooldog game. It's an occasion to remember.

[Rob14]

Vote: JMO

Totally serious vote. Really overreacts to a joke response to an obvious joke by gorc (who is obvtown so far in the early game, by the way - I like his opening). But he doesn't say anything about TMT, who enters the game ignoring all serious discussion and reverting to RVS instead of trying to keep out of it. Why are you attacking one player for responding to a joke with a joke, but ignoring another player who opens with jokes after serious discussion has started. He's applying two different standards to two different players. That's not town. Motivations behind that, of course, remain up in the air, but there's no such motivation for town (unless he's a mason, but the probability of that is on the extreme low side).

[Rob14]

@Rob, do you find TMT scummy?

Yes, I do, but I find JMO ignoring him being scummy even worse, when he's previously stated that EXACTLY what TMT did was scummy, basically.

The other post directed at me has to wait until later - I'm trying to get a Minecraft events server up and running.

[Rob14]

TMT - read my posts. It's already been explained. You ignored all serious discussion in favor of staying in RVS. It didn't seem like scum-hunting.

DCL - you're strawmanning me, whether intentional or unintentional. I'm not voting JMO because TMT was scummy and JMO ignored it. I'm voting JMO because by JMO's own stated standards this game (which has been, so far, that joking around at this stage in the game is scummy), TMT is scummy. If there is such a thing as a single universal scum-tell (and I'm not sure I even think there is, to be honest), then inconsistency is it. JMO has been inconsistent in how he's pressured players thus far in this game. That's much worse than TMT's actions, which are definitely anti-town (and would be something I'd pursue more heavily if JMO didn't pop out at me as scummy), but anti-town does not necessarily mean scum, whereas inconsistency does, in my book.

BRO - I fail to see the relevance of DBK's #23, if there is one. DBK's #23 was basically "No, you have to explain your read." JMO not reacting to that is not at odds with anything he's done this game.

[Rob14]

why are we voting him? BRO's post was completely useless and was a joke reply to what was a serious statement.

This is JMO calling someone scummy for joking around when SUPER SERIOUS STUFF was going down.

VOTE: DCLXVI

All caps username competitor

Also roman numerals are dead get over it

Except for Super Bowl

[quote='Does Bo Know"]The only players I know in this game are Jmo and TMT.

Way to throw a pal under the bus then, bro[/quote]


This is TMT later joking around when the same SUPER SERIOUS STUFF is still going on, offering no serious commentary on the SUPER SERIOUS STUFF.

...

That's JMO not saying anything with regard to TMT's lack of seriousness that was extremely overt.

So you have JMO applying something as a scum-tell to one player but not another. Lack of consistency. Scummy.

[Rob14]

Apart from the above I don't like the way you are trying to manipulate rob in to voting for tmt.

This kind of voices the reason behind the vague unease I've had over DCL's posts that I couldn't put my finger on. Do you think this is scummy, ThAd, or just someone arguing their viewpoint? I'm not entirely convinced on the answer to that question yet, so I still prefer my JMO vote.

[Rob14]

Jmo. "Every game we have played" has a sample size of one. That's what constitutes a shitty meta defense. It doesn't make you scum, but it also doesn't do anything to help you look town - it's a non-argument.

BRO - I don't read that post by Bo as being joking. I thought it was legitimately asking for an explanation of the original read.

Any TMT was anti-town in his opening, in that he attempted to keep us in RVS rather than bring us out of it. I'm becoming increasingly convinced as I gain experience that that's not a scum-tell, though, especially in newer players. They often feel obligated to RVS because they've read about it being the first step to the game. In thinking over it further, I don't necessarily think it's scummy. BUT, by JMO's stated standards, it is, so he should have called TMT out on it. I just don't agree with his tell in the first place.

[Rob14]

Also, Avatar: The Last Airbender was a great show. This has nothing to do with the game. I felt it worth saying based on JMO's avatar, though. Rob out.

[Rob14]

What BRO? Either you're misunderstanding me or I'm misunderstanding you. I think Bo's post on page 1 was serious because it is a perfectly normal serious response to respond to someone making an outlandish claim by telling them to explain it. I did NOT use that in my case against JMO. You brought that post up, not me. I think it has nothing to do with my case against JMO.

I don't want you to do anything JMO. I'm voting where I think the scum is. The reason I brought up TMT is that you called Bro out on a "tell", but then didn't call TMT out on essentially the same thing. You've inconsistently applied your tell that joking around when there's serious business afoot in the early game is scummy.

And BRO, I honestly don't see how saying you're drunk and will reply more when you're sober is an ATE. Like...at all.

[Rob14]

I don't see that as a flaw in the argument, nhammen. If you're going to call someone out for RVSing after you feel RVS is over, it doesn't matter whether they quote something serious or not. It's the same thing, in my eyes anyway.

Meanwhile, ThAd is prob-town. Gorkat still is as well.

DCL - respond to recent criticisms against you. I want to know how you interpreted my case in such a way that led you to respond the way you did.

[Rob14]

@rob, if you write a glob of text with poor formatting, don't try and act surprised that someone misinterprets your case.

Bullshit.

Vote: JMO

Totally serious vote. Really overreacts to a joke response to an obvious joke by gorc (who is obvtown so far in the early game, by the way - I like his opening). But he doesn't say anything about TMT, who enters the game ignoring all serious discussion and reverting to RVS instead of trying to keep out of it. Why are you attacking one player for responding to a joke with a joke, but ignoring another player who opens with jokes after serious discussion has started. He's applying two different standards to two different players. That's not town. Motivations behind that, of course, remain up in the air, but there's no such motivation for town (unless he's a mason, but the probability of that is on the extreme low side).

What in this post was so badly formatted that you entirely misinterpreted my case? This was not a wall by any means. It was not a glob of text. It was a rather concise single paragraph.

[Rob14]

Again, bullshit. You can't even explain how #49 is a "glob of text with bad formatting".

Vote: DCL

[Rob14]

Note that I did later revise my thoughts on you TMT. More I thought about it, less likely it is that what you did means you're scum, especially considering your join date (many newbs feel obligated to RVS because they've read that it's the first step of the game on the wiki - they're also less likely to know HOW to get out of RVS, so they take a back seat for that). It's still anti-town, but probably not scummy. It was, on the other hand, scummy by JMO's stated scumtells, which is why I went after him. If that makes sense. Either way, DCL is worse right now for strawmanning my case on JMO and then not being able to explain why exactly he did that. All he said was that I wrote a messy post, which isn't true, and he couldn't say anything further or explain WHY he perceived it as messy. JMO then leapt into action defending DCL, who also soft-defended JMO by trying to shift me onto TMT in the early-game. Suspicious interactions, for sure.

[Rob14]

Why do you seem to think your claim clears you DCL?

[Rob14]

There is one person who can confirm you're a mason, and I want their name.

If you're a mason, there's no reason NOT to give the name, because having two masons out is no worse than having one mason out, because one dead mason means the other is essentially a VT. It just gives us a confirmed townie after one of you die.

If you're scum claiming mason, you either have to give us a scum-partner (which would be very beneficial to town in the later game, as any one who vouches for a lying mason that's found to be lying later is also scum) OR you have to give up the game if you don't want to hand us your scum-partner on a silver platter.

So there's no reason for you not to name the other mason. Go for it.

[Rob14]

One mason is already out. If DCL isn't scum, then the mason team can already be "taken out" by killing the one mason already revealed. What good is a single mason? They're just a VT.

Give me one good reason NOT to reveal the other "mason," especially when you consider that if DCL is scum, he'd be forced into a position to be lynched or hand us a scum-partner as his "mason-buddy" to keep alive.

[Rob14]

We will have no named townies in LyLo. If a mason claims in LyLo, scum would counter-claim. Scum might even claim mason first with the knowledge that a mason will definitely claim at some point. I'm not removing my vote unless DCL gives me a name and that person tells me DCL is a mason. DCL's "breadcrumb" doesn't make sense. His play this game has been manipulative and scummy. Nothing about him adds up.

[Rob14]

Right now I consider it a possibility. If no one confirms the single role-claim that can be easily confirmed over the next few days, then absolutely yes.

[Rob14]

I'm fine with DCL being town right now.

Why does this sound reluctant?

[Rob14]

JMO - The sentence I quoted sounds reluctant to me. Why? Were you reluctant in what you posted or not? Am I off the mark in thinking it sounded that way? What is your current read of DCL? etc.

[Rob14]

Vote: Radiant

Agreed.

[Rob14]

Rob do you usually vote hop that easily?

I do when someone puts someone at L-1 while simultaneously stating that they don't want the person lynched without giving any reasons that a vote is warranted after having previously unvoted that person not long ago.

[Rob14]

JMO - The sentence I quoted sounds reluctant to me. Why? Were you reluctant in what you posted or not? Am I off the mark in thinking it sounded that way? What is your current read of DCL? etc.

Reluctant as to beleive his read? Is that what you're asking? That would be better than "you sound reluctant"

Reluctant to believe the claim. Again, I want to know why it came off that way. Were you reluctant or was I off base? What is your current opinion of DCL and his claim?

[Rob14]

I still think DCL should reveal the name of his partner. No down side if he's town, major up side if he's scum. Right now, I'm focusing on Radiant atm, though.

[Rob14]

You missed my latest vote in that vote count, Kitoari.

Vote: Radiant

[Rob14]

There is a very obvious downside to me naming my partner rob.

Which is?

[Rob14]

DCL, if he's a town mason, is dead tonight or possibly the next night, agreed?

Alright, if we accept that, then his partner is just a VT. I'd rather that VT turn into a 100% no WIFOM confirmed townie - an innocent child, if you will - upon DCL's death and flip.

So no, I see no downside in this specific situation.

[Rob14]

1) Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early. Scum can get a mason N1 if they want either way at this point, but if they want to get a stronger PR, not having the second mason claim results in there being a chance that they would still hit a mason.

2) Makes it easier for scum to target masons once masons become a threat. Masons are stronger as the game progresses, because conftown becomes scarier when there are fewer players; scum have fewer players to set up mislynches against. Thus, at a certain point scum do want masons gone, and having the second mason known makes it more likely for this to occur should they not accidentally hit him early.

Tl;dr giving scum more control over when they get the masons killed is bad.

1) If they do this, we have two innocent childs in the late game. I fail to see a problem here.

2) Sure, but they only want to kill masons in the late-game if they're confirmed town. If there's no mason claims right now, then they won't reach conf-town status because one is guaranteed to die tonight in that scenario to prevent claims resulting in TWO confirmed town.

Cooldog - don't go full retard. If a partner verifies DCL's claim, we're not lynching him. Sure, there remains the possibility that DCL and partner are BOTH scum, but that is unlikely and would become apparent in time if no kills on them went through.

[Rob14]

Makes it easier for scum to try to weed out other power roles early.

This is probably the better argument for not revealing. Removing masons from the potential suspect pool increases their chances of hitting a PR at night if they choose not to go after masons.

Good call.

It turns the masons into a power role, though. Innocent childs are a power role - a strong one at that.

[Rob14]

Bah, my reads are like flipped over on themselves. Gonna just give reads. People - ask me to explain if you care about a particular read and I can. Got it all in my notes somewhere.

Town:
Nhammen
DCL
JMO
TMT (yates call-out was good)
ThAd
Gorc
BROseiden (this one is a bit weak)

Null:
guru guru
DBK

Scum:
Radiant
CoolDog
Yates

(Yeah, I just ripped off hammen's list, basically. I've been trying to deny that Cool Dog is scummy for awhile because he's agreeing with me on this mason thing, but his tunnel on DCL specifically is worrying me more and more. And that Yates callout from TMT was very, very good. The contradiction separated by only 13 posts is concerning. Definitely most sure of Radiant.)

[Rob14]

Reasons that are not difficult to deduce based on current info. I would think you'd be more interested in my CoolDog read.

On another note, I withdraw my support for the mason-partner revealing himself. CoolDog wants it, and he's scum, so that's reason enough for me not to.

[Rob14]

^ Why am I not in that list if you're going after those who supported a partner-reveal?

[Rob14]

No, I blatantly pushed it until like a page ago.

[Rob14]

You called TMT very scummy several times. Why are you not willing to lynch him?

[Rob14]

Also, what specifically did you find scummy in TMT's wall? You quoted the whole thing and said it made you check his ISO. Why? Be specific.

[Rob14]

TBK - you seem to think that focusing on your own wagon is a scumtell. Why are you not all over Radiant based on that? I mean, he's done nothing but opportunistic voting and focusing on his own wagon.

[Rob14]

^^^ More votes, please.

[Rob14]

That's L-1, if my counting abilities have not failed me.

[Rob14]

That role makes no sense.

First off, I know that it is all normal from past experience. Commuters are a normal role.

Second, think about balance. A commuter shot would be put in to limit kills. A vig shot would be put in to increase kills. These are two opposite goals. In order to put this role into a setup, you would need to balance the entire setup around it - it would not help to balance anything. I'm thinking especially about the compulsive modifier. The only reason to tack on compulsive is to force the vig shot to be used. The goal of doing this is to weaken town power by removing the choice of whether or not to use the shot. BUT, if you seriously wanted to weaken town power, then you would never put the compulsive vig shot into a JOAT. It's very likely that the shot would never be used due to, well, exactly this. It would be much better to just remove the compulsive vig shot and take off an ability from the JOAT, making it just a 1-shot role, or reduce town power elsewhere.

This claim is not a role that would fly through a review process.

[Rob14]

What led you to the conclusion that Radiant is town? I want a SINGLE thing that makes him seem even the SLIGHTEST like town.

P-edit: Yeah, that.

[Rob14]

unvote

You know what, scum don't get extra kills. Radiant will have a chance to prove that she is who she says she is. I don't believe he, but two kills would prove that she isn't mafia.

Unvote

This is smart. It likely means I'll die if Radiant is town, but that's not an awful trade for a confirmed townie, especially considering a few people are reading me as scum already and I'll probably be lynched eventually.

So Radiant uses her vig power Night 1. If a second kill doesn't occur, Radiant dies the next day.

Vote: Cooldog

Tunnel on a mason that could be confirmed by investigation and give us a second confirmed townie (potentially). Ain't no reason for that.

On another note, I would like to ask the moderator to force-replace Radiant. If Radiant is town, he's obviously acting against his win condition by self-voting, etc. If Radiant is scum, the early (and multiple) self-votes are against win-con, as is such an outlandish fake-claim. Radiant has come out and said multiple times that they no longer wish to be in this game. At this point, the only way they're playing to their wincon is if they're a Jester.

[Rob14]

radiant feel free to prove your town-ness by shooting dcl

Huh?

>Votes me.
>Radiant claims with a 1-shot vig ability.
>Both Radiant and Rofl have votes on me.
>"Radiant should kill DCL."

Am I missing something here? Radiant should absolutely

not

kill a potential mason that will absolutely give us information in future days (whether they're town OR scum).

[Rob14]

no its a good idea.

and rob, i'm telling him to shoot dcl because you will have already been lynched by then, so he won't have to shoot you. if dcl would go ahead and claim his partner already radiant could instead commute/investigate tonight, inviting the mafia to play a fun wifomy game of "do we try to kill the roll that can opt to self protect"

So, if DCL claims his partner,

you want the confirmable roll of a JOAT with a vig-shot NOT to use their vig-shot to confirm, despite a large portion of the town considering them to be scum.

Makes sense.

Radiant is probably town based on that slip. I still think a force-replace is necessary.

[Rob14]

Note that #333 occurred BEFORE the bread-crumb bit came up, so that is not an appropriate defense or excuse for rofl's stated plan of action in #333.

[Rob14]

EBWOP on #343: role*

[Rob14]

and the current rob read.

Huh? What's even your read on me?

[Rob14]

Radiant, shut the fuck up.

You have played anti-town all game. You have not played to your win-condition, as evident by self-voting and specifically stating you want to be lynched. In order to play Mafia, you need to make a few assumptions. If these assumptions cannot be made, you cannot play the game. The first assumption you HAVE to make in order to successfully play a game of Mafia is that everyone is playing to their win-condition. Scumhunting is all about observing people and determining the motivations behind their actions. How the fuck do you expect people to do that when your motivations are not in line with your actual win condition - or any wincon, for that matter.

Get your arrogant ass off your high horse. Most of the time when mislynches occur, it is partially the fault of those who read the person wrong and partially the fault of the lynched. That is not the case here. The fact that you had a wagon that was run up to L-1 is entirely your fault. Actually, that's not correct. There was one person on your wagon who also held some blame - and it was fucking YOU. Now, play the damn game or replace out.

/rant

[Rob14]

Rofl bringing the lulz.

[Rob14]

Also, 3 reasons why each of the people on that list ARE scum, since you've yet to provide any reasoning for anything.

[Rob14]

Requesting a prod dodge on CoolDog - we need him around to progress further, imo.

[Rob14]

Oh, by the way - I'll be V/LA from 5/27 to 5/28. Moving back to college and getting internet set up.

[Rob14]

DBK is conf-scum if CoolDoG flips scum after that last post.

Whoever had prior intent to hammer probably wants to put CoolDoG at L-1 now, unless something's changed for you. We have a few days left before deadline.

[Rob14]

Rofl - example of me being a "trollish dick"? Because that hasn't happened.

[Rob14]

That sounds like hardcore backing up by Radiant - trying to explain TODAY why there won't be two deaths TOMORROW despite him claiming to have a vig-shot. So let me make this extremely, extremely clear. If there is only one death over Night 1, Radiant is scum and I will vote accordingly. Your role is confirmable, Radiant. All you have to do is use your vig-shot. If you refuse to confirm it, you're scum - plain and simple. If you're town, vig me. It's better in the long-run for town to have a dead me and an alive and confirmed JOAT with commute and investigation that can then confirm DCL by investigation, leading to a total of 3 confirmed townies (including mason-buddy) then to have a live me and no confirmed townies. The only reason you wouldn't kill me is if you can't, which I heavily suspect is the case after that last post.

[Rob14]

That last post by Radiant about cooldog has me thinking cooldog is town because I think Radiant wouldn't talk to a partner like that.

Unvote, vote: roflcoptor

Rofl has been entirely unhelpful since joining. He's refused to provide reasoning for any of his votes or accusations, even when directly asked. He's doing nothing. Radiant's close following of him is also highly suspect.

P-edit: Radiant - what 3 potential PRs? We have a mason and a compulsive JOAT with investigation, commute, and vig (lol so unbelievable). Where was the third that's been outed? Did I miss a claim?

I'm not going to assume there's a roleblocker with no evidence of one. I'll cross that bridge if necessary in the next day, but it's much more likely that the entirely unbelievable role that magically can't confirm and is back-tracking at the end of day trying to give BS reasons for being unable/unwilling to even TAKE the vig shot is lying than a roleblocker and this role exist in the same setup.

Again, your claim is unbelievable. I do not believe it for a second. You have not done anything town-motivated this entire day. The only reason my vote isn't on you now is because a good point was made that we should at least wait to see if you can confirm by two kills occurring in one night. If you can't, I'm not taking any excuses for why you're not scum.

[Rob14]

Now Radiant just isn't making sense. He just postulated I was a roleblocker and Cooldog was my partner, so he removes his vote from me, his assumed roleblocker, to a partner. That makes literally zero sense.

Had not considered an SK, and I do have to think on that more. I think, though, that if you're an SK you would be killed by the mafia (if investigation-immune) or investigated by a town member (if kill-immune). I do not think you're a kill-immune SK due to the way you've been talking recently (i.e. entirely focused on your own potential for death), so if you're an investigation-immune SK, then I'll rely on the mafia killing you in the future. Again, though, I think that you being an SK or a maf member makes infinitely more sense then the absurd claim you came up with. I highly doubt the normal review team would let by a compulsive JOAT with commute, investigation, and vig. There's so much wrong with that role.

The existence of a 1-shot commute in no way suggests no doctor shots in the setup, by the way. If the setup needed protection to balance two scum teams or an SK, 1-shot commute wouldn't do it, likely.

[Rob14]

Now Radiant just isn't making sense. He just postulated I was a roleblocker and Cooldog was my partner, so he removes his vote from me, his assumed roleblocker, to a partner. That makes literally zero sense.

Derp, forgot a sentence.

This suggests to me that he's going for an easy town lynch on cooldog because cooldog is run up to L-1 now, further confirming in my eyes that cooldog is town. ALSO, if Radiant is actually his claimed role and is worried about a roleblocker, why would he REMOVE HIS VOTE from the preson he thinks is the roleblocker? That's not something someone in his position and his claimed role would ever, ever do.

[Rob14]

Also, what's with the big turn around Radiant? You went form not interested in playing and self-voting, to being very involved and actively attempting to push lynches. The only change in between, that I can tell, is that you were wagoned. I postulate that you weren't genuinely bored of the game or throwing in the towel - you were just trying to put on an act to get people to look elsewhere. I don't see how else you would do an entire 180 on your stance towards this game after having some votes applied to you.

[Rob14]

Not going to hammer someone I think is town. I don't like how you moved onto him.

I fully expect to die, whether you're town or scum. As town, you should shoot me to prove your claim. As scum, you should shoot me to silence me and claim that your shot went through, probably saying that a jailkeeper or doc outside of your claim must exist that prevented the scum kill. I've said this all along. I've talked about the tradeoff of losing myself to definitively prove whether you're town or scum right along from the beginning. So where are you getting the stuff about me not expecting to die from your shot? Nowhere.

So the joining of roflcoptor made you suddenly interested in the game? Is that what you meant by that last bit? Cause I don't buy that. I don't think any one person whose alignment you don't even know and who had such a weak entrance into this game (no reasoning for anything he said at the beginning) could cause you to do a 180 on your interest.

[Rob14]

This game is monotonous as are you, so I'm not going to get in a massive argument over this. This is a game of probabilities. The chance of an SK in this setup are relatively low, in my opinion. The chance of two mafia teams are relatively low, in my opinion. Masons alone leads me to think that. If you have two killing roles, town needs to beef up on protective roles and real PR roles, not masons. Masons and two factions or one scum-team and an SK do not go terribly well together. Your claim is also exceedingly unbelievable for many reasons I already highlighted. The chance of your role even being in any mafia game is hugely small.

Actually, fuck it. I don't want to be in a game anymore with you in it. This probably isn't the ideal play, but idgaf anymore.

Vote: Radiant

[Rob14]

He has directly refused to confirm his role before Day 3. I'm not going to wait until then to lynch him when he's claimed a massively improbably role.

> Claim compulsive JOAT with commute, investigate, and vig - the single most outrageous and improbable serious claim I have ever heard.
> Refuse to vig someone that he specifically says is scummy and that he WANTS to vig this person (me) for half-assed reasons, despite this being able to confirm his role.

That's what's happened with this claim so far. Combined, they mean that Radiant is scum. Case closed.

[Rob14]

Radiant and Rofl - what do you think of DCL following that last post? I don't see scum as digging through a mod's meta to determine what roles they're likely to put into a game. Like....ever.

[Rob14]

I still don't know the logic behind why radint would lynch me over rob.

Because he's fake-claiming. No one with his claim and his stated worries about a roleblocker would ever vote that way. Not possible.

[Rob14]

Fine.

If I die because we don't have a doc and you end up town, I'm kicking you really hard in the shins though.

Fuck. You're town, aren't you? I'm doubting that you can play well enough to fake the type of town vibe that I just got off that post.

This is my "death" post, cause I'm (hopefully) not going to make it through the night, assuming Radiant can actually confirm his role. These are my current reads. This is copied from the last time I gave a reads list and I moved a few things around.

Town:
Nhammen
DCL
JMO
TMT (yates call-out was good)
ThAd
Gorc
Hoopla

Null:
Radiant
BROsiedon

Scum:
CoolDog
Yates
roflcopter

With Radiant possibly not scum, my reason for dropping CoolDog as a suspect goes away, moving him back to the scum side of things.

I like to avoid picking out partners and forming dependent reads pre-flip, but considering I'm probably not going to live to Day 2, it's worth saying that if Hoopla or Radiant is scum, the other is probably as well. This is due to the quick turn-around from Radiant when Hoopla told him he NEEDED to confirm his role. These are things previously said by many others in the game, but Radiant did not listen to those. He didn't hesitate to take the advice of Hoopla though. This DOES NOT mean either Radiant or Hoopla is scum by itself - it's possible a town-Radiant was willing to accept town-Hoopla's advice because he had a town read on Hoopla or respected Hoopla's ability in the game. If one flips scum, though, take a hard look at the other.

Roflcopter is doing two things this game.
1) Pissing me off.
2) Oh wait, he's only pissing me off. He's literally done nothing else to contribute to anything. I've seen town-rofl and he's more competent than this.

Yates has dropped off the map. He's laying low. I don't trust it. Early contradictions keep him in my scum list.

Vote: Cooldog

This TMT wagon is not great. TMT has played anti-town in all the ways I would expect noob-town to do so. He has done nothing inherently scummy or that can not be understood when looking at things from the mindset of someone new to the game of Mafia and on the town side of things. The only thing that makes me iffy on TMT is that Cooldog has been kind of weird about him. He started off reading TMT as relatively scummy (never placed a vote, though). He then moved towards saying TMT was a decent vote but not the best. More recently, up against deadline, he has avoided the topic for the most part and hasn't placed a vote, despite considering TMT a decent lynch (in his own words). I see no reason based on Cooldog's read of TMT that a vote should not have been placed, considering this is the last day before deadline. TMT should have been a very valid compromise lynch for Cooldog based on his posting. This is another dependent read - if TMT or Cooldog flips scum, take a hard look at the other one.

If I have to compromise on TMT at deadline tomorrow, I'll do so, but I really don't want to. Cooldog is a much better target and I'm regretting my move off him that helped shift momentum away from that wagon.

[Rob14]

rob... you are more wishy washy than my windshield wipers.

It's Day 1. As I get more info, I'm going to adjust reads and votes. Deal with it.

[Rob14]

You have me in your town pile. You have me above 2 nulls and 3 scum, and yet you're willing to lynch me to appease?

A lynch is always better than no lynch, especially when we can look back and try to glean some connections and motives.

This. Also, TMT should have been in my null pile due to the connection thingy with CoolDoG - I literally copy-pasted my old reads list from a few hundred posts back and then updated a few names that were noteworthy to make that post. Updating TMT was missed.

[Rob14]

If anyone hammers anyone they get shot tonight.

Uh - too bad? Deadline is TODAY. We need a lynch by midnight.

[Rob14]

@Mod - Vote Count, please.

[Rob14]

unvote, vote: yates

it is also not too late for everyone to switch to yates

I'm cool with this if enough support gets behind it.

[Rob14]

Gorc on page 1 was town as fuck. Has he posted since then? If so, I don't remember. Nothing else left a strong impression. The first few pages had him strongly town for me, though.

Radiant, here's the difference between the two of us at the moment. You're tunneling - I'm not. The fact that I'm not tunneling does not mean that I'm scum. It means that my reads are evolving. And yes, the post that largely changed my opinion of you was not that game-related. It did have an undoubtedly town vibe to it, though. Sometimes it isn't what you say, but how you say it. Scum wouldn't have said what you did at that specific time in that specific manner, in my opinion.

I'm lazy when writing reads lists. I copy old ones and then move names around that have changed recently. I don't know why that was worth quoting and facepalming. What do you think is off about that?

@Hoopla - Seriously doubt Yates is the mason. I'm pretty sure I have the second mason pinned down, and it isn't Yates.

Radiant - That's classic end-of-day play. I'm not going to move my vote off a leading wagon for one with very few (one, right?) votes with a few hours to deadline. It wouldn't make any sense to do so. But, if it gains momentum, I'd happily lynch Yates. This is something I stated in my big ol' wall. I said I'd be fine with lynching any of the three on my scum-list. Right now, you're trying to fit evidence to a read, not fit a read to evidence. Sometimes, the square peg isn't meant to go in the circle hole even if you could force it in.

And yes, I'm stating connections between people because I think I'm going to be dead before Day 2. I'm essentially posting my game notes thus far. They're not going to be any use to me from the grave. You should be welcoming this regardless of what you think my alignment is, if you actually have a vig-shot and plan to kill me. If I'm town, you get some bonus perspective and help in the next day from a confirmed townie. If I'm scum, you get to analyze everything I've said for any hints. Regardless of what alignment you think I am, if I'm actually on "death row", so to speak, due to your vig power and several people thinking I'm scum for whatever nonsense reasoning, then you should be encouraging me to be as loud and vocal as possible regardless of what your read on me is.

[Rob14]

@Mod - We're going to need vote counts more than once every 2-3 days as deadlines approach. This is especially annoying because you were in thread last night but elected not to post a VC.

I'll go make an "unofficial" vote count when I have some time in a little bit.

[Rob14]

I disagree with the above post. There was only one person other than myself majorly pushing the DCL claim, and that was CoolDoG. Others supported it early, but petered off before you got to the game, IIRC. Town is not overwhelmingly stupid in this game. There are a few choice people who I think are being dumb, but town hasn't been way below par this game like people such as Radiant and now Hoopla are suggesting. Stop using that logic in a vain attempt to get the town to follow your "superior" logic.

Having said that, it's presumably 3.5 hours to deadline and Yates doesn't have enough votes on him now for me to be comfortable that he'd be hammered by the time people get online. I'm going to go grab a vote count and get back to this in a sec.

[Rob14]

Before I post this unofficial VC, let me preface it by saying it is NOT organized by the order in which people voted. I just looked through ISOs for the last vote and tallied them. Do NOT use this for wagon analysis to the level of detail of "X voted for Y 3rd, so they must be teh scumz!" (which is stupid logic anyway).

Yates:

Radiant, rofl

Cooldog:

ThAd, nhammen, Rob13

TMT:

DCL, jmo, Yates, Hoopla, gorc, BROseidon

DCL:

Cooldog

Not Voting: TMT

------

And now to hammer:

Vote: TMT

The fact that TMT posted a day before deadline when many people had stated that deadline was coming up is a giant red flag, which moves this from being an unsure compromise lynch for me to a slightly less unsure compromise lynch. I'm satisfied with this as a deadline lynch, though.

[Rob14]

Bah.