Mini Normal 1825 - Game Over

[Dierfire]

Hello everyone! It's nice to see some familiar names, and some new friends as well.

I am liking the look of this wagon on gameplay506.

VOTE: gameplay506

Principally this is a Town read on rb more than a Mafia read on gameplay506.
I don't like the entrance from golden009 in 84, as he fails to comment on the wagon, which to me appears to be the most important feature of the game thus far.
I see something somewhat similar by Martha in 71, but this is partially mitigated by 79, 82, and 92.
I don't mind the reactions from pitoli (98) or Naomi-Tan (119), which address the matter directly.

[Dierfire]

Hey Dierfire, is rb someone you've played with before? And if so, are you confident reading them?

I don't recall playing any prior games with rb, and I have no special confidence in my ability to read rb compared to any other player.

[Dierfire]

@pitoli

I don't recall playing any prior games with rb, and I have no special confidence in my ability to read rb compared to any other player.

Okay. What makes him your strongest townread?

I'm working with these posts.

Spoiler: These Posts

VOTE: Ryan

gameplay is good at the game, we're sheeping her now.

Everyone aboard the Ryan train, this is optimal townplay.

See you're right our interaction is scummy, you're wrong about the scum. It was optimal because I think I could have got more than 1 scum to get on your wagon and then we can counter-wagon on scum later in the day. It sounds dumb but it actually works pretty well. Gameplay is the scum you're looking for. You should vote gameplay.

VOTE: gameplay

The sudden switch from the wagon on RyanK to to gameplay506 is confident and aggressive; it's an attempt to break out of RVS and move the game forward. This is a good move that helps Town, and one that Mafia players have relatively low incentive to make at this point in the game. On this basis, I read rb as Town.

[Dierfire]

@gameplay506

I guess you want my thoughts about Dier's vote?
Why I dislike it: It just seems opportunistic and like setting up for whatever situations happens. Meaning that there is a wagon forming on me, he jumps on it. Yet he says " I don't particulary scumread gameplay, I just find him less town compared to rb". How I understand it "if gameplay manages to defend himself and the wagon begins to dissolve I will jump off on the basis of gameplay becoming as equally town as rb". I don't think whether you can understand me because english isn't my primary language but its basically something among those lines.

You are precisely correct about my intentions; I am voting for you less because I find you suspicious than because I am reading rb as Town. I'm not sure why it would be a problem if you demonstrate yourself to be Town and I remove my vote.

@Naomi-Tan

@pitoli

So now Gameplay has spoken I'd like to hear from all those voting for him and how they feel about there vote now.

@Dierfire:

You said you didn't have a strong read on gameplay when you cast your vote. How about now that he's confronted the case/wagon on him?

I feel less good about it than I did previously. In particular, the approach to rb demonstrates some continuity from before the switch that I mentioned above (22, 25, 30, 45), which combined with leaving the vote on RyanK means that gameplay506 isn't changing approaches in response to rb (where I might expect that a Mafia player would feel a need to change something). The analysis of votes on the wagon also sounds reasonable to me.

[Dierfire]

I don't understand the question.

[Dierfire]

Ah, it's a new page.

You are precisely correct about my intentions; I am voting for you less because I find you suspicious than because I am reading rb as Town. I'm not sure why it would be a problem if you demonstrate yourself to be Town and I remove my vote.

Well wtf is that

I don't understand the question.

[Dierfire]

@gameplay506

I've never been good with the town/scum motivation hunting but I am pretty sure there is something lacking here
Like what does your town read on rb have to do with you voting me?
I can't make the connection

If rb is Town, his vote is marginally more likely to be on a Mafia player than if he were Mafia. Also, if rb is Town then all other players are marginally more likely to be Mafia (from 3/12 to 3/11).

[Dierfire]

@golden009

@gameplay506

I've never been good with the town/scum motivation hunting but I am pretty sure there is something lacking here
Like what does your town read on rb have to do with you voting me?
I can't make the connection

If rb is Town, his vote is marginally more likely to be on a Mafia player than if he were Mafia. Also, if rb is Town then all other players are marginally more likely to be Mafia (from 3/12 to 3/11).

So, wait; You don't read gameplay as scum, but you read rb as town, and therefore, gameplay is scummy enough to get you to vote for him?

That's flimsy as hell.

Did I give the impression that I considered this a wonderfully solid reason for a vote?

Moving from RVS to the real game requires an progressive escalation from "no reasons" to "weak reasons" to "good reasons" for votes.

Do you see a better vote for me at present?

[Dierfire]

@gameplay506

more likely he is voting mafia as town*

It's not that he is more likely as Town to vote Mafia than to vote Town; it's that he's more likely to vote Mafia as Town than as Mafia.

[Dierfire]

@pitoli

The sudden switch from the wagon on RyanK to to gameplay506 is confident and aggressive; it's an attempt to break out of RVS and move the game forward. This is a good move that helps Town, and one that Mafia players have relatively low incentive to make at this point in the game. On this basis, I read rb as Town.

Can't confidence and aggression come from scum too? I think that mafia can easily take early positions to earn themselves easy towncred. The end of RVS is something that HAS to happen at some point, and it's not even that hard to make happen, so scum isn't sacrificing a whole lot by hurrying it along. So I understand your flow of logic but don't necessarily agree

Yes, Mafia players could also display confidence and aggression, but I don't mind handing out credit for such things early in the game.

[Dierfire]

I return, briefly.

As a blanket response to those commenting on the reasoning for my vote, I've no objection to the characterization of the reasoning as weak (except perhaps to the extent that they imply that stronger reasons/votes were available).

I suppose that the next question is whether I'm reading any specific reaction to my vote as suspicious.

Since golden009 dodged my question about what stronger vote was available (184), and since I am suspicious of his approach to the initial wagon on gameplay506, I am moving my vote.

UNVOTE: gameplay506
VOTE: golden009

I've no objection to the vote by rb in 214 or Cass in 304. I've specific questions coming for Saru and Martha.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

It's unclear to me why you feel that I, as Town, wouldn't cast that vote for gameplay506. Could you further explain how our previous games have led you to that conclusion?

[Dierfire]

@Martha

I can't explain this posts made by you.

Which parts should I explain better?

Also, it's difficult for me to follow your posts when you post your reactions/responses to post numbers. For the future, could I persuade you to either use quotes or to provide more details about which ideas/players are involved?

[Dierfire]

@Cass

Hm, after a strong start this seems to be stalling a bit. So I will for now
UNVOTE: Gameplay and
VOTE: Dierfire (that's the 4th vote)

You need to participate more and defend yourself.

Also, this could be a scumslip:

Dier fixed quote tag

If rb is Town, his vote is marginally more likely to be on a Mafia player than if he were Mafia. Also, if rb is Town then all other players are marginally more likely to be Mafia (from 3/12 to 3/11).

Wouldn't those numbers be 3/11 vs 3/10? Eh? Or are you not counting yourself as town for some reason?

If you're asking me to "participate more" before 24 hours have passed since my last post, I fear that my activity in this game is destined to disappoint you.
I believe that my numbers are correct. If I am Town and rb is Town, then I'm looking for three Mafia players out of the remaining eleven. If the number were 3/10 then I'd need to have another player as Town--who would that be?

[Dierfire]

Remainder items:

There are a few players with high post counts, but on whom I don't feel that I have a good handle yet (RyanK, pitoli, Naomi-Tan). These will be my priority when I return next.

[Dierfire]

I'm back and catching up now.

[Dierfire]

All right, I'm responding to recent events first, then I'm looking at those players that I mentioned earlier.

@BBT

Hi Dier!

Why are you being wagoned?

Hello!
Players are voting for me because they didn't like my vote (131). It's a similar dynamic to our last game together, I think.

[Dierfire]

@Martha

I return, briefly.

As a blanket response to those commenting on the reasoning for my vote, I've no objection to the characterization of the reasoning as

weak

(except perhaps to the extent that they imply that stronger reasons/votes were available).

I suppose that the next question is whether I'm reading any specific reaction to my vote as suspicious.

Since golden009 dodged my question about what stronger vote was available (184), and since I am suspicious of his approach to the initial wagon on gameplay506, I am moving my vote.

UNVOTE: gameplay506
VOTE: golden009

I've no objection to the vote by rb in 214 or Cass in 304. I've specific questions coming for Saru and Martha.

Can you please explain why our reasonings are weak for voting you?

If you are referring to the use that I've underlined, that is a characterization of my reasoning (or rather, my interpretation of how those voting for me seem to characterize my reasoning) in 131 (and subsequent posts), not the various votes on my wagon.
If you are referring to something else, it's unclear what you're asking me here. It is true that I don't think that any votes on my wagon were particularly strong, but I'm still not convinced that any votes are strong at this stage of the game.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

I'm acknowledging your 412. The only real comment that I have is that you seem to be comparing my entrance there (post 228, 36 hours into the game) to this one here (post 131, 12 hours into the game).

[Dierfire]

Spoiler: @gameplay506 (Not Game-Related)

I'm sorry for your loss.
If you need to take a period of V/LA or replace out of this game, please do so. Some things are more important than this game.

[Dierfire]

Spoiler: @rb (Not Game-Related)

I hope that your grandmother recovers swiftly.

[Dierfire]

I read over RyanK and I've noted a tendency to focus on what I might consider "tells" or "slips" in trying to find Mafia players: rb "trying" to lynch him early (43), Naomi-Tan for mentioning Daytalk (88), rb mentioning the number of Mafia players (90), gameplay being "certain" that rb is Town (308), pitoli for exaggerating the time required to type a post (454). I'd also perhaps add the vote for the absent slot in 296.
There's also evidence that RyanK is focusing on these things to the exclusion of a deeper method of analysis: suddenly realizing in 279 that an argument by rb in 55 was "baseless" after someone else discussed it (to be clear, that's his characterization and not mine).

Based on these things, I'm reading RyanK as Town!
(I see that Expedience was saying similar things in 452, so perhaps this conclusion will not be as surprising as I thought it might)

I think that RyanK is a relatively new player focusing on the game at a basic level, and I feel that if he had drawn Mafia he'd be looking for more motivation-related tells (OMGUS, "defensiveness"). To my recollection, it is rare for a new Mafia player to point out this pattern of "tells" and then act on them (a slightly more common pattern would be to pose them as questions and wait to see how they are received).

---
I am also reading pitoli as Town. The analysis in 223 of my much-discussed vote is a good one, and is consistent with reading and understanding (and more importantly, trying to understand) the thread. It is also preceded by questions that inform the analysis. I'm taking this as evidence that pitoli is developing reads and analysis.

I'll additionally cite asking rb about golden009 (251) and Martha about Naomi-Tan (348). Those are both players on whom pitoli already had reads--this is more evidence of analyzing the expressed reads of others as a way to analyze alignment.

---
I have to go now. I didn't get a chance to finish reading Naomi-Tan (also I just realized that Expedience is Naomi-Tan). That's my next task (returning in 6-10 hours, I think).

[Dierfire]

I read Naomi-Tan and Expedience in ISO, and my read here is some degree of Town.
I read that much-discussed initial post (7) in detail and I'm not sure exactly why it's been discussed so much. The central points that I received were that Naomi-Tan is afraid of being lynched, plays uncertainly, and engages in LAMIST behavior to avoid a lynch. On all of these counts, I trust our collective ability to tell the difference between Town players engaging in those behaviors and Mafia players engaging in those behaviors, and I don't see how this announcement reduces our ability to do so.
She delayed her vote for a long time (presumably related to her "uncertain" style), but when she did cast one in 238 it was preceded by what appears to be a narrowing process; she identified a set of players for analysis (votes on the gameplay506 wagon) in 210 and developed opinions between there and 236 before settling on Martha. Also, although I was initially suspicious of the noncommittal presentation of 210, the decision to cast a vote on the

smallest

of those wagons is inconsistent with the usual reasons for a Mafia player to be noncommittal there (to identify easy lynches).
I acknowledge the point that BBT made in 383, however I find it likely that Naomi-Tan is in general sensitive to how other players are reading her (consistent with the opening post and with some of her responses to rb and me, among others).
Expedience enters the game and expresses suspicion of pitoli (448) for possibly knowing that I am Town (predicated on me actually being Town despite the stated Null read, but possibly consistent with the "gut read" nature of the suspicion). I see that there are pending questions for Martha to accompany the vote in 509, so I'll refrain from commenting except to say that I don't find anything suspicious about it.

[Dierfire]

@gameplay506

@Dier I don't get how the things at 485 make ryan town

This is the relevant piece, I think:

I think that RyanK is a relatively new player focusing on the game at a basic level, and I feel that if he had drawn Mafia he'd be looking for more motivation-related tells (OMGUS,

"defensiveness"

). To my recollection, it is rare for a new Mafia player to point out this pattern of "tells" and then act on them (a slightly more common pattern would be to pose them as questions and wait to see how they are received).

The high number of rapid switches in votes recently do look a bit more like the "see how they are received" thing that I mentioned, but overall my thought was that RyanK was pursuing angles that are uncommon for Newbie Mafia players to pursue (one mentioned example, expressing suspicion of Naomi-Tan in 88 for mentioning Daytalk, works well as an illustration of what I mean--I would expect a Mafia player to actually check how Naomi-Tan knew this information before making the vote).

(As an aside, I see that more recently RyanK is coming in with an accusation of "defensiveness" against rb, which...well, I'll refer to the underlined section in my post quoted above and note that this moves my read back a bit)

[Dierfire]

@RyanK

It seems as though you are focusing on individual posts every time you cast a vote. Your vote is on rb now. Could you provide me with a more comprehensive picture of your read on rb? Taking all posts into consideration, do you think that rb is Town or Mafia?

[Dierfire]

@golden009

10) golden009- better than before meaning null at best null at worst ( honestly I just skipped your posts sorry)

np

I'm surprised to hear you not have an objection to a player not reading your posts! What is your read on gameplay506 currently? (I guess that actually "currently" means "when you finish reading" as long as you come back to this)

[Dierfire]

I'm on the road again tomorrow, so I'll be posting sparsely in the next 24 hours or so. It might also be helpful to cut the posting rate in general for a bit so that a few of our less active players can catch up more easily. Currently I don't feel that I have many questions to ask; rather, the most helpful thing for me to read most players would be to get updated opinions.

EDIT:

@RyanK

That's not a comprehensive picture of your read on rb! Which posts

are

indicative of alignment, and how do you interpret them?

[Dierfire]

All right, sorry to be absent, I'm here and catching up now.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

Dier has yet to respond to what I said about him in 507 (I'm assuming he missed it) and I still don't like his opening post because of the reasons listed there. Going to keep my vote here for now.

I thought that I'd already responded to most everything that needed a response.
I'll restate: my initial vote (131) was for weak reasons, and I've acknowledged this. Your theory, as I understand it, seems to be that I should have had a strong reason for a vote. My contention is that I didn't see any strong reasons for my vote (that is, I didn't see anything that was powerfully indicative of alignment on which to base my vote).
If you disagree, then could you explain what strong reason you were expecting from me at that stage of the game?
If you think that something else is missing, then could you explain what else should I clarify for you?

[Dierfire]

@RyanK

...
@Ryan: is there a tactic behind the way you play, or are you just lazy? Do you plan to keep up this style for the entire game?
...

The style won't be kept by day 2.

I've a request: could it also not be kept up for the rest of D1?
More specifically: it's difficult for me to understand why you are moving your votes and how you are reading other players. You cast your most recent vote for gameplay506 in 750, quoting 22 as a reason. I've some problems with this! If 22 is tremendously indicative that gameplay506 is Mafia, then why has your vote not been on gameplay506 since then?
I've asked this before (663) but without success, so I'd like to ask again: could you give me a more complete analysis of the player for whom you are voting? Currently that is gameplay506 but I don't care if you change your vote as long as you are able to do this for whichever player gets your vote?

[Dierfire]

@Glitch

I've some questions for you regarding 745.

Martha says being jumpy with votes is sus, which I gotta disagree with. Votes are a tool, applying them properly whenever and wherever they’re needed is a useful and acceptable strategy. Ryan’s questions about sheeping, jumping onto vote Martha, followed by his response to Martha’s accusation that he sheeped when he voted for her are giving me a bit of a town read on Ryan. His defenses are pretty collected and simple, he’s not overreacting. I like what I see on him, and even though I didn’t agree with Martha about jumping votes it didn’t really give me a scum read on her.

---SNIP---

So, that said, RyanK. I feel like my read on him is an area of growth for me as I learn more about how to play well.

His play style, lack of logic, and seemingly stupid arguments/votes/actions are all making me want to vote him

. Yet I’ve seen multiple times where people have said that it’s stupid to vote Ryan because of lack of logic or because he has a bad play style. (602, 635.) Can y’all help me understand this?

If I think about why that may be the case, bad play style could be the case with scum or town, so it shouldn’t be a determiner in lynches. Likewise, illogical argumentation could be on both sides, so it should not be a determiner either. I struggle with that though because scum necessarily has to create fallacious arguments arguing against those they know for a fact are innocent. So I’m just struggling with that. Am I missing something?

Besides playstle, communication, logic, arguments made, associations, and just plain gut feeling which isn’t reliable, what are you supposed to look for that I am not getting?

Cause Ryan just doesn’t sit well with me but the pressure seems to be coming off of him in the mid 600s.

My problem is that I'm not seeing why you're characterizing the underlined as different from the play at the time that you were reading RyanK as Town. I think that the part before the snip is referring to RyanK voting for Martha in 544, so if you were reading RyanK as Town then despite "jumpy" votes before that, why do the votes after that give you pause?

[Dierfire]

@golden009

Whoever is scum is doing a decent enough job at this point. I'm going to start from scratch and re-read this game.

I might also do that.

Did you do this? What did you find? I see your quote below:

@golden009

10) golden009- better than before meaning null at best null at worst ( honestly I just skipped your posts sorry)

np

I'm surprised to hear you not have an objection to a player not reading your posts! What is your read on gameplay506 currently? (I guess that actually "currently" means "when you finish reading" as long as you come back to this)

I have him as pretty null right now; I disliked his pre-wagon posts, but have mostly been fine with his post-wagon posts.

However, this lacks the details that I was expecting to see from you after you read again from scratch.

[Dierfire]

I don't especially want to get involved in this argument between rb and gameplay506. I don't find the arguments compelling. If I were forced to choose between the two, I'd be voting for gameplay506, because I'm reading rb as Town whereas gameplay506 is in the Null range.

Mostly I'd like to hear from the players that have been inactive.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

You asked me in 930 why I didn't feel a need to "go into an analytical read" before I placed my vote on gameplay506. I still feel as though we're not having the same conversation here. My vote in 131 was the best vote that I felt that I could make at the time. If I thought that there were more things to analyze that would provide a better vote, then I would have analyzed them and made a better vote!
Put another way: if you think that the posts up through 130 are such a fertile ground for analysis, then tell me what I'm missing. If you agree with me that those first 130 posts are not tremendously informative, then I don't understand your problem with my vote.
You asked me for an updated read on gameplay506. I will work on that immediately.

@pitoli

Dierfire what's up with you? Your vote has been on golden for awhile now, does that read still stand?

I was under the impression that new content from golden009 would be imminently forthcoming (653). My thought was that it would be a good idea to recheck my read after the new content arrived, for which reason I've prompted golden009 for that content multiple times. None has yet emerged. I'm working on reading gameplay506 now as requested by Saru, and my initial skim shows that we've seen slightly more activity from Glitch and Chuck since I was here last (although Glitch appears not to have responded to my 894, which is annoying) , so I'll get through those players in ISO as well and see whether I want to change my vote.

[Dierfire]

As promised, here is my review of gameplay506.
I think that the main lines of analysis that gameplay506 has offered are cases on rb (perhaps best encapsulated in 840) and RyanK (distributed throughout numerous posts, but I'll treat 762 as fairly representative). Secondarily, he has expressed that he is reading Saru, Expedience, and pitoli as Town (1016).

I'll look at the RyanK case first. The essence of this case is theoretically sound; Mafia players would love to be able to play as RyanK is (no contiguous thought process, no meaningful effort to actually solve the game beyond single post quotes at a time) if they could do so without being lynched. This bothers me as well, which is why I've been trying to push RyanK away from the current style in favor of one that offers more comprehensive reads that can be analyzed for motivation in greater depth. My read is still that the specific single-post quotes and things that RyanK seems to feel indicate alignment are more likely to come from Town, but it is a feature of that style that my read will be unable to progress on RyanK while it lasts, and it's not implausible to me that a Town player would find that sufficient cause to vote for RyanK--particularly after prompting RyanK for more substantive reads multiple times without success, as gameplay506 has done (736, 770, 780, 1050).
If gameplay506 is Mafia, this line of attack would most resemble a Mafia player targeting a Town player playing weakly, such that I would not expect RyanK and gameplay506 to both be Mafia.

The case on rb is not one that moves me. Many items involve associations between RyanK and rb. I feel that the awkward reactions by RyanK to rb early in the game (51, 60) that are cited are far more plausible if RyanK is Mafia and rb is Town than if they are both Mafia (RyanK seems eager to flatter rb, which doesn't seem an obvious interaction between Mafia players). Another item is that rb is taking things out of context or applying ideas inconsistently (claiming to be a likely N1 kill but wanting to explain things D2, reading me as Town now despite having a negative reaction to my first vote). I don't find these items very persuasive, and certainly not persuasive enough to override my reasons for reading rb as Town (initially this was for the way that rb helped move the game out of RVS, but I think that stronger evidence would be the way that rb shows evidence of reading the game over again starting in 659 with some read progression). While I don't agree with the case on rb, I don't feel that anything about it makes gameplay506 likely to be Mafia; it is certainly plausible to me that a Town player, particularly one focused on RyanK, would see rb reading RyanK as Town and gameplay506 as Mafia as a sign of a chainsaw defense.

As a last note, the Town reads are not greatly detailed but they are mostly consistent. I agree that pitoli is showing evidence of trying to read players, and that Naomi-Tan (now Expedience) seemed to exhibit a Town mindset when actually dealing with the game (and that opening post was NAI). The read on Saru wasn't detailed, so I'll ask about it in a separate post.

Overall, both of the major cases are unpersuasive but do not show any clear evidence that gameplay506 is not trying to read other players. They could easily come from a Town player, but do not seem particularly difficult for a Mafia player to feign. I've no objection to the reads on pitoli and Expedience. Barring something terrible in the Saru read, gameplay506 remains a Null read to me.

[Dierfire]

@gameplay506

You said that you were reading Saru as Town (1016). Why?

[Dierfire]

Now for Chuck and Glitch:

It looks as though Glitch is promising content soon.

No, I can't. I told you I will do that tonight.

I'd

like

to wait for that to materialize and then go for a more comprehensive read. If nothing has appeared by tomorrow then I'll work with what we have.

The bulk of the Chuck ISO is that Expedience (formerly Naomi-Tan) is Mafia. I believe that I've already stated why I don't believe so and why I'm reading that slot as Town instead. I've no objection to Chuck reading rb as Town (951). I'd like to hear the reasoning for reading gameplay506 as Town, and I'll be watching for an interpretation of Saru's posting since that seems to be a recent line of questioning.

[Dierfire]

@Chuck

You are reading gameplay506 as Town (945). Why?

[Dierfire]

@Saru

My point is: why no analysis on gameplay specifically before the vote? Your reasoning was just "X is town therefore Y is more likely to be scum" which doesn't come off as analyzing but just providing some convoluted statistical reasoning. I think the first 130 posts were more than informative and were more than fertile ground for analysis(which again, seems to be your strong point), at-least enough for you to either give a more compelling reason to vote

or to hold off from voting altogether

. Do you usually find yourself analyzing situations before a starter vote or is this a misread on your style of play? I'm mostly drawing from my own experience with you, so more insight into your thought process in that regard would be helpful.

It might be that the underlined section is the source of our difficulty. My philosophy (and the basis of the RVS) is that a vote for weak reasons, or no reasons, is better than no vote; that is, I would happily have cast a vote for even

weaker

reasons than what I gave if I couldn't find anything more worthwhile. As I was able to read rb as Town with some degree of confidence, I made that the basis of my vote.
Your description of my style appears to be based on Mini 1800; I had a late entrance in that game such that we had significant game-advancing content by the time that I arrived. My initial vote in that game is more typical of my "third vote" in a game that starts in RVS. My entrance in Mini 1817 is a more typical pattern for my "first vote" and the one is this game is more like a "second vote" pattern (compare to my second vote in Mini 1817; compare all three to votes in previous games--one good example in which I actually got all three votes in during the same game is Newbie 1712).

[Dierfire]

@Glitch

ffs someone tell me why I am so bad, I've asked at least two or three times.

These aren't all my arguments, but I do agree with them to various degrees.

1. Someone (Saru?) pointed out that your question to Chuck in 400 (and your read in 399) don't really match your stated suspicion of Naomi-Tan. You both expressed suspicion of her, so it was unclear why you felt that Chuck was suspicious given his focus on Naomi-Tan. It's the sort of thing that comes up when a Mafia player is cooperating with a partner while trying to create distance.

2. Despite you answer in 1060, I'm still not seeing evidence that RyanK was playing differently between 542 and 646, but in your chronological review of the game in 745 you seemed to be reading RyanK as Town during the former and Mafia during the latter (giving the impression that your read on him was a reaction to something other than his play).

3. In response to questioning from rb, you appear to have changed your approach to RyanK (underlining is mine).

I know the general consensus has shifted away from Ryan here, but it's too much to ignore in my mind that

his playstyle conveniently shifted to being a bit more on the serious side once the pressure became real and not just a vote or two

. When he got to around four or five he started contributing some more serious content but still in small nuggets peppered with his normal illogicality.

RyanK, I'm not really interested in waiting until tomorrow to figure out why you're playing the way you are, and it's odd to me that that's gone unchallenged when you said you would explain in Day 2.

What's up with the more serious tone in the second part of the day so far? Why the change? And why can't you explain now?

@rb my questions for Ryan weren't implying that it's scummy to change play style. I asked him why he did. If I thought it was scummy I would have used it as an argument to support my current vote on him and encourage a lynch.

It seems to me that you did use that as an argument (underlined section in first quote), so it looks suspicious that when challenged on it by rb you seem to back off of the claim.

Lastly, I'm a bit confused about your vote for Martha in 1059. At least some of it seems to be a reaction to her vote on golden009 (cast in 716, since moved). Are you able to explain what makes her vote worse than mine (ongoing since 334)?

[Dierfire]

Ugh, sorry, I had a busy few days. I'm back and reading now.

[Dierfire]

@rb

Dierfire what do you think of Martha's vote on Expedience?

It feels thoughtless to me. The stated theory is that RyanK is Mafia and Expedience is Mafia for defending RyanK. In addition to not agreeing with that read on RyanK, I'm not sure why, out of multiple players defending RyanK (numerically impossible to all be Mafia), Expedience is chosen as a partner.
However, the theory is at least partially consistent; Martha's votes have been bouncing around RyanK and those defending RyanK for some time (and have continued to do so since then).
Despite my concern over the quality of the vote, the pattern (voting for RyanK and those defending RyanK) makes me feel a bit better about Martha (for what that's worth).

@Saru

Did I understand that correctly?

You seem to be understanding what I'm saying, yes.

[Dierfire]

I was hoping to have more from both golden009 and Glitch. With the deadline approaching, I am moving my vote to the more useful wagon; however, I remain suspicious of golden009.

UNVOTE: golden009
VOTE: Glitch

By my count, this brings Glitch to L-2.

[Dierfire]

Ugh, no Null votes allowed?

Ryan -- Town
Martha -- Town
gameplay506 -- Mafia

[Dierfire]

@BBT

My recollection is that Cass wanted to lynch RyanK, which seems to be a minority position (at least implicitly by the fact that RyanK has not yet been lynched).

After a quick review, I also think that Cass is reading gameplay506 as Town more strongly than rb, but the overall consensus seems to be that rb is Town and no such consensus on gameplay506 has developed that I can see.

I suppose that, less literally, the question is whether those stances are "safe stances" taken to avoid attracting attention.
For the first one, I'm not going to be able to interpret many votes on the RyanK wagon; his style of play easily draws legitimate scrutiny, which means that it also easily draws low-cost simulations of legitimate scrutiny. I don't see anything from Cass that makes me suspicious here.
The second one is also similar; it's an easy place for a Mafia player to appear reasonable and level-headed by appealing for a decrease in temperature, but there's no reason that a Town player wouldn't also want to reduce the temperature.

EDIT: I also agree with what Cass says about the early stage of the game being a fairly good time to give wagons some momentum.

[Dierfire]

@BBT

I could name three players vocally reading RyanK as Town: rb, Expedience, and me. Again, I don't know that this is the majority position, but if it's a minority then it's a vocal one.
No, gameplay506 is not under immediate threat of being lynched, but this is not a consensus read. I believe that rb expressed a fairly strong read there (Mafia), and I've no clear idea how RyanK feels currently but he had a vote there as recently as the VC in 1157.
So, Cass is expressing at least two reads that are not unchallenged (which seems the more important feature than the majority/minority feature in distinguishing Mafia intent--or at least, I don't feel confident that I can pick out Mafia intent using majority/minority opinions).

[Dierfire]

@All @Mod

I've got some pretty bad leaking/flooding going on in my apartment right now. I'm hoping to get it cleared up by Monday, but

I'm going to have LA until it's resolved. If it's not resolved by Monday I'll request replacement.

[Dierfire]

@All @Mod

I'm pleased to report that things are looking up and I don't need to request replacement. I'm working on catching up tonight.

[Dierfire]

Spoiler: @Chuck, Not Game-Related

@All @Mod

I've got some pretty bad leaking/flooding going on in my apartment right now. I'm hoping to get it cleared up by Monday, but

I'm going to have LA until it's resolved. If it's not resolved by Monday I'll request replacement.

Sorry to hear. Hope everything is well with you, and that your stuff isn't very water damaged. =\

Thanks! Things are surprisingly good given how it first looked.

[Dierfire]

I've caught up.

I'm still reading as Town: pitoli, Expedience, rb, and RyanK.

The most recent VC indicates that we've some votes for the golden009 slot; I'll be joining that wagon.

VOTE: golden009

To review: I thought that golden009 was avoiding comment on the gameplay506 wagon (97 works, also note that in 140 he indicated that he was preparing to vote there, but never really addressed why or updated that read even when prompted in 685). In some interactions it looked as though golden009 was not really caring about reading other players (140 indicates intent to vote gameplay506 after gameplay506 returns and responds, seemingly without regard to what that response is; RyanK is apparently doing unacceptable things in 1019 but golden009 doesn't try to sort how RyanK plays as Town or Mafia). Furthermore, golden009 promises content that is never delivered (full list of reads in 377, reread in 653). It also doesn't help that golden009 cast votes exclusively on players I know or suspect to be Town.

[Dierfire]

I think that that's it from me tonight, but I'm promising to return with more focused reads on the remaining players within 24 hours.

Some small things that will help me with that:

@Saru

Would you like to cast a vote?

@Cass

@pitoli: he already claimed vt, didn't you read?? FoS: Pitoli

Why did this make you so suspicious of pitoli?

@Chuck

I agreed with your thought in 1364 that the "claim duel" looked unlikely from a Mafia player given that Glitch flipped Town, so I was surprised that you reconsidered in 1470. Why would Expedience do that as Mafia?

[Dierfire]

@Cass

This is hard to believe, because the post right above

[this]

was Martha repeatedly using the word VT and asking

[Glitch]

for reads before he's get lynched.) Made

[pitoli]

sound like scum eager and happy to hammer a townie.

(I tried to fix some things for clarity, let me know if this is not correct)

The phrasing "hard to believe" makes it sound as though you think that pitoli really had seen the claim, but it's unclear to me why she would, having seen the claim and filled with eagerness to drop a hammer, ask for a claim again rather than just dropping the hammer. Did I miss something?

[Dierfire]

@Saru

A few things about your 1568:
I didn't see anything in your argument with rb that required my comment. Mostly it just looked like insults being traded. Since you mentioned it, I went and read it over again. I'd say that some of the problem seems to be a misunderstanding of what rb was saying about you. Maybe the quote below will be helpful?

Are Saru's walls good enough to make him not lurkerscum? Because if Saru is not lurkerscum, he's town.

My understanding was that rb essentially considered this question ("is this a lurking Mafia player") about both of us, and was confident answering "no" for me but less confident answering for you. You appear to have taken issue with this, making the point that my post count is higher than yours in part because I post sequentially--which is true but not really important here (there's a difference between "lurking Mafia player" and "player with a low post count" and so you essentially seem to be questioning why rb is more confident in one read than other).

You also said that the following things are suspicious:

• that I'm still reading rb as Town (or were you unaware that I was reading rb as Town D1?)--to which I'd respond that I don't feel that rb has done anything D2 that warrants changing that read
  
• that I voted for the largest wagon--to which I'd respond that I was suspicious of golden009 D1 and I don't see why having more votes there should make me change my read
  
• that my vote was based on D1 reasons--to which I'd respond that golden009 hasn't given me any D2 updates! (or was the point that you felt that something else D2 was highly deserving of a vote? I'd respond to that by wondering what that thing was and why you didn't point it out earlier)
  
• that I was "throwing shade" at you--to which I'd respond that asking you for a vote is a pretty reasonable request when I'm trying to read you, and doesn't really hold water as an example of "throwing shade" (I will state very clearly when I am suspicious of another player)

[Dierfire]

@BBT

I just realised that my reasons for town reading gameplay were super weak and I'm not sure why that was such a strong read. I know I liked his defence against the early case on him but the case was shit and would have been easy to defend against if he were scum anyway. Haven't seen much from him over the last few pages I have read and as such my town read has gone.

I want to create a town block and work from there.

If myself, gameplay, Pitoli and Expedience could all get on the same page that would be fantastic.

What changed your opinion of gameplay506?

[Dierfire]

@BBT

Dier, can you tell me who you think is scum and why please?

I gave thoughts on golden009 in 1557.
I'm working on reading other players, but I will compile responses to my questions as they come in and get back to you on the rest.
Speaking of pending questions, I read over you in ISO and found that you didn't explain many of your reads, which is why I'm asking you about one that surprised me.

What changed your opinion of gameplay506?

[Dierfire]

@House

(one mentioned example, expressing suspicion of Naomi-Tan in 88 for mentioning Daytalk, works well as an illustration of what I mean--I would expect a Mafia player to actually check how Naomi-Tan knew this information before making the vote).

Why would a newbie mafia ask town how they knew the information when they already know that town can't know it except by the op since that player is not scum?

Experienced scum might be more likely to ask, in order to cover their own ass, but newbscum are more prone to tripping up on their own knowledge.

That's my point precisely! I am saying that RyanK asking Naomi-Tan how she knew about the number of Mafia players makes RyanK unlikely to be Mafia, because if RyanK were Mafia he would first go looking to answer that question himself.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

You'd asked about my updated read on rb since the very early game. Did you miss this, or did you want me to elaborate (or both)?

(initially this was for the way that rb helped move the game out of RVS, but I think that stronger evidence would be the way that rb shows evidence of reading the game over again starting in 659 with some read progression)

The short version is that in 659 (and onward), rb makes a visible attempt to read over things again, and adjusts reads in a manner that I found to be consistent with taking a fresh look to sort alignments.

You'd also asked whether it bothered me to see votes accumulating on golden009 (now MathBlade). It didn't! I've previously encountered this line of thought, but in general I feel good when other players want to vote the same player that I do.

Finally, you'd asked for my read on you. I'm working on that right now.

[Dierfire]

So, I'm reading Saru in ISO.

The defining feature of Saru's game, for me, is his persistent suspicion of me. The initial vote for me in 189 on the basis that my early vote was weaker than my votes in previous games was fairly thoughtless. We argued for a long time before I was able to communicate what was going on. I thought that we were finally on the same page in 1158, but by 1465 I'm back in the lynch pool, apparently for being difficult to figure out. In 1568 Saru is inordinately suspicious of my 1557--although some of this is attributable to the usual misunderstandings, the accusation that my read on rb is a result of rb reading me as Town during their recent argument (having spent a good portion of the game focused on my entrance and the read on rb as Town within), reads to me like an attempt to fake suspicion.

Saru expresses suspicion of golden009 for following his vote on me. Given that Saru was recently thinking that I should have liked my vote less when more players joined it, it's possible that this represents the theoretical way that Saru approaches the game.

Obviously I disagree with the suspicion of RyanK, but as I've elaborated at length, I think that it's reasonable for a Town player to be suspicious of RyanK, so I can't say that it makes Saru especially likely to be Mafia.

When rb mentions Saru (1514 says that Saru is either Town or lurking Mafia), Saru calls this a contradiction. This is also a fairly bad line of reasoning, for reasons that have been elaborated already (rb had other reasons to read me as Town, my activity was appreciably higher than Saru's even when taking into account the fact that Saru makes larger single posts while I make multiple shorter posts, rb didn't say that Saru was lurking Mafia), but seems to have cleared up since.

Overall, I've been disagreeing with most everything of consequence that Saru has said (although this is easy as most of his attention has fallen on me and rb, whom I'm reading as Town). In attempting to distinguish the source of disagreement, I'm unable to find strong evidence that Saru's posts are coming from a Mafia perspective. With just a hint of an exaggerated suspicion in 1568, this read is slightly to the Mafia side of Null.

Updating my read on MathBlade is my next task tonight.

[Dierfire]

@MathBlade

Based on this vote count and the vote count on me Expedience and Saru likely scum possibly with Blue Blooded Toffee. This lynch happened way too fast especially since I know I am town.

Was the logic here that, with you and Glitch voting for Martha, there should also have been Mafia players voting there as well? What do you make of the VC in 550 if that's the case? Martha had partially hinted at her role in 578.

Actually, I still want an answer, but something else occurs to me.

UNVOTE: MathBlade

[Dierfire]

@Chuck

I think that you may have missed some of my questions to you:

@Chuck

You are reading gameplay506 as Town (945). Why?

@Chuck

I agreed with your thought in 1364 that the "claim duel" looked unlikely from a Mafia player given that Glitch flipped Town, so I was surprised that you reconsidered in 1470. Why would Expedience do that as Mafia?

Also, I noticed that I'd missed some of your questions to me--my apologies!

Saru, Dierfire, pitoli, and Cass, what do you think about:

1. MathBlade?
2. rb vs. BBT?
3. Expedience?

1. I want to discuss things more with MathBlade, but I suspect that I will end up reading her as Town for reasons that I will discuss afterward.
2. I'm still reading rb as Town. Nothing that BBT said made me especially suspicious, but I don't like that he's not answering my questions or explaining reads. So, if I were to choose one to lynch, it would be BBT.
3. I'm still reading Expedience as Town. I read your 1470 but am unconvinced. Among other things: if Expedience is Mafia and killed Martha so as to set up RyanK to be lynched, why does Expedience never vote for RyanK, or claim to be suspicious of RyanK? It seems strange to me that a Mafia player would create a plan of this specificity (set up RyanK, specifically) but leave the detail work to Town. In fact, I'm not sure that RyanK received a single vote this phase.

[Dierfire]

@House

I don't like that he's not answering my questions or explaining reads.

So?

I have experience with town!BBT doing exactly that, and I do as well.

Not that I have any particular feels for BBT, but when somebody starts badmouthing a playstyle that I share as scummy when I do the same exact things as town too, I'm going to speak up about it because condemning somebody because you don't like their playstyle is facile.

I'm not understanding this question. Perhaps it would help if I offered some clarification. First, this "style" makes it more difficult for me to read BBT, so I don't think that it's accurate to characterize my position as "condemning him because I don't like his style" here. The reason that I don't like his style is because it makes it difficult for me to assess his alignment; the reason that I'd prefer lynching him over rb is that I'm reading rb as Town and can more easily base that read on concrete things. As an additional illustration of the difference, I also don't like the "style" that RyanK was using, but I have some concrete reasons to read RyanK as Town.

@House

(one mentioned example, expressing suspicion of Naomi-Tan in 88 for mentioning Daytalk, works well as an illustration of what I mean--I would expect a Mafia player to actually check how Naomi-Tan knew this information before making the vote).

Why would a newbie mafia ask town how they knew the information when they already know that town can't know it except by the op since that player is not scum?

Experienced scum might be more likely to ask, in order to cover their own ass, but newbscum are more prone to tripping up on their own knowledge.

That's my point precisely! I am saying that RyanK asking Naomi-Tan how she knew about the number of Mafia players makes RyanK unlikely to be Mafia, because if RyanK were Mafia he would first go looking to answer that question himself.

Number of mafia players? That interaction was in regards to daytalk if I read it correctly. Where was the discussion about the number of mafia?

You're correct, my apologies! I had confused 88, in which RyanK questions Naomi-Tan about Daytalk, with 90, in which RyanK questions rb about the total number of Mafia players. In any case, the analysis is the same. I think that RyanK, as Mafia, would be more likely to go find out how Town players knew these things first before asking questions.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

You'd asked me whether I thought that my vote on golden009 was necessary answers to my questions from a replacement (MathBlade). No, my vote was not cast for the purpose of having MathBlade answer my questions to golden009 (in fact, I didn't have many specific questions for golden009--I was most interested in hearing updated opinions, which a replacement would tend to provide without prompting). I also didn't need a response--from golden009 or MathBlade--to my accusations.
You'd also asked me why I believed that you were accusing me of reading rb as Town because rb was reading me as Town. I was interpreting this quote to indicate such an accusation (underlining is mine):

Throwing shade at me and

putting rb in your town reads

without even addressing our argument

makes me feel like you know you have his favor, and that you're trying to keep it

. It wouldn't do coasting scum any good to get into direct confrontation with one of the more aggressive players in the game who also happens to be the player who's universally TR.

If this was not an accusation that I was reading rb as Town because he was reading me as Town, then what was it?

I want to discuss things more with MathBlade, but I suspect that I will end up reading her as Town for reasons that I will discuss afterward.

How about you discuss them right now? Since when did town!Dierfire hide reasoning like this? This pings me hard.

Here is my line of reasoning. Martha had hinted at having a role in 578, and the Mafia players were evidently aware of this (as they killed her N1). In 614 golden009 casts a vote for Martha (vote was on me before that). This is after the wagon on Martha largely dissolved, so why is golden009 moving his vote? He didn't have much of a chance of lynching Martha. He didn't need to move his vote to have it parked on someone who wouldn't have been lynched (the existing vote on me would have fulfilled that purpose). He didn't really need to worry that a vote on me would attract a tremendous amount of suspicion. Therefore, I'm having difficulty seeing why the vote moved if golden009 is a Mafia player with access to Daytalk (the Traitor role crossed my mind, but I think that a Traitor in MathBlade's position would most likely not claim VT).
You seem to be wondering why I didn't present this immediately. The thought first occurred to me after I directed MathBlade to look at the events surrounding 578, but I still wanted to hear what MathBlade thought. Since you object, I'll share this at the risk of introducing bias into her analysis.
You also seem to be asking me for prior games in which I took a similar approach. I will provide one link that occurs to me now: in Newbie 1719 I was (incorrectly) reading Ghubster as Town while still wanting him to answer questions posed by another player.

[Dierfire]

@MathBlade

Assume RB is scum. Who is scum with him?

Repeat for BBT Expedience and Saru.

That's a lot of work!

Spoiler: If rb were Mafia

I would think that the argument with Saru (1544, 1549, 1570) was too heated for them to be partners. The abrupt turn on BBT in 1661 also seems unlikely from a partner. The early game interactions would require some scrutiny, but I think that this post would make RyanK and gameplay506 (now House) unlikely partners as well (RyanK more so):

See you're right our interaction is scummy, you're wrong about the scum. It was optimal because I think I could have got more than 1 scum to get on your wagon and then we can counter-wagon on scum later in the day. It sounds dumb but it actually works pretty well. Gameplay is the scum you're looking for. You should vote gameplay.

VOTE: gameplay

Perhaps the L-1 vote on your wagon in 1594 would point to a bus if rb were Mafia (since the vote came off fairly easily in 1616).
Of the remaining slots, for a pure guess I'll say that Cass would be the final Mafia player.

Spoiler: If BBT were Mafia

As I mentioned above, rb would be an unlikely partner. For your argument with BBT, I have mixed feelings. It certainly goes on long enough, but I can't say that it seems especially difficult to choreograph (largely due to repetition). The exchange with pitoli in 1397 looks decently unlikely to be choreographed. When Expedience enters the game and posts 575 and 577, BBT has a reaction 579 that doesn't seem like Expedience's partner (I was going to say too negative, but that's not really the word that I want--it's definitely too..something).
I could see a number of players as partners with few interactions: Saru, Cass, Chuck, perhaps even RyanK.
I've no idea what to make of House if BBT is Mafia.

Spoiler: If Expedience were Mafia

Again, the interaction with BBT around 579 seems unlikely from Mafia partners. For Chuck, too, the opposition is a bit too persistent for me to suspect partnership. House seems to be in an educational mode in 2045 (doesn't seem like the kind of interaction that would ordinarily occur to partners to stage), so that's another unlikely option.
I'll throw out pitoli and Cass as reads that remains vague with hints of suspicion that are not clearly explained (possibly good places for partners).

Spoiler: If Saru were Mafia

As I mentioned above, I would find rb an unlikely partner for Saru. RyanK would also be an unlikely partner for the business about "reverse psychology" in 1061 (if Saru isn't pushing a bus, he doesn't need to dispute reasons to read his partner as Town). I'd earlier considered the possibility that Saru casting a vote for me in 1568 as a reaction to my 1557 represented a "chainsaw defense" of your slot, augmented by Saru's questions directed at golden009 when they were sharing a vote on me D1, so that would be one good place to start (similar considerations might apply to House, formerly gameplay506). Saru has many players with minimal interactions (addressing them or reading them): pitoli, Cass, Chuck, Expedience, BBT. As with BBT, there's a lot of room for partners in there.

(@Chuck too)

Who are your scum reads?

Also who do you have as a scum read Dierfire?

I put more time into the first part of this than I expected, so I'm still not done with this. I'm returning tonight to finish up. However, since I'm reading a good number of players as Town, I could give you the list of contenders: House, BBT, Saru, Chuck, Cass.

[Dierfire]

@BBT

I challenge anyone to show me Dier scum hunting

I'll take that challenge! From the quote below, it sounds as though you mostly want me to explain how I'm using my questions to read other players. Is that correct, and what else would you like for me to explain?

His ISO is also littered with questions that I deem as 'busy questions' and they don't really seem to go anywhere.

(I'm going to sleep now, so it will have to wait until I return tonight)

[Dierfire]

@BBT

I just want you to tell me who is scum and why.

Not a PoE list.

I gave thoughts on golden009 in 1557 (since retracted in 2070), and on Saru in 1869 (admittedly this is a weak read). Did you have a comment about them?

Anyway, I've read Cass in ISO, and I've found a few things that are suspicious.

VOTE: Cass

I thought that the decision to cast suspicion on pitoli in 1354 was suspicious because I'm not seeing a coherent theory for why a Mafia player would ask for a second claim, having already received one. It feels more like trying to spin the hammer as suspicious without directly saying so (it's also relevant that Cass had hammer intent on Glitch and did not change her opinion in that post, so it's strange to me that she claims in 1565 that she was suspicious of pitoli being eager to hammer a

Town

player).
Also, Cass expressed suspicion of pitoli's voting pattern (1424), but appears not to have spent time on that ISO (despite having marked it as a priority) and instead moves several other votes around. It feels to me as though Cass has ulterior motives (as though she wants to be able to vote for pitoli if the votes are there).

[Dierfire]

@House

the reason that I'd prefer lynching him over rb is that I'm reading rb as Town and can more easily base that read on concrete things. As an additional illustration of the difference, I also don't like the "style" that RyanK was using, but I have some concrete reasons to read RyanK as Town.

There is more to reading players than the answers they provide to questions, Dier. I rather dislike basing my reads on the answers to questions because scum has the tendency to lie, y'know?

Do you really want to know how I'm so certain that BBT is town?

1272 - can't read Ryan for shit, suggests an investigative target him at the end of d1.

1392 - is

really

sure Ryan is town, at the very beginning of the next day.

1960 - had zero fear of being lynched. Some call this overconfidence, but he knows he won't be lynched because he has a role that can't be countered.

These three posts mean infinitely more in the way of reading alignment that

anything

rb has posted, imho.

I'm aware that Mafia players might lie; I'm not sure that this works as a reason to dislike basing reads on answers (any more than it works as a reason to dislike basing reads on posts in general). The point is to see whether stated reasoning matches actions and is sincere--the whole thing is predicated on the idea that the Mafia players must lie about things, and that we can detect those lies.
I'm not inclined to discuss this much further at this time, but I'm not seeing that 1392 looks to be a PR result.
Also, I don't have much experience with BBT as Mafia, but multiple other players who do have said that he can play with confidence as Mafia.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

No, my vote was not cast for the purpose of having MathBlade answer my questions to golden009 (in fact, I didn't have many specific questions for golden009--I was most interested in hearing updated opinions, which a replacement would tend to provide without prompting). I also didn't need a response--from golden009 or MathBlade--to my accusations.

So, let me get this straight: you wanted to hear only "updated opinions" from a replacement, but you also vote the slot AND didn't need nor want a response to your accusations from that slot? Sounds like to me you were beyond sure that, that slot would have flipped scum. But then, when the replacement for it does come in, you end up just unvoting and then never providing actual scum reads or an actual vote. Your thought process with the golden slot has been utterly inconsistent.

It's actually so blatant that I'm surprised I'm the only one noticing it

.

I'd given my thoughts on golden009 in 1557. Which of them looked like they required a response from golden009? Also, as I have multiple players expressing suspicion of me, the underlined (my addition) feels...exaggerated to me.

And as to the quote that you posted, no, it's not me saying you town read rb because he town reads you. My point was that since you didn't respond to an argument that had your name come up so much(which is really not like you), it felt like you were giving a silent nod to rb's arguments against me. You prove this to me when you come back with the same exact stuff that rb said about me after I prompted you for a comment. Almost word for word.

You are saying that you were worried that I was agreeing with rb more than with you? I was agreeing with rb more than with you (I especially liked 1528 and 1538!), although it's not clear to me why that would worry you.

Here is my line of reasoning. Martha had hinted at having a role in 578, and the Mafia players were evidently aware of this (as they killed her N1). In 614 golden009 casts a vote for Martha (vote was on me before that). This is after the wagon on Martha largely dissolved, so why is golden009 moving his vote? He didn't have much of a chance of lynching Martha. He didn't need to move his vote to have it parked on someone who wouldn't have been lynched (the existing vote on me would have fulfilled that purpose). He didn't really need to worry that a vote on me would attract a tremendous amount of suspicion. Therefore, I'm having difficulty seeing why the vote moved if golden009 is a Mafia player with access to Daytalk (the Traitor role crossed my mind, but I think that a Traitor in MathBlade's position would most likely not claim VT).

Wait. So you couldn't have thought of this before-hand? Meaning, you scum read golden from D1, but all these actions you JUST described are ALL from D1. Like...what? This just sounds like an excuse to hop off the wagon on a slot whose replacement isn't one to go down so easily. Pushing someone like Math is going to be hard for you to do, and I'm sure you know this from Mini 1800. Hop off when they come in with some convoluted reasoning, nice.

Well, it would have been hard for me to use this logic D1, because I hadn't seen Martha flip yet. If you are saying that I should have picked it up earlier D2, then perhaps I should have (although I didn't see you pointing it out either--if you saw a problem with my theory that golden009 was Mafia, perhaps you could have pointed it out to me sooner, and if you don't agree with me about the "convoluted reasoning" here then I'd like to hear why).

Don't accuse someone and then not expect or want an answer from them UNLESS you're 100% sure they're scum.

This might be the source of our confusion, I suppose. Again, I'm not seeing that my specific accusations against golden009 required any specific response from golden009, and I disagree that this requires 100% confidence on my part. When I want a response, I will ask a question. When I state a read, while I am pleased to receive input from other players about the read (including the player that I am reading), I don't need any response.

[Dierfire]

Glitch was lynched in 1374, so 1565 should not be speculative.
In the latter point, I meant that Cass states this:

- Pitoli has the most suspicious voting pattern from my pov - note to self to ISO him.

However, multiple other votes are cast before that ISO is read. Why is "the most suspicious voting pattern" not a priority?

---EDIT---

Very well--as I'm not currently asking you to lynch BBT, I'm willing to table that issue.

[Dierfire]

@House

Dier, why am I scum?

Is this...a riddle of some sort? You want me to make a case that you are Mafia?

[Dierfire]

Spoiler: @Chuck, Not Game-Related

I have had a death in the family, very close to me. I will be V/LA for an unforeseeable amount of time.

My condolences for your loss--take care of yourself.

[Dierfire]

@Saru

Like, golden wasn't around and was being replaced, but Cass was very much around to answer questions. Why didn't you have a discussion with Cass on some of things you felt off about with her instead of just sitting on the wagon of an empty slot?

I attempted to address my concerns about Cass (quoted below). Does that change your impression here?

Spoiler: Quotes

I think that that's it from me tonight, but I'm promising to return with more focused reads on the remaining players within 24 hours.

Some small things that will help me with that:

--SNIP--

@Cass

@pitoli: he already claimed vt, didn't you read?? FoS: Pitoli

Why did this make you so suspicious of pitoli?

@Cass

This is hard to believe, because the post right above

[this]

was Martha repeatedly using the word VT and asking

[Glitch]

for reads before he's get lynched.) Made

[pitoli]

sound like scum eager and happy to hammer a townie.

(I tried to fix some things for clarity, let me know if this is not correct)

The phrasing "hard to believe" makes it sound as though you think that pitoli really had seen the claim, but it's unclear to me why she would, having seen the claim and filled with eagerness to drop a hammer, ask for a claim again rather than just dropping the hammer. Did I miss something?

[Dierfire]

@BBT

Dier is pretty hard to catch as scum.

I'm actually surprised more people are not town reading him.

Remind me: what prior experience to you have with me as Mafia?

[Dierfire]

@House

At least, this reads to me like a scum read...

I think that a careful reading of my 2071 will show that I made a list of all players I was not reading as Town, and "players I am not reading as Town" and "players I am reading as Mafia" are different things.
At any rate, I have no case to present that you are Mafia.

[Dierfire]

@BBT

Remind me: what prior experience to you have with me as Mafia?

Perfect, this is the perfect response.

Notice; I have asked Dier no less than 3 times to show me who is scum and why. What response have I had? Zilch.

Instead, he chooses to try and flag up a meta discussion at the veru first opportunity. You must have missed all the times I asked you who was scum, right? Hell no.

Who is scum and why Dier. It's a very simple question.

I feel as though you are not quite reading my posts. My 2206 was directly addressed to you as a specific response to this question, including references to earlier posts such as 1869, so I think that it is no longer sufficient for you to claim that I haven't responded to you without actually addressing these.
I am still interested in hearing your response to 2276.

[Dierfire]

Ugh, why?

---
Anyway, I think that BBT has the closest thing to an actual reason to be on my wagon (it is true that I found it more difficult to identify players as Mafia than as Town in this game), although it's unclear to me whether he's intentionally exaggerating the degree of that difficulty. I'd like someone to get an answer from him tomorrow as to whether he saw and dismissed my points or just missed them entirely.
While their reasons for voting for me aren't fantastic, I think that SpyreX and Expedience (and perhaps MathBlade to a lesser degree) make a certain degree of sense out of frustration over a stalled game (although no longer voting for me, I also found the vote from rb reasonable along those lines).
It is true that Saru historically has difficulty understanding my point of view; however, his behavior in this game does feel more extreme even than that.
I've no good read on House. I was sort of suspecting the most recent vote on me to be some sort of reaction test after 2200.
I'm considering the possibility that my difficulty identifying Mafia players implicates the inactive players; certainly I'm still suspicious of Cass.

[Dierfire]

I also think that the pace of posting in this game should decrease so as to facilitate replacements and avoid loss of signal amid the noise.

[Dierfire]

I was willing to take stances; it happened that most of the stances in which I had confidence were those reading other players as Town.
I discussed my suspicions of other players, which admittedly were on the weaker side, but it seemed unwise to me to exaggerate or fabricate suspicions.

[Dierfire]

I usually hang around for at least 30-60 minutes after I finish posting! It's just that no one has been online to have discussions in real time.

[Dierfire]

(Also I was responding to you in real time some 51 hours ago)

[Dierfire]

For a little while, I thought that we might be able to turn that around. In particular I think that the replacements did well, although rb was also on top of things for much of the game.
Ah, well--congratulations to the Mafia team!

I've been thinking some about my lynch D2, and I've realized that it would have been essentially impossible to actually lynch a Mafia player there absent significant assistance from the other Mafia players (as Cass and pitoli were absent). As these things go, it was probably not too great a loss.

@BBT

With that said, I'm still trying to understand--did you miss my responses to you, or were you employing some strategy?

@Mod

Thanks for running the game! The volume of posting was very high, but I think that you did well keeping up with frequent VC.

[Dierfire]

@BBT

What response Dier?

Ha ha, I guess that answers my question!

You'd asked me which players I thought were suspicious. I gave you two names (Saru and Cass). I also gave you a reference to my earlier suspicion of golden009 in case seeing my previous thoughts would help you to assess my alignment. However, you'd afterward said this:

Notice; I have asked Dier no less than 3 times to show me who is scum and why. What response have I had? Zilch.

So, I guess that I'll interpret this as another problem of volume (my few posts being drowned in the mass of others).