Mini 1088: Cookie Thief Mafia (Game Over)

[Llamarble]

Greetings!
VOTE: Darox
Rocks are poor cookie ingredients.

[Llamarble]

VOTE: Elleran
Elleran's "I'm almost convinced you're town" is ridiculous at this stage and handing out town reads only helps scum.
It also contradicts his "I'm keeping my vote on you because I have a reason to" a post earlier.
If Elleran believes Shotty is innocent then he doesn't have a reason to keep his vote there.
Scum forget what they're pretending to believe about other players because they don't actually believe it.
Telling Shotty he looks innocent is also buddying.

Drmyshottyizsik is another strong possibility, or perhaps a scumbuddy.
He's seeking towncred for getting us out of RVS when such has not yet happened.
The two of them may have planned having a silly argument and claiming getoutofrvs towncred during scum pregame talk.

[Llamarble]

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being really strongly): how strongly do you believe this actually happened?

Uh, maybe 2?
I wouldn't have mentioned it if I found it inconceivable, but certainly less than 15% likely.
Early in the game, when there's practically nothing to go off of, cases are necessarily reachy.
Then as more content appears I am able to get better developed reads.
Overstating early cases tends to make them more effective at getting us to somewhere useful.

I think I also forgot the unvote before voting rule which is likely the reason for the incorrect votecount.

Unvote;

VOTE: Elleran
Elleran is at L-3.

[Llamarble]

It's both.
As I explained in my previous post, early votes tend to be based on reachy accusations (or nothing at all in RVS).
These early votes apply pressure and help generate content.
They do that best when there is at least a modicum of logic behind them,
so it is best to place early votes on whoever is scummiest, even if that player is not incredibly scummy.
Elleran, having made the buddying statement of saying he is almost convinced Shotty is town,
contradicting his statement about having reason to vote Shotty, is the scummiest player so far.
Therefore he gets my vote.
Is that clear?

[Llamarble]

Unvote. Vote: Darox

All of his posts are content free and there are a lot of them.
Wasting time talking about the nature of RVS instead of reading the game for scumtells makes it look like you're scum trying to avoid a lurking label and avoiding ruffling feathers by not actually participating.
The decision not to place a random vote also plays toward that goal.
We only get two weeks, so wasting time and refusing to make any statements about any players' alignments is scummier than usual.

Who are your suspects at this point and why?

[Llamarble]

I prefer doing something interesting like fakeclaiming PGO as doctor instead of random voting.
Sadly, I am not always a doctor.
Plus none of you have anything interesting about you to make you stand out.

Oh wait, Furcolow is a dead VI in the other game I'm currently in, I guess he would be my go-to early vote.

So you still have made no votes or reads...
There are things to think about. You could have discussed your own wagon or Elleran and the players on his.
Instead you serve up more time-wasting and refusal to step into the fray, both of which are anti-town.
Trying to coast through the early stages of the game under the radar is scummy.

@Lew:
Playing like a VI doesn't make someone town, it just makes them a VI, which is a null tell.
Why are you convinced Elleran is a town VI?
I see nothing in your discussion of Elleran suggesting your town read on Elleran is based on evidence.
This is scummy because scum are the ones who aren't trying to figure out alignments based on posting (they already know them).
Also this:
"I am not committing myself this early in game."
Is an odd wording suggesting you are more focused on appearance than on contributing.

Scumlist so far:
Darox for coasting/time wasting/refusal to scumhunt.
He's reducing information available to town while seeking to avoid ruffling feathers.

Elleran for contradicting himself and handing out a baseless townread; scum are more likely to self-contradict because they aren't stating what they actually think about the game.

Lew for tossing out a townread with zero evidence for it and saying he doesn't want to commit himself.

[Llamarble]

Revealing role information day 1 is usually a bad idea.
On the other hand, 50% is a lot better than our normal 25% chance of hitting scum,
Particularly since a miss today would guarantee a hit tomorrow if what fur says is true.
We can't rule out a scumgambit though since one mislynch for one lynch is decent value for scum as they also get 2 NKs.
Assuming 3 scum to start with the result there is 2scum vs 6town, with the same town:scum ratio as we started with.
And 2 mislynches for a lynch strongly favors scum.
So that puts us into wifomland.

Regardless, if player A guarantees one of B or C is scum, we should lynch one of those 3 since 1/3 > 1/4, the typical odds of hitting scum in a 12 player game.

I do want to here rob/poison's responses to this.

Unvote

[Llamarble]

of it being on scum
well, near guarantee

Ah, so you're not 100% guaranteeing.
Let's see how sure you need to be before this is protown.

We require P(the one we lynch out of Fur/poison/rob are scum) > .25 for this to be useful.

If you think the odds are 66% one of the two of them is scum, then we have a 1/3 chance of hitting scum lynching either of them assuming you're town. Giving you the typical 1/4 chance of being scum we multiply 1/3 * P(you not scum = 3/4) and get 1/4, which is what we started with.

So if you're not at least 75% (I added a bit to the 66% minimum because it's not normally a good idea to mention role information early and my math assumed your action was a null tell on your alignment) or so sure one of Rob or Ivy is scum, it might be against town interests for you to elaborate.
But now that you already have it's not clear what's the best path.
What a confusing situation you've managed to put us in 2 days into the game...

From your perspective, how strong is the likelihood of one of those two being scum?

And why not wait a while to reveal this information hoping one of those two would be lynched without your revealing it?

[Llamarble]

Well, at least any cop now knows who not to waste investigations on, which helps.
Also masons are powerful because they enable confirming players as town, which neighbors apparently do not,
so all-town neighbors is not unreasonable.
I'd say being a girl clubber is a null tell for now.


Anyway, it's time to get back to scumhunting.
Here is scum #1:
VOTE: Darox
Town are typically indignant when wagoned. You were not.
Scum laugh at their wagons because they hope they will go away and they are afraid of agitating town against them. This describes your behavior exactly.
You have continued to refuse to make any scumhunting gesture of any kind despite being called out for it.
This is an unrealistic level of anti town VI play,
so I believe you are scum lntentionally acting like a VI in hopes that other players will say "oh, he's just a VI."
Your antagonism and self vote fall into the same pattern.

"I was just making fun of the wagon on myself. Also making fun of random votes and the people who wanted me to make one.
Also to see what people would do in reaction."

The third reason you give here gave me a strong impression of being made up and tacked on after the fact.
If you were honestly seeking reactions when you self voted, you would have commented on reactions to it.
You have not.

[Llamarble]

Witholding information makes it more difficult to read you and therefore is anti-town, like all of your other actions.
It enables scum to do exactly what you are doing now,
which is backtracking to pretend your thoughts were different from what they actually were after being caught in a lie.

And not taking the wagon against you seriously is indeed a scumtell.
You have ignored legitimate accusations of anti-town behavior by attempting to laugh them off and calling them baseless.
A town player would explain what the motivations behind their actions actually were and examine the motives of those voting them.
Your motivations were exactly what you have been accused of, so all you can do is try to laugh the case off and hope it goes away itself.

Concision is fine, but you have made many posts and STILL have done nothing remotely resembling scumhunting.
You accuse others of making long "filler" posts, ignoring legitimate content, while still only posting filler yourself.

My reason for not being on the Furcolow/Ivy wagons is that Darox is way scummier than either of them.
I'll comment on that situation next though.

[Llamarble]

Confirmation bias is what happens when a player makes a case on somebody and they start to look town and the accuser says "Oh, he's trying to look town now, see, he's scum!"
Your play has been scummy since the start of the game.
At no time could any of your actions have been mistaken for being pro-town.
Confirmation bias is a concept wholly irrelevant to the case against you.
Way to misrepresent the case against you in a pathetic effort to laugh it off / make it look weaker without actually challenging it,
falling into exactly the same pattern of scummy behavior I've accused you of.

Preview edit:
Your latest post is just more of the same.
It is anti-town to refuse to participate because it makes it more difficult to read you.
Town players make mistakes too.
A player who waits forever and makes a case against somebody is much more likely to be scum because
scum wish to be careful and avoid coming forward with a case that won't be bought.

[Llamarble]

@Furcolow: What?!
Every one of my posts against Darox points out a specific incidence (usually Darox's most recent post) of him doing something I have referred to as scummy.
I have also explained each time why I felt the particular behavior Darox was guilty of makes more sense if he is playing toward a scum objective.
How is that information over analysis?

[Llamarble]

No, you've been saying "X is something scum does. Darox is scum" without explaining how I am doing X or why X is scummy.

I guess I have to derive everything from first principles...

Scum want to avoid being read because if they're accurately read they'll get lynched.
Town want to be read accurately because if we're read accurately we won't be lynched.
Posting content enables other players to read you.
Therefore town are happy to post content whereas scum do so reluctantly.
Darox seems reluctant to post content (as evidenced by the fact that he has posted NONE so far, even when it has been demanded).
Therefore Darox is more likely to be scum.


And then there was this:
"I was just making fun of the wagon on myself. Also making fun of random votes and the people who wanted me to make one.
Also to see what people would do in reaction."

If Darox wanted to "see what people would do in reaction," he would have commented on some of the reactions he observed.
he has not, so I believe this is a lie made up to make his action seem more pro town.
Even the phasing sounds like the third reason was made up and tacked on.
Scum are liars.
Therefore Darox is more likely to be scum.

Your defense to that accusation is that you have thought about the reactions but have not commented.
I don't believe you, and this defense is itself scummy.
Town want to get reads / ideas out so other townies can think about them and so that we ourselves may be read better.
Scum withhold reads and information like this to avoid being read, give the town less information to analyze,
and finally so that later on they can pretend their reads were always whatever looks convenient from an up-to-date perspective.
Darox admits he is withholding information.
Therefore Darox is more likely to be scum.

As I said before, I'm getting to the neighbors situation.
The GC power does make it less likely they're all town since having a town aligned player wielding a power like that with 2 backups is pretty powerful.
Analysis to come in my next post.

[Llamarble]

1.
Content:
Most important: Discussion of your beliefs about the alignments of other players and explanations for said beliefs.
Discussion of who we should lynch also qualifies.
Discussion of mafia theory not specific to this game does not, though it can be useful supplemental material.

2.
I don't want to hear your thoughts so I can sheep you, I want to hear them so I can read you.
If they happen to be well formed and give me ideas, so much the better.
This is much more important than avoiding perturbing other players so you can see if they keep up whatever behavior you think you see,
particularly since players' reactions to being called out for scummy actions tend to be telling.
The type of information I referred to you withholding is the type mentioned above;
That's the important information because we use it to actually figure out who the scum are.


All town Girls Club is not unbelievable to me.
If there are 2 of them left, and they each believe the other is likely scum, how will they vote for somebody to use their night action?
Presumably they just won't night-act, so that makes them less powerful.
Also if only one of them receives the night action information,
it makes coordinating harder for them, particularly if the scum NK the active one.

An awkward bit is that 1 town GC dying both makes it more likely they're all town but also makes it more likely each of the other two is individually scum.

I think the 1 scum 2 town GC setup seems a lot less swingy, since if we assume there's scum in a 3 town GC setup and start lynching them we basically lose for sure (since after one of them flips town the scumodds for the others climbs way above the town average, and we end up lynching the others). Maybe them not instaclaiming is supposed to prevent that?

I'm feeling like we should just lynch on the basis of who is scummiest, which is Darox so far.

Post on scumminess of GCs tomorrow.

[Llamarble]

I read through the posts of / cases against Ivy, Rob, and Furcolow.

Furcolow's acting has been decent if he's lying.
It bothers me a lot when players do that sort of "I'M INNOCENT I PROMISE LOOK AT MY META" ATE garbage;
since I would hate to lose to scum doing that I want to lynch anyone who does that,
but unfortunately often when I see people doing that stuff they turn out to be town.
On the other hand him having town meta doing this makes it more likely he'd do the same thing as scum.
Him finding ATE from poison scummy is just sickeningly hypocritical due to the massive volleys of it he is launching.
But my read on him is not scum this game, elevating the probability one of the others is scum.

Some of the case presented so far against poison seems silly.
The GF thing doesn't seem like a big deal to me; she speculated that a scum in the GC would be investigation immune and thus GFlike,
which simply makes sense.
ATE is a null tell and we've seen way more of it from Furcolow regardless.
I'm not scum, so that connection-business is meaningless.
But there are legitimate points to be made against her.
She wants to lynch VIs (Furcolow, Elleran) just to get them out of the way.
Scum do push VI mislynches because VIs are not as good at defending themselves and typically give off scumtells even as town.
She has supported her Furcolow vote by explaining why she believes his actions make sense if he is gambiting scum.
If a town player votes somebody who has claimed some role-related action, they have a reason for thinking it's a scum gambit, which she gave.
But she gave said reason long after her initial vote, which I don't see town logic behind.
If I were town-Ivy, I'd think Furcolow was bad because he outed the GCs, but not particularly scummy, so I wouldn't vote him.
Later, after discussing the scumgambit possibility and giving reasons for my belief in it, I might vote Furcolow.
ScumIvy immediately votes Furcolow because she sees him as primary alternative to her own lynch, then works out the logic fully later.

Rob looks pro-town/genuine for the most part, but I want to know where his vote goes and who he finds scummiest / why.

Andrew has repeatedly asked the GCs to disclose more role information. Fishing for role information helps scum.
He is also sending accusations at various players and then not mentioning them again.
Town care about getting accurate reads, so if they see something scummy they will keep it in mind and vote based on it.
Scum try to point out false scumtells given off by other players so they make them more likely to be lynched,
but they have no incentive to stick with a particular target unless it looks like they are a good lynch candidate.
He has vote parked on drshot, which is no better than not voting.
His play reminds me of Darox in his scummy unwillingness to commit any real reads to anybody.
No alignment makes him either a miller variant, scum GF variant, or third party.

Now that 4 players have claimed investigation immunity, lynching one of the 4 gives us the same 1/4 chance as lynching everyone else.
But although it's painful to say so, I don't think Furcolow or (for now) Rob are scum and I don't see Andrewscum revealing his special investigation status (maybe he actually does flip scum and this is a gambit to avoid investigation?) as very likely. That leaves good odds of hitting scum on an ivy lynch, and since she's also had some scummy actions I'll place vote L - 3.

Unvote; Vote Poison

Players who are not voting should be voting somebody;
not saying anything relevant or voting (Darox!) makes it hard to read you and thus is pro-scum.

[Llamarble]

I had no internet the last couple of days, catching up now.

[Llamarble]

Right now I'd say we should lynch whoever is scummiest.
I disagree with intentionally lynching outside the GCs.
The payoff for hitting scum is really really high compared to normal since we're left with 2 basically confirmed masons with a pretty potent power!
And one of the GCs flipping town gives us more information about the other GCs than a standard lynch.
The town doesn't need 2 members in the GCs to bully the third into behaving, since if we say before night how the GCs should use the power,
then the other member will have to let them use the power under threat of lynch.
And even if a scum uses the power, they will still have to reveal the information to the town and for example if they give a false name for somebody or claim to have RBed somebody who executed a night action successfully, we can catch them that way.
So if we're assuming there's very likely a scum among the GCs, we should definitely lynch one.
The risk is that we're in a very bad situation if none of them are scum and we start lynching them.
Thus I think we should just lynch the scummiest player today rather than deciding where to lynch first.

Updated reads coming later.

[Llamarble]

My vote actually was on poison.
Darox remains very suspicious to me.
He kept up the contribution refusal for a long time, and now that we're getting near deadline he says he supports the most popular wagons.
It smells extremely strongly of coasting scum.

Ivy's defense is impressing me, she is looking like indignant town.
I'd believe triple town GCs if there is a lot of scum power, or if there are 3 scum + a neutral role like SK,
which would take a lot of town power to balance.
Andrew's claim makes that seem a bit more likely.

Andrew is looking like he may have botched up a fakeclaim; his role description sounds really weird - extra lives and looking like a third party on investigation.
Given the number of noninvestigable GCs, his investigation result probably accurately describes his role.
And if he actually is a third party, lynching him is good since those (SK, etc) are not our friends.
Saying "I disclosed my role because X rolefished me" is ridiculous.
The correct response to rolefishing is to refuse to give details and call out the player for rolefishing.
Trying to use another player's statements as an excuse for your claim is not pro-town.
The claim you made is also extremely sketchy, it's essentially "I'm an unlynchable miller, nobody touch me I'm town fo sho."
"And the scum will leave me alone too due to extra lives..."
Extra lives sound and an unaligned investigation result sound a lot like an SK to me.

Unvote ; VOTE ANDREW

If he actually fails to die for some reason, then this is just like a no-lynch, which would let our town PRs do some night actions and give us information based on who voted him.

[Llamarble]

I don't think we should lynch you because you say you won't die,
I think we should lynch you because your claim makes you sound not town aligned.
You failing to die wouldn't rule you out as a multilife SK.
Investigating as something other than town makes you at least a pseudo miller if you're town aligned,
and millers are dangerous to town anyway since we can't investigate them.
I think you figured having outed investigation immune players already made you less likely to be lynched for revealing your investigation status.

[Llamarble]

It's a good point that 3 lives is too many for an SK, but 2 would be reasonable and claiming 3 might cause everyone to give up on lynching him after one try.
Maybe we should just leave Andrew alone for now and lynch him if it becomes mylo.
Since he's either lying or wouldn't die, he would be an ideal lynch in that situation.
That makes the quandary he's put us in useful while not giving scumandrew a free ride to victory.

UNVOTE; VOTE DAROX

Darox is the scummiest player in the game.
His only meaningful action so far is a vote on Andrew.
The rest of his posts are all active lurking,
and rather than become indignant against accusations against him he has persistently done nothing and waited for them to go away
or tried to laugh them off.
We are getting near deadline, and I believe we should lynch Darox.
I'll vote PI in a deadline situation if necessary (we have 4 days left, and no lynching is just bad).

[Llamarble]

No lynching in mylo is usually right because P(Hitting scum) is higher in lylo and by def. of mylo you must hit scum in order to not lose.
Consider 6 players alive with 2 scum remaining.
Lynching gives a 1/3 chance of hitting scum, with 1 scum and 4 town players alive after.
An NK takes that down to scum vs 3 town, which is mylo again with 1/4 chance of hitting scum.
We must hit scum both lynches to win, so that's a 1/12 shot to win.
Now suppose you NL with 6.
Scum NK somebody down to 5 players.
Then it's lylo with 2/5 chance to hit scum. 1 scum, 3 town alive after.
NK takes it down to 1 scum vs 2 town, which is lylo again with 1/3 chance of hitting.
That's a 2/15 shot to win, which is better than the 1/12 shot by lynching in mylo.

So lynching in mylo is bad unless PRs remaining give reason to believe otherwise,
but usually giving town PRs another night to operate is also favorable.

Darox is still avoiding presenting actual content and instead wasting time by making theory-statements that are both irrelevant and false.

[Llamarble]

We have 2 days left.
Because we'll be in a very strong position if she flips scum and get more info from her than anybody else flipping town:

UNVOTE; VOTE POISONIVY

[Llamarble]

The Deadline is imminent.
We need to avoid no-lynching.
If Poison flips scum, there will be no issues with GC collaboration.
If she flips town, the power should still be used.

[Llamarble]

I don't think Shotty's name should be revealed unless it sounds scummy.
Names might be related to power roles and we want to give the minimum amount of information possible about PRs to the scum.

The mislynch of a GC makes it more likely that all three are town.
It also makes it more likely the remaining 2 are scum.
crunching things:
I'll assume 3 scum distributed independently among everyone.
P(alltown | mislynch) = P(alltown) * P(mislynch | alltown) / P(mislynch) = 27/64 * 1 / (3/4) = 9 / 16
meaning there's a 7/16 chance at least 1 of Rob or Furc is scum.
So they individually have about a .25 chance of being scum now,
except to make the calculation easier I ignored both that they get their roles without replacement and that I know I am town,
both of which would make the probability slightly higher.

So just like yesterday, I think we should lynch based on who is scummiest not who the GCs are.
VOTE: DAROX
He was scummy yesterday, coasting all the way through.

[Llamarble]

Hungry Harold does sound scummy.
I can't really think of anything scummier than that except Malicious Mike or Bad Ben or something.

Unvote; VOTE DRSHOT

Darox's play is scummy, but this is hard evidence.
Of course Rob could be lying about Shotty's name, but 1 for 1 mislynch for lynch isn't horrible for us.
That's vote L-3 I believe.

[Llamarble]

On Shotty:
"Hungry Harold" sounds like a scum name.
He could either have thought up his fakeroleclaim in pregame or been given a fakeclaim PM by the mod,
which would explain his "cookiecrumb" move yesterday.
I doubt it was a joke which turned into a claim because his name matches up well with it.
It's possible he's town, but as Lewarcher said this would imply:

"a role whose role is dying, a role who is a name-cop, names that are evidently misleading, which make the name-cop unuseful, a role who is like a terminator who won't die unless shot 3 times and a weak voter, who cannot vote during the day that follows the death of a misterious player X."

Occam's razor suggests Shotty is probably just scum.
Then names are not misleading (Daring Drew wasn't very scummy sounding) so the name cop is useful and there's no role whose role is dying,
which would take care of much of the weirdness. Furc or Andrew of course could also be lying.

I find it reasonable that if there are both a name cop and an alignment cop then there will be players who mislead each,
but presumably they are somewhat useful for finding scum or there would be no reason to include them.
Therefore Shotty's name being Hungry Harold makes him likeliest to be scum and gets my vote.
Or maybe there's a PR that can only operate if it knows its target's name?
Also for all we know there may not be an alignment cop at all, in which case the name cop should be pretty reliable.

[Llamarble]

Zed said:
"You're town play is just scummy. You are very pro-town when you're scum. Therefore, I'm not looking to lynch you right now."
I'm sorry what? Shotty is scummy so we shouldn't lynch him? This makes the opposite of sense.
It's pretty much the most extreme example of relying on meta over game information that there is.
In this game, Shotty has done virtually no scumhunting.
Day 1 his only notable actions were claiming credit for pushing us out of the RVS and softclaiming.
Day 2 his only action has been fullclaiming and yelling at Darox, but not examining Darox's posting to see why he's scummy.
His role name is "Hungry Harold..." How much scummier do you get than that??
His claimed role makes sense, but that could easily be the result of a mod-given fakeclaim PM to balance multiple cop-type roles.
(and would even be reasonable for the mod to give out if there's no alignment cop)
I think he is our best lynch today.

If it turns out Shotty's actually not lying and he kills himself,
he should do so at least a couple (real life) days before deadline to allow a new consensus to form.
I think the player we should lynch if Shotty eats his own cookie is Darox.
His response to the early wagon against him was to try to laugh it off; he did not react indignantly as I would expect town to and look for scum on it.
He provided no analysis along the lines of "I believe X is scum because X took action Y" until the D1 lynch candidates were settled.
I have seen scum do this before; it seeks to avoid making waves by being primary driver of a wagon against town.
He has provided extremely minimal scumhunting (particularly compared to his postcount) in general.
One of his few attempts at scumhunting was this:
"Zed trying to dismiss the colours case outright for false reasons would make a good third."
Which is phrased as a player looking for lynches would see the situation rather than as a player looking for scum would.
He is acting bold for the sake of looking bold, which is a scumtell (his play focuses on his appearance as opposed to on hunting scum).
What he is NOT doing is scumhunting boldly, which is the town tell he's pretending to give off.
And while at it he's seeking to line up the lynches of several players,
not on a basis of their actions looking like scumplays but rather on the basis of actions that are poor play from either alignment (VI actions).
After we lynch Darox we'll have a 0% town quality improvement and a 33% scum (assuming 3) quantity decrease.

[Llamarble]

He said the wagon against him was "a joke" and self voted, fitting with the "ahahaha this is funny and I'm going to wait for it to go away" attitude I described.
Where is this "remaining calm" you describe?
Does anything that isn't turboflailing count as calm in your opinion?

[Llamarble]

Also the point you disputed is not one of my primary reasons for believing he is scum.
The most important reason is that he is _projecting_ a bold attitude rather than boldly scumhunting.
That he avoided scumhunting entirely for much of D1 and has done hardly any scumhunting overall is also more important.
Your post sounds like strawmanning (attacking a less important part of an argument and then saying the whole thing is moot)
in defense of a scumbuddy.

[Llamarble]

By which you mean you intend to ignore my legitimate reasons for believing you are scum and hope other players will too, just like yesterday!
Way to take a not even vaguely pro-town approach to defending yourself.
Darox is obvscum to a degree where I am starting to think we should lynch him despite the hard evidence against Shotty.
That said, Shotty is also likely scum and if he turns out to be town then his selfkill puts us on a path to mylo instead of lylo,
so he's our best option for now, but if he turns out to be town, WE LYNCH DAROX.

[Llamarble]

@Elleran:
You say you stand by your defense of Darox.
Then what is your response to my explanation of why your defense of him is garbage?
You and others are letting him get away with a policy of ignoring everything said about him.
Lewarcher, why do you believe Darox is town?
Please respond to my logic if you wish to defend him instead of just saying "I think he's town."
It's frustrating spending time reading carefully for scummy play,
constructing a case based on the fact that Darox's play is best explained by him having a scum win condition, and then seeing it ignored.
I'm starting to understand why Fate posts in caps lock all the time. Hard to ignore that.

Zed, what is your opinion of Darox?
Your lurking is not helping.

[Llamarble]

I think asking who is in favor and who against an early mass roleclaim is rolefishing.
Scum can read the responses to determine who is answering using extra information from their roles to inform their answer.

Catching up on recent posting now.

[Llamarble]

Also you didn't even give your own opinion, just asked others,
which really feels like scum trying to get free information and see if the town is willing to do something stupid.

[Llamarble]

I am scum because I commit scummy actions.
I commit scummy actions because I am scum.

Real convincing. Why bother defending myself when you can do it for me?

YOU ARE SCUM BECAUSE YOU COMMIT ACTIONS THAT MAKE SENSE IF YOU ARE PLAYING TO THE SCUM WIN CONDITION
AND DO NOT MAKE SENSE IF YOU ARE PLAYING TO THE TOWN WIN CONDITION.

Example: Projecting a bold attitude but not boldly scumhunting.
The town win condition is lynching all the scum. Therefore town scumhunt.
You have done almost no scumhunting despite a large number of posts.
The scum win condition is avoiding being lynched.
Boldness commonly gives people gut town reads on the bold player.
People say things like "look at him sowing chaos, he must be town!"
Therefore scum are interested in projecting a bold attitude.
Actually being bold in scumhunting, by posting well thought out arguments why players are scum and leading lynches on them,
Tends to attract attention (especially when the lynches that are lead are of town) and therefore is not the ideal approach for scum.
Therefore scum are not interested in boldly scumhunting (though sometimes they still try to in order to look town) whereas town are.
In general, town are focused on finding scum whereas scum are focused on their appearance.
Darox's play shows a pattern of focus on appearance, but it has worked so far
because people are buying the appearance he is projecting and giving him gut town reads despite his vigorously anti-town play.

Example 2:
His statement
"Zed trying to dismiss the colours case outright for false reasons would make a good third."
Is phrased as a player looking for lynches would see the situation rather than as a player looking for scum would.
It could be town phrasing a statement awkwardly, but scum phrasing the statement as made sense to them is a better explanation.
This statement also promotes the Ivy town lynch without requiring Darox to actually get on the wagon.
Scum want to push mislynches without being found responsible for them in order to achieve their objective of lynching townies and not getting lynched.
Town want to lynch people whom they believe are scum.
If Towndarox believed in the colors case, he would have been on that wagon.
Therefore Darox's statement makes more sense if he is scum here.

Lewarcher,
Almost every argument that a player is mafia invites the response "he wouldn't do that as mafia because it would get him in trouble."
The fact that an argument is infinitely recursive does not mean it should be ignored!
It means you should examine the argument and look for evidence of which level the truth is at.
In this kingdom of ravenous VIs, it is easy to get away with sowing chaos and anti-town behavior.
His antagonism worked so far and earned a number of "I think Darox is nasty town" comments,
So Daroxscum has no reason not to be sowing chaos.
Early on he tried to suggest that he might switch to being rational later and present a good argument that somebody is scum.
He thereby prepared an exit strategy if plan chaos failed.
Scum hedge and prepare for style changes if their initial approach isn't working
Town are honest and therefore post what their actual thoughts are, leading to a consistent playstyle.
Daroxscum sees sowing chaos is working, and so sticks to his obnoxious guns.
Daroxtown, if playing toward his win condition, would have presented rational thoughts at some point within the first day and a half as promised.

If Shotty selfeats, I'll go back through and explain clearly the several situations in which I believe Darox's actions are best explained by scummotive.

Limited access the next couple of days.

[Llamarble]

10) I believe that the GC exists. I also believe Furcolow's claim that one of them is a scum.

16) Wow, I just iso-ed Darox to see how substantial he was so that I could quote some evidence... To see that I couldn't find any good posts. But still, I can't feel a scummy vibe coming off of him. Do you have a gut feeling telling you that he's a scum? Even if you think your evidences point to scumminess, I don't feel him to be a scum.

If you believe 10 you believe they are 50/50 lynches and so if you are town you should be pushing to lynch one of them.
Why aren't you?
Mislynching a GC, by Bayes rule, makes it more likely none of them are scum.
It also makes the remaining GCs individually more likely to be scum if there is a scum GC, so being a GC remains null for me.
I disagree scum would autokill a GC if both are town slnce with 2 it is likely they will deadlock.

16 highlights why Daroxscum is dung-flinging. Acting antagonistic tends to give people gut town reads.
Darox is manipulating his image and the emotions of other players to look town instead of scumhunting,
so that players like Elleran make statements roughly equivalent to
"He is playing to the scum win condition, but for some reason I think he is town."
I will be very surprised if Darox flips town, so in that sense I do have a gut scumread on him.

Mod, could you include the deadline in future votecounts?
Also one way to get counts at the top of the page regardless of who posts first
is to just edit them into the end of the first post on each page.

I do include the deadline when we're getting near it, but yes I can.
And yes, I've seen the VC done via editing them into the first post, but when I was a player, I liked the fact that I could pull up a mod ISO and get the list of all the VCs, something you can't do if VC was done via editing 1st posts. -mod

[Llamarble]

Do you mean this?
"there is no way that neither of us would have been hit unless one of us is scum"
If both are town the scum might leave them alone in hopes they deadlock,
making them unusually suspicious VTs who think each other are scum.
If one is town and one scum the scum could be trying to help their buddy hide.
As I've said I think being a GC is pretty much null.

Also this
"Because I don't know the truthfulness of this evidence, I do not want to use it. I would prefer that one of the GC members be lynched today."
Is a blatant contradiction. You don't want to use the evidence that a GC is scum, but you want to lynch a GC?

And what do you mean you don't know how to push a wagon?
I suggest voting and presenting clear reasoning.

The mod ISO thing makes sense.

[Llamarble]

@Rob and Furc: why do both of you suddenly find me scummy for no stated reasoning of any kind?
@Zed: Who do you think we should lynch today and why?

1) I don't lie, even in real life. At the most I will tell a half truth.
Therefore, as mafia, I will not ever say "I am not mafia"

I am not mafia.

THIS STATEMENT IS EQUIVALENT TO: "I PROMISE TO CLAIM SCUM IF I'M SCUM."
I find this type of statement so annoying that although I am very much a play to win player,
I would consider lynching you reasonable simply to make the game more enjoyable.
I found your "look at my meta I must be town" similarly obnoxious.
It's not like you gave examples where you were a scum neighbor and had not outed your group.
I don't believe any player who has played a few games of mafia and supposedly did well on standardized tests
could truthfully make this statement.

Elleran and Furcolow are pushing a Rob lynch today just as they pushed the Poison lynch yesterday.
They are also diverting attention away from Darox, just like yesterday.
Elleran mentioned yesterday an intent to go after Furcolow, which he followed briefly then abandoned.
Lewarcher, DJ, and Darox also make sense to me as a scumteam plotting an Elleran mislynch.

Scumlist:
Darox's play projects a bold image but doesn't do anything to actually try to catch scum.
A number of players have sought to divert attention from him with minimal reasoning,
suggesting some of those players are protecting a scumbuddy. Additional reasons are in my previous posts.
Furcolow is spewing such trash that I find it impossible to believe he believes his own words. He also drove yesterday's mislynch.
Elleran believes a GC is scum and Darox is town for no specified reason beyond "gut." He also drove yesterday's mislynch.
Lewarcher has asked a question that may help scum figure out who PRs are and pushed the poison lynch.
The last time someone did that in a game with me they really were scum and gave the same "I'll explain my logic after" response.
Andrew has made a claim that is very convenient for a scum to make (avoids investigation/vig/lynch),
but bad play for town to make (defeats the purpose of a multilife townie which is to make scum waste NKs).
The excuse he gave for that play was that he was rolefished, which is not even a slightly valid reason.
Shotty has the name "Hungry Harold" and has done minimal scumhunting.
Zed and DJ have lurked and stayed aloof (a strategy that is particularly effective when the town is wild).
Zed has also fence-sat on the matter of Darox.

Townreads-
Me I know.
Rob is participating actively, was not pro Ivy lynch, and has not taken any obvious anti-town actions.

[Llamarble]

I didn't want to clarify the setup for the scum,
but since we have something like a roleblocker and possibly a multilife townie,
it is unlikely that we have a doctor (there are already enough NK preventing roles).
That means a mass roleclaim will just help the scum kill off our best PRs one by one.

@Furcolow: where are you saying I misrepresented your statement?
Do you mean that refusal to lie thing?
If I ask you point blank at the beginning of the game "are you scum this game, yes or no?"
and everyone agrees to lynch you if you don't answer,
how would you respond as scum and how as town?
How can you ever say "I think X is scum" without lying, if you're scum?
My point is that saying you never lie while playing scum is utterly absurd,
and I don't believe anyone could actually think that.

[Llamarble]

Elleran said:
"If Furcolow's evidence that one of you is scum is true, then I see you and Furcolow as a 50-50 scum-lynch."
What evidence? Perhaps Furc's so sure there's a scumGC because he is one.
I don't see anthing else very convincing.
The only evidence we have is that they are neighbors with a power so there's a decent chance one is scum.
But having all of them investigation immune weakens a cop and makes them unconfirmable, significantly reducing the strength of tripletown GCs.
A GC flipping town, by Bayes' rule, also makes it less likely one of them is scum.
I've said several times now that I believe being a GC is approximately a null tell.
If it were not, the GCs would gain a benefit by revealing and reduce the post analysis involved in the game.
Most setups are designed to prevent early claiming from helping the town, because it makes the game less fun.
Fakeclaim PMs often make it useless for scumhunting and early claiming helps scum find PRs.
That's also the reasons I think an early massclaim would be unwise.
Elleran's continued reliance on "evidence" which has several times been pointed out as null
does not make sense for a player with a town perspective.

Elleran's reliance on "evidence" that there is no reason to believe in looks like a choice to lynch based on convenience rather than on actual scumreading. Particularly since he said earlier in the game that he prefers post analysis.
Rob's 3 points from 785 are very strong.
To rehash them, Elleran wants to eliminate reasonable players (a probable goal of the Kublai Khan NK agrees with Elleran's goal for today).
His defense of his defense of Darox is WIFOM. Scum use all sorts of methods to protect their buddies.
Saying they will avoid one makes that one more appealing to them.
Scum often accept roleclaims without argument because they know they are true
or they know they are false but want everyone to believe their lying scumbuddy.
In addition to Rob's points,
Elleran was an Ivy lynchdriver.
He is now a Rob lynchdriver.
He has waffled on Furcolow.
He thinks Darox is town for boldness of speech despite a lack of accompanying bold scumhunting moves.
Lewarcher's 663 also points out a collection of actions that seem more likely if Elleran is scum.

Going through his ISO to see if there is anything else glaring:

The early "I'm almost convinced of Shotty's innocence" but "My Shotty vote remains because I have a reason to keep it there."
Simply contradict each other. It's a bit more likely for scum to make mistakes of this kind.
Minor scumslip

"@Darox: I'm curious. You haven't voted (except yourself, which I take it that it wasn't serious) throughout the whole game so far. What do you consider a vote to be and what would you use it for? You seem to have suspects in mind but you seem reluctant to actually place a vote. Is there a reason for that as well?"

He never followed up on this. It smells like "Look! I'm interacting with this player and thinking about his alignment!"
But if he actually was thinking about it, he would have said something about it later. Therefore this looks very faked.
Strong scumslip.

"Do you have a power that can allow you to be informed when you are spied upon? Do you have any clue about what form of spying it was?"

He said this to Shotty after Shotty announced he had been spied on.
In a game with several roles outed he may have hoped to get another premature claim out of Shotty.
He also is interested in how the spying works, which sounds like scum trying to avoid detection by a town PR.
Rolefishing scumslip

He accuses Furcolow of taking action that makes no sense (not voting rob),
but then unvotes him and forgets about it later, saying "Furcolow matters not."
This does not sound like a town thought process.
It could be distancing for awhile then moving into mislynch mode,
or it could have been him manipulating Furcolow to vote Rob,
making the GCs continue to get lynched if all of them are town.

UNVOTE; VOTE ELLERAN THIS IS L-1 DON'T QUICKHAMMER

I'm ready for an Elleran claim and lynch,
but we have a week left to talk about the GC night action and whether we believe what Elleran claims.

[Llamarble]

First off, claiming an important PR immediately makes someone more likely scum as scum claim PRs at L-1
since claiming VT will just get them lynched and claiming a PR will at least cause chaos.

Checking Elleran ISO for actions which TownExtroardinaryElleran does not take.
FOUND SEVERAL EXAMPLES.

"I am for role outing. We have about 4 days before the deadline. We need to do something and come to a conclusion."

Why on earth would you say this if you are actually a powerful town role,
whose presence makes it even more unlikely that there is a doctor?
That statement makes no sense unless you are lying.

Why would a 1shot cop exist in a land with so many abilities modifying cop results (3 GCs and possibly Olivia)?
A regular cop makes more sense to me.
So from a setup perspective I don't believe the role you have claimed exists.

"
'And Hungry Herold... Perhaps it means he can one-shot vig by eating someone's cookie? He doesn't NEED to be a scum. He could be a Townie.'

I hid this message there in case I was NK'ed and I didn't have a chance to reveal my findings."

Why is "Townie" bolded in that quote??
"He" refers to Shotty, not Darox in that statement.
I suppose when you were going back looking for statements to call breadcrumbs you picked this one without realizing it doesn't actually breadcrumb a "Darox is town" result?
(it says you think Darox is less scummy than Shotty, but the bolded "townie" refers to Shotty.)
Calling that quote a breadcrumb of a town Darox looks like a scumslip to me.

The "I'll eat my computer" quote is more of a breadcrumb, but is also very recent.
Neither of your breadcrumbs are from D1.
The reason players breadcrumb is to show that their claim isn't something they came up with recently for convenience. But your breadcrumbs are recent enough to eliminate that defense.


Oh wow.
don_johnson wrote:
"one of these three is scum:
shotty
darox
andrew.
simple wagon analysis tells us that. what is "girl's club"?"
Elleran responds:
"What is your reason for each person?

I personally disagree with andrew for sure. Like I said, I believe his claim."

IF YOU JUST COPPED DAROX AND GOT AN INNOCENT THEN WHY IS ANDREW THE ONE WHO IS TOWN FOR SURE?
DIE SCUM.


Without the roleclaim, Elleran is incredibly scummy (see my case before).
With it several of his statements simply don't make sense if he's town.
Perhaps E is for Evil or Envious.

[Llamarble]

Also about Darox:
"However, I would like to say that I am indeed very dissatisfied about his recent actions. His fake-daykill has put me in a meh mood."
WHY WOULD YOU UNDERMINE YOUR DEFENSE OF HIM IF YOU WERE CERTAIN HE IS INNOCENT?

[Llamarble]

Okay, I misunderstood his intended meaning in the particular example Darox just mentioned.
But that in NO WAY clears Elleran.
I found two statements that are CLEARLY at odds with a Daroxtown investigation result.
Elleran says "Andrew is town for sure,"
After being presented with the scumlist "Andrew, Darox, Shotty."
There is no reason for Ellerantown to express certainty of Andrewtown instead of Daroxtown.
He also says Darox's daykill fake put him into a "meh-mood"
There is no reason for Ellerantown to undermine his expressed certainty of Daroxtown. At all.

I hid this message there in case I was NK'ed and I didn't have a chance to reveal my findings.

And now that I understand what he meant here, this is RIDICULOUS.
Ellerantown would NOT expect us to clear Darox because of
last words of 3 sentences of a specific post after he died.
Especially not compared to a statement like "Andrew is town for sure."
So this is clearly false as well.

And the fact that Darox picked out one misinterpretation,
in the midst of a sea of conclusive evidence of Elleranscum,
makes me completely certain that he is an Elleranbuddy.

I think the third is Furcolow, but that's not as clear.

[Llamarble]

Darox, do you believe Elleran or not and why?
Did you (or anybody else) expect Elleranscum to say something significantly different from what he said?
If not, then why jump off the wagon (addressed to Rob and Shotty and DJ)?

[Llamarble]

Elleran responds:
"What is your reason for each person?

I personally disagree with andrew for sure. Like I said, I believe his claim."

IF YOU JUST COPPED DAROX AND GOT AN INNOCENT THEN WHY IS ANDREW THE ONE WHO IS TOWN FOR SURE?
DIE SCUM.

@Llamarble: I intentionally said nothing about Darox. I responded to the point about Andrew because that was something I believed.

In what way is it pro-town to intentionally say nothing about Darox,
thereby indicating you have a stronger townread on Andrew?
Answer: It's not pro town.
You treated Andrew as more town than Darox because you forgot or hadn't yet decided
that you were going to feign an innocent on Darox.
An actual cop would not fail to take their results into account the next day.

Later on you say you tried to breadcrumb a "Darox is town" result with the last words of 3 sentences.
Do you expect us not to see "I disagree with Andrew for sure" after an NK and think that was a cop result?
Certainly you couldn't have expected us to find the last words of sentences breadcrumb after an NK
and believe that more than this.
Therefore I don't believe you were actually trying to leave us information in case you were NKed.

And how do you explain your post saying you were "meh" on Darox?
Cop with an innocent has NO REASON to undermine the innocence of the player they inspected,
especially in a setup where it's unlikely to be an incorrect result.

And why would you be pro-massclaim with a role almost sure to get you NKed??

@Lewarcher
I have not played with Elleran before.
I believe he is scum for numerous reasons mentioned before his claim and because
his play in several instances is inconsistent with an innocent on Darox.

I believe Darox is scum too, but I overstated things when I said I was completely certain on Darox.
Elleran may be trying to cause a Darox mislynch after we lynch him.
That said I think it's likeliest they're both scum given Darox's willingness to believe/defend Elleran
and his prior lack of contribution / other scumtells.
Andrew's and Shotty's claims, while not blindingly town, I find more believable than Elleran's.

The simplest reason for scum to claim JOAT is what you just said, and what Rob said earlier;
If he had claimed alignment cop, he likely would not have been believed.
He avoids verification for a night regardless by claiming to have used a cop ability first,
and surviving one extra day is a great result for a scum who was going to be lynched.
JOAT is also less likely to run into counterclaims since a bit of overlap happens sometimes.

The first problem with checking Elleran is that it passes up lynching the most likely scum today.
The second problem with checking people is that we can't check both Shotty and Elleran
unless the one we check first is scum or we have a scum NK fail.
The reason is that we are at an even number now, so we want one extra death either of shotty
or by an Elleran vig to get us on the path to town-friendly lylo.
Also Elleran can just claim a scum PR messed with his action tomorrow in mylo/lylo.

I believe Elleran is clearly scum,
so we should lynch him today and have a better chance of hitting other scum tomorrow.
Giving scum an extra day of life because of a claim that contradicts their actions does not make sense.

[Llamarble]

Checking Elleran by having him compare a namecop on me to my name wouldn't be reliable.
First of all the scum can NK me and Elleran can say "oops, I'll have to try something else."
Elleran could also just lie about my name and try to get me lynched instead of him, potentially in lylo.
Alternatively he or a scumbuddy could easily be a scum namecop and simply get my name right.
And regardless he lives an extra day.
If he's a scum PR, that's an extra scum night action.
If he's any kind of scum, that's a day we miss out on examining the links to him.
I think he's scum, so I want to lynch him today.

Key points of Elleran case:
Willing to pursue GC lynch based on "evidence" Furcolow never actually provided.
Wants to eliminate reasonable players.
Drove Ivy lynch
Waffled on Furcolow
Claimed a strong PR. (scum tend to claim PRs, so this makes it significantly more likely he is scum)
Was in favor of a massclaim despite claiming an important very likely to die PR.
Claims an innocent on Darox, who seems scummy.
Claims he expected us to clear Darox in the event of him being NKed by reading the last words of 3 lines of a post.
Said he thought Andrew was "town for sure" with minimal reasoning in response to a post asking about both Andrew and Darox.
Made a statement that he was getting close to neutral on Darox.

His explanation for putting other players as clearer townreads than Darox is that he was trying to avoid attention.
I simply don't buy that. Putting myself in the shoes of a player with a town result on Darox, I don't think
"I want to avoid attention on me and Darox by saying I find Andrew town instead."
I think
"I want to keep heat off Darox and claim if necessary to keep us from mislynching him."
So when presented with a suspect list including Andrew and Darox I might say
"I don't really think Andrew or Darox are scum."
The big difference being that I don't imply somebody else is a bigger townread than my town investigation,
as that is lying and grounds for lynch. Same goes for saying Darox is leaning meh if you have a town result on him.
You claim you lied about the relative strength of your town reads to avoid attention.
That alone is enough to convince me you're scum.

[Llamarble]

Shotty: How long does it take to look up a role PM???
I'm thinking you really are scum, which would make Darox or Furcolow town.
And we lynch you and let Elleran reveal my or someone's name.
I'm hoping this is the case.
We'll see soon though.
And if you are town, please put a concise list of your reads and why before selfeating;
The ideas of confirmed town players are always helpful.

If we never lynched claimed PRs, then it's impossible to get scum to die the day they are found,
so town will lose much more often with this approach than with lynching randomly.
A strategy that is worse than random lynching is BAD.
Therefore we should lynch claimed PRs who are scummy.
Elleran is a claimed PR who is scummy.
Therefore we should lynch Elleran.
Clear?

Lewarcher, how is the conflict of Elleran's statements with a confirmed townread on Darox unclear?
DJ expressed suspicion of Andrew, Darox, and Shotty.
Elleran's response:

"I personally disagree with Andrew for sure. Like I said, I believe his claim."

This statement clearly suggests Andrew is a stronger townread for him than Darox.
This is therefore a lie if Elleran indeed copped Darox and got an innocent.
Later, he says:

"However, I would like to say that I am indeed very dissatisfied about his recent actions. His fake-daykill has put me in a meh mood."

Again, expressing doubts about Darox's innocence is lying if Elleran had an innocent copread on him.
Elleran's excuse for these statements is that he was trying to avoid excessive attention on him and Darox.
How is expressing doubts about a players' innocence supposed to keep attention off of them??
If an innocent copread of mine sounded scummy,
I might deflect attention without lying (perhaps by scumhunting or legitimate defense) or simply let attention come.
If one of us got to L-1 (or that seemed to be coming), then just claiming would be fine.
Especially since the cop ability looks like the strongest, in which case you being outed today wouldn't be such a big deal.
Lying about your reads to avoid attention is scummy.
I believe in lynching all liars because it prevents players from backtracking when caught in a contradiction, as here.

Furcolow continues to be ridiculous.
He claims if that if he is asked whether he is scum at the beginning of the game,
he will dodge the question as scum and answer truthfully as town.
Therefore asking Furcolow his alignment at the beginning of a game is sufficient to determine his alignment.
So Furcolow is willing to claim scum in any game where he is scum.
RIDICULOUS.
There is no way that is honest.
And commanding people to ignore Bayes rule is like saying
"I think all even numbers are prime but llama is using math to dispute that. Don't listen!"

[Llamarble]

Oh, Shotty could easily be an SK too.
I had been thinking there wouldn't be one because of the onekill last night,
but Shotty got roleblocked or something like it by the GCs which would explain that completely.

[Llamarble]

No, it IS pro-town.

The reason why I would intentionally not say anything is to protect my identity. This also explains my 'meh' post.

I knew Darox was town. SO WHAT? He wasn't playing productively nor was he getting himself any town-cred. It was such a bother to try to protect him because it not only attracted unnecessary attention to myself and him, but it detracted the town's attention away from scumhunting. By not directly saying "Darox is town", I tried to protect Darox without revealing my role.

You misinterpreted me.

My excuse to those statements was not "to avoid excessive attention". That excuse was why I didn't want to speak out when Andrew and Darox were addressed. My reason for the 'meh mood' was because despite my cop-findings on his town alignment, he was still acting unproductively and scummily

. I felt like a lawyer trying to defend a client who was telling everyone that he is guilty. My read is a read and his actions are HIS actions. Llamarble, do not associate how he acts with the alignment I claimed that he is. He is town, but he is not acting as such. That's not my problem.

You say you'd claim to protect a mislynch against someone who you knew was town? I wouldn't. I still have yet to use my other 2 abilities. Claiming and just getting killed earlier would be detrimental to town. Allowing a (I think) VT to live by sacrificing the cop (or JOAT in this case) is a bad idea. Not claiming but trying to protect the person is a strategy. If you consider such strategy scummy, then that's too bad. I think it's a legit pro-town move.

REFRAMING DETECTED

VOTE: Elleran
The contradiction is that he says he made the "meh post" to protect his identity,
but now says he was not doing it to avoid excessive attention after I explained why that's scummy.

Also if I were townEli I would claim to prevent a Darox mislynch;
the remaining powers you described do not make townElleran valuable enough to allow a confirmed innocent to die when you could stop it.
You seem to have an "I care more about surviving than helping the town win" mindset.

[Llamarble]

Well who do you think is scum now, Darox?

[Llamarble]

The purpose is not the same. One says A & B, the other says (Not A) & B.
You reframed one of your explanations not to include A after I said A was scummy.

I haven't focused on the detail level in your role description.
It looks either well thought out or related to you / a buddy's scumrole or a mod-given fakeclaim PM.
I don't think you should have claimed to protect Darox earlier since he wasn't ever really threatened yet.
What I said is that if Darox was really on his way to a lynch, claiming to stop a mislynch would be worth it.
Clear?

Other than that I want to lynch you (OMGUS Whee) why do you think I am scum?

[Llamarble]

Lewarcher, why are you "almost convinced" Elleran is town?
Zed, where is my logic against him not solid? Please participate more.
Darox, just because he says you're innocent doesn't mean he is innocent even if you are.
Please give and explain your opinion on my case.
Rob, I think Furcolow is crazy but he's not as scummy as Elleran.
What about my case against Elleran is unconvincing? If it is convincing, please vote him.
Furc, I think Rob is town. It's perfectly reasonable for both of you to be town.
The obvious reason for scum to leave both of you alive is that you will try to lynch each other, as has happened.
You don't appear to have posted much of a case against Rob other than that you are both GCs.
What about my case against Elleran is unconvincing? If it is convincing, please vote him.
You seemed to believe he was scum before his claim and his claim is scummy for reasons I have pointed out.

@Llamarble: You are scum because you've been tunneling on me since I started to defend Darox. You have refused to believe my evidences because they were opened to interpretation. You've taken everything I have said and only viewed them with the perspective that I was already scum. You say that my claim is a fake-claim. You say that my protecting Darox and my investigation on him are actions taken by a scum to protect his scumbuddy. You say that my breadcrumbings are weak and unrealistic. You say that my willingness to protect Andrew before Darox makes me anti-town and 'selfish' in the sense that I put my identity and life above that of another town player. You have been taking EVERYTHING I've said and have been only considering them as scum-actions without a blink of an eye. You have never stopped to consider any other possibilities and you refuse to reconcile. I see this as 100% tunneling done by a scum who is determined to rid the game of a town PR without using your NK ability.

I have pointed out actions of Elleran's that I believe are more likely from scum than from town.
That is not "refusing to believe things that are open to interpretation." It is scumhunting.
I believe I have found scum and now I am trying to get that scum lynched.
There is no actual case against me here, so I shall add "voting me without any sensible reason" to my list of Elleran's scumtells.

Lewarcher's point that HH was a good scumtarget is reasonable,
and it adds to the case against Elleran / Darox,
particularly since Darox drove the Shotty wagon after other players largely abandoned it.

Updated Elleran case to follow. I will try to explain very clearly.

[Llamarble]

Tunneling is useful.
It applies a lot of pressure and the focus can help the tunneler notice things that players not paying such close attention would not notice.
It also helps a player who believes they have found scum to get that scum lynched.
I believe I have found scum and I am now trying to get that scum lynched.
Clear?

And I have not presented my cases from a "Clearly Elleran is scum so he did this" perspective.
I am going through his actions and pointing out instances where actions either are less likely or outright don't make sense if Elleran is town.
That is also not the "cookiecutterscumtells" approach Darox seems to believe I am using.

The difference between the courses of action listed are that in the first one,
you make a statement that does not reflect your supposed knowledge (i.e. a lie).

Still working on main case.

[Llamarble]

Sure, tunneling has pros and cons, but players of both alignments do it all the time so it's not a scumtell.
I don't see how any of what you have said suggests I am scum.
Why (other than omgus) do you want to lynch me again?

Most actions can be interpreted as town actions or as scum actions.
The reason I want to lynch Elleran is that I think many of his actions are more

likely

to be scum actions than town actions.
A lot of actions that make more sense for scum than for town, considered together, make their perpetrator more likely to be scum than town.

I believe firmly in lynching liars / not lying as town except in extreme (such as townie, vig, scumroleblocker going into nighttime) or stupid (Darox fakevigging) situations. Occasionally there are pro-town gambits involving lying, but if the lie is revealed a lynch is expected. Doing something like claiming a VT style name and then changing it the next day is absolutely lynchworthy, since allowing that sort of thing enables scum to go on fakeclaiming bonanzas and retract it when CCed, saying Oh I was just trying to confuse the scum. Lynch all liars is very widely agreed to be good policy last I checked.


Rebuttals to rebuttals (bolded mine):

Key points of Elleran case:
1) Willing to pursue GC lynch based on "evidence" Furcolow never actually provided.
2) Wants to eliminate reasonable players.
3) Drove Ivy lynch
4) Waffled on Furcolow
5) Claimed a strong PR. (scum tend to claim PRs, so this makes it significantly more likely he is scum)
6) Was in favor of a massclaim despite claiming an important very likely to die PR.
7) Claims an innocent on Darox, who seems scummy.
8) Claims he expected us to clear Darox in the event of him being NKed by reading the last words of 3 lines of a post.
9) Said he thought Andrew was "town for sure" with minimal reasoning in response to a post asking about both Andrew and Darox.
10) Made a statement that he was getting close to neutral on Darox.

I will demonstrate how each of your point can be interpreted as town actions.

1) I was willing to pursue a GC lynch based on Furc's "evidence" because that was the best lead I had. And he DID provide it to the best of his ability without actually quoting his PM.

What was it? I'm pretty sure no actual evidence was ever provided, so I don't see how that could be "your best lead."

2) By reasonable players, if you mean my willingness to lynch Rob at the time, look at my first point again. He is a GC. Scums can be reasonable if they are playing well. This is a null tell, especially after I had said that Rob had been acting well and that my purpose of voting him was NOT because he was sensible, but because he was part of the GC.

Again, I don't recall ever seeing any evidence a GC is scum.
Scum attack town players more than they attack scum players because their win condition is to kill the town.
Therefore attacking Rob, a player who has seemed town to me, and Poison, Shotty, and me,
whom I know to be town, is more likely from scum than from town.
In this specific case I also got a gut impression that your scumplan is to remove reasonable players and take advantage of the VI count,
since Poison and Rob had both been among the more useful.

3) So did lewarcher. But also, I provided a case that I had legitimately believed to be my strongest thought that I had against a player at the time. Building a case is not scummy. Even when it is a mislynch, it is not always scummy. Does that make everyone who agreed with wagon-drivers scummy? Often, it is a TOWN player who leads cases against another town player simply because there are more of them.

I understand that any given player is more likely town than scum, and that town sometimes lead mislynches. A player who leads mislynches is still more likely to be scum than a player who does not lead mislynches (for the same basic reason that scum are trying to kill the town whereas town want to kill scum and avoid lynching town).

4) I don't get your point about "waffled on Furcolow". If you mean my willingness to vote Rob rather than Furc, then understand that I am fine with either lynch. Please clarify.

The point here was that you pointed out a bunch of weird behavior from Furcolow, including not voting Rob as would follow from his logic day 1, and had Furc voted at the beginning of the day. Then after the initial Shotty wagon, you moved over to Rob mentioning only "gut" and a belief a GC was scum. I have seen explanations of neither the reason you thought a GC was scum nor of why you found Rob the scummier GC.
Scum are likelier to have a vote on someone with a weak case to back it up because they are targeting the town and the truth doesn't favor them. Town make weak cases too, but scum can't make true cases unless they're bussing / targeting a third party.
Therefore having weak reasoning behind actions is a scumtell, which is why I included this point.

5) I claimed a strong PR because that is what I am. It doesn't make sense to me for me to lie right now. That'd be anti-town and just stupid. And yes, if a Town PR is under pressure, that town player also tends to claim his role. (You don't even consider this possibility and claim that any "strong PR claim under pressure" = scum. You don't even consider or mention any exceptions. Horrible generalization.)

Obviously, if you're a major PR, you should claim that, but scum will usually claim major PRs hoping to delay their lynch a day or provoke a counterclaim. That means a player who claims a major PR after getting to L-1 is more than 50% (exact number depends on how many major PRs there actually are, but with the GCs and Shotty I'd say there are at most 1 or 2 left, making a major PRclaim at least a ~60% chance to be scum) to be scum, which is substantially better than the random odds (~33%) of hitting scum. Thus this action, while possible for town to take, makes it more likely you are scum.

6) I was in favor because I can check names with my second ability. i.e. see who is lying. I was hoping to come up with a different E-adjective to disguise myself during the claim so that I had a chance to check someone out. (Yes, I am admitting that I was going to lie on purpose. Before you go and say 'lynch all liars' again, consider my town perspective and what I had to benefit from using my second ability.)

If you had come out the next day, which may have been lylo, and said "I lied about my role. Actually I am X and have results Y." You would have been lynched in about 2 seconds because Lynch all Liars is good strategy, as explained above and on the wiki. I have trouble believing you honestly did not know / expect that. It seems much more likely you just wanted all the PRs outed early and are now trying to come up with a justification for why you would want that as a major PR while trying to explain away your downplaying of Darox's innocence on the side. And what did you expect to happen if the GCs namecopped you after your lie? It all sounds very fishy and made up.

7) That was what my investigation said. Did you consider that maybe I really AM a JOAT and I am NOT lying? Did you consider that I can be saying that to prevent a mislynch? Like you said, it can just like otherwise. However, you fail yet again to consider or mention this possibility.

Yes, you could be telling the truth and Darox could be town. However, in order for you to be innocent, Darox must be town. His play has not looked very town to me at all. After coasting through D1 without content, all he has done today is drive the Shotty mislynch. Since Darox has looked scummy, and if he is scum you are too, that makes it more likely you are scum.

8) I was actually surprised that no one caught (or admitted that he/she caught) that breadcrumbing. It seemed pretty noticeable to me. P I suppose it should be since I was the one that wrote it.

Again, this seems absurd to me. Your claimed role doesn't even make it obvious you're a cop, so we wouldn't even necessarily be looking for an innocent if townElleran got NKed. If you had said "I put this here so I could point it out as a breadcrumb when I claimed," I would not have complained, but saying it was there so people could figure out you had an innocent copread on Darox after your death sounds ridiculous.

9) My reason was that I believed his claim. Previous to his recent blind following, the only noteworthy characteristic of his was his claim. I analyzed the conditions in which he claimed, and a true claim made sense to me. You say that this is minimal reasoning. Like Darox, Andrew have not been particularly full of content. Saying that I did not have enough reasoning for expressing an opinion about a player who does not post with content was just as lame as the 'minimal' reasoning that was provided.

My primary problem with that post, as I've said before, is not that you said you believed Andrew, which I can imagine a town player saying. It is that you said you thought Andrew was clearly town and didn't say anything about Darox, your now claimed innocent copread. Cops should not indicate that they believe in someone else's innocence more than a confirmed townie's. I find it much more likely that you simply forgot to pretend an innocent copread than that you actually had a copread and did that for misleading-the-town purposes.

[Llamarble]

10) This has already been covered. I intentionally did not express my knowledge on Darox to keep my identity hidden. Seeing that Darox had been acting very unproductive, I knew that trying to defend him would be excruciatingly difficult for me and knew that it would probably have to resort to me claiming. Apparently, the only alternative to this for you is that I'm a scum using minimal reasoning to protect a scumbuddy.

There's no reason for a cop to undermine the innocence of a confirmed townie. I think the most likely actual reason you did this was a combination of forgetting to pretend you had a confirmed innocent on him and wanting to avoid attention. By the way, you've just contradicted yourself again; in your post 943 you say specifically that the "trending meh" statement was because of frustration and not "to avoid attention" (or equivalently keep identity hidden). Being unable to keep your story straight makes me feel like it's more likely you actually just weren't keeping your copread in mind, which is more likely to happen if you don't actually have a copread, which would imply you're scum.

Apparently, you seem to believe any argument not based on semantic is minimal and not optimal. Like I said, broaden your thoughts for once.

What's a semantic argument? I just checked the definition, and I don't see how it's related to my logic.

[Llamarble]

Yuck, I was having wierd issues posting that as one thing (I guess it wouldn't fit on the page or something?) and broke it in two, but now it's on two pages. Oh well.

[Llamarble]

Explanation of my behavior:
I actually mentioned Elleran as a potential Daroxbuddy shortly before your post 663 attacking Elleran,
and mentioned him several times during your case against him before adding my vote.
Darox was scummy so I ended up spending a lot of time (also partially because of his annoyingness) attacking him.
And I had my vote on Shotty because I believed the evidence against him was sufficient for a lynch
and that if he was town his death would put us on track to lylo instead of mylo, losing him instead of the scums' choice of NKs.
Eventually strong post/action based scumreads began to override that, ultimately resulting in my joining the Elleran wagon.
At that point I found him scummy, partially for his attitude toward Darox and partially for other actions.
_After_ my vote on him, he claimed. (So it's not as though I didn't find him scummy until after the claim)
Several players unvoted, but I did not.
I tend to find PRclaims scummy, and I prefer to lynch after such a claim unless it looks particularly believable or is clearly checkable.
Therefore I looked to see if his claim was consistent with his actions, and found it was not.
Since then I have been pushing hard for his lynch.

∃(Godfather) --> ∃!(Godfather) What? Doesn't this imply there's no godfather? And why do you think that?
Rob v Furc v Andrew
Andrew could be scum who just inspects as scum.
It's a pretty weird / clever claim if he is though. Fakeclaim PM seems possible but still pretty odd.
The chances that 1 of the two is scum don't seem much different from the average from a setup perspective, though come massclaimtime the setup might get clearer.

I think the following assumptions are safe from a general perspective:
Rob and Furcolow are not both scum.
Elleran and I are not both scum.
If Elleran is town then Darox is town.

By the way one of the reasons tunneling can be pro-town is that it tends to produce this sort of relationship when it's genuine.

An Elleran flip will pretty much confirm either me or Darox as town and make the other look bad, which looks like the most informative flip.
Of course the scum can shoot the confirmed townie, but they might fail to, want to make wifom, or have another agenda.
The GCs can either use their power on me/Darox depending who looks scummy after the flip, or they can check someone else.
Probably leaving it up to them is best since it preserves the chance of a successful RB.
I want to lynch Elleran because I am confident he is scum, but it makes sense from a strategic perspective as well.

[Llamarble]

Andrew is our ideal lynch in mylo, since he's either scum or a no lynch + confirmed town.
Unless we reach in that situation, the only reason to lynch him is if we think he's the most likely scum.

Big post coming. I'll try to be as concise as possible.

[Llamarble]

I think MLYO was a typo for LYLO. Andrew does have the right idea here.
We should not lynch him unless we think he is the most likely scum (which I, for one, do not).

[Llamarble]

Continuing the Elleran Case:

The "evidence" of Furcolow that Elleran refers to is that Furc believes him being a neighbor intrinsically makes one of the other neighbors scum.
My response to that was: in no way does it make sense for a mod to give a player a 50:50 lynch. Presumably they are just regular neighbors.
E's response of HERPA DERPA SOUNDS GOOD TO ME does not sound like town carefully considering information to decide who is the best lynch.
It sounds like scum happy to have found an excuse to push a mislynch. Elleran actively avoided scumhunting poison and was content to vote park on her until she died because of the crap reason above and because she asked a couple players to be more active, which he said looked like "trying to command scumbuddies." HOW DO PEOPLE THINK THIS IS TOWN PLAY?

Like I said, I don't have a preference for either GC lynch.

HOW CAN YOU NOT HAVE A PREFERENCE BETWEEN TWO LYNCHES? ANSWER: YOU ARE SCUM AND DON'T CARE AS LONG AS YOU HIT TOWN.
People who are town scumhunt to figure out who they think the best lynch is. You seem to just want to hit anyone from a group, such as the following group which he listed without any explanation of why any of the members are scummy.

Look, guys. IMO, these guys are town: Darox, Shotty, Lewarcher, Andrew, Zed, and myself. I think 3 of the following are scums: Llamarble, RobCopone, Don_Johnson, and Furcolow. We should get one of people on my scumlist to be lynched today.

He gave a stunningly mediocre explanation of his townlist when it was demanded shortly thereafter, and no explanation of the scumlist. In general, the only scumhunting I could find from Elleran was pointing out the weirdness of Furc's play and the very weak case he used as an excuse to vote-park on Poison. He did not follow up on his case against Furc and instead later voted Rob, again making me think he's not actually trying to figure out who the scum are. Right now he wants to lynch me, but the only thing he has accused me of is thinking he is scum. Town players vote people because they think they are scum. They provide reasoning for their votes in a process called scumhunting. I do not see this process from Elleran. HE WANTS TO LYNCH PEOPLE BUT DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE PROTOWN REASONING FOR SUCH BY SCUMHUNTING.

Last night, I investigated Darox because he was acting so strangely. It was an Alignment Investigation that is once-useable that involved

using my 'laptop'

.

I do my

alignment investigation using Fingerprint Scanning Kit

.

I do my name investigation using a laptop that runs out of battery after one use.

I do my watcher ability using a traveling cloak to watch someone, but the cloak gets ruined after one use.

Ignore the flavor if you don't like them. The power is what that matters. (Also, I know that I said 'I'll eat my laptop' before. I ddn't say 'fingerprint scanning device' on purpose because that'd be more than breadcrumbing. By saying 'laptop' it'd make sense because I'm using a computer to play MafiaScum which I would eat.)

Scum are less likely to keep their story straight because it isn't actually their story. They are therefore prone to contradictions such as this one.
And the one I mentioned before where he essentially states
"I made the meh post because I did not want to give away my identity."
"I did not make the meh post because I did not want attention, I did it because I was frustrated with Darox."
Reframing a story to make it sound less scummy usually means it wasn't true either time.
This is not a semantic/wording argument, this is you saying X, then saying "Not X; Y."

Much of Elleran's defense against my case seems to be based on mixing up "always" with "likely"
Just because occasionally a player who pushes mislynches without scumhunting, contradicts himself on several occasions, lacks a clear stance on a player they later say is confirmed town, and is for a mass roleclaim, but then claims an important PR, could against the odds be town, it does not mean we should not lynch them.

I am ready to see an Elleran Hammer.

[Llamarble]

@Furc:What?

I very strongly dislike all of this "We should lynch Andrew and not Elleran or Zed because setup reasons,"
Since the setup reasons being mentioned are absolutely terrible and the strongest advocates are turboscummy.
Scum love when they think they can get away with using strategic reasoning to avoid getting lynched,
since the next day they can say "oh, that was just strategy!"
Same goes for Zed's defense of Elleran on the basis of "don't lynch a claimed PR."
Strategic reasoning should only be used when something else is _Clearly_ better than just lynching the scummiest player.
Example: Lynching Andrew in mylo or no lynching in standard mylo.
Otherwise it's essentially always best to lynch the scummiest player.
In this particular case, the strategic situation actually makes it _significantly worse_ than normal to lynch Andrewtown than a normal townie.

Allow me to explain how bad what Lew suggested and Elleran, Zed, and Rob are voting for is:
They want us to lynch a player who isn't among the scummiest and then if we're wrong give the scum two straight NKs (one today and one tomorrow after we no-lynch in mylo).
The scum would even get to kill Andrew, since they can shoot him repeatedly after we no-lynch in mylo (lynching in mylo is bad), so we don't even get a confirmed town out of it.

Being on track to mylo is only good if we have something good to do in mylo (Andrew lynch) or have a good chance of the scum NK failing, or can make an extra town NK.
We would be using our mylo-useful action up today, the scum are unlikely to fail their NK (since if Andrew is town then he and the GCs are probably the extent of our kill prevention and a scumGC could make that moot), and if we have our own NK it would be equally good and more informative to lynch someone else today and let the vig test Andrew's innocence. Therefore there is no way lynching Andrew today is positive unless he is scum, but he is not the scummiest player.
The players (Elleran especially, since Elleran professed a "sure" belief in Andrew's innocence before despite claiming a role which can actually use "sure" meaningfully) trying to use his role as an (awful) excuse to lynch him are far scummier than he is.

I believe Elleran is scum. We should lynch him so there are less scum.
It looks like Zed or Darox but probably not both are Elleranbuddies.
I'm leaning strongly toward Zed after a reread. Darox is creeping toward redemption.
On a reread of her, she offers to hammer Elleran while he's at L-1, saying he's the best lynch (specifically because she "likes llamarble's case" and finds him too trusting) right before Elleran's claim and then after a couple people unvote she does a 180 and says she believes his claim. I think she figured he was a doomed buddy and readied a bussing hammer vote, then decided there was hope and changed around. Next she's for my lynch for no reason other than my continuing to believe Elleran is scum after his claim. She says my logic doesn't have particular holes but she doesn't agree with it after having said she agreed with a case based on several of the same points before. Then she changes her vote to Andrew when he becomes the most promising nonElleran/Zed target. She also invokes the deadline to push that terribly reasoned lynch. She also voted for the ivy lynch for incredibly weak reasons, if any at all. Early day 1 she said she said Elleran didn't seem scummy.
I think she is lurkerscum.
I have no idea where Elleran gets this "stands by her opinions" vibe since she has said almost nothing and yet has still managed to go back and forth all over.

Then the third scum would be a GC, DJ, or Lewarcher (Andrew seems doubtful unless bus mode is activated).
Lewarcher might be contemplating a Zed bus or simply a Zed vote. He did come up with this Andrewvote business too.
I need to read DJ more, but if he's scum he's bussing Elleran pretty convincingly.

The deadline is coming in a couple of days.
We should lynch Elleran.

[Llamarble]

Defending Lewarcher's case against me: (I'd do the same for Elleran & Zed & Furc if they actually had presented cases)

I began to mention things I found suspicious in Elleran's activity on page 30.
I made vote L-1 with a large case on page 33.
After the claim, I went through to see if it made sense to me, and it did not, so I continued to push for Elleran's lynch.
That's not "failing to pause," it's considering the new information and deciding it's likely Elleran is fakeclaiming.
Shotty self eats 6 pages later, on page 39, while I am still pushing Elleran's lynch
(though I did find the amount of time Shotty spent "looking at his role PM" suspicious).

So the case you give on me (jumping on Ell after Shotty's lynch and being a shotty-lynchpusher) is actually just based on things that straight up did not happen.
Earlier in the day I was voting for a Shotty lynch because "Hungry Harold" sounded like someone who might be trying to eat my cookie, and his selfeating would be like no lynching to avoid mylo but with us choosing the NK instead of the scum,
but since becoming convinced of Elleran's extreme scumminess I have pushed his lynch consistently.
The primary continued pusher of the Shotty lynch was actually Darox, who I think could still be scum depending on whether Zed is.
I also joined the Elleran wagon before his claim, not after, as you had said before, and you can see my growing suspicions of him several pages before that.
Elleran and Zed, on the other hand, simply jump from wagon to wagon without even really trying to present reasoning.

How have we not lynched Elleran yet??

[Llamarble]

It's not a very good time for one-liners. We have today and tomorrow to make a lynch happen.
Lewarcher, do you agree I have satisfactorily answered your charges against me?
Who do you want to lynch?

[Llamarble]

Saying Rob is scum because he lacks a voting handicap DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. POISON DIDN'T HAVE ONE. ELLERAN IS USING ANY EXCUSE HE CAN FIND TO VOTE PEOPLE OTHER THAN ZED, WHOM HE FINDS TOWN FOR ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE REASONING. He thinks she's town since she "sticks by her opinions" when she has gone back and forth on him, the poison colors case, and almost everything else she's said the entire game... THIS IS NOT A TRUTHFUL READING OF A PLAYER / EVALUATION OF SCUMMINESS.

Honestly I think scum are a lot more likely to lose a vote since that kind of handicap could really screw town whereas scum aren't relying on their votes to win, but at the moment I'm not nearly as convinced of the scumminess of either GC as I am of other players (Furcolow appears to be crazy/illogical/VI, but that isn't the same as being scum). He is refusing to give information which has been asked of him without explaining why though, which I do not approve of, and his post saying TownElleran should have claimed VT made me quiver with OMFGTHISDOESNOTMAKESENSE.


Looking at things from an "is this more likely if you are scum" viewpoint is how cases are made.
Trying to use that as a counterargument is ridiculous.
It's not like I took every statement of Elleran's and said "this indicates scum."'
I found examples and patterns that were scummy and pointed out why I found them so.

Darox pushing Zed could easily be bussing because his wagon on her does not appear to have chances of actually lynching so there's not much cost to Daroxscum (though Zed would be my second choice lynch after Elleran).
I do approve of Darox pushing Zed lynch because of scumminess though, UNLIKE ELLERAN/ZED/OTHERS WHO ARE PUSHING LYNCHES FOR "STRATEGY REASONS" THAT ARE ENTIRELY WRONG.

[Llamarble]

If it is necessary, I will vote Andrew to prevent a no-lynch.

[Llamarble]

Well that sounds like a 'blaze of wifom' intended to make me look scummy if I switch to Andrew and he flips scum.

I still (obviously) prefer Elleranlynch by a large margin though.

[Llamarble]

I think your lynch is a bad idea compared to other lynches, but it's better than no-lynching.

[Llamarble]

UNVOTE; VOTE ZED

As I said, Zed is my second choice lynch, so I prefer that to Andrew.
I was just saying I'd vote Andrew if he was the alternative to a no-lynch.
Zed's claim doesn't strike me as incredibly unbelievable, but being easy to lynch could be a scumthing to balance out possible weakvoting Furcolow anyway.
Also it implies leaving her alive and failing to lynch scum loses us the game regardless.

[Llamarble]

Somebody should toss on an extra vote to make sure we don't get bamboozled into a no-lynch, though that seems like a silly thing for a scum to try unless she didn't estimate the deadline right.

[Llamarble]

Well, considering we do lose automatically if Furc's vote-thing triggers and he's town, and it seems like a vote handicap for scum to balance out hated townie Zed would make sense, I'm inclined to agree. However, I have bigger fish (

CONFIRMED SCUM

) to fry.

LYLO. Massclaimtime.

VOTE: ELLERAN

I am Scooby Sue, an alignment cop. At night, I walk my dog, Faithful Fido, who can smell good and evil, to another player's cabin and find out their alignment. It wasn't specified to me how GCs are investigation immune, but I'm guessing they smell like perfume or something that overpowers my dog's nose. Maybe "Odd Olivia" just doesn't shower or something and that's why I can't check her, or she could be lying, or it's something else I haven't thought of.

My strategy is to investigate players who will be useful if town but are hard to read.
N1 I investigated Kublai Khan, which wasn't particularly useful because he died.
N2 I copped Don Johnson and received a "Cookie Scout" result.

That leaves:
LLama-town
DJ-town
Rob/Furc - at most one scum, presumably
Andrew-possible scum
Darox-can only be scum if Elleran is scum
And Elleran.

If Elleran is not scum then Darox is not, so the scumteam would have to be Andrew and the 2 GCs, all of whom claim investigation immunity. I very very strongly doubt both GCs are scum (both from a setup perspective and from a "they've been at each other's throats" perspective), which essentially confirms Elleran as scum.

So the scumteam is:
Elleran, one or both of Darox and Andrew (if only one of them then a GC).

The reason beyond simple scumminess that I pushed Elleran so hard yesterday was that I found a cop/GCs/InvestigativeJOAT to be too much town power, so I found his claim hard to believe. He fooled us into mislynching Zed by painting her as scummy with logic-free buddying.

[Llamarble]

Either Elleran is scum or the scumteam is Andrew, Rob, and Furc, which I really don't believe. I don't have an outright cop result on Elleran because I didn't want to waste one on somebody I was already pretty sure about and I thought scum might NK him if he was town to keep him from confirming me as town.

[Llamarble]

I bolded confirmed scum because I, like pretty much everyone else, have been assuming there aren't two scum GCs, in which case Elleran must be scum.

[Llamarble]

Breadcrumbs / proof of claim:
On day 1, I said:

Well, at least any cop now knows who not to waste investigations on, which helps.

It smells extremely strongly of coasting scum.

Here I breadcrumbed by pointing things out that were of particular importance to me due to my role, and by pointing out that scumminess is a smell.

I initially found Andrew's claim strange because I couldn't figure the flavor of his investigation immunity,
but he hasn't played too much like an Elleranbuddy so I am currently leaning town on him.

On day 2, I said

I find it reasonable that if there are both a name cop and an alignment cop then there will be players who mislead each,
but presumably they are somewhat useful for finding scum or there would be no reason to include them.
Therefore Shotty's name being Hungry Harold makes him likeliest to be scum and gets my vote.
Or maybe there's a PR that can only operate if it knows its target's name?
Also for all we know there may not be an alignment cop at all, in which case the name cop should be pretty reliable.

Again, I refer to my role, though I state that the town doesn't know for sure there's a cop to keep it from being too obvious I'm the cop. I do this in the next post of my ISO as well, where I say it's possible HH was a fakeclaim PM given to balance multiple cop type roles.

Why would a 1shot cop exist in a land with so many abilities modifying cop results (3 GCs and possibly Olivia)?
A regular cop makes more sense to me.
So from a setup perspective I don't believe the role you have claimed exists.

Here I again indicate my knowledge that we have a standard cop and explain that part of my disbelief of Elleran comes from my impression of what the setup is.

The big difference being that I don't imply somebody else is a bigger townread than my town investigation,

In here and several other places I make statements about how I play as cop.

I was strongly against a massclaim yesterday because as I said then I don't think there's a doctor so it would basically get me killed with no confirmed anything to show for it.

[Llamarble]

I find Rob's claim extremely sketchy.
I can't imagine a situation where any town player should ever sacrifice themself for another player before their flip.

[Llamarble]

I guess if he were trying to save somebody important he had namecopped a self sacrifice could confirm his namecop-ees as town?
If Angry Angela was a vig (probably 1shot given the town investigative power) she might be worth keeping around for an extra night??
Self sacrificing governor is still a really really weird role though.

[Llamarble]

And now the longer post I was working on:

The logic Elleran described above is the reason I stated that he is confirmed scum, so yes I confirm it's correct.

I seriously considered counterclaiming yesterday, but didn't for several reasons.
Reason 1 is the most important.

1. I thought I would be able to get Elleran lynched without counterclaiming. This would give me a better chance of avoiding a roleblock or NK or other scum shenanigans. I believed this because Lewarcher, DJ, Rob, Furcolow, and Andrew expressed willingness to vote him at different times and the main counterwagon on Andrew was founded on logic that did not make sense, so I figured come deadlinetime I would get my Elleran lynch. I also was able to present a much stronger case against Elleran than anyone presented against any other players. Unfortunately Zed looked like an Elleranbuddy and got some votes shortly before the deadline and then claimed a must-lynch-this-player ability, and lynching someone other than Elleran was better than nolynching.

2. I didn't and don't think there's a doctor. GCs + Andrew are plenty of NK reducing townpower, and the cop + doctor combo is typically considered too strong. That means I'd have simply died last night after trading for a scum.

3. I wasn't sure it would actually help me get Elleran lynched. Since things seemed to be moving toward an Elleran lynch, I didn't want to change the game/break the momentum by making my claim, as that would also give Elleran something to yell at. As it was, he presented no case against me other than me tunneling him, which just made him an easier scum to lynch.


I tend to think Andrew is town and Darox is scum and a GC is scum with Elleran.
The strongest counterwagon before the Zed one yesterday was against Andrew.
Then when that one was failing the Darox-pushed one on Zed actually stopped my Elleranlynch.
Darox was also the primary pusher behind the Shotty "lynch."

Elleran was the primary wagon yesterday until the Andrew/Zed wagons arose as counterwagons.
If one player looks like the day's lynch, and then another wagon rises up shortly before the deadline instead, it's likely a scumdriven counterwagon to protect a player.
Elleran wasn't actually on that wagon, but he helped it forward by saying Zed was town with no logical backing.
The fact that the strongest case yesterday was mine against Elleran but it didn't get him lynched also makes it more likely he is scum, since scum are harder to lynch by virtue of having some of the voters as allies.

Now Elleran is claiming that the namecheck he was going to perform to prove himself conveniently died last night.

I have presented mountains and mountains of evidence for Elleran being scum, whereas he has justified none of his actions with scumhunting-logic and has instead given out unsupported reads. Now we have reached a situation where it is clear to all that one of us is scum. And one wrong vote can wreck us.

Sorry Andrew, I can't 100% prove I'm town until we've lynched Elleran; the whole town has to vote Elleran based on reads / the greater strength of my case in order for us to not lose today.

Darox's watcher claim is interesting; it makes a JOAT even less plausible; cop(me)/watcher(Darox)/namecop(GCs) makes much more sense than watcher/namecop/(watchernamecopcop). Particularly without a doctor and with all the things that mislead (harold, GCs, Elleranlaptopusingability).

A scum with all Elleran's abilities would make a lot of sense though; it would make PR hunting a good deal easier (watcher, namefinder) and could help find townies with funny investigation status(i.e. Andrew or the GCs).

[Llamarble]

Now Elleran is just trying to put himself on an equal footing with me in town's eyes.
He still has yet to give scumhunting logic for lynching me. Instead he just defends and defends and says oh look it's 50-50, hoping to get a townie to vote me so the scumteam can quickhammer.

It's true my claim is not a direct counterclaim, since cop and JOAT are not incredibly rare as a combo, but in this case cop/investigative JOAT/GCs seemed like too much town investigative power to me, particularly given claimed protective power from Andrew and the roleblock aspect of the GCpower. And the overlap isn't just with me, it's overlap with both me and the GCs (and now apparently Darox), which was a lot to believe given how scummy Elleran already was.

[Llamarble]

Furc's last makes sense, and him voting Elleran here makes me think it's more likely he's town, particularly after Rob's weird claim.
Having the hated townie cause the voteloss by being NKed means the town will never have both the vote-handicap and the easy lynch come into play.

[Llamarble]

Muahahaha!
I was hoping I would wake up to a finished game after I saw Furc's vote.
I actually thought Andrew was most likely to vote for Elleran and was pretty sure Darox wouldn't.
I think this game was a lot closer than it seemed, since if Rob had been lynched instead of PI D1 the girls club would have a powerful force for good and potential NKstopper instead of a way for us to RB people and hunt town PRs.
Several players seemed to have good reads at various points, but there weren't a lot of logically strong, forcefully pushed cases against us.
Hungry Harold getting GCed and then suiciding helped us a lot, but I'm not sure how that could have been avoided.

I'm curious whether Andrew actually was unlynchable, the way he described putting his cookie back made him sound only NK immune, so I thought if mylo happened we might get a winning ML on him.

Lew, were you actually a 1 shot vig? I found out your name N1 and NKed you N2 because you might be able to prove Andrew's innocence and make too many clears (and because we didn't want a vig around).

[Llamarble]

Fascinating, and it looks like we got lucky that Kublai wasn't hiding in the woods N1.

[Llamarble]

The dead QT was fun to read. Looks like killing Lewarcher was pretty key.
Thanks FakeGod for a cool setup and a fun game!
I particularly like Brave Bob's role; it's mostly irrelevant early but then can shed a lot of light when people start claiming stuff.
And the way Zed/Furc's roles worked together was neat.

[Llamarble]

Elleran, I think you played pretty well.
Your defense was mostly good, but I think you would have had a better chance of lynching me if you had gone through my ISO quoting scummy stuff to build a case off of. I never really saw you explain what your reads were based on beyond gut reads and tried to take advantage of that when I was attacking you.
A town with more clearthinkinglistener/analyzer types would have helped you, but that's why we were killing them.
Darox saying I was a waste of a lynch D2 hurt the chances I'd get lynched a lot, and after a townie lynch we only needed one vote in lylo.