Doctor Who Mafia 2- GAME OVER!

[Yosarian2]

Woah, sorry everyone, totally forgot I signed up for this game. I'll be caught up and say something relevent in a bit.

[Yosarian2]

Ok, some thoughts as I catch up:

-Hmm...interesting night zero. 3 killing groups, huh? Also, cult leader dead, but he might have recruited someone during night zero; just something to note for later.

-Just so you guys from SA know, that list of tells on the Wiki is quite old; it was origionally made by Jeep several years ago, and the main reason for the list was "these tells are so obveous, let me just list them so they'll go away and everyone will play better". People don't really take the Jeep tells very seriously anymore. However, day 1, page 1, a person's optiosn are basically "do nothing", "random vote", or "make a huge deal out of some tiny scum-tell like thing and try to get a reaction"; and the third option is often the best, as far as moving the game foward go. Also, small quick day 1 bandwagons for small reasons like that are quite common, usually to get reactions, to see who supports the wagon and who opposes it; it's a only slightly risky way to get the game going and generate information, and when it's only 6 votes with 16 to lynch, it's got basically zero chance of going anywhere on it's own.

Also: Policy lynches or "let's lynch this guy because he said a phrase on our magic infallible wiki list" seem to me to be more of a convenient way to avoid having to actuaslly think.

There, I said it.

Yeah; like I said, we don't actually lynch someone because of the old Jeep tells, and people don't really take them all that seriously; they're just a "slightly better then random" starting place when there's basically zero information, on the theory a slightly-less-then-random vote is better then a totally random vote.

Policy lynches are a bit different; the idea is that if X action hurts the town, then it can sometimes be a good idea to "punish" anyone who does that action with votes or even lynches, in order to deter people from doing it; even if the person is no more likely then average to be scum, it can still help the town win just by preventing anti-town play. Lynching lurkers is a good example of this. There's a lot of debate over if policy lynches are ever a good idea.

[Yosarian2]

I'd bet money on us having a Mason group. I'd bet theres bulletproof player (s). I'd even be willing to stretch that theres a lyncher and a lynchee.

Speculating on the existance of things like mason groups is :not helpful:; that's generally a line of conversation that should be avoided, because just the fact that you made that post and way other people respond to it could accidently give the hints as to who might or might not be a mason, or a bulletproof townie, or whatever.

[Yosarian2]

Ok, all caught up now.

I don't like the bandwagon against Aisar here; in general, Aisar seems kind of pro-town to me, although I hate the useless vanillia townie claim to such a small bandwagon. Seriously, what were you thinking there?

ChronX: Nice rolefishing attempt there. Sounds like you're trying to find out if I'm a vanillia townie or not. Well, the reason I forgot about this game has nothing to do with my role; it's simply that I was gone for a few days around the time this game was starting, due to being stuck in a different part of the state, and while trying to get caught up on my other games and get ready for the game I'm about to mod it just slipped my mind.

[Yosarian2]

Not at all, Yos. There is no reason for you to out your role, of any sort, yet. Its only an IGMEOU, and its a less likely one than the other people we've heard nothing from yet.

My point was that there was also no reason for you to suggest I was vanillia, even if you did so in a backhanded kind of way like that, and I'm wondering if you did it in the hopes of getting some kind of reaction from me that would tip you off to if I am or am not vanillia.

[Yosarian2]

I think lynching lurkers and liars are worthwhile 'policy lynches' because the game gets far too easy for scum if they can simply lurk all game or lie about their claims and get away with it. In order to not let them get away with it, it generally does help to go after lurkers and almost always helps to lynch liars (I say 'almost always' because there is one player at SA who is notorious for lying as town). However, claiming scum doesn't fit that bill to me. It's simply not a useful strategy for scum - all it really is is white noise that should be ignored. Helpful? Not really. But scummy? Not in the way lurking and lying are, IMO.

I tend to agree that that kind of "claiming scum" jokingly thing isn't worth a policy lynch. I guess it could be a minor scumtell, on the grounds that I could imagine a scum doing that in order to set up some kind of bizzare WIFOM for later in the game, but yeah, it's pretty close to white noise.

[Yosarian2]

I didn't SUGGEST you were vanilla. I said you were posting a comment which some people do when practicing a form of softclaiming.

If you accuse someone of "softclaiming" a role when they've really done no such thing, their reaction is likely to be telling. Imagine that someone accused you of "softclaiming" townie, and attacked you on that grounds. How do you respond to something like that? Do you deny it, or do you deny CLAIMING it, or do you ignore it? How, exactally, do you word the denial? It's very slippery, tricky ground to try to answer an accusation like that without accidently showing your hand so to speak. Which is why comments like the one you made can be used by scum to fish, to find out who's vanillia and who's not.

You understand yet why I don't like that post of yours?

[Yosarian2]

Frankly I'm a bit irritated with what I see as a kind of "Guerilla mafia" play by experienced MSers like ABR and Tar. Basically, the idea is to act scummy in all your games so that over time you develop a kind of meta-immunity to scumtells.

Heh...Albert always looks scummy, in all his games, and has basically every single time I've seen him play; I hardly think he's "trying" to look scummy.

So, we can add "distancing" to your list of crimes, since you cast a vote on Yos, but now tell us that your stated reason for voting him turns out to be excusable.

So now, with that "distancing" comment, it sounds like you're accusing Taff and me of being scum together, just because Taff agreed with me that your terrible "Yos is softclaiming vanillia" post was scummy? I mean, where the heck did that "distancing" line come from? That just feels like you're trying to confuse the issues here and basically just making up things to "add to his list of crimes" that don't make a lot of sense. It also feels like rather then directly respond to my points againt you, you're trying to undermine me here by tying me to Taff. Combined with your fishing expiditions, you're really feeling like scum to me at the moment.

vote:ChronX

The Taff's wagon is also reasonable, especally with the "mason" speculation and stuff like that, but ChronX just seems scummier at the moment.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention this this, but I stil want to hear a better explination about this:

No way is there another scum "group". Maybe one Serial Killer, but no group. I would say that 99% sure.

...

99% sure? That's a bit strong, disturbingly so. It's a huge game, and we had 3 night zero kills, it wouldn't be at all unusual for there to be 2 mafias.

[Yosarian2]

Also can I point out the only reason I speculated about a mason group in the game is because I speculated about it IN THE SIGN UP THREAD.

(shrug) What you did in the sign-up thread is irrelevent, because you didn't know your alignment then. The only thing I'm concerned about is what you did in thread, and if you had pro-town motivations for those actions.

[Yosarian2]

ChronX, every single time you accuse someone of "softclaiming" with weak reasons, yes, it looks like rolefishing to me.

Now, I explained quite clearly why I was suspicious of your post, and rather then respond to that in any useful way, you attacked me and tried to tie me to a player that many people (including me, btw) have already found suspicious. That seems like a cheap and scummy attempt to bury off my legitimate concerns about your actions, and I don't like it.

And what the heck is this supposed to mean, anyway?

Who has role fishing on their guilty conscience?

That makes absolutly no sense, do you realize that? It's one of those sentances that sounds scary but means absolutly nothing. Unless you're trying to accuse ME of rolefishing, and if you are, you need to actually explain how I'm supposed to be doing that.

You, out of thin air, suddenly accused me of "softclaiming townie" just because I forgot about this game for a few days until someone mentioned it on scumchat. Really, what exactally did you expect to gain by that, unless you were trying to get me to either claim townie or not, or to get me to give a response that would reveal my alignment? You keep saying it's a scumtell, but that's dosn't make any sense; why would a scum try to hint he was vanillia, early on day 1 when under absolutly no pressure? For that matter, why would anyone?

If you want to convince me you're not scum, quit this OMGUS crap, and please respond to this post you ignored a few pages ago.

I didn't SUGGEST you were vanilla. I said you were posting a comment which some people do when practicing a form of softclaiming.

If you accuse someone of "softclaiming" a role when they've really done no such thing, their reaction is likely to be telling. Imagine that someone accused you of "softclaiming" townie, and attacked you on that grounds. How do you respond to something like that? Do you deny it, or do you deny CLAIMING it, or do you ignore it? How, exactally, do you word the denial? It's very slippery, tricky ground to try to answer an accusation like that without accidently showing your hand so to speak. Which is why comments like the one you made can be used by scum to fish, to find out who's vanillia and who's not.

You understand yet why I don't like that post of yours?

[Yosarian2]

The flip side of this is the argument sometimes made that "replacements are probably town because people who need replacing probably have a boring role".

That's a terrible argument, btw. At least half of the games I've replaced into in the past, it's been as scum.

I have seen scum exploit this latter line of thinking, by lurking or just ignoring the game for stretches of time, then when they come back saying "I forgot about this game" and then suggesting that their other games require more of their attention.
The implication is, this game I've been lurking in isn't as high a priority to me, because I am town cannon fodder.

Is that really what you think when you see a lurker? Is that really what anyone thinks? Usually when I see a lurker acting like that, I think they're probably a lurkerscum trying to get through until endgame, and try to lynch them for it.

And you still don't adress the key point here, which is that you used me and "vanillia townie" in the same sentance, in such a way that a careless player in my positition might have given away their role, and you did it for such a weak reason; even you admit the reason you gave, me not posting for 24 hours and then admitting I forgot about the game, was quite weak. So that's the kind of thing that leads me to believe you might have alterior motives.

So, I wasn't fishing for a claim from Yosarian. I was accusing him of employing a scum tactic I have seen with some regularity. All he really needed to say was, I only missed 24 real life hours.

You accused me of "softclaiming townie" when I could not by any streach of the imagination be thought to have done that, and that looks like fishing, which is a key scum tactic especally in compliacted games like this one. You respond by trying to attack me, and that makes you look worse.

[Yosarian2]

@ Yosarian: I have explained REPEATEDLY. I pointed out something you said that I often have seen scum use. My FIRST post about you was to state that I had a little suspicion of you. You have since exploded into over reaction mode, thereby making you MORE suspicious.

No, I didn't "over-react" to your "suspicion of me". I reacted to your scummy looking role-fishing; and even there, my reaction was quite calm, logical, and mild. I didn't actually vote for you until after you did something else scummy.

After my post 362, when I had thought I explained my problem with your post quite clearly and logically, if you were town I would have expected you to at least understand and realize I was making sense and that I was logically looking for scumtells. I might have been right, I might have been wrong, but either way I'd expect you to understand where I was coming from and then react in some way approperate with that. Instead, you mostly ignored the post, and instead tried to imply that anyone who agreed with it must be scum with me. Your reaction to my logical argument was to semi-ignore it, to try to downplay it or make it sound like it's something it's not, and to at the same time try to make me look bad and undermine me with slowly escelating attacks on me without an actual vote. Now that looks to me more like a scum who knows he's made a mistake and is in damage control mode, rather then how I would expect a townie to react to a logical situation like that.

I never expected you to claim.

And you're still mis-interpreting me here, I'm starting to think you're doing so intentionally. The thing is, after you've made that kind of "claiming vanillia" accusation, the target dosn't HAVE to actually claim in order for your move to help the scum; all I would have had to do was react in a way that might help you guess if I was vanillia or not, and basically any way I chose to react, it might have helped the scum answer that question. I'm not sure how I can be any more clear here, and I'm having trouble believing you're still not understanding my basic point.

If you are in fact scum, my expectation would be that you would react...as you have. Scum found.

Ah, one of the old-school scum tricks here. You see, all you have to do is attack someone, and then when they respond (which of course, anyone should do when attacked), claim they're "over-reacting" or "being over defensive" or whatever and use that to intensify the attack. You're really reaching here, aren't you? Especally as I'm not responding to your "attack" at all; I'm responding to the scum-tell you made.

Between this, and several other "scum-logic" tricks you've used to try to make me look bad without having any actual content in your attacks (like the "Who has role fishing on their guilty conscience?" line you refused to explain when I called you on it, for example), it's clear you're not actually hunting scum here, you're just trying to do whatever you can think of to attempt to make me look bad, in order to deflect attention away from the logical and legitimate points I have rasied against you.

I don't think I can restate myself any more to Yosarian, his asking for me to re-explain is getting tiresome. But I would be happy to discuss the latter paragraph (the @vollkan one) with Vollkan or anyone else, at further length.

Not asking you to "re-explain". I'm explaining why I think you're scum, and giving you a chance to defend yourself. So far, your "defense" has been OMGUSy and weak, consisting mostly of ignoring what I'm actually saying, trying to strawman and defend against thing that aren't my main point, and generally trying to discredit me rather then my logic. In other words, you're acting like a scum who's been caught.

[Yosarian2]

Albert, asking to be replaced because in a 30 player game 1 person's playstyle annoys you a bit is just....arrggh. Seriously, man; if you're here to play mafia, then play mafia.

[Yosarian2]

That is a shame, but to be honest, I can't say I miss Aisar complaining about how much mafiascum sucks and how dumb everyone on mafiascum is.

[Yosarian2]

Day 1s in large games last months here? You need a SA account!

It can. Let's say it's not unusual these days for a mod to have to use a deadline in order to stop day 1 for lasting more then a month. That's a recent trend of this site, and not a good one.

[Yosarian2]

I missed your request for friends:

Recurring

Rose Tyler & family
Martha Jones & family
Captain Jack Harkness
Face of Boe
Mickey Smith
Donna

Now, Oman was revealed as Mrs. Moore, a fairly minor character (we are talking a 2 episode arc). That really expands the possibilities well beyond what I can list here.

Now, I haven't watched hardly any of the new Dr Who, so I don't know most of those characters, but I think I've watched most all of the old shows, and I've got to say the list for possible friends of the Doctor is quite vast, and since the central theme of the show is time traveling, I wouldn't be surprised to see any number of people from past doctors come back and show up here. I'm not going to go into any details, because that dosn't seem helpful, but let's just say that the list of probable claims is quite deep.

Also, just one more flavor comment for those who have not watched the show; if somone claims to be the Doctor, it's not necessarally a good idea to counterclaim; I remember several classic epesodes where due to time-traveling stuff there were several different version of the Doctor, and it wouldn't surprise me if there are multiple Dr. Who's in this game. (For example, there was one epesode I remember called "The Three Doctors", I'm pretty sure that's not the only time that happened either)

[Yosarian2]

All three killed night 0 were people from the more recent serieses.

Well, daalaks and cybermen were in the old series as well. (shrug) Unless...are those role-names specific Daalak or Cyberman characters in the new series?

Anyway, this isn't necessaray something we need to resolve today.

[Yosarian2]

Ah, cool, game is back open.

So, Taff...apparently semi-claimed? *woosh* (sound of Taff's last post going over my head).

[Yosarian2]

This game is almost certainly new series-only.

Bah; I hope not, I really thought I was joining a game with a theme I knew well for once, hehe.

[Yosarian2]

Tar's been hinting at that role for a while now, but yeah, no reason for him to come out and claim it like that.

[Yosarian2]

vote Roach

Ive had enough of Day 1, Aisar behaved like an ass and from what some of you say Roach can be disruptive too. So lets nip this in the bud.

That's nice, but do you think he's scum?

[Yosarian2]

I do hate the way this bandwagon grew up without anyone giving any actual good reasons for it. I thought Aiser was probably pro-town. Kind of a dick, but probably pro-town. If someone has some actual reason to think him (them) scum, I'd like to hear it, but lynching someone "so they're not a distraction" is just not a pro-town action.

[Yosarian2]

Equally incorrect, cicero? I think roach is probably pro-town, but you seem to be as sure of his alignment as you are of your own, and that seems odd.

[Yosarian2]

TaffMaster: To be fair, I ignored the scum-claim, too. Usually if someone shows up and says "LOLZ I'M SCUM!", I don't take them seriously; either they're trolling, or they're drunk, or they're a townie trying some stupid gambit, or in one instance I remember their brother logged on to their mafiascum account, heh.

[Yosarian2]

Roach, you're wrong. If a player does something scummy, that makes it more likely they are scum. If they get replaced, that dosn't change the odds of them being scum, so they're STILL more likely to be scum then if they hadn't done the scum tell in the first place.

Now, I STILL don't really think Aisar really did anything scummy, but Roach, if you want to defend yourself, you're better off trying to defend Aisar's play instead of trying to insist everyone should ignore it, because people will not and SHOULD not ignore his play just because he got replaced. That's just silly; if you think someone is scum, and then he gets replaced, would you really let him off the hook? If you were right about him beign scum, him being replaced dosn't change that.

[Yosarian2]

Roach, you're wrong. If a player does something scummy, that makes it more likely they are scum.

If they get replaced, that dosn't change the odds of them being scum(1)

, so

they're STILL more likely to be scum then if they hadn't done the scum tell in the first place(2)

.

1) Who? The player that got replaced or the replacer?

Yes. Both have exactally the same odds of being scum, as they have the same alignment.

2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?

Well, sorry, but they don't. We have to use all the evidence we have, including the posts made by the person you replaced.

Now, that dosn't necessarally hurt you; in fact, like I said, I think he looked more pro-town then not. You're actually better off, in my eyes, then you would be if it was a "blank slate".

[Yosarian2]

Roach, if you want to convince us you're pro-town, it beehoovs you to start acting in a way helpful to the town.

[Yosarian2]

(Nods) Good summery, Shanba. Yeah, that's pretty much why I never moved my vote of ChronX.

[Yosarian2]

...ok, I have absolutly no idea what Iammars is talking about. Really wish I had cable so I could watch the new Dr. Who show, heh. Shanba; I guess your unvote means that Iammars just claimed and it was a convincing claim, and his claim that Choronx thought he was a mafia traitor but he actually wasn't actually makes sense?

[Yosarian2]

Ahhh....ok, K9 is back in the new series? That's cool.

unvote:Iammars

So...what was all that stuff about Chronox thinking he was a mafia traitor, then?

[Yosarian2]

Kind of, yes.

Actually, I think that I can find my defense on my own...

Let me repeat myself:

Roach, if you want to convince us you're pro-town, it beehoovs you to start acting in a way helpful to the town.

In other words, while I wouldn't mind seeing someone make a case against your predecessor and you defend yourself/him against it, in my mind the main thing you should do to convince me you're pro-town is to act helpful; IE: to actually try and figure out yourself who the scum are, to start pointing out things that look like scumtells to you, ect. Your predecessor DID do that, and that's part of the reason I think he was more likely pro-town then not.

[Yosarian2]

Am I the only one who think DG is completely flailing like a madwoman here?

I'm even a bit concerned that she's some kind of Jester that actually wants to get lynched.

No, if she was a Jester, she would have already been lynched. I saw her a jester once, it was a sight to behold.

[Yosarian2]

vote:caps

. No reason to think he's pro-town at the moment.

[Yosarian2]

I still have yet to read the game.

Yos, tell me why you think a caps vote is better than a Taff vote.

(shrug) Both wagons are reasonable. Taff has done some moderatly scummy looking things; I don't like his roach vote, and I don't like his OMGUS-looking cicero vote. However, caps looks scummy, and hardly seems like he's playing the game at all; he's done basically nothing all game to make me think he's likely to be a good guy looking for scum.

Now, Caps is apparently saying he was serious about claiming to be a doctor; frankly, I thought that claim was a joke, because there was absolutly no reason for him to claim doc then; there was, what, one or two votes on him then? And he suddenly claims doctor? That comment bothered me when I thought he was joking; caps, are you seriously claiming doctor? Why would a doctor claim to be a doctor when you did with so little pressure on you? Really, WTF?

[Yosarian2]

NO

Look, there are few things that you

ever

do if you are protown in a game of mafia. Most "scum tells" do have protown uses, but claiming doctor

never

does. If you've never read a game of mafia or realized that claiming doctor is by definition bad for the town, now is your opportunity to learn.

(nods) Only reason to claim doctor is if you're really in trouble, on the theory that it's better for the town to get nightkilled then to get lynched, and that dosn't apply here.

i'll rock with this.

unvote: vollkan
vote: caps

Let's do this just remember vollkan and flameaxe are totally scumbo. cop you should investigate flameaxe

...and another thing never to do if you're town is vote for yourself like this. Did he just hammer himself?

[Yosarian2]

Tarh (or anyone else, don't really care), could you please tell me the apparently commonly accepted logic behind why town shouldn't post they suspect someone's a jester? And I'm still asking you guys for a guide to dealing with jesters. It wasn't this particular case, I just want to know in the future.

Jesters are really, really rare. Usually when someone's acting really scummy, it dosn't mean they're a jeter; it usually just means they're scum. And even on the off-chance that there is a jester, lynching a jester isn't all that bad, because after all they're not a pro-town role anyway, and therefore much less of a loss to the town then, say, mislynching a vanillia townie would have been. In any case, the town dosn't really want a jester to live until endgame anyway, because then they might self-vote and get lynched at a time the town can't afford a mislynch.

Basically, whenever someone looks scummy, it's not generally worth the bother of worrying about if they're a jester or not; that just confuses the issue and distracts the town. Just try to figure out if they're more likely to be scum and pro-town.

[Yosarian2]

Axel if you got nothing bright to say than keep that mouth shut.

:nothelpful:, Albert. Axel is a strong player, and I don't see what he's said that "wasn't bright"; personally, I want him to post more, not less.

[Yosarian2]

What kind of manipulative loser bandwagons DG near deadline just because she has been throwing her vote around a little ? Is that a valid scum-tell in your book ? Why would he open the door for people to vote for DG like that, especially considering how he's a strong player who's opinion is likely to be heeded ?

We're near deadline? When did the mod announce a deadline?

And Axel's been commenting on DGB's behavior for a while now. I don't necessarally agree (obv, as I'm not voting her), but I'm interested to see where he's going with it and how she's going to respond; I've been having trouble trying to get a read on her myself. I certanly don't want him to "shut up".

[Yosarian2]

With a cult recruiter killed night one, is it (reasonably) safe to assume he did not recruit someone? Is the cult possibly still around? With his role being called CyberController, did the cult represent Dr. Who's Cybermen faction?

Shteven makes a VERY good point in this post. I had assumed the cult was out of the game. This is not necessarily true at all. Very very very very good point.

The cult recruiter would have had a night 0 action. He would have recruited someone for certain. Whether they themselves can recuit is an open question.

Yeah, I already mentioned this possibility. However, most likely, its just one cult recruit. One cult recruit with no cult to back him up is anti-town, and getting rid of him eventually is something we will want to do, but is not a really major threat, unless he can recruit (which is unlikely).

[Yosarian2]

Second, and this is more serious: why does fonz vote without reasons? Di he already give them earlier or what?

I don't think there's necessarally anything scummy with voting while not giving your reasons right away.

[Yosarian2]

thank you, noted. So what determines whether it's scummy?

(shrug) Hard to say. It can be scummy to join a bandwagon late without any reasons of your own, especally if that wagon ends up lynching a good guy and the reasons behind the wagon weren't all that great. However, it's not unusual for a pro-town player to start out by just dropping a vote on someone, seeing his reaction and the reacton of others to it, and then perhaps explaining it later.

[Yosarian2]

I like winning.

I, however, prefer playing mafia. I will not be encrypting my role. EVER.

Agreed. Using an outside program to encrypt your role into the thread in every single theme game might in some situations help the town, but it also sounds really annoying, pointless, and if it worked it would basically ruin the mafia experence until all mods bothered to put it in their rules. No, thanks.

[Yosarian2]

You know, even if there was some legal way to do this, and even if a lot of players didn't have a moral objection to going along with it, the fact is we've only got 6 days left before deadline, and I have a feeling that trying to get all the living players to encode their role or whatever would be a huge, massive waste of time right now quite possibly leading to a no-lynch, it almost certanly wouldn't get done (or even really started) before the day ends, and by tommorow I'd expect the entire mafia to have figured out a plan at night for how to deal with it. So, can we please just go back to lynching someone?

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, this whole "role encryption" thing is not going to happen, Adel. Just let it go.

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) I could go for a flameaxe wagon. Looking back at his posts, he's posted a lot but most of them haven't had any real content, and he even defends himself by saying things like "I'm rarely useful day 1" and similar stuff. That's not a defense; if you think you're "rarely useful day 1", then it's your job to change that, it's not the town's job to sit back and let you act in an anti-town way just because "you always do".

vote:flameaxe

I've got no reason at the moment to think he's pro-town in alignment or in behavior, and with it being day 1 and with a deadline coming up, that's enough reason for my vote.

[Yosarian2]

Flameaxe: You've attempted to use a "I'm always useless" meta-game defense at least twice so far.

Every Flameaxe game has a period of uselessness. It will pick up, don't you worry.

I'm rarely useful early in a game.

If an action is anti-town, then I don't care if you "always" do it, you doing it in this game is a strike against you. And "being useless", as you put it, is anti-town, pretty much by definition. In fact, the fact that you seem to be AWARE you've not been at all useful to the town so far this game, and yet have done absolutly nothing to change that, is another strike against you.

(shrug) You want to change my mind about that, make yourself useful. Find me a scum, convince me someone else is a better bandwagon today then you are, and I might go there instead.

[Yosarian2]

Bleh. Nevermind. I think we're all out of Daleks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_skaro

Well, i don't know enough about the flavor to argue about that. If Volkan was the last Dalek, then we might see one less nightkill tonight...although, with so many nightkills, that might be hard to tell.

[Yosarian2]

So, I guess "cult killer" was a member of the cult that could also kill every night?

Yikes; does that mean they were a cult that can recruit AND kill every night, and apparently started with at least 2 memebers? We may have really dodged a bullet on that one.

[Yosarian2]

So it says Doctor Who in your PM?

Well, at least, that's what I am leading you to believe....DUM DUM DUM

(sigh) You know, Albert, as I believe there has been at least one time you lied and claimed cop when you were pro-town but not a cop, that kind of comment does not exactally fill me with confidence.

If you're trying a gambit here, you've got to tell us now, Albert.

[Yosarian2]

If cicero is telling the truth, it's possible he's an "insane doc", a doc who kills anyone he targets (in other words, the mod tells him he's a doc, but he's actually a vig).

Unvote

It appears to me he may be entirely full of crap. If what YL says is true, this may not even make him scum. Which is actually somewhat comforting because I seriously don't see why a scum does that.

But he is not acting like someone with a guilty result should be acting. His "breadcrumb" was a non-breadcrumb. His mis-statement regarding his own role-PM I find extremely suspect.

Also, Cicero doesn't read very much like caught scum either.

By the way, the whole "Albert claimed to be cop in a game where he was pro-town" isn't something I would swear to; I'm not even sure what game it's supposed to be, it's just something I heard thirdhand as a vauge comment. Nonetheless, I'm glad I brought it up, because his reaction seems to imply that that rumor was correct.

And again, Albert, if that's what you're doing here, you might as well fess up now; otherwise, if we lynch Cicero and he's town, it's probably not going to go well for you.

(Also, not sure why you keep calling me YL, Axel; I'm not YossarianLives, hehe.)

[Yosarian2]

Oh, actually, if you protected Mcpaltp night zero, then you're probably not a insane doc. You might just be an ineffective doc or %-chance effective doc of some type. Did your role PM give any hint about your doc abilites being less then good or something, cicero?

[Yosarian2]

The other idea might just be that doing doctor stuff might kill Cybermen. Rip out wires and such.

Huh. That'd be wierd. Although, considering how overpowered it looks like the Cybermen were, who knows.

Yosarian! There are lives at stake here!

(En taro Tassadar!)

How about you just give a streightfoward "Yes, it was a gambit because I thought, and still think, cicero is likely scum" or "No, this is not a gambit, vig me if I'm wrong" answer, Albert?

[Yosarian2]

If cicero is telling the truth, it's possible he's an "insane doc", a doc who kills anyone he targets (in other words, the mod tells him he's a doc, but he's actually a vig).

Earth calling Yosarian2! Earth calling Yosarian2! Do you hear us?
McPalpt wasn't killed, why are you saying if cicero is telling the truth he's an insane doc that kills his target????

Nominee: Yosarian2
Category: Most bizarre statement.

It's like you're trying to cover up for cicero but it's gone terribly wrong hasn't it...

Um, I DID, in fact, correct that about 5 minutes later, you know, when I finished getting caught up and noticed Cicero had changed his claim; I was thinking insane doc when he said Adel was the only person he had targeted.

[Yosarian2]

...why on earth would you suddenly claim nightkill immunity, mcpaltp? That's a terrible play; the town obveously does not want the scum to know who has nightkill immunity, and it didn't really answer the question at all either.

fos:mcpaltp

[Yosarian2]

His PR appears to be just italics and not a certain manor of saying words. He has used some simple sentences in the past. If he wanted to claim unnightkillable he probably could have just said it more straight forwardly.

Well, I have no idea why he's been talking so oblequly, but he clearly did seem to imply something about his role when he said he "can not be killed unnaturally" and that "Those that walk with evil have no hold over him". It seemed pretty obveous what he was saying, to me anyway; and to say that cicero was "role fishing" for asking him to clarify what he had apparently already claimed seems like a real streach to me.

[Yosarian2]

Iammers --> Daleks (Vollkan. possible accomplice. ) We know this.

Eh? We know what, that Volkan killed Iammers? How do we know that, did I miss something? I had just been assuming that Iammars was killed because he claimed a unclear but non-vanillia role.

[Yosarian2]

(re-reads night scene) Ah, I see, Iammmars was "Exterminated", gotcha

[Yosarian2]

The Daleks targeted Mastermind of Sin and managed to steal his vote.

I missed this. Where is this information coming from?

Well, we don't really know that, but we do know that MOS could not vote day 1 and that dalek had 2 votes during day 1. If it was a daleck ability that caused that, that would at least mean that MOS isn't a dalek.

Although, while that's a useful scum ability, I highly doubt a scum would do that INSTEAD of a kill on night 1, cicero; a double vote for a scum would be incredibly powerful in a lynch or lose situation, but it's nearly worthless on day 1 of a 30 player game.

[Yosarian2]

However, I do not believe ABR is lying about his claim. I don't know this show, but if "The Doctor" is the head honcho, I don't see how no-one has counter claimed by now. And even if there are in-actives, do you guys really think ABR is stupid enough to even take the risk?

Well, if there is a risk that ABR is lying but not scum, then I would not really expect the "real" Doctor (assuming there is one) to counterclaim at this point.

[Yosarian2]

I am confused. I have two games done. At first I was quite resigned to it being necessary to lynch me but I have a couple of problems.

In general, btw, a pro-town person should NEVER vote himself, unless for some bizzare reason the town is actually better off with that person dead. Note: if you are a doctor, this does not apply to you, pretty obv. So when you vote yourself, people will tend to think of it as a ploy to gain sympathy and will become more suspicious of you.

[Yosarian2]

Eh...I'm thinking that perhaps it's best to just wait a day here. There seems to be a lot of bad guys with night kills running around here, and it seems unlikely to me that they'll both survive the night no matter who's telling the truth; if either one gets killed, we'll have some info to go on tommorow. And if they do both survive, then hey, at least we'll have another cop investigation from Albert to look at, that might help us figure out what to do next.

[Yosarian2]

I'm somewhere in the middle of 63 catching up now, and I notice two things:
1. some people read incredibly imprecise
2. cicero is full of WIFOM, so full in fact I'm getting the impression nobody even bothers to point it out.

I WIFOM a lot. But then in other spots I concede. Hence why I say stuff like thinking I'm a dalek is stupid. Theorising that I'm a Slitheen though makes sense. I don't WIFOM Slitheen because my play thus far is not sub-optimal for the Slitheens.

WIFOM is overused. I see no problem with pointing out that I am not playing sub-optimally on purpose. Do with it whatever you want. I dont yet know how to play differently when I see such bad suppositions.

It muddies the waters as players have to take time to explain why your statement is a dog chasing its tail. With you however, its not a tell, its a playstyle...sadly...

*curious* No, please, go ahead and explain. Why is a "my play is sub-optimal to be dalek play" defense a "dog chasing it's tail"? If he can actually make that argument, it is a perfecatly valid defense, even though it is also somewhat WIFOMable.

Cicero: I suppose I missed it before; could you explain again how, exactally, your play is "sub-optimal dalek play"?

[Yosarian2]

Did you see me make specific reference to his Dalek or otherwise play? No. Don't make assumptions. I was clearly referring to his penchant for WIFOM in general and why it is a pain in the ass, yet is also not a scum tell for cicero.

Ok, fair enough. In this kind of case, I tend to think that his play was valid and yet somewhat WIFOMable, so I don't think there's anything wrong with what he said in post 1601, but no reason to stray that far into a mafia-theory discussion here.

As for you other question, no, we have no proof of the Slitheen in game; all we have is the flavor from the mod post implying that they exist, and the fact that there were, what, 5 nightkills last night? The Slitheen may or may not exist, but I think there's a very high chance there's another scum group in this game we haven't seen yet, otherwise I can't imagine why there were so many kills; even if cicero was responsible for the Adel kill, and the Dalaks were responsible for the "exterminate" kill, that still leaves 3 more kills unaccounted for.

[Yosarian2]

I vote

decide: later

.

I'm not so certain we need to lynch anyone today. I was looking at the success rate of nightkills nailing scum and figure if we are tossing the dice anyhow, let's keep rolling those dice.

vote: no lynch

No lynching is bad.

In this case, even when the ratio of nightkills/lynches is so high, lynching still gives us most of our information, which we still need; if nothing else, we want the scum to be able to find and kill each other at night, right?

Besides, crosskills are nice, but as a scum group will never target THEMSLEVES, scum kills are always more likely then random to hit town. Even random lynches would be better mathmatically then just sitting back and waiting for night kills.

[Yosarian2]

I think this cements ABR's complete BS-ness. And yet, for all that I'm not sold he's scum

Agreed.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I agree with Axelrod. I am a little suspicious of mcpaltp myself, and of his post restriciton which seems vauge and inconsistant, but the whole "Go ahead and break your post restricton so we can see if the mod publicaly warns you"...huh? Do you guys think the mod is dumb, or are you trying to trick mcpaltp into getting modkilled?

[Yosarian2]

(nods) Yeah, like I said, I'm not really buying the post restriction here, and he dosn't seem all that pro-town in general.

vote:mcpaltp

Assuming you're allowed to, in your next post I'd like to see you try to communicate in as much detail as you can exactally what your post restriction, if any, is, mcpaltp.

[Yosarian2]

It's very, very rare for a mod to confirm a post restriction like that except in a game where everyone has a post restriciton, Albert. Usually, if a Mod wants to warn someone like that, he just PM's them. And that's for accidentally messing up a post restriction; delibratly ignoring your post restriction in order to get a in-game advantage of some kind is generally modkill worthy.

[Yosarian2]

Well, I'm not going to comment on other ongoing games, but normally I'd consider confirming a role like in a game where it's not already known to be a modding error.

I also have seen people modkilled for delibratly and flagrently ignoring their post restrictions before.

Of course, this whole conversation is a bit academic, since I don't really believe his post restriction at all at the moment.

[Yosarian2]

Onto mcpalpt. I tend to believe this PR is real to some extent. I don't think it would be rationally sane to create and use a fake PR.

Well, people who actually have post restrictions are generally pro-town; it's be pretty evil to give a scum a post restriction. But for that very reason, I've seen scum fake post restrictions in order to SEEM pro-town. I can find an example of this for you if you want.

First: There is no reason to try to force Mcpaltp to reveal any more information. I believe his claim (ironically, for the exact same reason that I didn't believe him initially). If he's scum, then he's got a damn good safe claim.

I'm not sure what the harm is in forcing him to reveal details about his supposed post restriction, Tar. It's not like revealing the exact details of his post restriction are going to help the scum at all, and it will help me figure out if he's BSing or not.

[Yosarian2]

As far as MoS goes, you guys are right. Unless Mafia can somehow target themselves with that vote steal thing, he's confirmed to be non-dalek. I only once played and odd IRC game where mafia could target itself with its own skills. That votesteal thing would be quite a wierd distancing tactic if targeting itself was possible, but I now doubt that since the power for mafia to target itself has been rare in my experience.

Yes, assuming the votesteal was a dalek ability. It's also possible it was just some random third party that can take away someone's vote and give it to someone else. (shrug) But, yeah, I tend to think MOS is most likely not a dalak.

[Yosarian2]

Of course, if it's a genuine PR, it's not like mcpaltp will be able to go:

Yeah, it's a PR, and the terms are X, Y and Z.

Eh...I've seen some PR's before that specifically banned the player from saying what the post restriction is, Fonz, but that seems uncommon; I'd say that most people I've seen with post restrictions have been able to claim them.

And I'm a little worried you seem to be giving mcpaltp an excuse here, before he's even had a chance to answer question himself.

[Yosarian2]

Well, like I said:

vote:mcpaltp

Assuming you're allowed to, in your next post I'd like to see you try to communicate in as much detail as you can exactally what your post restriction, if any, is, mcpaltp.

He can seem to communicate what he wants to pretty well.

[Yosarian2]

Just for the record, if The Fonz is voting for Albert because he actually thinks the best move for the town at this point is to get rid of Albert no matter what his alignment is, that's not a "grudge" or against the rules.

It's not good play, though. Fonz, who do you actually think is scum?

[Yosarian2]

Um...flameaxe is dead too, lol.

[Yosarian2]

Still waiting for Fonz to answer my question.

It's not good play, though. Fonz, who do you actually think is scum?

Also still waiting for Mcpaltp to answer my question about his post restriction. He hasn't posted since I asked it, and I'm stating to wonder if he's hoping to lurk his way out of pressure.

[Yosarian2]

Hey I haven't gotten to the PR thing yet. Anyone wana sum it up for me? what type of restriction? One a day? Number of words? Etc. Easier to just ask then to speed read to it you know...

We don't really know. Mcpaltp has been posting strangly all game, usually in itallics and often in some wierd yoda-type doubespeak, and we're currenlty trying to get him to specifiy if he has a post restriction and, if so, what it is.

[Yosarian2]

He's already more-or-less claimed his rolename, Ecto.

And yes, if he actually has a post restriction, that could make it more likely he's town. I think it's very, very likely that he's faking it, though, in order to get exactally that response. I find it disturbing he didn't even try to answer my question, or, well, to say or do anything really relevent at all for that matter. Whatever his "post restriction" may or may not be, he can clearly make himself understood if he wants to be.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I agree that cicero's last few posts are bad.

At this point, I'm thinking that cicero and mcpaltp are probably both anti-town people of some type, and I'll be happy to put my vote on either one to avoid a deadline no-lynch.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, I agree that cicero's last few posts are bad.

At this point, I'm thinking that cicero and mcpaltp are probably both anti-town people of some type, and I'll be happy to put my vote on either one to avoid a deadline no-lynch.

Remembering this post for later will definitely come in handy folks.

Um, it's a mafia game, everyone will remember everything everyone said.

Anyway, your last few posts are quite scummy. Other people have already explained this, but I'll be glad to go into more detail if you want.

[Yosarian2]

Anything on the record is good. I was just willing to get ABR banned. Either I'm the biggest sleazy asshole in the world or I'm really a little peeved at being screwed over in a really cool game. You figure out which. And then by all means, post your reasons for ignoring things like that plus my caps argument in favor of mindlessly bending to "generic scumtells". And then after my lynch people will have it to look back on.

...

You want to get ABR banned? Am I missing something here? You do realize that, even if he is lying, it's not against the rules to lie in the game of mafia, right? I'm trying to figure out if this over-reaction of yours is honest or not.

And while it's possible ABR is lying, it's also possible from my point of view he's telling the truth. It's also possible he's a townie pulling a dumb gambit, but even if that's true he could still be right about you being scum. And while my main suspect is mcpaltp and I'd rather lynch him today, if given a choice between lynching you and a no-lynch, lynching you is better.

Anyway, the reson I suspect you more then I did a few days ago is because of a few different reasons in recent posts of yours, some different things that seemed scummy. First of all, your post about mcpaltp seemed a bit wishy washy; you basically said that he might be faking his post restriction, but he might not be scum even if he is faking it, but if he is scum he might be faking it so he can lurk. It just felt like the kind of post I would expect from a possible scum partner of mcpaltp. Your suggesting that a roleblocker might have subtly semi-claimed or something also seemed a bit scummy, like you might have been trying to fish for a roleblocker or something. And your suggesting that we no-lynch is quite anti-town at this point.

I'd still rather lynch mcpaltp then you, but it's enough that I wouldn't mind deadline lynching you at deadline.

And I find it odd you randomally reference "generic scumtells" when I haven't said anything about "generic scumtells" or whatever. Why, have you committed some "generic scumtells" I didn't notice?

[Yosarian2]

Mcpalpt still needs to explain all that he is. Hopefully he will.

He hasn't yet. If you want him to do so, then I'm a bit confused why you're not putting pressure on him and are instead voting cicero. Seems like you voting cicero at this point actually takes the pressure off Mcpalpt, and lets him just stall for another day.

[Yosarian2]

You do realize that, even if he is lying, it's not against the rules to lie in the game of mafia, right?

In my opinion, it should be in certain limited cases. That is what I will go on to argue. Fonz is right. If ABR is going from game to game pretending to be a cop and screwing the game for town, there should be some discussion about how to deal with that. One of the ways to deal with that is to not invite him to play anymore. Lying as scum is cool. There are lots of good reasons to lie. Pretending to have a guilty result on someone that you think is scummy is troubling to me.

Um, if that is what's going on here, it's a perfectly legal and fair gambit. It's also really, really dumb, of course, but you do have to realise that "townies shouldn't lie" is stratagy advice, it's not a game rule.

Maybe so, really. But that wasnt your argument before. Like I said, I'd potentially be nightkilled and might be a CPR doc. But you came in and ignored my dust up with ABR on the last page and seemed to be parroting what Fonz had been saying. Which seemed disingenuous to me. So I flagged it. So let's go through your scumtells below for future reference.

Yeah, I ignored your "dust up" with ABR, as it's really irrelevent to anything. I'm trying to figure out if you're scum or not here, your absurd "Ban Albert from playing because I think he might be playing poorly" argument is mostly irrelevent to that, unless it helps me figure out if you're telling the truth or not; and at the moment, it really dosn't.

As for "that wasn't your arguemnt before", I didn't need to make the argument before, because the fact that "if X claims a guilty investigation on Y, it makes Y at least somewhat more likely to be scum even if we don't entierly trust X" is so incredibly obveous it dosn't even need to be stated. I haven't voted for you yet because it's not as strong a reason if there's a chance Albert is gambiting, but nonetheless of COURSE it is a reason. "Albert is telling the truth, Cicero is scum" is still a fairly likely possibility from my point of views.

This is not scummy. Doubt is sensible. I have the opposite of tunnel vision. In short, I think you're reaching here. What would be scummy is NOT considering all those possibilities.

(shrug) In general, sure. In this specific case, that post sounded just like the kind of post I would expect to hear from a scum buddy of mcpaltp; wishy-washy, unwilling to commit, and overly cautious. Not proof of anything, but clearly something worth noting.

I was referring to people suggesting we wait a day. It was the opposite of fishing. Fonz fished explicitly. He demanded. yet no vote for him. Noted. So this scumtell ALSO makes no sense.

Well, Fonz's demand made sense. Your comment felt off to me, it felt like you were scum who was already trying to figure out who the roleblocker might be. Again, not a huge thing, but enough to make me a little more suspicious of you.

It was Ectomancer's idea. He argued it with reasons. Yet no vote for Ectomancer. Noted.

Yes, he argued it with reason a while ago. If someone suggested a bad stratagy and tries to logically defend it, it's not necessarally a major scum tell. But you appear to already KNEW why a no-lynch would hurt the town at this point, and yet you suggest it with no reasons at all, and did so not long before the deadline and while you yourself were at risk of being lynched. In other words, it looks like you delibraratly suggested a anti-town move, that you KNEW to be anti town, just in order to try and protect yourself, and did so without giving any reasons why you thought we should do it. It dosn't feel like a pro-town move from your part, Cicero.

As I just pointed out, you are quite guilty of finding some generic scumtells in order to potentially bandwagon me and ignoring the entirety of the situation.

No, not at all, none of those are "generic" anything, well except for the fishing thing I suppose. But it's especally interesting since I hadn't yet GIVEN any reasons when you said you'd committed "generic scumtells".

Your reasoning seems disingenuous and you seem to not be paying full attention to the discussion.

:eyebrow: of course I'm paying full attention to the discussion. I was ignoring your silly "ban Albert" stuff, because it was really, really silly, and showed at best a lack of understanding of the rules of mafia on your part, or at worst an over-exaggerated attempt on your part to emphetsize the "Albert might be gambiting town" possibility.

Now it's noted for future reference.

Why? So you can attack me later, just because I'm willing to lynch you now? Interesting. OMGUS reaction noted for future reference.

[Yosarian2]

1. Pretending to be cop as town is only a perfectly legal gambit if we let it remain a perfectly legal gambit. In most team sports doing things that fuck over your team like that find a way to get weeded out eventually. This is not a sit-com named "Oh Albert". It is in no way "fair".

That's just silly, you know. The entire point of mafia is trying to figure out if someone else might be telling the truth or not, and why they might or might not be doing what they're doing. You (strangely) seem to be assuming that Albert is a lying townie, which is a bit odd. But in any case, a townie certanly has the right to lie about anything he wants to if he thinks it's going to help his side. Trying to make it against the rules to do that would just be horrible, IMHO. And trying to BAN someone from playing mafia for something that you THINK should be against the rules but isn't is...I don't even know what to say about that. That's why I'm wondering if this whole thing is an attempt on your part to just convince us all not to listen to Albert, because I have trouble beliving you would
actually want to get someone banned for that.

2. Your comment about ignoring my dust up with ABR looks like a lie right now. You are saying now that you deliberately ignored the discussion. But your comment AFTER I brought it to your attention was:

You want to get ABR banned? Am I missing something here?

This shows that you werent paying attention and then that you lied about paying attention.

No, I had been ignoring it.

3. Your McPaltp response is just a repetition of what you said the first time. I respond with what I said.

Um, what? That dosn't even make any sense. Are you trying to get me to vote for you here?

You said "in general, there's nothing wrong with being undecided". I said "that's true, but IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, that is exactally what I would expect you to do if you and McPaltp were scum together". That is, with both you and him under pressure, and with someone claiming to be a cop with a guilty on you, you would pretty much just try to avoid connecting the two of you in any way, so when forced to comment on it you would do so in a completly neutral way. You response was to try to pretend I was just going on "generic scum tells", which is just silly.

5. Fighting my own mislynch is very pro-town. As you WELL know, I would normally never call for a mislynch. If I thought it was a completely bad idea I would have been calling for Ecto's head pages and pages ago. In this specific situation it MIGHT make sense. More importantly I think the distinction is moot. Ecto called for it, I said "a mislynch like ecto said". His reasons = my reasons by reference. I'm never a big fan of a no lynch but in this case I happen to know that the lynchee is a mislynch. Me!

Well, then, the correct pro-town move would be to try to put together a bandwagon against someone who actually IS scum. Trying to suggest a no-lynch, even though you KNEW it was a bad idea, just in order to save your own skin, is a scum move.

Note that I never attacked Ecto for "suggesting a no-lynch", because while he was wrong, Ecto-scum wouldn't have anything to gain really by suggesting a no-lynch there. It's not a "generic scum tell", it's a very specific scummy action on your part this specific situation.

[Yosarian2]

Yosarian: Now, I've been supremely tricked by Yosarian before, however, on a general level I go with 'If Yosarian is making sense to me, he's very likely town'. In this game, Yosarian is making sense to me, and he -hasn't- done the thing where he goes after people using specific tells as I've seen him do before as scum. I find it slightly strange that cicero is claiming that Yos is doing something of that nature, when in fact, he hasn't. Overall, I'm getting a pro-town read from Yos.

Heh...well, thanks. I will say, though, that I don't think there's anything scummy about using scum tells; they're often at least a good way to get started in the process of finding scum.

[Yosarian2]

Wow. Does Yosarian ever need to read up before he hits submit.

Heh...yeah, it's generally true that when I have a few pages to read up on, I respond to individual points before I read everything; otherwise I forget what I was going to say. But yeah, that re-claim by Albert does change things.

Albert, just in case you are town, you need to claim all of your actions, who you have targeted every night, and what they have all done, now.

[Yosarian2]

I'm the mother-in-law.

Jester of course.

Vanilla townie.

(sigh)

Ok, new plan. Today, we lynch McPaltpt. Cicero, tonight, you target Albert, and if he dies we'll know you're a insane doc/spin doctor/something. Or we could lynch Albert and have Cicero "vig" McPaltpt. Whatever, just so long as they both die.

[Yosarian2]

I dont know that it's that easy. Let's talk it out. This early with this much flavor we still cant rule out a mafia roleblocker or other shenanigans. Unless I know that I'll be told that my night action was blocked. It's worth a try but announcing night actions is asking for trouble. And I'm unwilling to become an unwitting serial killer. I fought hard enough today to stay in the game that I wont cavalierly kick someone else out.

Targetting Mcpaltp doesnt work either. He is apparently NK immune. Remember I targetted him on night zero. He's still alive but tells us he is NK immune.

Thoughts?

I'm not too worried about a scum re-director at this point. It's not that common a role anyway, and look at what we're dealing with here; the Dalaks might be gone, or if they're not there can't be many of them left. The cybermen already had a cult recruiter AND a "cult killer", whatever that is, I can't imagine them having much more power then that. And besides those two groups, we were speculating there might just be a SK or something. A lot of speculation there and everything, but eh, a scum re-director dosn't seem very likely to me right now.

A scum role-blocker is possible, I suppose, but that wouldn't be a disaster either; until we figure out what your role actually does, if anything, your role isn't that much use to the town, so if the bad guys do have a roleblocker, if he's tied up blocking you that's not the worst thing in the world either. Or they could target the same person you target for the kill which might confuse the issue, but again, that costs them their kill.

You are right, McPaltpt's apparently un-nightkillable, so we can't have you target him. Which dosn't mean he's not scum, of course, that's a really common ability for either SK's or godfathers. So, back to plan A; we lynch McPaltpt, you target Albert, and hopefully they both die, and in the process we might be able to confirm your role and/or figure out if you're a vig, a doc, or something else. Sound good?

[Yosarian2]

Vote Mcpaltp

Let's lynch Mcpaltp since he is night immune, and have Cicero test his ability tonight.

...so, you're not opposed to the "Cicero kills Albert tonight" plan???

[Yosarian2]

There is no way to reliably test me tonight that scum couldnt use to their advantage unless I pick a protection "victim" at random and they wouldnt know where I was targetting. Given that Adel died, I dont see that as very sensibly pro-town of me. Again, thoughts?

Eh...like I said, if the scum use up either a kill or a roleblock to mess with you, that also works in the town's favor, as your ability isn't worth much at the moment (I mean, what's the right tactical way to use an ability that might be a doc protection, a vig kill, or anything in between, or might do nothing at all?) and I don't mind wasting the scum's resources here.

(shrug) Don't target at random, target someone you think is sucm, but if you're really worried about it, you could not announce your target beforehand.

[Yosarian2]

Huh. I have a double vote? Interesting.

[Yosarian2]

Interesting speculation, Cicero.

Personally, I doubt we're dealing with just 1 scum and 2 vigs at this point. Vigs usually don't kill EVERY night; with this many bodies, it seems more likely at least one of the killers is a SK. You're right, Albert was a likely vig target no question (actually, when I saw the night scene I was at first assuming that you had vigged him, Cicero), although it could be that some bad guy was wondering if Albert really WAS a cop and if all that "I'm a townie" stuff was just yet another gambit.

[Yosarian2]

I don't see that, Yos. Even if Albert WERE really a cop, who'd believe him after yesterday?

(shrug) I wouldn't expect any pro-town people to believe him, at least not until after he was dead. But cops tend to scare scum beyond all reason.

Eh, I was just throwing that out as a possibility anyway. I always thought Albert was more likely then not a vanillia townie.

[Yosarian2]

When did Tar claim doc? Is it not possible a misguided vig killed him?

He did claim jailkeeper yesterday, I believe. That makes him a pretty likely scum target.

[Yosarian2]

So there is no proof of a Delak/extermination relationship. Your all just assuming crap. Got it.

Well, there's no in game proof, sure. But if you've ever seen Dr Who, you wouldn't really have any question about it. In ever Dr Who show with a Dalak in it ever made, and there have been a LOT of them, but in every single one there have been scenes where Dalaks slowly rolled foward loudly repeating in a robotic voice "Ex...terminate...Ex...terminate...Ex...terminate" over and over again, pretty much whenever they were trying to kill someone.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, random comment about something from last page:

We have one dead cult killer and one cult recruiter. It's possible the cult killer was a part of the scumgroup originally and there's still a cultist out there who has no pwoers and is essentially an sk without any benefits (not even a kill). But if there is, it's not our pre-occupation atm.

This is kinda what annoys me about cults. We may have one anti-town role left, who has no scumbuddies, and no night actions to be caught doing. Depending on how investigative powers of putative cops work, we may not have anything whatsoever to differentiate him/her from a townie.

Eh...it's not quite as bad as you think. The last cult member, if there is one, still does have motivation to act scummier then average; he dosn't really care very much about who gets lynched, in fact with so many bad guys dead he'd probably rather see a townie or two get lynched at this point just to balace it out. On the other hand, he cares very much about surviving, is likely to try to remain under the radar to avoid both scum kills and lynches, and is likely willing to lie or whatever in order to make himself look better. In other words, he still will tend to act in a scummy manner, just like a SK would, except he's got no kill and therefore we have a lot more chances to lynch him or for him to be crosskilled before he's any kind of threat at all.

[Yosarian2]

Nope. I tracked Xythar night 0 and he didnt do anything. The person I tracked the next night killed scum, so I dont want to reveal them.

I just realised this should be targeted rather than killed.

I don't agree with your not revealing your result in that case, because there's a very high chance that a lot of the kills we've had have been scum cross-killing each other. If you saw someone killing scum, yes they might be a vig, but they're at least as likely to also be scum of a different flavor.

[Yosarian2]

Lots of things point to a vig. That's doesn't mean that Vollkan specifically was a vig kill. IIRC, I was pretty much the only person to find him scummy the day before he died.

You are forgetting what happened. Shteven was lynched and came up vengeful townie. This was after I had spent a great deal of time jumping up and down about the caps meta-info that pointed at Flameaxe AND Vollkan as the daleks. The night had two parts that night. Firs Shteven sent in his kill as Flameaxe. Then Flameaxe was revealed as a Dalek, lending credence to the Caps info (who had already come up as a cop). THEN the full night started and Vollkan was killed. By that point it was pretty likely he was going to come up scum.


Therefore, Vig kill. ABR also Vig kill. Therefore Taff=zip. so sayeth I, huzzah.

It could be a vig kill. Of course, a SK or another scum group had almost as much reason to want to wipe out the Dalaks as a vig would, just to avoid being cross-killed themselves. So even if it was obveous Volken was a Dalak like you argue, that STILL dosn't in any way prove that the person who killed him was pro-town.

[Yosarian2]

You're right. It doesnt prove anything. My argument is balance of probabilities. I think it's more likely vig. One argument I didnt point out that more experienced players than me should have been first to point out is that scum like to keep the other scum factions alive to whittle down the town faster. (Also to give them someone to successfully scum hunt during some day down the road. )

(shrug) It depends on if the scum is more worried about getting lynched or getting crosskilled, and that depends on the game position.

[Yosarian2]

I'm very interested to hear what taff says now...

Unfortunitly I'm afraid your plan there Fonz will have very bad consequenses for us... But I'll wait to hear from Taff first...

Er....what? How would catching a bad guy, possibly a SK or a member of some other mafia group, in exchance for outing a vig have "bad conseqences" for us? I think at this point, that's a great trade for the town, considering how few scum are probably left.

[Yosarian2]

vote:Korlash

Looks to me like he's scum who killed Vol night 1; when he realised the tracker was about to out him he attempted to BS his way out of trouble with a overly complicated claim, and tripped himself up in the processs.

[Yosarian2]

As long as a

jailer

=

jail keeper

than we KNOW Tar meant night1 and not night0. MoS had his vote taken night0. If Jailer and Jailkeeper are the same then Tar's jailing would not have allowed MoS to loose his vote.

Yup, that's what a jailkeeper is; I should know, I invented the role.

And yeah, that's a good point; MOS was almost certanly not targeted by the jailkeeper the night his vote was stolen.

This is all academic anyway, though. Korlash is almost certain to be lying; there are 3 major problems with his claim, any one of which would be enough reason to lynch him; the problem Axelrod pointed out with Iammars being targeted despite the switch, the even more serious problem PokerFace pointed out about the Daalaks almost certanly not trying to kill their own dude, and the problem with the tracker only seeing Korlash go to one house.

It's incredibly obveous Korlash is caught scum here. Is there any reason he's not dead yet?

[Yosarian2]

There's a way we can solve this.

Axelrod, how certain are you of your info?

If he answers 100%, then xtoxm can only be scum if he is. As such, Axel should be lynched first in that scenario if you think they are scum.

How certain can one ever be about these things?

The Mod. did not say "I guarantee you this information is 100% accurate."

But I have no reason to doubt it. There were no Red Flags in the way it was presented. Normally I'd say that it's good info baring the presense of a scum GF. And considering we already

have

a dead scum GF, I have a hard time seeing how it might be false.

Ok. We'll probably want more info later, but for now, I think that's more then enough reason to not lynch him.

Anyway, a mass claim, or at least a mass flavor claim, might not be a bad idea. We're probably only dealing with 1 or 2 more daalaks, and most likely no other scum at all now, right?

[Yosarian2]

But how certain are we that we're dealing with only one scum, here?

Well, we're not.

We've seen 4 dead daalaks so far. From a game balance persepective, there could easily be more then one left. Some other players were saying that from a flavor perspective, there's probably only one left, but I don't really know about that.

Oh, also, there might still be a Cyberman cult recruit around somewhere.

All we really know is that we seem to be down to 1 NK a night, or at least that there was only 1 NK last night.

[Yosarian2]

That's a good point, pokerface. If the scum have safe claims, and it looks like they do, then flavor claiming is not likely to help. And I was never in favor of mass role claiming; with the doc dead, a mass roleclaim would just help the last scum pick off watever town power roles are left, right?

So, ok, I'm against the mass claim.

[Yosarian2]

Well...We could choose the one's people were most suspicious of make them claim first...I am still for it.

That dosn't help if the scum have safe claims, you know.

[Yosarian2]

And you guys think it's likely safe claims were given out?

I think it's pretty likely, yeah. I can't imagine it's very likely Korlash would risk claiming a major character like Rose Tyler, and then not being counterclaimed, unless it was a safe claim given to him by the mod.

[Yosarian2]

Lowell - what's your name?

It does not give a name. And yes, though American, I am well aware you Britons have a PM and not a President. Don't know what to tell you.

And no, I'm not "unkillable" so much as "a waste of a kill". That's the point I was trying to make.

Uh...what? Didn't you just say you were "practically unkillable"? And what were you trying to imply earlier, when you said

Heh, it's true. I have one of those claims that won't make scum all that happy

What does that mean? I mean, scum are always happy when they can make vanillia townies claim, right? Why were you so eager to claim, exactally?

None of this is really making much sense to me here.

[Yosarian2]

Xtoxm, could you explain why you don't trust Fonz? Why is it so unlikely he's a vig who just didn't kill last night?

Axelrod: Eh, I'm not sure what the point is of getting more claims today, especally if the (assuming Cicero is right) last Dallek killed off an unclaimed last night, presumably looking for a unclaimed town power role.

[Yosarian2]

Xtoxm, could you explain why you don't trust Fonz? Why is it so unlikely he's a vig who just didn't kill last night?

Axelrod: Eh, I'm not sure what the point is of getting more claims today, especally if the (assuming Cicero is right) last Dallek killed off an unclaimed last night, presumably looking for a unclaimed town power role.

No offense, but what I really mean is that one of you three is the most likely person to get run up today simply on a process of elimination type basis. I assume that person will claim when they get run up.

Eh? Why would you run up an unclaimed person "simply on a process of elimination type basis" when the scum apparently have safe claims? So why would you "eliminate" people for their claims?

At the moment, my #1 suspect is probably Xtoxm. His attacks on Fonz and such aren't making a lot of sense, and the fact is, his predecessor Mcpalpt both looked quite scummy and apparently faked a post restricton.

[Yosarian2]

Right. You missed that part where I said I had an innocent on him then? Or you disbelieve me? Or just think I have bad information?

Oh. I completly forgot about that for a moment. My mistake.

[Yosarian2]

I think it's Yos2 cos Pokerface and Kison have contriuted a lot more.

Um, no, that's simply not true. I've certanly posted a lot more then Kison has since he's been in the game, more twice as often in fact, and a little more then Pokerface has. And I'm pretty sure I have "contribued" as much or more as either of them. Are you just making stuff up now because I expressed some suspicion on you last page?

[Yosarian2]

(shrug) I'll claim next, sure. I would like someone to first explain why they think it'll help, though.

[Yosarian2]

Well because between vigging and lynching you are pretty much going to die today.

Uh, what? Why would that be a good idea, just because I haven't claimed yet?

[Yosarian2]

Well, whatever. It's not like my claim is going to help much anyway. I'm Adam Mitchell, vanillia.

[Yosarian2]

vote:Pokerface

. Not sure what he's trying to do here. I guess he figured he was dead anyway, what with the "vig everyone who's unconfirmed" plan or whatever, so he figured he might as well get Yos lynched first. (shrug) Not that it really matters, if he's the last Daalak, I assume he'll get vigged tonight after I come up town, so we should win either way.

[Yosarian2]

MY VISION IS IMPAIRED
I CANNOT SEE
MY VISION IS IMPAIRED

(cough)

Good game, everyone. Yeah, we were in pretty deep trouble after Caps double-crossed us back on day 1; that prety much took out eveyone in the scumgroup except me. And man, but I got unlucky on that claim, considering that there were only two people left who hadn't claimed, heh. Oh well; I could have arranged it so I claimed last, but I was pretty much doomed no matter what at that point, I think.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah...I had to bus Flameaxe in order to distance myself from the whole "caps" disaster. BTW, sorry about that, Flameaxe; seemed like our best hope at the time.

[Yosarian2]

I wouldn't mind playing another game here in the future, properly. One where I don't have to get replaced.

Yeah, that would be great, I hope you stick around.