Micro 71: Lucid Dreamers - Night 4

[Mitillos]

@T-Bone: I don't bow, but how about I tip my hat to your grace instead?

[Mitillos]

Whoa, 2nd page already. And since we're already discussing plans, I take it we're out of RVS.

Hi everyone. I'm the one who made that terrible plan with the reveal alignment thing last time, which almost cost us our victory, because I didn't account for the possibility that Klick was still alive. Luckily he wasn't, so we didn't completely hand victory over to the mafia. It's possible, however, that if the plan is made during night 1, it could work better.

I'd like to hear the mod's answers to the questions asked, before continuing with any plan discussions, because of this previous sloppiness in my plan.

p-edit:

@Mod: What about the faking death and faking the alignment reveal thing, which happened in 56? Is that a possible action, in this game, or can we take any death reveals to be completely accurate and truthful?

p-p-edit: @scream: Could you tell us who you are? Or is that a complete secret?

[Mitillos]

@scream: I see. And, as I said, I don't have any plans in mind. T-Bone may not allow them, in any case. If I do come up with a plan that uses acceptable actions, I'll throw it in for discussion, but for now, I have nothing.

@qwints: 1) and 2) are contradictory. Do you mean that one of the two will happen? If that is the case, anything we do can be potentially thwarted by nightmares, even if we don't reveal our plans. As for 3), our goal is to find the nightmares and eliminate them. Scumhunting is hunting for scum. How you do it is up to you.
I'm not sure I follow on why breadcrumbing is better. Scum can do it too. And they have a better idea of what will happen, as they already know all our alignments.

And I'd still like to hear the mod's answer to the question about faked deaths.

[Mitillos]

@qwints: What I meant was, a plan can't both be thwartable (2)) and disallowed for guaranteeing victory (1)). But, yeah, I see what you meant now.

In any case, T-Bone already said that the alignment reveal plan cannot be used, as he will only reveal the alignments of dead players. The only other plan we made in the previous game was that everyone uses the "reveal action" action on themselves, except one person who investigates someone. This one is probably worse, with two scum alive. I hate to admit it, but with the current set of rules, a plan is probably a bad idea.

So, @qwints and more importantly @Emp: Why Zoidberg votes? Even for RVS, your explanations are dodgy and absent, respectively.

[Mitillos]

O_o Did you discuss that game with Piggy, then? Because I'm fairly certain that you weren't in it. Unless I've gone mental.
Anyway, as I said, Emp's reason is more important, as yours was a first vote anyway.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: Why Zoidberg and not Piggy then? They were equally valid at the time. Still, if you like early wagons,

Vote: Empking

[Mitillos]

I have no clue what that means.

[Mitillos]

@Mist: Why not? Also, do you have anything more substantial to add?

[Mitillos]

More talk from Piggy, Pro, Mist and Siv, please. Any reads so far? Thoughts on the Emp wagon?

[Mitillos]

Because we were in 56?
Seriously though, reads without justifications are scummy, in my book.

[Mitillos]

@Pro: Well, planning won't happen this time, apparently, because of the rules. If a plan is good, it won' be allowed. If it's bad, it will lead to scum victory. But yeah, read up on other games. Get some good ideas for what you want to do tonight. Pro-tip: If you're scum, you can shoot yourself. Don't forget though that that part is only after the day is over. In the meantime, everything is the same as most regular mafia games, except that no one has a PR to claim. Scum is still scum, town is still town, they just have fancy names. So, participation would be nice.

@Mist: I don't like tea, but I'm alright with some cold water, if you wouldn't mind. What kinds of ideas do you mean? And yes, RVS wagons don't necessarily lead to a lynch. But they do lead to other important things, like discussion and reactions. For example, qwints jumping on the wagon could potentially be taken as an opportunistic scum reaction, or a bussing attempt, depending on Emp's alignment. Your opposition to the wagon could also be taken as scum trying to protect their buddy, or gaining town-cred for defending town, again depending on Emp's alignment. If everyone is sitting around at their ease, without any pressure from votes and questioning, scum will also be relaxed, so they won't make any bad moves or other slips. They know they have control overnight, since town doesn't know who is scum and who is not, whereas they have all the information. If they also have control during the day, they will win.
Since you don't have any reads yet, what do you think of Zoidberg's reaction to qwints switching votes? What about Piggy's reads? Any thoughts on those?

[Mitillos]

You can shoot me if you think I am scum. But you'd only be helping the mafia that way. If we mislynch today, for example and mafia kills 2 people, then if you also kill me, that's 4 town deaths. population down to 4, 2 are mafia. Mafia wins after Night 1.

And yeah, I see what you mean about what is pro-town and what isn't. I've only played one LD, the aforementioned Micro 56. In it, Some of us were for planning, some were against. Both sides included town. Mafia didn't really participate in that discussion much on D1, if I remember correctly. What they did was test the waters on no-lynching, which could have been a good idea for town, as it transpired.

[Mitillos]

@Hawk: To be fair, had Klick not been vigged, rc wouldn't have died either. That could have changed things radically. And yeah, rc did vig the right target, but not everyone will. No-voting makes some sense, if we expect vigging to occur. Vigging makes some sense, if we expect no-voting to occur. Your point on ulterior motives is very good, however.

Unvote

Vote: Piggy

Sorry, ex-neighbour. You seem rather scummy right now.

@Mist: No biting, please. As for planning actions, as we discussed already, the current ruleset is bad for that. Either our plans will be good and disallowed by the mod, or they will be bad and mafia will take advantage of them. Discussing possible actions, without plans may sound like a good idea at first, but remember that mafia gets more information that way too. It's best to think of your own actions and act on them in secret, in this situation. Then on D2, we can discuss what we all did and try to find any liars. At least that's what I think, in this case. Also, good comments and questions. Keep it up.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: Not really. It was their content. You said you like to participate in early wagons, so I gave you one of your very own, to enjoy. Also, you reacted to it solidly, so I have a slight town read on you.

[Mitillos]

And to see what would happen next.

[Mitillos]

There is no Empking wagon any more, in any case. I moved to Piggy (come on, bacony one, start talking ) some time ago, as did qwints.

[Mitillos]

That's L-1, incidentally.

[Mitillos]

@Piggy: I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Emp, Zoid and myself "are town, no doubt" (post 60). You explained why you see Hawk as scum, what about Mist?

@qwints: Go on, why is Piggy obvscum? Is it the lack of a vote, as Mist suggested? Or is there something additional?

@Hawk: You may not be here to make friends, but only scumhunting is not enough. You also need to explain to the rest of us and convince us why your reads make sense. Otherwise, we won't vote like you do. So even if you find both nightmares, unless you can convince us of their guilt, it's all for nothing. This isn't about harshness, it's about whether your reasoning is something others will accept as valid. I've said this several times in a few games: Mafia is not an adversarial game; it is a cooperative one. The town must share information appropriately, if it wants to have a chance to win.

@Mod: VC please?

[Mitillos]

So even if you find both nightmares

Speaking of scum slips.... I don't see where it says there are 2 scum.

Huh. You're right, it doesn't say that anywhere. I assumed it'd be 2, partly because it's a 9 player game and partly because there were 2 in 56. There could be 3. Do you think that's likely, though?

[Mitillos]

@scream: Discussion of Micro 56 is as relevant as any meta. In my case, it was the first game I played with Piggy and Emp and the second game I played with Zoid. It coloured my perception of their playstyles. It is true that the alignments in that game are not directly relevant, but if you would dismiss it out of hand, you must discard all meta. And I don't think that's a good idea. I will continue to refer to that game, when I think it is necessary and relevant.
Speaking of which, I'm a bit curious about Piggy's post 112. @Piggy: In the previous game, you made a similar comment about guns, when suggesting that we use the gunsmith role to search for nightmares. And yet, this time, you say that Mist talking about guns was a scumslip. What's that about?

[Mitillos]

Unvote

Go ahead, Emp. You can vote her now, if you want, without hammering her.

[Mitillos]

@Empking: No, I won't hammer, I'm not an idiot and I'm not scum.
@Everyone else who commented on my unvote: Just testing Empking's resolve. He stated he wanted to vote Piggy. I unvoted. If he was just scum trying to both go along with what town was doing, as well as wanting to show everyone he won't hammer, he might have squirmed a bit about voting Piggy, himself. His reaction was natural and townish.

@Siv: How did you have a p-edit 24 minutes later? Anyway, the problem with the confirmable actions thing is that they can be interfered with. If there are two scum and they interfere with two townies, we could be looking at two potential mislynches. Add a possible mislynch before N1 and a couple of deaths during N2 and we're already done for. Additionally, because of T-Bone's rules, we can't use "reveal" actions. So the only confirmable actions will have to rely on confirmation from others. One scum can claim to have neighbourised his buddy. His buddy will confirm this. And we can't assume that either of them is scum, because either or both could be town as well and do the same thing.

[Mitillos]

Aww, no more talking about algebra?

Anyway, say we go with the neighbourising plan. then nightmares just follow suit. And we're back to nowhere, because this won't tell us who they are.we simply have a bunch of secret conversations, or potentially one huge one, depending on how the Mod decides to implement this. Then what? We continue the scumhunting on D2, without information on the night actions. I would support this plan if we had a decent chance of finding scum through conversation alone. I don't think we do.

[Mitillos]

@Zoid: If there are 3 nightmares in this game, should they all successfully kill on N1, if we don't lynch, and none of the town vig, town loses. Worse, if we mislynch today, with 8 people left, the nightmares need only 2 successful deaths, so one of their team could help ensure one goes through, by removing protection from one of the targets, or something. If that is the case, town is very likely to lose, no matter what. I will initially go by the assumption that there are only 2 nightmares, because if I am wrong, it makes little difference. If we do get 2 nightmares and the game is still ongoing, I will obviously have been wrong, but at that point, it won't matter, because we will have eliminated two nightmares and can probably figure out who the third one is.
Yes, this assumption is not based on information in the thread, and I won't say that 3 nightmares are impossible. But I think it is a valid assumption there are two.

The thing about Piggy's scumread on Siv is, I do that too. I very often have to reread and rethink my posts several times. English is not my first language; if this is also the case for Siv, I can see how that would be just a peculiarity of his posting style and not a scum trait.

p-edit: Ninja'd by Siv.

[Mitillos]

@qwints: I'd like an answer to my question addressed to you in 113, please.

[Mitillos]

Hmm, I was thinking qwints is scum from how he jumped two wagons right after me. His response in 160 kind of shook that though.

So far, I have town reads on Emp and qwints in descending order of strength, null on Zoid, Mist, Hawk and scream (slightly to the scum side for Mist, slightly to the town side for Hawk and Zoid) and scum on Piggy and Siv, again in descending order of strength.

[Mitillos]

Naturally.
Emp: He's reacted three times as I would expect from town. When I asked him why he picked Zoid over Piggy, when there was a wagon on him and when I unvoted Piggy for him to vote. He may have been posting mostly fluff, but when he posted non-fluff it was solid stuff.
Siv: His attack on Mist when he started posting was in no way pro-town. How exactly was her opposition to a wagon the same as derailing it? His insistence that scream's vote was scummy stinks of obfuscated OMGUS. Voting lurkers and inactives in general is a good thing, because otherwise we're allowing scum to slide by unnoticed. The whole thing about taking for ever with p-edits and how he did it again and then drew additional attention to it with the ninja comment is a very slight scumtell on its own, but with everything else, it's additional evidence.
Piggy: Should be clear, from everything that's happened so far. I only unvoted for her to check Emp's claim. You can consider my vote as tentatively on her, for now.
qwints: His response in 160 is what pushed him up the town ladder. As I mentioned, I had a slight scumread on him before, but that changed my mind.
Hawk and Zoid are slightly town because they seem earnest and eager in their scumhunting attempts.
Mist was slightly scummy because of 83, but 93 helped mitigate that quite a bit. On the whole, hers is the read I'm not too big on and could very easily move up the town scale.
scream: Each head of the hydra is throwing me off my reads on the other. And the reads themselves are way too weak to constitute much. Completely null.

[Mitillos]

@Mist: We've been doing reads for a while, actually. Just not quite so explicit. Some more would be appreciated, from everyone.
And hey, at least everyone thinks you're null leaning scum. That means that you could get lynched tomorrow, so scum won't kill you tonight. With people calling me strong town, mafia would only not target me for WIFOM purposes. So, you know, it's actually a good thing, in a way.

[Mitillos]

To be fair, it did one thing: It removed suspicion from her. It was an action of very limited utility. You'll note that Piggy's and Emp's actions, being the confirmed ones, meant that they were all but cleared of suspicion, as they were also doing something that didn't really help them as scum. The assumption was that Klick was killing rc, so what was his partner doing neighbourising, or revealing others' actions? It could have been a gambit and it can be used as one this time around, but it did help town, indirectly.

[Mitillos]

@Mod: Can we get a VC?

@Mist: Your reads are generally quite pleasant. However, there's a few things I wanted to ask. 1) Where did Piggy hop on as soon as someone got a vote? She voted me in RVS and later voted Siv, several pages after he got a vote. And she had made several posts in between, so I'm not sure where you got that impression. Also, as Zoid said, why aren't you voting for anyone? You've made your reads, you have some people as scum, how can we believe that you are honest about your reads, if you don't vote accordingly? And if you think that I could be either "awesome town" or "great scum", shouldn't I be a null read? Saying that, could be taken as trying to set up for a possible future mislynch.

[Mitillos]

Are you asking me how come I'm not voting Zoid, or asking Zoid how come he's not voting? If it's the former, because I don't think he's scum. If it's the latter, you missed a comma.

[Mitillos]

Well, I only unvoted to see what Emp would do. My main reads haven't changed.

Vote: Piggy

[Mitillos]

That's L-1 again, btw.

[Mitillos]

Or continue lurking, feeling safe in the knowledge that they can do so and avoid too much suspicion.
In any case, it makes no difference now.

[Mitillos]

@Siv: So, you're saying you are scum and you also took no action?

[Mitillos]

@Empking: Why do you say he's post-restricted? And what exactly do you mean by it?

Also, I would like to keep my action secret until everyone has said something; the reason will become apparent when I do say what I did, so please trust me.

[Mitillos]

Can't find aesthetic in the wiki, but alright.

OK, so I've just realised something and changed my mind about not making my action known. I figured that Siv was trying to get people to vote for him, to see if scum had stolen their votes. I thought this was a good idea, but then I realised something No one must vote Siv. It is possible that what scum did was the same action as the one Eidolon took on the final night of game 56, i.e. if someone votes, both he and the voted person die. And I know that Siv isn't scum, because I investigated him last night. The only possibility of him being scum is if he is lying and used his action to make himself a Godfather. But in that case, why would he want to claim scum? So, for now, please don't vote, in case we have two townie deaths in one go.

I would like everyone to make an action claim.

p-edit: @Siv: I think he means that you are forced to claim scum, by someone's action.

[Mitillos]

@Zoidberg: Probably the same reason that you redirected actions targeting you to Emp on N1 of 56. Also, how about an action claim?

[Mitillos]

Myst?

[Mitillos]

scream, what did you do last night?

And remember, I investigated Siv last night. The result was innocent.

[Mitillos]

OK, don't expect much from me for a while. I will look at all the actions taken and see who could be lying. If we can limit the possibilities to a few pairs, we can confirm stuff by having one person of one pair vote for one person in another and seeing what happens, in terms of vote counts and so on. Please do not make any rash moves yet, just in case.

[Mitillos]

Also, I think qwints' action was because Siv suggested vigging Mist. Reflection is a bit much though, so maybe you should have gone with protection, since there probably can't be actions that supercede others anyway.

[Mitillos]

@qwints: But why would they try to kill Mist? That makes no sense, as almost everyone was leaning slightly scum on her. She hammered Piggy; if Piggy had been scum, I'd agree with the possibility of Mist being shot at. But Piggy was town. There is no reason to assume that someone would try to kill Mist.

I'd also like to see Mist's exact wording of her action, like qwints said, and afterwards I would like to hear from Siv what his restriction says.

@Mod: Can mafia communicate all the time, or only during the time we are dreaming and not talking?

[Mitillos]

If they can talk whenever, they can just talk whenever, from the beginning, irrespective of actions. Let's wait to see the mod's answer. Also, Mist's.

[Mitillos]

^ Who the F is that?

~M a.k.a. Head #1

@qwints: I missed the error. Did he accidentally say that Mist was lynched and was town, instead of Piggy?

[Mitillos]

Then qwints' action makes more sense.

[Mitillos]

OK, so Siv, what's your restriction in your own PM?

[Mitillos]

Care to elaborate?

[Mitillos]

Well, let's wait for the mod to answer our questions.

[Mitillos]

Alright, so we can be sure that if anyone dies from just voting, they're either scum or taking scum with them.
Anyone up for checking if the vote numbers have been tampered with? Voting in a circle will show us if this is the case.
To start this:

Vote: scream

p-edit: Ninja'd by qwints.

[Mitillos]

So, Emp, I take it that you are opposed to testing if the votes have been tampered with. That is, whether someone stole someone else's vote for the day.

[Mitillos]

The thing that bothers me about Mist's action is, if she was going to give Siv a post restriction, why not make it "Siv must reveal his alignment in his next post", rather than "Siv must say he admits he is scum every three posts"? Seems like either sloppy town play with very little thought behind it, or a sloppy scum attempt at smearing someone.

[Mitillos]

@scream, if you want to check the vote thing, please vote for someone who hasn't been voted for yet.
@Zoidberg: You too.
@Mist: Before you implied that no one was coaching you, it looked like no one was coaching you. Now it looks like either no one was coaching you, or you're just throwing WIFOM into the issue. Not to mention that, if you are scum with, e.g. Zoidberg (who hasn't been on the site since yesterday), he probably wouldn't be able to coach you, since he probably wouldn't have looked at the QT either.

[Mitillos]

I can only think of two possible scum motivations. One is that maybe we wouldn't realise there was a post-restriction and just lynch Siv (this is extremely far-fetched and unlikely). The second one is exactly what Mist said in the post preceding this one: her action is confirmable. It's like a big neon sign saying "I didn't kill anyone or anything bad like that last night. I was just messing with Siv. This is not helpful for scum, so I can't be scum."

[Mitillos]

I was hoping we'd get the votecount before there were 3 people on a single person... The idea was, say that, for example, qwints is scum and he stole your vote last night for today. Then Mist would have had 3 votes on her, even though you voted Zoidberg. But now that you moved to Mist, if that's what happened, then it won't be seen in the vote-counts. The same is true for all other pairs of voters. If no one wants to test this possibility, that's fine, but I don't see why you wouldn't. It's not like it would take that long.

[Mitillos]

EBWOP: I meant 2 people on a single person.

[Mitillos]

@Siv: Why did you admit to be scum in 330? You did so in your previous post and you and Mist said that it had to be every 3 posts.

[Mitillos]

But that's even more annoying. Also, is that a serious vote, or a number-testing one?

Damn it, Mist. I'm just glad you didn't target me.

[Mitillos]

@qwints: Not sure I follow the logic from scum not killing to Siv being scum.

[Mitillos]

@Pro: The thing is, my investigation cleared Siv. so, you'd have to be suggesting that he actually used his action to make himself a godfather. But why would he be expecting to be investigated, by anyone?

[Mitillos]

@Zoid: Not that I'm against the Mist votes or anything (that's whom I'm going to be voting for as well, unless things change dramatically), but weren't you going to wait for a votecount to see if your vote was stolen by someone, or if you stole someone's vote?

[Mitillos]

@Zoidberg:
1)Very good point. Siv is absolutely right. Your vote is definitely a singleton and it also means no one stole your vote either. Unless, you stole someone's vote and someone stole yours, but I doubt that sort of thing very much.
2) If there still had been a question about votes, Mist would have been a horrible place to put your vote, since a) others are voting her already and b) someone moved away from her before you voted her but after the previous vote.
3) Your vote was on me before Mist, not Siv.

@Hawk and Siv: Your biggest scumread seems to be Emp. Who would his most likely partner be?

@Emp, scream and Zoidberg: Same question; who would her most likely partner be?

@Mist: You're voting qwints. Was his explanation for why he voted you inadequate? Is he still scummy? Is there someone scummier?

@qwints: You moved off Mist. Any reads since then?

[Mitillos]

Good point, again.

[Mitillos]

@Mist: I am not sure what post 354 is supposed to be telling me. Could you clarify?

[Mitillos]

Oh. Alright.

[Mitillos]

@Pro: Go on.

[Mitillos]

So you doubt that, for example, I didn't investigate Siv and instead godfathered scream, or something? Or turning it around, you could have done that, or even qwints or Emp.

[Mitillos]

As long as you keep all the possibilities in mind.

[Mitillos]

@Mist: Why did you point it out? Yes, Siv did admit he was scum in his 3rd most recent post. Why not let him defend himself? Why suggest that scream made a mistake, when he might have been reaction-fishing? Sometimes you should just let things happen. So, why did you jump in like that?

[Mitillos]

Except that you didn't have any reason to defend him. After all, what you claim is that you gave him a post restriction. He has to follow it, or be modkilled. He has been following it, but this doesn't make him town. Scum would follow it, as well. So, you're too eager to defend him. This is either bad town play, or careless scum play.

[Mitillos]

Or doing something else entirely, like making someone a SuperSaint. Or making a delayed kill, that takes place tomorrow. Or stealing a vote from someone, which we haven't established yet. It could be anything. But yes, one of their actions, in that situation, would have to be godfathering Siv, which I doubt they'd bother with.

[Mitillos]

Votecount seems alright, unless Emp stole from scream, or vice-versa, which at this point doesn't matter much.

Unvote

Normally I'd have voted for Mist now, but her recent posts make me think that he action was just a bad choice by a townie, rather than a weird smearing attempt by scum. I don't think Siv is lying. He claimed a siteflake. I got an innocent result from him. Either he never took an action, or he's scum and one scum action was used up in making him appear innocent. I don't much care for qwints' and hawk's specific actions, in this case, but I can see how they can make sense to town who are worried about people getting killed.

I'm not completely sure that Emp's claimed action would be allowed. If he can't be targeted, even a roleblock wouldn't reach him, so that seems broken.

Mod: Is it allowed for people to make themselves untargetable? Also, you're missing qwints in the latest votecount.

[Mitillos]

If they are scum and if they shot someone, the only possible target is Empking, as he was the only one protected from kills, according to the claims. But those are two rather huge "if"s.

[Mitillos]

@scream: You are wrong. Read the second Siv line in post 360 (that is, second after the quote). You get town points for that though.

@Emp: There are unconventional methods of killing. Like I said, they may have made a delayed kill, that will only take effect tomorrow. In that case, any one of us could already be effectively dead already.

[Mitillos]

@Siv: Could you call me "Mit", please? Mitsy sounds girly and could also be confused with Mist. And yes, I know that it's possible that one of Zoid and scream godfathered and lied. But then we still don't have any actions unaccounted for, from their side. If e.g. Zoid godfathered himself, instead of investigating scream, he couldn't have done anything else. If they're not scum together, then two actions pertaining to them are definitely accounted for.

[Mitillos]

@Hawk: Did you have any reason to suspect that you might be killed? Also, wouldn't they roleblock you first, making your bomb action meaningless?

[Mitillos]

@Hawk: No need to be so defensive. The first question is not implying anything. I assumed that you had someone in mind who would target you and was asking who that was. The second one is implying that your action may not have been optimal. Response?

[Mitillos]

Except that they wouldn't know I wasn't protecting myself, so they'd still waste an action, roleblocking me, in a sense. But yeah, in a sense, I agree with your point about tying them both. And alright, if you didn't have a specific person in mind for killing you, beyond your previous reads, that's fair enough.

So, we're at 3 wagons. I still think Emp is town. Scream: are you scum again, bro?

Vote: Scream

[Mitillos]

Pretty sure it's actually L-2. That VC would be nice.

[Mitillos]

The thing is, I've got a town read on Empking. Is it likely that all 3 wagons are on town? And the scream one was a bit of a spurious one, to see what would happen, but there wasn't much of a reaction.

Unvote

Vote: Mist

Her action makes more sense coming from scum than town, if only very slightly.

[Mitillos]

And obviously, that's L-1, in case anyone doesn't look at the votecount.

[Mitillos]

Even more sparsely than before?

Alright everyone, what are the action claims today? I investigated qwints and found him to be a dreamer.

[Mitillos]

@qwints: After everyone else makes their claim - and only after that - I would like you to explain your reasoning.

@Hawk: You can explain yours now if you want.

[Mitillos]

@Hawk: qwints' actions aside, if I were scum, why would I want to clear 2 people? Even if I were scumbuddies with qwints, what's the scum motivation for clearing Siv on D2? Particularly when he said he was admitting he was scum, repeatedly and I could have just let things go on for a bit, to see what happened. Also, why would we, as the scumteam, draw attention to ourselves, by voting in tandem, like that? Does that really look like a coordinated action, to you? Remember that the mod confirmed yesterday that the mafia can converse whenever it wants. So, why wouldn't one of the other people on the wagon be potential scum? Also, you can see that nothing nasty happened to qwints. So, I didn't do anything nasty. But I do see your own action as town-motivated, given your belief that we were scum together.

@qwints: I think you're a bit confused. None of the 4 investigations were on Mist or Piggy. That leaves 7 people. There are 7C2 = 21 possible scum teams. If the actual scumteam does not contain one of the 4 investigated people, there are 3C2 = 3 scumteams. The probability of that happening is 3/21 ~= 14.3%. Your calculation doesn't take into account that the investigations were all on different people.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: Look at qwints' claimed action, then look at mine.

@Siv: Just call me Mit, will you?

[Mitillos]

You call it an end-of-the-day quickvote, but I didn't expect someone to hammer so quickly after I voted. Also, if you look back to D2, you'll see that I didn't want us getting on a wagon early on, to test if votes had been tampered with (something we may want to do again today), even though I expressed my suspicions about Mist. Yeah, I was wrong about her, just as I was wrong about Piggy, but being wrong isn't scummy. So, no, your arguments against me are not good. Town-motivated, I think, but not good.

Vote: Empking

This is not an accusatory vote. It is simply to test votecounts again. If scum planned to interfere with voting, then they may feel safer doing it for today, since we already checked yesterday.

[Mitillos]

We don't need to wait on the votecount to actually discuss and scumhunt. Just because your vote would be placed somewhere doesn't mean you can't think about who is scum. In any case, sparse VCs doesn't mean none. And we can always PM him for an urgent VC, when everyone places a vote.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: Do you mean Zoid? There's no Zorb. If so, Zoid, could you vote scream to get this out of the way?

[Mitillos]

@Mod: Can we get a vote-count real quick, please?

[Mitillos]

So, we have Siv's vote being on qwints, instead of Pro and qwints' vote not counting.

Shenanigans, or Mod error?

[Mitillos]

I think Emp was talking about the vote count being wrong.

@Emp: Do you have a case on Pro, or are you OMGUSing him for suspecting you?

[Mitillos]

@Zoidberg: You claimed the exact same thing I did; two innocent investigations. The first one, I might add, quite helpfully on someone whose own investigation cleared you. Yet, you say that my actions could have scum motivation behind them. Was that a mild scumslip on your part? You also say that Siv is scum, yet I might be trying to gain towncred by "clearing" townies. Contradiction?

Unvote

Vote: Zoidberg

[Mitillos]

OK, so you're not that certain on Siv being scum. Then there is no contradiction. That's fine. But it's still true that you said that my actions could be scummy, which means that yours could be equally (if not more, what with the cross-investigation with scream) scummy.
Somehow, I doubt Siv is scum. In that case, he'd have to have Godfathered himself (or his partner did it for him, which comes to the same thing). Why would he claim to have siteflaked, when all he had to do was wait to see what everyone said they did and then make a safe claim? Incidentally, the last claim for D2 was you and the one for D3 was scream.
Actually, we should probably look at the order in which claims were made, see whose looked like a safe claim at the time they made it. Or at least safe enough. I'll do that later.

[Mitillos]

Well, what I suggested isn't foolproof, but it can give us an indication. One thing I'm curious about is ProHawk's first claim. Does being a bomb make you only kill someone who shoots you, or the first one who interacts with you? Because, if it's the latter, it's not a safe-claim at all, because someone could then say "I investigated him", or something and that would make it obvious he was lying.

@Zoid: It is true that people were less active, but the point is, if scum lied, they had to make their lies convincing. Part of being convincing is making your claim at a point where you know it can be taken as truthful. Again, this is not a 100% indication that someone is scum, just evidence of scum-motivation.

[Mitillos]

So let's see where we are with potential lies being safe. Remember that scum could also have told the truth about their action.

First set of claims:

Siv siteflaked: Not completely safe. If someone tracked him or made his action public (is that allowed? it was in 56, not sure if it is here), he'd be outed. I think the probability of that is low, however, and Siv (if he were scum) may have thought the same.

Emp made himself untargetable: Very unsafe. If anyone targeted him with anything (e.g. an investigation), the lie would be obvious. It is still possible that Emp did exactly what he said, even as scum.

I investigated Siv: Very safe. Unless someone claimed to roleblock me or something, I'd be in the clear throughout. The only other weakness would be if someone else had also investigated Siv and got a result of nightmare instead.

qwints made mist reflective: Very safe. The only possibilities I can thing for, to show this claim as a lie would be someone successfully neighbourising Mist.

Pro turned himself into a bomb: Not sure about this one, it depends on my question in my previous post.

scream investigated Zoid: Very safe, unless scream is scum, Zoidberg is town AND Zoidberg made himself untargetable.

Zoid investigated scream: The safest so far, for obvious reasons.

Second set of claims:

I investigated qwints: Very safe, with the exception of qwints not being targetable, or me being roleblocked.

qwints made people who target him bulletproof: Very safe. In fact, this may be the second safest claim overall, given the lack of deaths.

Pro redirected my action to target qwints (ironically): Very safe. Anything that proves his action is a lie, does the same to mine (like someone else investigating qwints).

Zoid investigated Pro: As with all investigations, safe.

Siv made himself a dayvig: Completely safe. I don't even want to test the claim, in case we get two townie deaths today and put ourselves in LyLo or even lose, without scum even needing to do absolutely anything up to tonight.

Emp made himself untargettable: Safer than last time, since more people have made their claims by this point and only scream remains.

scream made himself bulletproof: Completely safe, again for obvious reasons.

p-edit: That's a lot of posts. Responses to those coming shortly.

[Mitillos]

@Zoidberg: No, being first doesn't make you town. I claimed first today, but my claim was completely safe. I am not cleared. Being last is not scummy, but it is definitely safe and can no longer be countered. Again, it is a possible scum tactic, but not proof of scumminess. I think you are upset because it seems like I'm trying to make a case against you based solely on the fact that you didn't your claims early. This is not true. I know that not everyone is equally active and would not make such a spurious case. Also, if someone claims ascetic they can be easily countered by someone who investigates them. For example, if Pro had said he made himself ascetic, the fact that you investigated him successfully would make it obvious he was lying. And he didn't know at that point if anyone would claim that they investigated him. So, claiming ascetic early is hardly safe.
Also, please don't call me a retard. You may be smarter than me, but I'm not a complete idiot. I never said that claiming first makes you town. I never said that claiming last makes you scum. I said that scum are more likely to make safe claims (not necessarily last, just safe).

@Pro: Mist's action being confirmable was less important than it being anti-town. We don't quite have that sort of action claimed today. And again, order of claims is not equivalent to safety of claims. My claim was first today and yet very safe.

Also, now that I know how the bomb works, Pro's first claim was also safe, since no one died.

Unvote

I think Zoid's response to all this is townish.

[Mitillos]

It's cool.

[Mitillos]

If the mod says that protection lasts until the dream phase, how does everyone feel about Siv shooting one of the people who, according to the claims, should be protected currently? I think those would be me, Emp, scream and possibly Hawk (if we take his action to be targeting qwints, so this one is a bit iffy).

[Mitillos]

@qwints: But not scream?

[Mitillos]

@qwints: Let's hear some more about why Emp but not scream. Because, I'd be in favour of both possibilities.

[Mitillos]

@Pro: Your action could be taken to be targeting both me and qwints. So qwints' claimed action, in that case, would make you bulletproof as well. I'm not completely sure about that though, so I'd rather not risk it. Which is why I would prefer that, if the mod says that protected status persists, we check either Emp or scream. They are the only ones involved in protecting themselves, so there are fewer variables. If they die and flip town, we'd be looking for a roleblocker, which makes little sense without a death overnight. So, either they don't die or die and flip scum. Both of these are fine with me. Nevertheless, we should wait for the mod's response.

[Mitillos]

WTF? What if Pro is a dreamer? Are you insane?

[Mitillos]

He is, he does not and you are not.

[Mitillos]

That was a completely fake vig, and it's not how I use it at all.

I don't think he said his action was not a dayvig after all. Just that it was used differently, like e.g. kill: X.

[Mitillos]

At this time, I think the best lynch candidate is

Vote: scream

And if Siv does vig, we'll be left with 6 people, so if he vigs town, we may need to no-lynch. Otherwise, if we also mislynch, we will be down to 5. Then if mafia successfully kills without dying tonight, they win.

[Mitillos]

I never did make a case on him. I think he is scum because it fits with his words and actions. I think you, qwints and Zoidberg are town. I think scream is scum and his scumbuddy is one of Emp and Siv. Beyond that, yeah, you can call it a hunch, if you want.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: That would be risky for them, I think. They can't be sure what protection their target has. Or even if he is a bomb. Or even if someone unrelated decides to vig one of them, for kicks.

[Mitillos]

@scream: You might as well suggest the plan, anyway. We don't know if you're dead or not, until T-Bone says something.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: Well, it used a different format than when he fake-vigged Pro. It could be true, so if it is, I'd like to hear more from scream, before he dies.
@scream: Well? No time like the present to give us your thoughts.

[Mitillos]

And we don't know if he's dead. So, even more technically, he hasn't died yet, until the mod says so.

[Mitillos]

Something is very wrong. We've had 2 lynches, one vig and 3 daykills. That's 6 deaths overall. 9-6 = 3.

@Mod: Count error, or is there a contradiction in the rules?

[Mitillos]

Siv, Emp, where are you guys?

[Mitillos]

You got scum. I was happy with the result. Anyway, I would prefer to speak last, if that's alright. I have a good reason for it. So, Emp, please go first. If you did the same thing for three nights in a row, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

[Mitillos]

I reflected every action aimed at me back to its user.

So, apparently there's a third nightmare. I would like each of you to say who you think the most likely one is.

[Mitillos]

Remember what the mod said. All modposts are truthful in their content. That makes A impossible.

@Mod: Can we get confirmation on this? Were all the alignment flips up to now truthful and are all the people in question dead, or is there any possibility of that not being the case?

If B is true, Emp can't die. He would have been impossible to target, each night.

In any case, I asked you specifically who you think is more likely to be scum if there are three. Doubting it is the case doesn't mean you can't make your choice.

[Mitillos]

Largely that I wanted to see if Empking would not claim Ascetic again. If he were scum, with me being so set on going last, maybe I investigated him last night and he wants to be careful about what he says. Also, I wanted to see what you would claim, in terms of ProHawk. He was irrelevant to your claim, so that didn't make a difference. I think he vigged me last night and that's why he died. Maybe I should have made myself bulletproof, but I didn't expect town to vig me, only scum...

How about you? Why did you want to not go first?

[Mitillos]

Well, that is two actions, so it makes sense. Actually, I was going to do something that got turned down too, but anyway.

The funny thing is, until 606, I thought it was most likely Siv that was the remaining scum. Now, I'm not sure.

[Mitillos]

I'd like us to finish this soon, since I'll be V/LA over the weekend.

[Mitillos]

I'm here by the way. Just got off the plane, as it were. The fact that I'm not voting Siv should tell you both I'm obv-town.
So, convince me why each of you is town and the other one is scum.
Why are the last two lines of 614 fake?

[Mitillos]

I'm here. I won't claim until after Siv has.

[Mitillos]

I don't understand it either. Anyway, I was also reflective, once again.

Now, I assume that both of you accept that I am town, since I didn't hammer yesterday. If so, I would like each of you to present to me as good a case as you can make on each other and a defense for yourselves. And if you think I could still be scum, please explain.

In particular, I want you to explain your action choices and your vote choices, where you think the motivation may be unclear.

[Mitillos]

@Emp: The thing is, I'm sort of inclined to believe Siv is town:

1) He killed scream. This could be done in order to solidify his position, but he would basically be sacrificing Zoidberg as well, since they cleared each other on night 2.
2) Scream tried to get him mislynched, by saying he forgot to put "I admit I am scum" way back when.
3) I got a result of "innocent" on him, day 1. If he's scum, he'd have to have expected that he'd be investigated and made himself a godfather. Or alternatively, he'd have to expect me to investigate and made me insane. But Zoidberg was in game 56 with us and everyone else read it thoroughly. They knew I didn't investigate a single time in that game. And I don't think Siv would have any reason to expect investigations.

On the other hand, we still don't know what scream and Zoid (and you and Siv, really) did over most nights. But for the first day, it seems that without any kills your action is the best explanation.

@Siv: What was your idea?

[Mitillos]

Then what? Should we vote scream and Zoidberg to make sure they're dead?

[Mitillos]

Not sure how a third party would fit in with the "temporal paradox" thing, but alright.
That doesn't explain why I got an innocent result on him. That is, why would he have godfathered himself on D1? I picked him arbitrarily, for investigation.

[Mitillos]

Why clearly? Zoidberg and scream "investigated" each other. They didn't need to GF themselves for this.
Also, even if they did, why would 3rd party-Siv do the same? If he's not with mafia, he wouldn't be in on it.

[Mitillos]

@Siv: I'm still here. I think it's time to finish this. Unless persuaded otherwise, I will put down my vote before the end of the day. I will go over the game again, to see if anything strikes me.

[Mitillos]

@Siv: Elaborate, please.

[Mitillos]

You can always just paraphrase a bit. Nevertheless, I am ready now. I hope I am right.

Vote: Siv

[Mitillos]

Because you looked like scummy scummy scummy scum to me. Compared to Emp. Sorry.

[Mitillos]

Sorry everyone... :/