[M] Micro 237: Greatest Idea Mafia - (Hunger ENDGames)

[Mitillos]

In the first roll, I had Werewolf Supersaint.

Vote: Who

Now I just need someone to ask me whom I'm voting and we can start the sketch.

[Mitillos]

@Lucky: Yes, I was. But you need rope now, for the phrasing implying that you're not town.

Unvote

Vote: Lucky

@Bulba: You should vote him too, despite him being your partner, to get some town-cred. That way we "won't" lynch you because we will "think you're town". At least until we find out if Sakura is really an IC, anyway.

[Mitillos]

@Lucky: Yes, I was.

I did respond to it. But then I had to vote you, for being anti-town. Not my fault that your alignment messed up the sketch.

[Mitillos]

@Lucky: Could you give me links to 3-4 of your games where you were town and you got mislynched for misunderstood jokes? Also, can you give me links to any games in which you were not town?

[Mitillos]

@Sakura: I wouldn't worry about a single day, when the deadline is 11 days away... It's extremely unlikely that a lynch will happen this early.

[Mitillos]

@Nat: We're voting each other, so we're definitely cross-voting. That's what cross-voting means. Also, why did you feel that the Lucky wagon was disbanding? All that happened was that Guyett got on and then off again, to avoid having Lucky at L-1 and potentially ending the day too early.

In other news, SK is most likely town.

[Mitillos]

@Nat: Actually, Who did not say anything about jokes and was not on the wagon. With him, that would have been enough people for a lynch. So, no, I don't think that what you're saying is valid.

@Disturbed: Being a Mason is irrelevant. The only question is Lucky's alignment. The other Masons are also irrelevant, as are their potential reads on him; they could be scum, as well. Also, do you strongly agree with Nati's observation that his case on me is "not amazing" and is based on (an incomplete) PoE and the fact that I have made little contribution? Because these two things are definitely not substantial. As Nat said, you were easier to convince than expected.

p-edit: I don't think we can know that. The wiki states that if there is only one Mason, they are essentially a named [insert alignment].

[Mitillos]

Eh, no one else seems particularly scummy to me, yet. Whom else would you expect me to focus on? Sakura is confirmed town and therefore of no interest, SK is my first town-read, Nat, Bulba, Guy and you have not really made any significant impressions on me and Who has barely said anything at all.
Anyway, I wasn't "pushing" anything. I was telling you why I don't think that lynching a claimed Mason is in any way stupid.

[Mitillos]

@Disturbed: I'd say he looks null-scummy, whereas everyone else seems null or higher. I also didn't like his reaction to my vote on him and some of his other posts, too much. And how did Nat run out of content? Post 187 is important and should be clarified. If the meaning was that Lucky was outing you, would you like to confirm or deny that you are his Mason buddy?

@Lucky: What Nat said. And if you mean Disturbed is your Mason-buddy, where exactly did you think you outed him?

[Mitillos]

@Disturbed:
Post 64, for his reaction to my vote. Remember that he did not react to Nat's and SK's votes at all.
Post 130, where he is essentially suggesting that people are on his side on the joke matter, somewhat more than they appear to actually be. Also, the whole "let Sakura do the work" thing, in the same post. It reeks of one who is trying to appear pro-town, without actually being so.
Post 142 isn't too hot either, but I can understand laziness, at least.
Post 162, the part about self-voting is meaningless, coming from town. It's an attempt to assert sincerity, on a foundation of... absolutely nothing.

As for the outing thing, the confusion is from the fact that you made your own Mason claim. Lucky didn't "out" you at any point, as far as I can see.

Edit: @Bulba: Guilty as charged, m'lud. I'm not paying too much attention. I probably will, at some point.

[Mitillos]

@SK: You want me to convince you that you are town? I should think that this would not be necessary.

[Mitillos]

@SK: If you must know,
1) You're ensuring that everyone is clear on the implications of certain powers, reducing uncertainty. This is something mafia would carefully avoid.
2) You're asking questions and making comments that I think mafia would avoid, at least early on. For example, things that amount to "this is multiball, don't eliminate people thoughtlessly", which I expect mafia would keep for later in the game, when they are close to victory and need to obfuscate things.
3) When given joke answers, you press for real ones, rather than letting the matter drop. Most of the time, mafia seem to just go "oh, well, you're obviously being sarcastic, so obviously the real reason you did X was Y, so obviously I'm meant to be moving on, so I will". Not in so many words, obviously.
4) Your question style reminds me of Micro 63, in which you were town. That's the only game we played together. (This is the weakest of the reasons, but meh, I'll include it anyway).

I have a question for you, now. How is Bulba scum, for assuming Lucky was trolling? (Or thinking he might be trolling, whichever he was doing.)
I can see the two as being different, but I'm not sure where the case against him arises.

[Mitillos]

@Disturbed: Quick question; why not a town cop lover, instead of a town mason? A mason doesn't help the town as much as a cop would.

[Mitillos]

I understand how the cop has limited usefulness, but surely mason is even less useful. Although, yeah, lover is a drawback, if there's another lover, so alright.

@SK: Was Post 331 at me? If so, no thoughts, because I've been skimming the walls. I'll go back and read them more carefully in due course.

[Mitillos]

@SK: Yeah, you said he was refusing to admit an inconsistency. I'm mulling that over. I'm not sure that it is scummy behaviour. I'm not even sure it's so much an inconsistency as simply imprecise language.

[Mitillos]

Alignment card: Lover.

Popcorn to Guyett.

[Mitillos]

@SK: Popcorn to Guy was because you were a town-read of mine and Who has been too absent to wait for.

[Mitillos]

Unvote

Vote: Who

He's fairly active elsewhere, but here he's just keeping quiet, possibly because no one really cared about him at all for the first 15 pages (what with the Lucky thing and all the setup discussion going on). Yet, he was paying enough attention to make posts like 68 and even participate in the massclaim. Note that he told us his alignment card only 2 hours after he was given the popcorn. Compare this to the fact that he kept quiet for 5 days, between posts 68 and 304. Moreover, 304 itself was a negative response to the massclaim plan, suggesting that we shouldn't do it. His behaviour seems to suggest that he panicked about the massclaim and did not want it to happen. This is a clear indication of anti-town alignment.

The choice of keeping one of the unique cards for his alignment, when he had a VT card as well is also a bit suspicious, as Sakura pointed out. He could have said he had two VT cards and kept one, but people had already said that they didn't like how some others had claimed a VT card for alignment, and this may have made him decide not to go that way.

[Mitillos]

@SK: No interesting comments on you vs. Nati. I think I'd like more from him first, but only after the Who business is done.

@Lucky: I had a long rant about how silly your question was, but then I lost interest. Now start doing some actual scumhunting. What's your read on Who and why?

@Bulba: Same question to you.

@Disturbed: You said you were in favour of the Who wagon. Do you intend to state intent to hammer, or...?

[Mitillos]

@Sakura: Who did not post in this game from October 3rd to October 8th. During that time, he posted in a number of other games. Which is what I was talking about. The V/LA thing is true, but irrelevant to this. Why would I lie about something that is so easy to check? Furthermore, it's not just a matter of his lack of activity here. It's also his choice of activity when he, in fact, finally decided to break his silence. Specifically, post 304.

To clarify, once again, I am not talking about the last 2 days, but the 5 days before that, when he was active.

[Mitillos]

@Lucky: Nah, not going to bother with that rant at this time. Why can you not question DO here and now? Why would you have to wait until the (much shorter) night? You even know that it's not certain that talking with him tonight will yield anything. So, question him now. Directly. Ask him about what made you suspicious. Don't just sit there and be reactive.

I'm also not sure what the problem is with DO stating intent to hammer. It's a clear indication to Who that there are enough people currently that consider him scummy enough to warrant a lynch, without going ahead and doing it prematurely. The idea is to give Who a fair chance to respond to the accusations against him, in an attempt to convince at least one of the people on his wagon that they're wrong about him. Nevertheless, waiting for him to come back from his V/LA is fine.

[Mitillos]

He should start posting on days that end with 'y'.

[Mitillos]

@Who: So, why did you want to be a lover? That would just mean that if there was another one, you'd die if they died. Why didn't you, for instance, keep VT as your role card? Why did you go instead for a role with negative utility?

[Mitillos]

I think it was a hammer. Also, DO prob-town.

@Who: Any quick last thoughts, before the thread is locked?

[Mitillos]

OK, I guess there is a small chance Who was telling the truth.

Unvote

@Natirasha: You were yawning earlier. Stuff happened since then. Comments? You made no comments whatsoever about the big push on Who, or his responses.

[Mitillos]

It takes me one post to vote him again. 4 days is ample time and I want to make the most of them.
I want to hear more from Nati. I don't like his cavalier attitude to the Who wagon. He's starting to look like scum allowing a lynch to happen, because it suits his agenda.

[Mitillos]

I was the Psychomagnet. I was suspicious of Nati, so I decided to redirect everything to him. Even in the case where I was wrong, I was hoping there would be a protective role, so there would be no kill.

Full claim: My alignment card, as I said before, was Lover (i.e. Town). My ability card was Alien Psychomagnet. I am now an essential VT.

[Mitillos]

EBWOP: Essentially a VT. Damn Measure Theory, making me think in terms of Essential Suprema.

[Mitillos]

I'm not sure I'm in favour of a massclaim. That will only tell scum whom to target first. I'd say wait on that.

[Mitillos]

I said, even if I was wrong about Nati being scum. That is, if he turned out to be town.
The idea was that I was going to redirect everything to someone I suspect. So that, if there is a kill, it will be on someone who I thought was scum. And even if I was wrong about his alignment, there was also the chance of a protective role. This would mean there would be no NK, so I was happy with my choice of action, either way.

[Mitillos]

I think Nati may be confusing my power with the Bloodsucker, which, when used, stops aliens from having a factional kill. Psychomagnet doesn't do that.

[Mitillos]

Basically, the lack of a kill means one of two things: Either someone has some form of protective role, or scum forgot/decided not to perform any kills.

The second option is unlikely. This is why I would prefer to not have a massclaim. We'd only be telling scum whom to kill overnight.

[Mitillos]

@Sakura: Does it? I think the wiki doesn't say anything about it negating protection.

@Nati: Yes, it is possible there is an Alien faction. But I don't think that my action last night indicates that there is. It is more likely that there is a protective role somewhere.

[Mitillos]

LYNCH ALL LIARS! SAKURA NEEDS ROPE!

[Mitillos]

@DO: Might. And then again, might not. Whereas, if there is a protective role, and we have a massclaim, it will almost certainly lead to a PR death.
I think massclaims should only be made when the town has a significant chance of benefiting from them.

@Bulba: Really? You are against lynching a mod-confirmed townie? I'd never have guessed.

[Mitillos]

@Guy: Unless the hint was fake as well, obviously.

@Lucky: Sakura would have probably died. Instead, we had a no-kill. I am very happy with my action, and I don't care if I screwed up other PRs' plans. Not to mention that, if there is a protective role, I made them 100% effective, just for this one night.

In any case, I'm starting to return to my scumread for Lucky, mostly because of the account of what happened in the Mason QT, that DO gave us, but also because of his insistence on massclaiming.
Expect me on that wagon soon, unless something really suspicious catches my eye during a re-read.

[Mitillos]

@Lucky: You do realise that, if I were a lyncher, my only possible lynchees would be you or SK, right? Also, you made a bad judgement; Guyett doesn't have to make a claim because you messed up. Stop rolefishing.

[Mitillos]

@Sakura: Treat it like a (silly) inside joke.

@Lucky: Your problem was that since you couldn't be clever with your roleclaim, Guyett doesn't get to either. If everyone decides that we should have a massclaim, it should be done popcorn style. Guyett not having to go last will depend on the others. But there's no reason for him to have to claim right now what his role is. Again, stop rolefishing.

[Mitillos]

@Mod: Can we get a vote-count?

[Mitillos]

Sounds good!

Vote: Lucky

L-1.

[Mitillos]

@SK: See, now I want to unvote, so that no one hammers and you can give additional content. But on the other hand, I'm afraid that, if I do, you'll get complacent and just not do it...

...Fine. I will trust you to provide more content as promised. Please, don't make me regret this.

Unvote

[Mitillos]

No, he didn't ask me to unvote. He asked that no one hammers. I could make sure it doesn't happen, by unvoting, unless two new people decide to vote. The only ones not voting Lucky, are Bulba, Sakura, SK and Lucky himself. SK wouldn't go to the trouble of asking for no hammers, only to take Lucky to L-1 himself. Lucky wouldn't vote himself. And I don't think Bulba is that likely to switch his vote at this time.

It could be thought of as buddying or pandering, but 1) that's a null-tell, 2) I already called SK town several times anyway and 3) I'd do this irrespective of my opinion of SK; more content is always good.

[Mitillos]

Funny thing is, I

was

worried about not getting to use my power, past N1. I have a habit of dying early when I have a PR, more often than not.

[Mitillos]

It all boils down to this: Scum can't be lynched without town cooperating. I think SK is town. I want to see the content he has promised. I couldn't, in good conscience, keep a wagon at L-1 and risk not getting said content. If this means that people will think I scumtold, so be it.

@Bulba: Because I don't think he's scum. I doubt scum would so blatantly ask to go last in a massclaim.

[Mitillos]

@Guy: Why didn't you keep the VT card as alignment?

@Lucky: Same question.

[Mitillos]

@Mod: Do investigative roles only receive a binary result (X vs. not-X), or do they get a full response (you investigated Y and he was X/not-X)?

[Mitillos]

@Guy: And since I am that, I am not an investigative role, so I don't know what format Maestro would use.

@Nat: You forgot me in post 890.

[Mitillos]

Alright.

Vote: Lucky

I'm not interested in lynching anyone else, at the moment.

[Mitillos]

I'd still like to see that promised SK content.

[Mitillos]

@Lucky: You can always do that.

@SK: Come on, man. You promised content. Give content.

[Mitillos]

Oh, hai. Guess Lucky was right about being scum if he's not lynched early.

[Mitillos]

Except you 1) didn't get to kill anyone and 2) you got lynched anyway.
Now I wish I was a lyncher, because I'd win and get out of the game at this point.

[Mitillos]

No. Hence the usage of "I wish I was".

[Mitillos]

@Bulba: What did you get and on whom?

@Nati: Same.

@Guyett: Whom did you protect and why aren't you dead yet?

@SK: You'd better have that content from day 2 ready.

[Mitillos]

I don't think Nat is scum. Despite the redirect, Bulba didn't say anything about him yesterday, which isn't proof, but it's something. He said he was an investigative role, so we all knew, because of what Nati and I said, that he got redirected to Nati, so he must have considered his result uninteresting.
Anyway, I agree about not protecting a VT, like Disturbed (or me), when there are investigative roles who could draw kills, instead.

The more I think about it, the more I believe it's probably time for full claims. Cards, roles, actions, results. Everything, from everyone. We've had a second night, we have two claimed investigative roles and one role without specific claims except some night action.
Personally, I'd like it to be popcorn style. But I also think everyone should first say whether they agree to a massclaim or not, and Sakura should probably be the one to pass the popcorn first, since she's the only one we absolutely know is town.

[Mitillos]

Sleepy hasn't been on the site since the 27th and hasn't posted anything anywhere since the 26th. He's not within prodding range yet, as it's been less than two days since D3 started, but he may be in the early stages of site-flaking.

[Mitillos]

"Cop is near useless."
At least two people take cop-or-roughly-equivalent.

@Bulba: What was your role card?

@Nati: So, did you get alien or not alien, as the result for yourself?

[Mitillos]

Strictly speaking, it could be worse than that.
Suppose there were three scum factions, so that the composition of the town was 5:2:1:1. Then, at this point, we'd be at 3:2:1, since we mislynched once, got rid of the SK and lost another townie to a NK. In that case, town could be as low as 50% of the remaining population.

Anyway, that makes at least 3 people who read Maestro's claim, which is half of us. BOOM.

[Mitillos]

Not much to add, at the moment. Normally I'd ask that no one hammers before SK's replacement and defense, but I won't vote before that and I doubt Guyett or Sakura will either. So, Nati and Bulba, what's the rush? There's still over 9 days left to the deadline. Why are you pushing a rushed lynch on someone who can't even claim?

Keep chatting whilst we wait for a replacement, everyone.

[Mitillos]

Well, that was unexpected.

[Mitillos]

I'm thinking you should answer my question from post 1100. I'm also thinking I want to wait until SK has returned or been replaced so his slot can make a claim, before I decide anything else.

[Mitillos]

So... anyone interested in learning some (Discrete) Math?

[Mitillos]

Without SK's claim, I would really prefer to wait.
As for my reads, I'd say Guyett is the towniest of the four, followed closely by Nat. Scum is extremely likely to be in {SK, Bulba}.

[Mitillos]

@Sak: The thing is, I think that we can trust Lucky's word after he got lynched, about killing you. But Nat didn't die (recall that I redirected everything to him). So, the only way for Guyett to not be a protective role, given the other claims, is that SK is one, instead. He didn't really claim yet, so it's possible, but for now, I think Guyett really is a Doc. So, if he were scum, why did he use his protection on N1? The only reasonable explanation would be to protect his partner, in case of a different faction trying to kill him.
Now, remember that Nat knew I redirected everything to him. So, he did investigate someone that night. Presumably, he couldn't have been killing anyone at the time too (

@Mod: Are scum PRs allowed to submit both a kill and a PR action on the same night?

). And I doubt Guyett is scumbuddies with Bulba, given their interactions. Overall, it seems unlikely that Guyett is scum. I'd say that his lynchbait explanation is actually valid.

[Mitillos]

Yes, and what I am saying is, why would a scum doc bother protecting anyone, unless it was his partner? Because we pretty much know that someone protected someone on N1.
So, for Guyett to be scum, he basically needs to have a partner, otherwise his actions seem to make no sense. But then, I can't really see anyone as being Guyett's partner. Maybe Nat, a bit. But it's kind of far-fetched.

[Mitillos]

But, say he protected you and killed D_O or something. Suppose a tracker tracked him. Wouldn't the tracker see that Guyett visited both you and D_O at night? Then he'd be completely screwed, because only scum would be able to take two actions at a time and therefore have two targets.

I've also been attacked with "you are still alive, you must be scum" in the past, in Open 518. I did happen to be scum in that one, but my response to the attack was valid. So, without any other reasons, perhaps to do with voting patterns or scummy behaviour, I can't really see Guyett as scum.

[Mitillos]

I don't think that's why he'd get lynched. I'd say it's more likely he was left alive because "doctor who didn't get NKed, autolynch lol".

Tell you what. If you are certain of his scumminess, let's find his partner as well and then you can convince me they were partners. So, who was it? SK, Nat or Bulba?

[Mitillos]

If Bulba and Nat are a scumteam and SK is another, then 1) we had a game with 3 scum factions, what the hell? and 2) town dropped to 50% of the remaining players since our D1 lynch, so we're effectively screwed anyway. Unless, you know, scum kindly decide to cross-kill and give us victory, or something.

[Mitillos]

Someone who isn't reading the game and wants to help Maestro out? Someone looking to get a scummy award, for doing something incredibly courageous? Someone who is stalking Sakura? Someone who is a bit crazy and likes to do silly things like this?

[Mitillos]

Also, I just realised that SK was probably not an investigative role, so he won't have much to add, in terms of clearing people. I have to admit I was hoping he would be, so that he could give us something more to go on.

[Mitillos]

I'd rather wait. There's still a chance of a replacement. A claim would be helpful.
And I'm not just saying that to spite you for not wanting to discuss Math.

[Mitillos]

A place situated mostly on Plutonic rock. Also, a place surrounded by two mountain ranges; the one to the south is largely igneous rocks, whilst the one to the north is limestone. There used to be a lot of copper deposits (mostly sulfides), but they were extensively mined out millennia ago. There was also iron pyrite and asbestos, I believe.

[Mitillos]

Close.

[Mitillos]

Also close. It's actually Cyprus.
And yeah, you should know by now that most people aren't really interested in geology. Like with most fields of study, the people who are interested in it are generally the nerds that study it. You know, like with me and Maths.

[Mitillos]

The closest I've been to geology was when I took my A-Level in geography. I got a D, but my teacher expected me to get an A. So, he sent a letter to Edexcel asking them what had happened. It turned out that my handwriting was worse than I previously thought; they couldn't understand what I wrote, so most of my answers didn't get graded.
Which is a bit annoying, because all my other exams got graded just fine. So, I guess what I'm saying is, geographers are not good at reading.

[Mitillos]

So, Nat and Bulba, whom did you investigate and what was the result?

[Mitillos]

The hang back from what? The nothing that had already happened in the 6 minutes since the day started? You guys claimed investigative roles. I wanted to know what you found. Boring as it turned out to be.
Also, how did I use my role to rolefish? By hoping that Nat would ask who the Psychomagnet is, or by insisting that we don't role-claim on D2, because it would be too premature and help scum too much?

[Mitillos]

So, you're saying that I am scum and looked for a protective role, by wasting my kill? And then, when it was obvious that a protective role really existed, I insisted we don't have a roleclaim, because I didn't want scum to kill him? How does that even make sense? Why wouldn't I just shut up and let it happen? I had already made my claim, I'd have had nothing to lose. And then, when he was eventually forced to claim, why would I not kill Guyett at night? Why would I bother killing Disturbed, instead? And then defend Guyett on D3, when he was accused of being scum for still being alive?

[Mitillos]

1) Except that the best time to get a kill in, without knowledge, is early on, when a doctor would be unlikely to pick the right person to protect. Particularly with an IC, since that would be the likely protection target. And with potential multiball, it would mean I made sure that all the town kills were eliminated, or at least reduced to one. That would not be in my favour, if I were scum. As a calculated maneuver, it's a pretty terrible calculation.

2) I wouldn't need to force a claim. I'd just need to let the inevitable massclaim happen. But I was against it, until it was in the town's favour to do a massclaim.

3) So, I am scum who did protown things for towncred? How exactly do you distinguish between that and a townie doing protown things? This is a ridiculous accusation. Were you also against the massclaim for towncred, then?

4) As scum, I wouldn't kill Disturbed, because he wasn't attacking me. He was essentially a non-entity. I'd have gone for Guyett, because he was the doctor and was the only person who would have had any effect on my kills. And then I'd also be certain that Guyett would die, because he'd be unable to protect himself. Also, see part 5.

5) The last bit is the worst of them all. You are saying that I am scum and didn't kill Guyett because there was suspicion on him, but then I defended him for towncred. Where exactly in that is anything that makes any sense whatever? At which point in this elaborate scenario do I stop working against my own plans? You're basically saying that I'm really dumb scum who is intent on crippling his own chances at victory, by doing fairly idiotic things that work against each other.

[Mitillos]

Except that you're the one claiming I am scum who used poor strategies. Every single thing you claimed I did is a pretty bad way of playing scum.

1) For scum, knowing if a protective role exists early on isn't helpful if they don't have some way of finding out who it is. As a Psychomagnet, I clearly would have no such way, other than a rolecop ally or a massclaim. It'd be far more helpful to allow the other potential factions to also get their kill in and make the town panic by realising their numbers are dwindling faster than normal. There is no reason to not hold on to the 1-shot psychomagnet for 1 night.

2,3) Saying that my resistance to a massclaim was for towncred is a logical fallacy. You are starting from the premise of me being scum and therefore needing towncred, which you then try to use to prove that I am scum. This is circular logic and it doesn't hold up. You say that what you look at is the motivation, to decide who is scum looking for towncred and who is town being town. But this isn't really a response to the question of how you tell them apart. Because then you are immediately back to essentially the same question: How can you tell the motivation for an action, when there are both town and scum reasons to do it and all you see is the action? I already stated that my reason for resisting a massclaim was that it would be bad for town. You don't accept this, so you start with the premise that I am lying and therefore scum. But then, you try to use this, to make a case against me being scum. That's not valid reasoning, because you start by assuming what you intend to prove. Anyway, I wasn't against a massclaim. I was against a massclaim when it would hurt town (D2) and in favour of it when it would help town (D3). Scum that opposes things that hurt town and advocates things that help town isn't playing a long game or going for towncred; it's being extremely cocky and potentially suicidal.

4) You say it's a dumb reason to NK someone. I'm glad we agree, because as I said that's the reason I wouldn't kill him. Like I said, as scum, my choice for a N2 kill would have been Guyett. Long, convoluted plans blow up in one's face and end up being written off as WIFOM anyway, so you may as well go for the maximum utility kills. And if I expect town to "do my dirty work and lynch Guyett for me", but I also "defend him for more towncred", then I'm obviously working against myself. In any case, it was pretty clear who would be lynched on D3, based on what happened on D2. It'd be far more sensible to kill Guyett on N2 and then Disturbed on N3, if I was so worried about him.

In any case, all your arguments boil down to "I believe you are scum, which means that everything you did was scummy, so I'll try to find ways to make them seem that way". Unfortunately, that's not how this works. My actions came from town and therefore have a town motivation. Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy.

To show that someone is scum, you instead find contradictions (reductio ad absurdum, a term which you misused earlier in the game for something else) and scumslips in their statements. For example, in 1223 I asked:
"Were you also against the massclaim for towncred, then?"

In 1224, you quoted this and replied:
"

Yes

, but

I dislike massclaims in general.

"
(Bolding is to emphasise the important bit. Italicised part is used below.)

That's a scumslip. Yes, (by your own words) you resisted the massclaim for towncred.

In addition, in 696 you said:
"I think keeping certain roles secret atm benefits town more than outing them.", which contradicts the italics in the quote from 1224 above.

Either you were against it because it was a bad idea at the time, or because you are always against it. In 1224 you said nothing about a massclaim being anti-town. In 696 you said nothing about always being against massclaims. In fact, in 676 you said "Not right now." to a massclaim, suggesting that you would be alright with it at some point, which also contradicts 1224.

And this is how I now know you are scum. A scumslip and some contradictions in your statements.

Unfortunately, I'm in a bit of a bad position, because if Nat is also scum (in a different faction from you, obviously), lynching you would mean that Nat wins (unless he's an alien and he wasted his kill already). All he'd need to do is kill me or Sakura overnight and he'd win. I don't really think Nat is scum, because of how things happened early in D2, but I am paranoid enough to wait and think more about this.

However, consider my vote as effectively being on Bulba, at this time.

Apologies for the wall. I get passionate about logic and inference, as you can tell from the very excited tone.

[Mitillos]

@Bulba: ...And I'm saying that those are bad ways of being scum. They're not merely infallible, they're downright self-destructive.

"If" such roles exist is not something I'd care to find out, as scum, by wasting a kill. I'd let it happen by massclaim. As you said yourself, in this setup, a massclaim is inevitable.

Your towncred inference is an invalid way of asserting that I am scum, since you came about it by assuming that I am scum. You can't say "Mit is scum => his reason for doing this is towncred => he is scum".

You use gambits when there are no better ways to do things, so the risk is outweighed by the relative gain. Not the case in your scenario of me-scum. In that scenario, I could just use my kill and if it didn't happen, I'd know there was a protective role, without wasting a 1-shot power like Psychomagnet. And if the kill went through, I'd have one less person to worry about.

Again, if that was my worry about Disturbed, I'd have killed him after Guyett, because, being so obv-town, he may then get protected by Guyett. I really hate repeating myself... Also, I don't really think Guyett was that suspected. I certainly didn't suspect him much, after his claim.

Defending a doc while town is lynching him, for towncred, requires that town is lynching him. I was telling Sakura to get off him. It wasn't a wagon that was already going, it was one vote. I wanted no wagon to happen, to begin with.

Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy; it is a proof technique. It is where you assume something to be true, in order to disprove it, by arriving at a contradiction. What you seem to have used it as is "this is a reductio ad absurdum fallacy, because here's what happens if we accept what you say". I may have misunderstood your usage of it, but if that's the case I blame your lack of clarity, along with my somewhat inattentive reading.

You can't tell what the motivation for an action is, when there are multiple possible motivations. You have to be able to show that only scum motivations are possible, to show that something is a scumtell. If town motivations are possible, then you're effectively saying "This is something scum and town do, but I made an ad hoc decision that in this case it was scum, for no better reason than because it's the only way it will fit my theory".

I doubt Nati is scum, as well. But I'm not 100%.

And yes, if both you and Nati are scum, this could be considered similar to kingmaker. But maybe I'm just hoping you guys will kill each other overnight and leave the town alone. In which case I will try to convince Sakura to vote no-lynch with me, and let you guys figure out your best move.

And I never said I concluded that Nati is alien. I said that if he is scum, lynching you would give him victory, unless he is an alien. He could be a werewolf. He could be mafia. He could be anything. I think he's town, but again, paranoid about stuff like this.

@Nati: The thing is, I was also against the quick lynch that happened yesterday. In short, I don't trust you guys to not rush into a lynch without waiting. And, you say it's free, but if we accept the possibility that both you and Bulba are scum, voting Bulba is like saying I want you to win. But, if you're scum, I don't want you to win. I want you to kill Bulba and be killed by him.

@Sakura: How about it? Want to no-lynch and see if these two will kill each other? If they're both scum, it's our only hope. If only one of them is scum, we'd be going from Mylo to Lylo, which isn't a big loss. Although, I suspect that in that case you'd be the one killed overnight, so that things wouldn't really change at all.

Vote: No Lynch

[Mitillos]

Or one targeted whomever Guyett protected. I think action order says that protections activate before kills. Or one is an alien and wasted their kill earlier, so they can't kill overnight.
I don't want to be kingmaker either. But the thing is, if there are two scum factions left, no-lynching becomes a bit of a prisoner dilemma deal for them. Say scum A kills Sakura. Then scum B can kill scum A and win. So, both killing Sakura is not exactly an equilibrium position for either of them. To kill Sakura, they'd have to trust the other to do the same. Instead, they kind of need to shoot each other. Which is an equilibrium position, because there is no reason for either to switch out of it; they always end up dead.

[Mitillos]

But I told you why they are bad; they would mean that I am working against myself, by reducing the number of kills, wasting a 1-shot power pointlessly, defending someone after deciding not to kill him, just to let the town lynch him, and trading useful information for less useful towncred.

OK, so what are your actual reasons for me being scum, that aren't based on assuming that I am scum? That is, which are reasons that are about actions that do not have a town motivation?

If there are two options a) take a small risk for a big reward and b) take no risk for a small reward, I'd say you should go with the maximin principle; don't take the risk. But maybe that's just me. Because the thing is, as you say, scum play a long game. A long game is based on small rewards over a long time. Not big rewards over a short time.

Actually, I thought that Guyett was not completely honest when he said whom he'd protect. Again, I'm a paranoid person. This is my standard assumption about everyone. I also never played with him (or indeed almost all of the players in this game) before, so I don't know how truthful he is in such things. Can you show me who was calling him scum on day 2, after his doc claim? Remember that Lucky was scum and therefore doesn't count.

From Wikipedia: "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
You will note there is no mention of RAA being a fallacy, because it is not. It is a proof technique. I don't know what more I can tell you about this, but being a mathematician, I can tell you that in proof theory, this is pretty much its definition. Again, RAA is where you assume the opposite of what you want to prove and show that a contradiction (absurdity) arises. It is not a fallacy. The Strawman Fallacy that you also brought up is actually where you attack a position which is different from the one that your interlocutor is in fact holding. It has very little to do with reduction to absurdity, of any kind.

And I didn't say we should stop trying; you're committing the strawman fallacy there, by attacking something I didn't say. What I am saying is that you cannot say that "motivations" are proof of alignment, when they are for an action that can have town motivations as well. If an action only has scum motivations, sure, it is proof. Otherwise, it's just conjecture and therefore useless. Whereas contradictions are tangible, since they indicate specific falsehoods.

If Nati is scum, he could be mafia and he could be werewolf. I don't believe your investigation on him, because I think that you are scum. But, even if you're telling the truth, he could still potentially be mafia. There is nothing preventing him from being a mafia conspiracy theorist, or even a mafia [other investigative role, since we only have his word on him being a conspiracy theorist], unless there was someone who claimed cop, that I missed. He could also be an alien. He could be any number of things. He could even be lyncher, since both you and Sakura are still alive. Incidentally, if he is a Lyncher, with Sakura as his target and you are scum, then his wincon does interfere with the town's wincon, at this point. Although, on the plus side, i that scenario, he can't get me to vote Sakura, so it doesn't matter in the least. Anyway, this is all hypothetical.

I will say it again, I think Nati is probably town. I am just not 100% on it, otherwise my vote would have been on you at the start of the day, or at least the moment I was convinced of Nati's alignment.

[Mitillos]

I guess we'll have to disagree on how good the scumplay you described is and the utility of kills versus getting information a day earlier.

OK, let's look at your case on me:
PoE - only if you're accepting unquestioningly that Nati is town, which is suspicious to say the least.
Explanation doesn't ring true - I guess you're still starting with the assumption that I am scum, to get to this. Because "doesn't ring true" is meaningless as a case. It's tantamount to "you're scum because you're scum".
Coasting/Stepped things up - Naturally lazy. This is a matter of style, not alignment. Don't expect it to last, I get bored easily.

When you don't have to take a risk, you don't. You only take the calculated risks when you have to.

Sakura on N1, sure. But I didn't necessarily think he'd protect Nati on N2. And yes, Sakura suspected him a little, which is specifically why, when she voted him, I asked her to not do so.

The part about SF in the RAA article starts with: "A

false

argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy." Note the italicisation of "false", to indicate the difference from RAA, which is a valid syllogistic form. Yes, RAA is used i nphilosophy and logic

as a valid syllogistic form

. The idea is that, to prove A, you assume the negation of A and show that this leads to a contradiction, or absurdity, which necessarily makes A true. There is no fallacy in this argument. A fallacy is where an argument is used which is fallacious, i.e. incorrect. I'm not sure where you see a special mention to RAA in a list of fallacies, though. "See also" sections aren't "these are things that are the same as the page you are looking at". If you truly think that RAA is a logical fallacy, then either you misunderstood the course you mentioned, or it taught you an incorrect definition of RAA. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but there it is.

But you were not using the RAA; you were committing the Strawman Fallacy, by attacking a position I was not holding. If you had attacked my actual position, and shown it to lead to a contradiction, then you would be using RAA, to prove that my position was incorrect.

Yes, fine, conjecture is not useless in mafia, I was exaggerating there. But it is also not in any way a valid form of inference and I don't like flawed arguments.

If it's not a contradiction, then it's not a contradiction. But if it is, it points to scum.

You'd lie to buddy up to Nati. He is unlikely to be a WW, so when you said "you are not a WW", you are getting him to see you as someone who has told the truth. Anyway, I guess I can accept that you are a scum investigator, like in the game you just mentioned. There's nothing implausible there. But it is still possible for you to be a WW and Nati to be mafia, just as one example. Or the far more likely one, that you are mafia and Nati is town.

Who in their right mind chooses a miller-like role as town? One who had limited options. And yes, I agree that it is unlikely that Nati is scum. But it is not impossible. Which is my only real worry, right now. There's a tiny tiny possibility he's scum. It is unlikely, as you agree. But it's there.

@Nati and Sakura: Want to weigh in, in all of this? I'm still in favour of a no-lynch today, although as far as I'm concerned, Bulba is pretty much confirmed scum, at this stage. Thoughts?

[Mitillos]

Did you look at your own iso?

And why did it ring false? Because town wouldn't want to make sure that if anyone died, it would be one of their scumreads, instead of, say, the IC?

Yeah, funny that. In an older game, Thor kind of did the opposite, accusing me of being too lazy, compared to some of my other games. This was also true and he also turned out to be scum. And I was town. Attacking style, as opposed to things that are alignment indicative is easier for scum.

So, RAA is fallacious, because fallacies can come from misusing it? I think you need to rethink your stance there, on what a fallacy is. After all, affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent are fallacies that arise from misusing the basic rules of implication. Does this mean that modus ponens and modus tollens are fallacies? Of course not. They are valid syllogistic forms. Their misuse is a fallacy and the misuses of RAA are fallacies, as well. That's what misuse means.

Not all contradictions are as fuzzy as that. That was kind of the point of the massclaim, in fact. To see if anyone would make a claim that would lead to a contradiction. Like, two people claiming they got a unique card. A little unlikely, but then, there was a quote from a previous game where it did happen, so, you know. Might as well.

@Nati: If both you and Bulba are against a no-lynch, it probably can't happen, unless Sakura votes no-lynch and we get to the end of the day. I have already said who I think is scum and why. If the rest of the town is against a no-lynch, I will acquiesce and my vote will be permanently on Bulba, until one of us gets lynched.
So, why exactly does his argument look stronger? Is it because you expected him to attack you? You already mentioned that this gave you pause. But I didn't think it should. If he did attack you, he'd have to expect me to go along with him and think you are scum. Consider it thus: in a choice of trying to convince me that you are scum and convince you that I am scum, which would be easier? Remember that I had good reason to accept your towniness from the start of D2, when you asked who was the Psychomagnet. I even asked Maestro if investigative roles get a full result, to which he said yes, because I wanted to test you claim thoroughly. On the other hand, no one has investigated me, my role was a 1-shot and it's gone, and as Bulba said, I haven't exactly been the most active member of this town. There isn't anything that screams conf-town about me. (On the other hand, I'd also argue there is also nothing that screams scum about me either. I take solace in the fact that I am basically a ghost. ). So, if you take the scenario where Bulba is scum, Bulba attacking me instead of you makes perfect sense. If this was your reason to think he had the better argument, I will ask you to rethink this, with the above in mind.

[Mitillos]

I'm not sure what you mean by "I would know about the possibility of other roles". I expected kills to happen. I wanted them to happen to a scumread of mine, or not at all. I was ambivalent, because on N1 I thought Nati was scum, but I wasn't absolutely certain. I took the action that I thought likely to maximise the benefit to town. As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what my action did. Ambivalence is exactly what I would expect from town. The problem is that you keep asserting that there are scum motivations for my actions, but you don't acknowledge that the town motivations are equally if not more valid. Are you denying that my N1 action was to the benefit of town? Because, if so, I can't really argue against a non-position like that. And if you don't, the town-motivation for my action is perfectly clear.

Yes, I am only arguing the activity, because it is the only point you made that can be somewhat considered valid, because I agree that my activity hasn't exactly been stellar in this game. (Although, to be fair, this has been true of a couple of other players in this game and we already showed that this was not indicative of their alignment, by mislynching them.) The rest of your points basically come down to circular logic, so I don't really have anything more to counter them with, other than "these arguments are circular, so they are invalid".
As for the RAA thing, I'm arguing that, not in terms of the game, but because logic is a topic that I am very infatuated with, and I like discussing it, whilst waiting for the IC to come and give us her thoughts.

[Mitillos]

Bulbazak is scum who scumslipped and contradicted himself.

Also, I think it might be a good idea to no-lynch, but I seem to be in a minority of one on that one.

[Mitillos]

The point of the no-lynch was for the small chance that both Nati and Bulba are scum. It would pit them against each other, because if, say, Nati kills you, Bulba can just kill Nati and win. At this point, I'm not even committed enough to the no-lynch to argue it any further, though.

Unvote

Vote: Bulba

His case on me is based on essentially two things: Circular (and therefore faulty) logic and posting style, which is not alignment-indicative.
His scumslip, his contradictions, even his claims point to him being the scum in this. See how he responded when I asked him what his role card was. He said "Seer" and then changed it to "Mafia Seer". This shows some disconnect from his claim.

[Mitillos]

@Sakura: From one of the walls:

To show that someone is scum, you instead find contradictions (reductio ad absurdum, a term which you misused earlier in the game for something else) and scumslips in their statements. For example, in 1223 I asked:
"Were you also against the massclaim for towncred, then?"

In 1224, you quoted this and replied:
"

Yes

, but

I dislike massclaims in general

."
(Bolding is to emphasise the important bit. Italicised part is used below.)

That's a scumslip. Yes, (by your own words) you resisted the massclaim for towncred.

In addition, in 696 you said:
"I think keeping certain roles secret atm benefits town more than outing them.", which contradicts the italics in the quote from 1224 above.

Either you were against it because it was a bad idea at the time, or because you are always against it. In 1224 you said nothing about a massclaim being anti-town. In 696 you said nothing about always being against massclaims. In fact, in 676 you said "Not right now." to a massclaim, suggesting that you would be alright with it at some point, which also contradicts 1224.

And this is how I now know you are scum. A scumslip and some contradictions in your statements.

[Mitillos]

Oh, and Nati: Likewise. Please don't turn out to be scum, because, seriously, what the hell man?

edit: Should I post my response to your response, Bulba?

[Mitillos]

"You scumslipped and also contradicted yourself."
"Scumslips and contradictions aren't what they're cracked out to be. Also, I missed the part of your quote that made my words a slip, even though I actually had to select it to quote it, like I did."
Not exactly an amazing defense there, to be honest.

Anyway, I was not misrepresenting anything. I was giving Sakura my side of the argument, like she asked. Your response is irrelevant to the recount of my accusation, unless I accept it as a valid defense, which I don't. Nice try, though.

[Mitillos]

Except that town would also do X, Y and Z, which makes your case completely baseless. When you start with "This person is scum" of course you will try to fit everything they do to a scum motivation. You are trying to make the evidence fit your theory, rather than find the theory that fits the evidence. And when you find stuff that I did which has a clear town motivation, you automatically push it to the apparently bottomless bin marked "towncred". This makes your "motivation" method insubstantial and useless, except in the cases where an action has mostly (or only) scummy motivation. This is why Lynch All Liars happens: town should have little to no reason to lie, except in very extraordinary circumstances. Lying is almost entirely limited to scum, so lying is met with lynches. You never hear "Lynch All Claimed Doctors Who Didn't Manage To Stop Any Kills Whatsoever", even though such a doctor could potentially be scum, fakeclaiming.

[Mitillos]

Except that a slip or a contradiction are not technicalities. Both are things indicative of an impossibility: That the person who committed them is town. So, if this is impossible, that person must be scum. Town who pays attention (as you are) shouldn't accidentally appear to scumslip, nor should it cause a contradiction.

Saying that "scum does the things I accuse you of" or even "scum usually does these things" means absolutely nothing if town does these things and town usually does these things. It boils down to a very simple idea:
Suppose scum is about 25% of all the players across all games. Now, suppose that there is some action that town takes pretty much whenever it can and scum takes when it wants to gain towncred. Suppose this action is available about 20% of the time, for instance. Then, town will do it 75% * 20% = 15% of the time. Now, scum, won't want to take it every time, but let's say it takes said action 2/3 of the time and it's always for towncred. Then, scum will do it 25% * 20% *2/3 ~= 3.3% of the time. So, in about 100 games, you'd expect such an action to happen 15+3.3 = about 18-19 times and most of them (15) will be done by town.

Claiming that "this action is one that scum usually takes for towncred is meaningless, when *town takes this action more often for the obvious reason of being town*. It has to be an action that scum will do for towncred at about the same rate as town does it normally. Otherwise, you're saying that you're lucky enough that your ad-hoc theory somehow managed to be correct, despite it being based on what it is attempting to prove.

Recall: I am not starting from "Bulba is scum, so he did so and so, therefore he is scum." I am starting from "Bulba did these things that only scum does, therefore he is scum." Whereas you start with assuming my scumminess.
Now, you can continue arguing that "town slips and contradicts itself as well", but I can't say I've often seen that in players who (as you claim for yourself) have been playing long enough.

[Mitillos]

AtP?

[Mitillos]

Oh, I get it. Appeal to probability. That's not how I intended it, though. What I was trying to explain is that, when you are asserting that an action is scummy, because scum sometimes does it, but it's an action that town actually takes more often than scum does (because it's good for town), then your argument is just invalid.
Basically, as I said to Bulba, he's been starting with the premise that he wants to prove; that I am scum (which leads inevitably to circular logic, which is a fallacy). So, to make the facts fit his theory, he has said of every clearly pro-town thing I did, that it was done for towncred. The probability thing was just to show how an action that is pro-town and taken often by town, is far more likely to come from town, rather than scum hunting for towncred. So, to show that someone is scum, you basically need to show that they took actions which are at least fairly likely to come from scum. Saying that they are scum because they took pro-town actions for towncred just doesn't work.

p-edit: Ninja'd. Yeah, I got it.

[Mitillos]

But Bulba was the one who said that "scum usually does this for towncred", when talking about an action that *town does because it's pro-town*. The idea of "usually" here is clearly incorrect. Which was what I was getting at. When you have an action that town takes significantly more often than scum, and when scum does it, they do it for towncred, and this is basically your argument for calling someone scum, then it doesn't work.

If you want, forget the probabilities themselves; they are not important (in fact, the population of the mafia here could be anything between 0 and 1/2; the result would be the same, despite the fact that mafia populations are rarely if ever that far from 1/4 of the total). Concentrate on the last sentence, instead. Saying that I am scum, because I took pro-town actions ("for towncred") is ridiculous, when used as the main argument for why I'm supposed to be scum. Yes, my actions *could* have been taken by scum. But in the end, this is true of every action. There is nothing in Bulba's argument against me which is in any way substantive. He claims that his arguments are about things that scum are more likely to do. What he means is things that scum are more likely to do than not do, given that they are scum. The correct methodology should be to look at things that scum are more likely to do than town, given that these things have occurred. He misuses language, somewhat deceptively, to suggest something that is not true; that scum does pro-town things more often than town does them.

As for the "chances to vote town" thing, 1) I did advocate a no-lynch earlier, which would have changed this and 2) there is an important difference in considering the probability of voting town vs scum and the probability that an action taken by someone indicates a certain alignment. The first is an inescapable reality and part of the game. Without additional knowledge, you are always at least as likely to vote town as mafia, simply because if this was not the case, mafia would have already won. But the second is a way of seeing if an argument on "action motivations" can really stand on its own, as an accusation. In this case, it can't.

[Mitillos]

Yeah, yeah, IC and all. Unless it turns out there are two scum and each expects the other to kill you, and they end up shooting each other, instead, in an attempt to win. Wouldn't that be nice?
But anyway, I made my point about Bulba's argument and I also told you why I believe he is scum.
I think that you should at least skim through our walls, incidentally. You may spot something additional, that Nati and I didn't.

[Mitillos]

I do, as I said before. If I didn't, I would have insisted on a no-lynch, because that would be the only way town would have any chance at victory, since both Nati and Bulba would be scum, of opposing factions.

[Mitillos]

Not a bad idea. Also, sadly it turned out th- hang on. Watchlisted townie?
I CALL SHENANIGANS!

Normally, I'm against massclaims, but a mass alignment claim actually makes sense in this setup. My alignment card was Vanilla Townie (I told you this reroll was boring...). Popcorn Nati.

[Mitillos]

@Bulba: So, I'm "overeager scum" for questioning it? Is Nati overeager scum for questioning it? Would I have been scum if I said nothing, because it would mean I'm trusting what you're saying, because "I know you're town"? Your explanation doesn't ring true. You had two cards. You were asked about both of them, responded, and subsequently changed your response. No town should let that go by, without questioning it.

Incidentally, I disagree with what the two of you said about suppressing an error. You should have brought it up the moment you realised it. "Sorry guys, I messed up my claim, because I forgot" is far more transparent than "I realised it, but decided to deceive everyone, in an attempt to trick scum". The first is honest, the second is bullshit. What Mollie told you is correct, regardless of the subsequent result. The whole point of mafia is that it is a cooperative game. For the town, anyway.

[Mitillos]

"I CALL SHENANIGANS" is a full-on attack? Did I ask people to vote you for that? Or was it intended as a question for you to respond to? (Hint: It was the second.) What would town do, instead, when presented with something so blatant? Ignore it?

It's so easy for scum to call an error of judgement "a reaction test". I've done the same in a past game. It worked reasonably well, back then. Since you like motivations, there is one for you.

I agree that Nati passed, though. He didn't push the idea that it made you scum. He simply asked you why you would do this.

[Mitillos]

@Nati: Time to prove beyond doubt that you're not scum, by not voting me.

@Sakura: Care to explain your vote on me, over Bulba?

[Mitillos]

Ah, well, I'd take indigestion pills, if I were you, then.

[Mitillos]

But that's the thing. He didn't come clean. He hid it in the table, along with a bunch of other claims. Suppose none of us noticed it and called him out on it. Would he have said anything? I think he would not.

Also, Nat's dice rolled a 2 three times. Since he interpreted the previous roll of 1 as "vote Bulba", one would assume that the new ones tell him to vote me. So, not completely sure what it is that you are not trusting.

My case on Bulba is clear-cut. It is based on his words actions, rather than an ad-hoc interpretation of them, designed to fit a pet theory. The case which is far-fetched is his, since it starts by assuming what he wishes to prove.

[Mitillos]

@Sakura: How could Bulba have been called out on contradicting his claim, when he hadn't contradicted it before? When he sort-of-but-not-really made the new claim, I called him out on it. So, I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I am town. You should have gone for someone else.

[Mitillos]

Die. Dice is plural.

[Mitillos]

What Sakura said.

[Mitillos]

@Sakura: It would be a little difficult to convince me, but you still could have tried. On the other hand, you actually wouldn't need to. If you had managed to convince Bulba, that would be enough. This game has a plurality lynching rule. *Wags a finger at you* Shame on you for not reading the rules more carefully.

[Mitillos]

I've often wondered how a prisoner who's about to be executed feels, if he has to wait for the executioner to show up, but he's late a few days.

[Mitillos]

Nah. That'd be nice. It's more like, death came and brought a foldable chair, set it down, sat on it and started reading a book and eating sandwiches. And he keeps checking his hourglass over and over.