Mini 60--GAME OVER

[mathcam]

We have plenty of time until the deadline. And if we feel rushed, we can always petition Gaspode for more time.

Cam

[Demeech]

Been gone for the weekend. Just caught up on what' happened.

Unvote: Kerplunk

[Dragon Slayer]

So who did you investigate MeMe?

[MeMe]

Plus, note that it's not risking the lynching of a doc, since if he was a doc and targeted CuratinDog, CD wouldn't have ended up dead (probably).

I can agree with the "probably" -- but we do know that there are eventualities that still make it possible that he's a doc (CD was double targeted and the doc protect was only good for one...or the doc isn't 100% effective).

There are two possibilities. Either that player killed CurtainDog, or that player happened to randomly target the guy that got killed last night. The latter option is significantly more unlikely (say 1 in 11 or so). Thus, there's a very good chance this player killed Curtain Dog.

Odds are better than 1/11 here -- what do you do when you're handed a night choice role? Target a newer player? Nope. You

know

that killers generally won't go after them, so why protect them? Do killers go after the highest player in a game? Usually not, because they assume they'll have protection...so CurtainDog was a nice middle-of-the-road choice -- for killing, protecting, OR investigating. And, as for your "happened to randomly target the guy that got killed..." comment -- there's rarely anything "random" about who gets targeted. After all, if you truly think my guy is the SK, then some doc had to "randomly target" the mafia target (or the mafia chose not to kill, right?). It's not that far-fetched.

The problem is that it doesn't necessarily mean that MeMe is scum if the person she listened to turns out to be a townie with a night ability

Well, duh. Why would this even be considered a possibility?

I don't think it would be out of the question for MeMe to reveal who she investigated. Especially since the deadline is coming up. In fact, since MeMe didn't reveal when she claimed, she may leave us pretty close to the deadline before; we may not have time to use the information.

fos: MeMe

If MeMe doesn't explain tomorrow, this will move up to a vote.

Only an irresponsible cop-like role would reveal an investigation target when they're not convinced of the target's guilt. And to imply that I'd ever leave things until deadline is nothing short of ridiculous -- deadline is more than a day away and I post several times daily. I'm a sure thing when it comes to attentiveness. And your ultimatum does nothing but piss me off -- if the effect you were hoping for was "oh no, Bot! Please don't upgrade to a vote...I'll obey!" you're out of luck, m'boy. I've explained more than I should have had to already.

Summary -- there's no evidence that a serial killer even

exists

in this game! We only had one kill last night and Gaspode's death description sounded pretty run-of-the-mill. I'm not going to reveal unless a majority specifically asks me to -- I'm frankly against it and I'm sure not going to reveal on the advice of three or four, because then it would be quite possible that I'm allowing scum to call the shots. At the moment I have definitive requests from mathcam & Dragon Slayer (although I know that CoolBot and Saigon have expressed interest, but please formalize that as a request for disclosure if that's what you want). I just ask everyone to truly weigh the consequences before just demanding the information. As I said, I'm probably the

least

likely player to disappear for any amount of time and I will notice if four more of you make the request. Four more requests & I'll disclose. But I'm pretty irritated with you all.

[Demeech]

Request for disclosure

[Prizm]

Well, that convinced me. I guess that means I go back to my original suspicion, which was Dragon Slayer, who never quite answered why he "confirm vote"d MeMe after a supposed "pretty random" vote...

[CoolBot]

The reason I was worried about the deadline, MeME, is because the your previous post looked like you were trying to delay things until the deadline. After all, one evening of not posting is hardly suspicous; why mention it? The fact that this sort of thing is not what you usually do is what caught my eye.

I'm able to listen in on one person nightly. Last night, I listened in on on a person and heard him choose CurtainDog -- but it didn't sound like a discussion, but as though he was alone, talking to himself. So, even though CD wound up dead this morning, I don't believe this guy is mafia. He could be a doc, cop, or SK.

It's hard for me to take this claim seriously because MeMe's taking little risk with it. Basically, someone did something to the guy who died. We all knew that before MeMe claimed.

So yeah, MeMe, consider this a request for disclosure.

[MeMe]

It's hard for me to take this claim seriously because MeMe's taking little risk with it.

Take note, all other innocents who are pressured: make your roles sound extra-risky or CoolBot will accuse you of not being on the level.

So yeah, MeMe, consider this a request for disclosure.

So noted. Two more.

[mathcam]

Well, when I made my request, and I didn't realize that you were so strongly opposed to it. I thought you wanted input from the town on how you should proceed. So change my request to "Reveal unless you still have very strong objections to doing so." You're the one that got the PM. Maybe your gut feelings about the player are good enough to merit holding the name secret. Just remember that if the guy

is

a serial killer, it's quite possible that he and the mafia will both go after you tonight, and we could lose this information.

As for the probability discussion, I agree that Night 1 choices are not random, per se, but it's certainly not as well-defined of an algorithm as you make it out to be. Smart players (I'm not saying I'm one of them),

will

target essentially at random. Plus, even if your algorithm was accurate, this game is

filled

with "middle-of-the-road" choices.

Someone targeted CoolBot. CoolBot is dead. We know one guy who targeted CoolBot. It seems extremely probably to me that this guy is evil. I agree that there are scenarios where this guy is innocent (i.e. the double-targeting, the ineffective doc, etc.), but the rule in this game is not "innocent until proven guilty," it's "more guilty-looking than the rest." It would take an incredibly strong gut feeling to make lynching anyone else a better target for lynching.

Unvote: MeMe

Cam

[CoolBot]

Someone targeted CoolBot. CoolBot is dead. We know one guy who targeted CoolBot. It seems extremely probably to me that this guy is evil. I agree that there are scenarios where this guy is innocent (i.e. the double-targeting, the ineffective doc, etc.), but the rule in this game is not "innocent until proven guilty," it's "more guilty-looking than the rest." It would take an incredibly strong gut feeling to make lynching anyone else a better target for lynching.

Er, I take it you mean Curtaindog.

[mathcam]

Er, yes.

Cam

[Kerplunk]

If we let MeMe reveal tomorrow (in gamesdays) and see hears from the same person again then there are three possibilities:
1) MeMe gets killed, because of the multiple targets (a doc can't help her)
2) MeMe hears nothing, we got a killer (why would a cop do no investigation?)
3) MeMe hears whispering another name: Or the killed guy, or another. If it's another, then MeMe's target was a cop else he's probably a killer.

So, do we have multiple killing groups? If not, then it's probably the best idea to let MeMe hear the same guy again. If so, then it would be a shame if MeMe gets killed this night and we'd let this piece of info slip away from us. So I guess, I'm leaning towards MeMe letting her

reveal

. I'm actually very curious. And also, because my list of suspects is running rather thin. Maybe this new piece of information will get us somewhere further.

unvote: MeMe

.

Also, I would like to ask the mod to

revoke the deadline

. Because there's still a lot to discuss. And we have been very talkative, I think.

[Gaspode]

Vote Count

CoolBot: 3 (massive, Prizm, shelper)

Requests for disclosure: 5 (Mathcam, DS, Demeech, CoolBot, Kerplunk)

Deadline is hereby revoked.

[MeMe]

Thanks for the disclosure count, Gaspode.

I'm not sure what to think here -- I'm actually starting to think it might be best to reveal, and here's why...

Because of all this discussion, there should be no way that the person on whom I eavesdropped isn't aware that he was my choice. I think that it should

also

be clear that I am protecting him. If I were in his situation and I were innocent, I think I would have chimed in with support along the lines of "I don't think it's a good idea for MeMe to reveal" -- I mean, I did all the hard work explaining why I was keeping it quiet -- all that would have been necessary is a "yeah." Because there has been no post of this type I'm starting to wonder if I'm wrong about his motives and he's just hoping to kill me off before I can give out his name. Of course, a cop or a doc might just be hoping I can push my way out of this on my own, but why not ease my mind with a quick "I'm with MeMe on this"? What do the rest of you think? And I don't want any cute answers about what think of me personally...I mean what do you think of my thought process?

[MeMe]

And two more things

1) I've seen my target online since all this started
2) Because Gaspode posted the disclosure count, it almost looks to me as though he wants me to disclose...which makes me worry that it's the wrong thing to do.

I don't know if the rest of you who have modded feel this way, but I just can't help but root for the evil elements when I'm modding....so would revealing help them more than us?

Oh - and a third thing:

3) I analyze things to death. It's a disease.

[Dragon Slayer]

Well, that convinced me. I guess that means I go back to my original suspicion, which was Dragon Slayer, who never quite answered why he "confirm vote"d MeMe after a supposed "pretty random" vote...

Actually I

did

answer you. I already told you that at first it was "pretty random" to start off. Then I got suspicious and confirmed the vote to show that now I had reason for the vote rather then just voting "pretty randomly." Must I reiterate it again?

[mathcam]

Yeah, that was my big unknown in my last post. The stuff primarily left to your gut feeling was how the person was responding to the talk of all this stuff in the thread.

How about this?

Plan Proposal

: We insist that everyone who targeted CurtainDog last night reveal themselves in the thread, without revealing their role. MeMe doesn't say everything until everyone has said whether or not they targeted CuratinDog.

Analysis of Plan

:
Possible scenarios (Let's call Player X the person MeMe knows about):
- One player, Player X, confesses to targeting CurtainDog. As they were the only player to do so, they probably killed him. Kill Player X.
- One player, not player X, confesses to targeting CurtainDog. Then Player X lied to the town and we lynch him.
- Two players confess to having targeted CurtainDog, one of whom is Player X. Then the two people are equally likely to be guilty, but having a 1 in 2 chance of killing mafia is pretty good, especially when you can kill the other.
- Other scenarios are somewhat unlikely, but follow a similar pattern to above.

The first option is optimal, as the latter two require the inadvertent exposure of another role that targets player (note, though, that this other player doesn't necessarily have to be pro-town).

Conclusion:

This seems good to me. We're virtually guaranteed to get someone evil, and the worst possible thing that could happen is we get an evil but we also expose a cop (whom, of course, a doc could protect).

I say if there is no major qualms, we enact the plan immediately.

Cam

[MeMe]

Analysis of Plan

:
Possible scenarios (Let's call Player X the person MeMe knows about):
- One player, Player X, confesses to targeting CurtainDog. As they were the only player to do so, they probably killed him. Kill Player X.

This makes no sense to me....because if player X is good and confesses to targeting CurtainDog, there's no way in hell mafia would admit to it as well because the plan dictates that we kill Player X without any fuss.

[Demeech]

The chances of Player X being a bad guy are greater than him/her being a good guy, but yeah, that is possible.

[massive]

Certainly is a quandry. I can see both sides, but it IS a mini game and the single death last night certainly makes me think that we've got no SK, at least on the surface. No SK means some probably weak townie roles, and while I don't mind giving up one, I'd hate for it to be a cop ESPECIALLY since we just lost our backup.

I don't think I like mathcam's plan, though, for the reasons stated.

I'll

unvote CoolBot

while this gets sorted out.

[mathcam]

You're kind of right, MeMe, but this is part of the point of the plan. The evil targeter of CurtainDog has no idea whether or not he's the one you targeted. So he has to take a risk: either come out and be subject to public scrutiny, or keep quiet and hope for the high heavens that he wasn't the one you picked. So staying quiet (the option you say it's clear that the mafia should take) is an equally big, if not even bigger, risk.

But perhaps I should amend the line you quote to not so strongly insist on killing Player X, then, to say "Listen to see what the player says and check his past posts and look very critically in his direction."

Cam

[CoolBot]

The plan seems good to me; I can't think of a way it can backfire, except for what MeMe suggested. I'll have to think about it a bit more, but I wlll tentativly support it for now.

Oh, since the deadline is lifted, I don't think there's any need to keep my request for disclosure until we get this sorted out.

[Kerplunk]

Why don't we let all players say if they targeted CD: yes or no?

Then everyone who targeted CD will get exposed. Then MeMe can decide if she wants to reveal her target's name. If there are two, we lynch one of them. The doc can protect the remaining (if the one lynched is scum). If there is only one or one who said 'no' is MeMe's target, we lynch him.

If there's already one who said yes (and he's innocent which only the true killer will know), then the killer will have to gamble. Did MeMe targeted him or the one who already said yes?

[mathcam]

Why don't we let all players say if they targeted CD: yes or no?

This is exactly my plan, Kerplunk:

Plan Proposal:

We insist that everyone who targeted CurtainDog last night reveal themselves in the thread, without revealing their role. MeMe doesn't say everything until everyone has said whether or not they targeted CuratinDog.

So, in short, good idea.

Cam

[MeMe]

Now that's not a bad plan. I'll go first...and how about the person who just went naming the person to go next? This would prevent a baddie waiting until he thinks it's safer...

I did

not

target CurtainDog.

Saigon, you're next.