NY136: The Death of ReaperCharlie (GAME OVER, Town win!)

[Iecerint]

Iecerint, please ask yourself how you would play as a scum rolecop with a result on the SK and then contrast it with my play. ALL of my D3 posts, not just the first.

I suppose I would try to lynch the SK, ideally without having to claim.

THOUGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH now that you mention it, you probably wouldn't have implied that you were the doc with your last posts. It's true that it's BETTER play (since no one but Shanba was likely to be the doctor, and another investigative town role was plausible), but not that it's what would naturally occur to a rolecop scum, I think...

So that is something.

[Iecerint]

It looks like lack of a majority will solidify NL.

[CrashTextDummie]

Because claiming when it's unnecessary is unnecessary. This part would apply whether you were a town Cop or scum who wanted to claim it.

A town cop and a scum who wants to claim it have differing motivations. The former wants to get his guilty lynched without revealing himself if possible, the latter wants to be confirmed in the town's eye. Claiming before the lynch adds more confirmation than claiming after the fact.

As a doc, I don't think I would not have claimed that someone unconfirmed was "all but confirmed" (hence my taking issue with your hyperbolic language, which I interpret as a breadcrumb, and you insist is par for the course) or actively take such a dramatic stance. This is part of what bothered me about that post.

So you play it closer to the chest when you draw a power role. I'm sure you're no stranger to people who don't believe in that strategy.

I would have preferred a decision today over another WIFOM-ladden night, but it's better than for the two of you to rush a decision if you are having trouble making up your minds.

[Iecerint]

I suppose the first could be relevant if scum were concerned about my vig shot, but only in such a case. They could always avoid the lynch by claiming and alluding to crumbs, so it makes more sense to match normative Town Cop play. I acknowledge that bad players might not think about this very carefully, but I don't think this would necessarily apply to you.

If I were a Cop with a guilty, I would play less close to my chest, but there's no reason to stick your neck out as the doctor. This is sort of normative AFAIK.

[CrashTextDummie]

There is if you're known for attacking your suspects with force and you don't want drop PR-tells. I may even be more aggressive when I draw a PR, as my playstyle doesn't get me nightkilled often anyway.

[CrashTextDummie]

And there's no reason to match normative play when it leaves you less confirmed, because suboptimal PR play doesn't get scrutinized. Did you suspect Meransiel of tomfoolery just because he outed you and himself prematurely?

[CrashTextDummie]

If scum claims to avoid being lynched, it is more likely to be seen as a last-ditch scum effort, particularly if the "crumbs" are this weak, and especially so if there's another investigative town role. Whereas claiming before the lynch 100% confirms you as having a power and therefore is more resistant to a potential counter-claim.

[Amrun]

VC6.6

(0) Iecerint
(1) CrashTextDummie - Yosarian2
(1) Yosarian2 - CrashTextDummie
(0) ToastyToast

Not Voting: Iecerint, ToastyToast

With 4 alive, it takes 3 to lynch.

V/LA:

Deadline: Thursday, September 8, 11 pm EST

Spoiler: Vote History

Iecerint
CrashTextDummie - Yosarian2
Yosarian2 - CrashTextDummie
ToastyToast

[Iecerint]

Those are decent points.

[Yosarian2]

We can no-lynch, if you want. It only matters if people really think that there's a chance that either Iecerint or Toasty are scum, though, and right now I really don't think that's at all plausable; if it's just between me and CTD, then we should just lynch today and be done with it.

If we are going to no lynch, then we need to decide RIGHT NOW who to tell CTD has to "protect", in order to limit his kill options.

[Yosarian2]

If scum claims to avoid being lynched, it is more likely to be seen as a last-ditch scum effort, particularly if the "crumbs" are this weak, and especially so if there's another investigative town role. Whereas claiming before the lynch 100% confirms you as having a power and therefore is more resistant to a potential counter-claim.

Claiming cop at that point would have been very risky, though; there might very well have been a real cop prepared to counter-claim you. A much more logical play would be trying to lynch the SK, getting rid of a threat to your scum group and making yourself look pro-town at the same time, while planing breadcrumbs that you can use if you decide to try and pull of a fake cop-claim later if necessary. You were keeping your options open, which is what I would expect a scum to do in that situation.

[Yosarian2]

(sigh) Ok, if no one else is going to say anything, and if we're really not going to lynch today:

I think Icarent is the most confirmed person in this game, and we should require CTD to protect him. If Icarent dies, then CTD was lying.

Hydra, Icarent, you need to sound off on this as well before deadline.

[Iecerint]

That sounds OK. Toasty is probably not scum, but it's a back-of-my-head possibility that he's just waiting for me to vote of you, so letting him die addresses these niche issues.

[ToastyToast]

If we have to no lynch, we have to no lynch.
And I have the exact same thing in my mind about you :/

[CrashTextDummie]

I was planning on protecting Iecerint if we no lynch, so I'm good.

[Amrun]

Run down by all the commotion, La Scallop decided to simply run a day of rehearsal and hope nothing happened. Luckily, it was a quiet day.

No lynch has occured.

Night 6 commences.

Deadline is Sunday, September 11. 2pm EST.

[Amrun]

The company of La Scallop met the dawn with tentative hope... No one was dead. Was the threat over?

No one has died.

Day 7 commences.

Deadline is Sunday, September 25. 11 30pm EST.

[ToastyToast]

Why am I not surprised?

@Amrun: What happens if there are no kills repeatedly (like, if we no lynch and scum no kills again)

[Amrun]

I get really annoyed and no one wins.

[Iecerint]

AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, that's not surprising.

Anyway, I think we've already been through all the arguments ad nauseum at this point. Let's just win this game.

Vote:CrashTextDummie

[CrashTextDummie]

I protected Iecerint, as discussed.

vote: Yosarian2

[Yosarian2]

I protected Iecerint, as discussed.

vote: Yosarian2

You no-killed, because I made sure you couldn't get away with killing Iecerint, and you knew that if it was just me, you, and Iecreint left, that he would vote for you, based on his posting yesterday.

[CrashTextDummie]

I actually felt I was getting through to Iecerint and considered him less likely to mislynch me than Toasty, which is why I went along with protecting him to begin with.

[Iecerint]

I think Toasty would be the harder one to convince, because he probably feels more personally responsible to DH, who wanted to lynch Yos.