Micro 71: Lucid Dreamers - Night 4

[Empking]

/bow to your grace

[Empking]

Vote: Zoidberg

[Empking]

I vote the alignment reveal again, this time we don't even have to worry about the possible actions taken the night before

I'm down with that.

[Empking]

Also:

Lucid Dreamers

-Actions that are gamebreaking, at Mod's discretion, are disallowed.

It seems that if the reveal alignment circle is unbeatable, it's gamebreaking.

I think a combionation of actions is fundamentally different from a gamebreaking action.

[Empking]

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

I like to contribute to an early wagon.

[Empking]

@Emp: Why Zoidberg and not Piggy then? They were equally valid at the time.

\-('')-/

[Empking]

I have no clue what that means.

I didn't do it very well. There was no particular reason for Zoid over Pig.

[Empking]

I have no clue what that means.

I didn't do it very well. There was no particular reason for Zoid over Pig.

[Empking]

Unvote

because I'm voting my town read.

Vote: Mit

for voting me for answering the questions he specificaly asked me (and that's all it was; the simple existance of answers.)

[Empking]

@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.

Are you saying that you voted me for saying I likeled early wagons?

[Empking]

I want to vote Piggy but I think she's on L-1, so I shan't.

[Empking]

Unvote

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

If I vote are you just going to hammer?

[Empking]

Unvote, Vote: Poggy

[Empking]

L;et's just have fun and do what we do.

[Empking]

Empking - Super Lurker

What metric do you use to think that I'm a super-lurker and not Mist.

[Empking]

PiggyGal15 - 2 (qwints, Empking)

Needs more votes.

[Empking]

Lets just show intent to hammer until we establish something please.

Vote against establishing something. (i'm not vetoing it but I am voting against it.)

[Empking]

Yeah, let's claim out:
I made myself an Aesthetic.

Silv looks like he's been post-restricted.

[Empking]

Um, emp, what's aesthetic?

Untargetable.

[Empking]

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

Because he posted six times in a rox, claiming scum in his 3rd and 6th posts.

[Empking]

Yeah, let's claim out:
I made myself an Aesthetic.

Silv looks like he's been post-restricted.

Why not use something investigative?

I expected scum to go for a massacre route for victory.

[Empking]

And I am the one that gave Siv he post restriction. Every third post he makes he has to claim scum.

...

I dd not expect someone to claim that.

[Empking]

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

It's "ascetic," not "aesthetic".

http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Ascetic

Yeah, but you think I'm aesthetic anyway, right? I did ask for Aesthetic, but I always clarify with a description so I still think the mod isn't going to go: Suprise! I didn't count it.

[Empking]

1) Emp, why an Ascetic/Aesthetic over Commuter? From what I understand you would still be susceptible to a night kill as an Ascetic.

Not as I phrased it to the mod.

2) I don't recall one person saying that mist was obvtown.

I remember somebody did.

[Empking]

^ 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?

Yes.

[Empking]

Vote: Mist

- Yeah, I don't understand her motives behind her night action, and I think that's because they're fake (the supposed motives).

[Empking]

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.

I'm not so much opposed as I think it's useless. I don't think it's a likely action. We might as well check if the scum have set it so the first person to say "Pineapple" will die; If everyone agrees to it then I'll do it if I must.

[Empking]

Vote: Mist

- Yeah, I don't understand her motives behind her night action, and I think that's because they're fake (the supposed motives).

VOTE: Empking

I don't agree with the current argument about Mist being scum.

You are lurking AND sheeping.

No need to shout? How am I lurking? How is sheeping scummy?

[Empking]

I view sheeping as scummy because sheep don't have to do extra work to find scum. Scum already know who is innocent and who is guilty therefore in order to attack someone they have to do extra work in order to make their push not seem forced but legitimate. It is a lot easier for them to just sheep off of someone else. The second reason is if they sheep, they don't provide town with content with which could be used against them at a later point.

It does provide content. It shows who I find suspicious. What content do you want to see; alignment-null logical fallacies?

[Empking]

Scum's failure to kill combined with the fact that no one's claiming protection is really messing with my head.

I got myself protected.

[Empking]

EmpKing - Making yourself immune to everything including any investigative role is chalk full of scum-motivation - especially when you could have used something else like self-priest, or bulletproof which would allow you to survive being night-killed while still allowing people to investigate you.

You're being completely dishonest in your thinking here. You know as well as I do that scum won't do a straight forward kill, and will take pains to get round bulletproofs; even simple actions such as: The target dies when they make their first post can get round BPness.

HFOS: Pro

[Empking]

The target dies when they make their first post can get round BPness.

HFOS: Pro

So this is your explanation as to why you made yourself "untargetable"? Whats with the OMGUS? I am not being dishonest, I am posting my thoughts. For the record this is my first Lucid Dreamers game.

The "OMGUS" is for you suggesting I'd be better off making myself bulletproff when it isn't true.

Mit: Siv is the obvious one, and I'll go with that.

[Empking]

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

Ways somebody could say "I am scum" without claiming scum.

[Empking]

Emp, why am I the obvious scum? Based on night actions, unless I'm lying about siteflaking (which I'm not), I'm scum with mitillos if I'm scum, and mist did some weird stuff to me, or I'm scum with mist and lied about siteflaking

Why does being scum with have to involve you lyinng about siteflaking?

Also, why lie about a siteflake as scum?

If you tried to kill me then you'd have issues.

[Empking]

If I did no night action due to siteflake, why did mitsy come up with innocent on me unless somebody else disrupted it / he was scum. And if scum planned on both just self-godfathering. Well yeah, I was here at the start of the night for that to sortof work, but I didn't plan on the siteflake.

Oh forgot about that.

[Empking]

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.

If anyone is scum and if they shot someone, I'm the only possible target. I don't buy for one second that scum didn't kill.

[Empking]

@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.

A delayed kill is possible, but i don't see the point of a large delay.

[Empking]

Can one of the Empking voters pick a three man wagon. Deadline is tonight.

[Empking]

Turned myself untargetable again.

[Empking]

Just want to live out this game on your awesome day play Emp?

If the scum keep on trying to kill me I have a duty to keep them from managing it.

[Empking]

So do you maintain that you are the reason that there was no night kill again?

Nobody else seems to have an explanation so yes, or at least I will if we're all alive after voting and he other tricks.

[Empking]

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

S'pose so. Was your original target qwints?

[Empking]

Empking has been high on my scum list since D1 and his anti-town night actions aren't helping me see any differently. Making himself untargetable is an extremely self-preservationist type of attitude, but it could be just how he plays town.

Last night all scuim needed to do to win was two kills. You don't seem to know what a "self-preservationist" type of attitude is. Don't be bitter because you keep on failing to kill.

Vote: Zorb

- Testing 123.

[Empking]

Vote: Zoid

[Empking]

2 kills would make scum 2/5. That's lylo, but it's not a win. Lynch scum and 1 scum kill and scum are 1/3.

Ah, thought it was an eightb player game.

[Empking]

That was a red herring.

Unvote, Vote: Pro

[Empking]

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

I was.

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

The case is in his actions; not one is confirmable or even risky. They're clearly fakeclaims. Read the first three posts of today if you're in any doubt of Pro's alignment.

[Empking]

This is coming from someone who does absolutely nothing with his actions but covers his balls. My actions are just as confirm-able as yours Emp. They are not clearly fakeclaims because none of them are fake.

It is true that by bad luck our actions are equally confirmable, but the

riskiness

of the claims if fake are clearly different.

Your IIOA and qwint's argument of improbability is nothing compared to the raw stuff of the first posts of today.

[Empking]

So if I am understanding you correctly, I am scum because my actions aren't risky?

Claiming the actions you have claimed is hilariously non-risky and non-confirmable. I don't buy the Bomb and redirect story, your actual actions may or may not have been risky I don't know.

[Empking]

You missed the second paragraph. Please respond.

I am not lynching based on the actions someone has made. I'm voting you and I've just said that I don't know your actual actions.

[Empking]

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.

Ehh, I'm not so sure how much stock you can put in the claim order. The first night, T-Bone had to send out a PM because nobody realized the thread was open save one or two of us. Activity is not an indicator of alignment.

Thisd is a very very bad post. As in a scum post, one only needs to look at the first three posts of today to see that. Right here, Zoid is clearly creating a false argument to knock down Mit's (absolutely correct) method of finding the scum; it is also an sly defense of Pro since it's claim order that makes Pro obvious as scum.

[Empking]

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.

Only on kills.

[Empking]

Thisd is a very very bad post. As in a scum post, one only needs to look at the first three posts of today to see that. Right here, Zoid is clearly creating a false argument to knock down Mit's (absolutely correct) method of finding the scum; it is also an sly defense of Pro since it's claim order that makes Pro obvious as scum.

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone claims first you automatically grant them townie points? Your bullshit claims are just as un-verifiable and just as anti-town.

1. They were verifiable they simply weren't verified because by some shock no town player targeted me. That's different from Pro's bomb claim that couldn't be falsified because his survival meant he wasn't targeted by a kill, and Pro's claimed redirection of Mit's action from qwints to, eh, qwints.
2. If someone claims first should they get townie points? Not a huge amount and I never said otherwise. You're the one trying to get us to ignore Pro's claiming of the one redirect action that he knew wouldn't be falsified; more importantly, you're the one trying to do that while not confronting it directly.

PEdit: Yeah, Zoid is scum faking illiteracy.

[Empking]

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).

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

(I'm in half a mind to pretend that Pro's claimed action targets qwints to try and get him vigged, but no it's ajmn action that targets Mit rather than qwints.)

[Empking]

Zoid: a) Do you disagree with post 517? b) Do you think I fakeclaimed day one?

[Empking]

Zoid: a) Do you disagree with post 517? b) Do you think I fakeclaimed day one?

a) I agree that your actions have not been remotely pro-town, yes.

Firstly, lolzers.
Secondly, either scum are killing in which case the most useful actions are the ones that prevent kills, or scum are godfathering in which case the most useless ones are investigations. Why would you say my action (making myself ascetic) is not pro-town?

b) I think you probably didn't fakeclaim D1, but that doesn't make you town, ESPECIALLY since there were no night kills.

That's nice but you're suggesting I be vigged not lynched. So you think I made myself ascetic N1 and didn't N2, why do you think I changed my approach?

[Empking]

That's nice but you're suggesting I be vigged not lynched. So you think I made myself ascetic N1 and didn't N2, why do you think I changed my approach?

It depends what mod's answer is to the actions carrying over question.

Explain. How can a belief you hold now be based on an answer the mod will give in the future?

(The other question in 536 wasn't rhetorical either and I'd like an answer to that too.)

[Empking]

Okay. Meh. Dangit T-Bone.

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

But you've got a vig?

T-bone's answer makes me feel uncomfortable to the vig testing, so I'd rather it used as an additional lynch.

[Empking]

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.

But if two scum kill will six players then they can also win?

[Empking]

@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.

Bomb might possible be risky, but I would call protection or kills would increase the risk of them trying.

[Empking]

The mod's ambigious answrf makes it clear that Siv's claimed action can only be like a lynch. If Pro wanted Mit lynched there's no reason to want me dayvigged (otoh, if he's scum just wanting town killed then that makes sense).

[Empking]

Everryone, but Scream, who's pretending to buy this is scum.

[Empking]

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.

I did the same thing three night in the role. (Ascetic)

[Empking]

Mit

[Empking]

I'm not confident. I say No Lynch.

[Empking]

Why no lynch?

Why not no lynch?

[Empking]

Vote; Siv

- I think he'as faking it.

[Empking]

Emp, you STILL have no reasoning as to why we should No-Lynch.

Obviously I'm voting you.

The last two lines of 614 are very fake.

[Empking]

Claim actions? Mine's the usual.

Siv's is...?

(mit should obviously claim last/if at all since he's confirmed.)

[Empking]

Vote: Sive

I think I explained everything. The crucial thing with Sive is the fakeness I alluded to and spoke about before.

[Empking]

@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.

You're assuming we're looking for another mafia member. That wasn't the impression I got from t-boney's flavour post at the end of theo night before last.

[Empking]

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

It looked to me that we're looking for a horrific creature distinct from nightmares (serial killer).

[Empking]

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.

All the scum clearly GF'd themselves D1.

[Empking]

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.

Because they all claimed useless actions for scum. Why did they decide to do it? It's safe while having a possible use. I'd imagine siv the SK had most use for safety.

[Empking]

Has Siv been lynched?

[Empking]

Sorry everyone... :/

If you'd voted me then you'd have lynched yourself (see 650).