Mini #1647: Eine Kleine Nacht-Mord, Game Over

[Derangement]

VOTE: Onion Bubs

Clearly Onion's evil doppelganger.
He just shaved the goatee to throw us off!

[Derangement]

VOTE: Derangement

How dare you vote for a member of the Amaryllidaceae family! Shun! SHUN!

Oh gosh.
For a moment there, I thought this was an OMGUS, until I realised which onion had posted.

This is going to be an interesting game.

[Derangement]

VOTE: Derangement

How dare you vote for a member of the Amaryllidaceae family! Shun! SHUN!

Oh gosh.
For a moment there, I thought this was an OMGUS, until I realised which onion had posted.

This is going to be an interesting game.

What were you gonna do if onion bubs omgus'd you?

VOTE: TTH

I'd have called him out on it, to see what he'd have to say about

that

.

[Derangement]

Can I just check something with you Equinox? That comment you made about LlamaFluff probably rolling scum given your history; was that just an RVS reason for your vote or were you actually making that as a serious argument for him being scum?

It's a serious vote!

Just to clarify:

You're saying your vote is a serious one, because you think one of the scum has played with CES before, and out of those people, Llama is the one who was scum the most often, when he played with you?

[Derangement]

Essentially, yes. Cogito Ergo Sum is a known quantity, but he hasn't played in a while; I doubt an all-newbie scum team would have gone for him when we have more prolific veterans in this game. To make it extra clear, though, LlamaFluff and I have been opposite alignments in 4 of the 6 games that we've played together.

Where are you going with this?

I was both making sure you weren't being ironic when you said you were serious, and hoping to get a better idea of what the history you mentioned between the two of you was.

The added explanation of

why

you think the scum team has at least one of those people helps, too, since I didn't realise he was not active as of late.

Thanks for clearing that up, on all counts.

[Derangement]

Because L-3 is pretty far away from lynch. L-2 is much better.

Would you also have voted if he'd been at L-2, before your post?

[Derangement]

unvote, vote llamafluff

squeal like a piggy

Heads up! This puts LlamaFluff at L-1

I know we're not in a newbie game, but I'd still like to point it out, just in case someone decides to 'accidentally' drop a hammer without declaring intent first.

can we please lynch LlamaFluff before he even posts that would just make my fucking year

How is this a good idea?
I literally can't see

any

upside to that kind of play, and don't think town should base a lynch on statistics for someone's roles in previous games alone.

UNVOTE: Onion Bubs
VOTE: Untrod Tripod

[Derangement]

we're really going to need a method to this madness, otherwise terrible stuff is surely going to happen. I'd prefer to do it 'I am onion, he is Bubs' but if that's unacceptable we could totally do something else like giving someone a dumb nickname such as 'i am onion, he is stupidpants'. So long as we pick a method early and stick to it without changing, we might stand a chance.

Good idea!

His signature says we can call him Bubs, so I think I'll do that from now on, to make our lives easier.
I usually prefer to write a player's full name when voting/unvoting, but in this case, I'll make an exception for the sake of all our (hypothetical) sanities.

[Derangement]

holy SHIT how dense are you

I'm pretty dense, apparently.

If you're trying to say that only scum votes someone who's at L-1, then I disagree.
I have already witnessed town derp-hammering before, so now I try and make sure that doesn't happen (whenever it does, if the lynchee flips town, the next day is an almost guaranteed mislynch).

Did I miss something?

[Derangement]

if anyone outside of a newbie game derphammers someone WHO HASN'T EVEN POSTED then they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell

See, I agree with this!
What bothers me is that you assume any player worth their salt will know not to derphammer, but put Llama at L-1 anyway, hoping to catch scum who do.

I don't think intelligence (or its absence) is alignment indicative.
The way I see it, you created an opportunity for an accident to happen.

[Derangement]

Dear everyone who disagrees with me when I say that three votes is enough pressure:

<snipped gif>

Why?

</snip>

How much pressure is enough is a subjective thing.
Personally, I think that unless people raise

very

compelling arguments about why someone is scum, or a wagon grows enough to threaten a lynch if just a few more people join it, accused scum can give staggered, vague, or incomplete answers in hopes that people get distracted by something else before there's any

real

danger.

Three votes puts Llama at only L-3: Enough to know people suspect him, but still some wiggle room.
L-2, on the other hand, presents a very solid motivation to address people's concerns.

I feel the need to point out, however, that I am

not

comfortable with an L-1 this early, especially on someone who hadn't posted yet.

PS: Expect more of these animated gifs in the future as long as I am alive.

Haha, fun to know!
Just please keep in mind that, due to severe limitations on my mobile data plan, I might have images turned off while browsing somewhere without a WiFi network (like when I'm commuting).

Please try to ensure any important messages aren't image-only, or I might accidentally miss them.
Thanks!

[Derangement]

What bothers me is that you assume any player worth their salt will know not to derphammer, but put Llama at L-1 anyway, hoping to catch scum who do

it's called reaction fishing and you ruined it

Sorry!

Derphammers, or their suggested possibility, are probably a bit of a touchy subject for me.
I'll try to keep in mind that everyone around's grown-up, but I'm still not a fan of how you did it.

And yes, I'm still going to make L-1s easy to notice, if the person who created them doesn't point it out.

[Derangement]

I was both making sure you weren't being ironic when you said you were serious, and hoping to get a better idea of what the history you mentioned between the two of you was.

Why did you need to make sure? If I had been joking around, what would that have told you?

I thought you were joking because the maths-person in me doesn't believe in previous random outcomes (like which factions someone was in previous games) as reliable indicators of future random outcomes (like which faction someone is now).
Still, since your point about the people who played with CES has merit, I felt I'd make sure and ask.

If a wagon had formed on Llama before you answered, it'd have been a lot harder to tell why the people who jumped on it did so, and anyone with scummy intentions could try to chalk the whole thing up to a misunderstanding later, and back out if they felt it benefited them.
This way, we've removed a lot of the ambiguity that scum could make use of,

and

I now have a good idea that you wanted the RVS to be over as quickly as possible.

Had you been joking around, I'd know to watch out for more irony from you in the future, and I'd need to give any people on the wagon a much closer look.
I don't think it' healthy for RVS votes to grow into RVS L-2 (or bigger) wagons.

I wasn't crazy about it. What exactly did you like?

What did

you

think about LlamaFluff's reaction?

First impressions tell me that either he simply doesn't put any stock in an early L-1 wagon on him turning into a lynch, and goes about business as usual (regardless of alignment), or he's scum who's keeping his posts short to avoid accidentally adding more fuel to the wagon.

I don't agree with his interpretation that Guy In Freezer was denying having played with CES before.
The accusation

could

be an attempt at deflecting heat from himsef.
The first half of his Post 59, however, builds up around that in a way that appears to come from a town mindset.

I'm not very fond of UT's early L-1 vote either, but it's an easy thing to not like.

All in all, I need to see more of Llama to form a satisfactory read.
For the time being, gut is pinging him as null/town, mostly because of

how

he's looking into GIF.

[Derangement]

"Reaction testing" is a cop out to allow yourself to get away with scummy stuff.

hadn't said it was reaction testing yet

Actually, you had.

What bothers me is that you assume any player worth their salt will know not to derphammer, but put Llama at L-1 anyway, hoping to catch scum who do

it's called reaction fishing and you ruined it

Care to revise your answer?

[Derangement]

reading is tech, bruh

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p6600966

care you revise YOUR answer?

I misunderstood which post you were referring to with your #61.
Consider me corrected!

I still stand by everything else I said about your L-1 vote.

[Derangement]

can't help but notice that the main thrust of the argument we're hearing from Llama is "this play is suboptimal" not "you're about to lynch town"

Maybe it's just me, but as far as I can tell, saying "you're about to lynch town" is as unconvincing an argument for one's innocence as it is easy to type.

Would you really have been appeased if he'd said that, instead of actually trying to build a case on the people who he thinks are scum?

I'd also like to ask you not to simply ignore the points Llama is bringing up about you, if that's okay.

[Derangement]

like, this right here is mafia, guys. figuring out perspectives and alignments based on the types of arguments people make.

no one is going to walk in here and hand you an alignment, and this shit is subtler than "yeah only mafia would ever put someone at L-1 early"

christ almighty why are you people trying to figure this shit out on black and white tells? those DON'T EXIST outside of newbie games.

Rest assured, I respect my fellow players enough to not expect any dead giveaway scumtells (though wishful thinking remains ).

If I bring up something I see as possibly scummy, it's because I want the person who did it to talk to us about it, and hopefully elaborate on

why

they did it.
The more people share about the thoughts behind their play, the better our understanding of their alignment.

Right now, I'm not sure I can buy the idea that you would be certain enough of your scum-read on Llama to L-1 him again the way you did.

[Derangement]

what's the end game, exactly, as scum, if that was my strategy?

Are you saying that, if llama is town and you're scum, a quickhammer mislynch now, followed by a mislynch on whoever dropped the first hammer,

isn't

something you'd want?

Come day three, you'd give us with the exact same arguments you're using now.
Maybe you'd get lynched (and maybe scum could get town cred for bussing you).
Maybe you'd NK the right people and manage to convince the rest of us of your innocence, or WIFOM your way out of a lynch, making it even

better

for you!

Whatever the case, you'd be shortcutting your team right into an easier endgame.

[Derangement]

Are you saying that, if llama is town and you're scum, a quickhammer mislynch now, followed by a mislynch on whoever dropped the first hammer, isn't something you'd want?

uh, no

Then what

are

you saying?

[Derangement]

knowingly pushing a mislynch like that, in that way, does nothing but drawn attention to me and allows for big bright spotlight associative tells around the wagon

there's no upshot to doing that

This could very well be WIFOM on your part, but you're right: it

does

draw a lot of attention to you, regardless of the outcome.
Now to figure out how likely you are to try this kind of stunt as either alignment...

[Derangement]

Okay, so I did some background reading.

A skim of several of Tripod's games tells me that he would definitely do stuff like this as town.
As scum, I've also seen him do some risky things, so it's not as clear cut as I'd hoped.

I'm not sure of my scumread on him, now, but am still suspicious of anyone who plays like this.

Tangentially related to the whole L-1 thing:

the goal is not to catch llama or catch a scum who derphammers but to SEE HOW PEOPLE REACT TO IT

I guess I got one strong townread out of it and one weak one, so that's nice I guess

I'd like Tripod to clarify who the second person he's talking about here is, please. :3

[Derangement]

"The Cogito List Case"
Cogito was not an active player apparently, and the scum would have NK'd someone they knew, thus scum ought to be someone who played with Cogito (017), and that list is: CBD, GIF, Llama, Tripod.

I've removed Equinox from this list because he posted the list.

GIF doubted the list (018).

Nooo. Onion, why?
Why would you do something like this?

I really like everything Derangement and Bubs have posted. They are being useful to the town, and helping us get good reads on them. This is Pro-town and should be encouraged.

<snip>

Sidenote: Bubs voted Prawn (026) because he voted Llama, and he voted Tripod (062) because he voted Llama. >_>

Please be specific about what you think Bubs' alignment is, and explain how that last part contributes or disagrees with your read.

[Derangement]

I don't think much of Derangement's #26; it recognises why Equinox's nightkill analysis exists but does not act upon it either way. Dee should really be reconsidering their random vote in light of this. I also think it's weird that Llama picks out GIF for alleged ignoring of the actual consequences of said analysis but didn't mention Derangement doing the same, when GIF had a better excuse for his own response.

Dee, which pronoun do you prefer?

At the time of my #26, I was inclined to consider Equinox's premise that one of those five likely had a say in picking CES for the night kill, but wasn't well-enough acquainted with any of these players to swap my random vote for just a slightly less random one.
I'd rather wait a little longer and make every vote important, by using it on someone I distrust more than the rest.
Especially when L-2s happen on page 2.

As for pronouns, I'm comfortable with pretty much any of them.
Feel free to use whichever you prefer, you can't go wrong.

[Derangement]

Onion, allow me to help you develop better communication and analysis skills.

UNVOTE: Untrod Tripod
VOTE: Onion

Please elaborate on your reads, and answer people's questions.

[Derangement]

Speaking of having votes out there, and using them on scumreads:
When are you planning to actually

use

yours, Onion?

[Derangement]

Also, I'm operating under the assumption of two scum in the game.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Town would need to be on steroids to handle three of them in what is effectively an 11p game, and I'm just not seeing it right now.

[Derangement]

question where's the question? which questions are directed at me?

• "The Cogito List Case"
  Cogito was not an active player apparently, and the scum would have NK'd someone they knew, thus scum ought to be someone who played with Cogito (017), and that list is: CBD, GIF, Llama, Tripod.

  I've removed Equinox from this list because he posted the list.

  GIF doubted the list (018).

  
  Nooo. Onion, why?
  Why would you do something like this?

[Derangement]

that being said, we know almost nothing about this setup, so let's keep the setup speculation to an absolute minimum until we have more info

Good call.
We can worry about this kind of thing when it becomes relevant.

I'm comfortable with just the uneducated guess at scum numbers, for now, if it means we make their job that much harder.

[Derangement]

Onion...
I think you're putting way, way too much stock in what is or isn't scummy by trying to apply generic formulas, rather than actually looking at people's motivations.

Scum can start wagons. Scum can hammer. Scum can and will do town-looking things, because trying to blend in with town is their job.
Similarly, if town never occupied the middle slots of a wagon, scum would never get lynched.

What I'm seeing is scum!onion relying on textbook signs for his reads, because he's having trouble finding scum motivation where he knows there is none.

The same can be said about instantly dropping suspicion of Equinox for writing the Cogito list, especially if you're going to hold onto the list like a guide on where to find scum.
If it were this easy to conftown someone, there'd be a lot less mislynches in all mafia games.
The only way you can safely rule out Equinox from being scum is if you

know

his alignment.

[Derangement]

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up, Onion.

Also, your drunken roomie is awesome for reminding me about this.

UNVOTE: Onion
VOTE: Guy In Freezer

What's up?

[Derangement]

onion is also town for 181 unless something major changes in what I think is going on.

Oh, huh.
Hadn't thought about it

that

way!

This is a pretty great catch.

[Derangement]

Also Also, i was totally confused about llamafluff and derangement are talking about in my 181 post and i realize that you might be reading it as a breadcrumb or something. it really isn't that, it really is a drunk housemate shenanigan. it really happened and doesn't have anything to do with any power role anyone may or may not have. I mean sure its nice to have people thing i'm town, but yall misinterpreting this is very close to me lying to the town, which isn't pro-town. so yeah. Sorry for the confusion, that isn't the breadcrumb you are looking for.

Please drop any discussion about what roles you may or may not have.
The less scum knows about the setup, the better.

I appreciate your concern for not getting anyone confused with what you said, so I'll go ahead and reassure you that I

do

believe you have a housemate, who was drunk, probably never played Mafia, and blindly pointed those three people out as his guess, using nothing more than inebriated intuition.
You can thank him for us, even if he's probably off on how many scum there are in the game.

[Derangement]

it's all WIFOM though and should be ignored

on the other hand, Llama prooooooooooobably wouldn't want to clear you if he was scum?

It'd be WIFOM if I believed scum!onion could think of something like this.
At the moment, I'm thinking he wouldn't.

What makes you say that about Llama, though?

[Derangement]

what's the upshot to scum of trying to take someone out of the mislynch pool?

re: onion
I think you should ALWAYS assume that people can think of something like that

I can see scum doing it for town cred, if they think someone else would also notice the reason, anyway.

What I can't understand is why you're shooting down Llama's argument due to WIFOM, but still treating him like you might if he'd presented a reason

you

'd see as solid.

[Derangement]

I'm saying it's an observation I see much more likely as coming from TOWN than SCUM

it affects my read of Llama, not necessarily my read of onion

do you get what I'm saying?

Oh!
So even though you don't agree with it, you still think

Llama

believes it's valid?

[Derangement]

Thanks, that helps.

[Derangement]

Hi! Who's scumreading my slot? Who's townreading my slot? Bye!

Hiya!

Your slot has two posts so far, not counting yours, both devoid of content.
That means I'm

not

managing to read your slot, and would like that to change.

[Derangement]

I hope you don't mind me using that format ChannelDelibird. It looks like a really good way to format a post where you talk about several different things but you want to avoid scaring everyone with a great wall of text.

I personally like text walls, but don't mind it when people spoiler stuff to make it easier on the eyes either.
Just make sure that anything really important isn't spoilered, so we'll see it every time we re-read or skim the thread, and you're golden!

I like the sentiment that helpful stuff should be encouraged and harmful stuff should be discouraged, but it would be more helpful if you were a bit more specific about how Derangement and I are helping the town.

I'd rather Onion use his time trying to hunt scum, and not explaining the things that most people seem to agree on, unless it is to add something no one else pointed out yet.
Why do you want to hear more about why he thinks either of us is being helpful?

Okay, so I did some background reading.

A skim of several of Tripod's games tells me that he would definitely do stuff like this as town.
As scum, I've also seen him do some risky things, so it's not as clear cut as I'd hoped.

Are you saying that, if Untrod Tripod's previous town games showed him playing more cautiously, then you would've been dead certain that he is scum? Or that if his scum games showed him playing more cautiously, then you would've decided that he must be townie in this one?

That'd be silly of me to assume.
Ill only be certain of someone's alignment if they scum-claim, if they fail to do something that'd instantly give one of the factions a win, or when Word of Mod reveals it.

That doesn't mean I won't see certain actions as more likely to come from scum, and others more likely to come from town, and weight my reads accordingly.
What made you imply full certainty in your question?

Even if you do manage to spot a pattern where they exhibit one particular behaviour only as town or something like that, how do you know that the game you're currently in with them isn't the game where they (consciously or otherwise) break the pattern?

I

don't

know.

Which is why I use meta as a gauge for how suspicious I should initially be, just like I do with a bunch of other unreliable stuff like activity, mood, or even gut.
I then go and look into what everyone's doing, and try to figure out why they're doing it.
I'll look closer at people whom I suspect the most, unless I happen to have enough free time to be super thorough with everyone.

Why do you not feel the need to justify your votes when you make them?

My vote has two uses: figuring out who is or isn't scum (by forcing people to react to being one step closer to a lynch), and lynching those that I think are scum.

If I do not make it obvious why I'm voting someone, then that is because either:

1. I think that sharing my reasons
   at that time
   would alert scum to something that I'd rather they remain oblivious of, so they can keep playing poorly;
   
2. I'm more interested in determining someone's alignment than I am in convincing everyone else of my current read on them;
   
3. I had already voted for this person before, and don't have anything new to add about them. My vote is probably due to a changed read on someone else.

Similarly, if I unvote someone without much fanfare (which will be a large majority of the time), that means I'm still considering, to some degree, that they might be scum after all.
Unless I have an

Eureka!

moment where one of my scum reads does a full 180°, or a town read becomes significantly stronger, I'd rather let each player defend themselves instead.

[Derangement]

Actually, I thought Derangement was the mastin alt. Even after they denied being an alt when I asked during our last meetup.

I'm reading now. Commenting later after class.

I haven't met Mastin yet, but am willing to sign up or replace into one of the games they're in, after this one, if it helps prove I'm not an alt.

onion does the long posts and wonky theory arguments though

derangement doesn't act like mastin imo

The long posts will probably come, eventually, if I ever have a lot to say to/about someone.
Sorry!

[Derangement]

UNVOTE:

Any progress in catching up?

[Derangement]

What's happening?

LlamaFluff, ChannelDelibird and Prawneater haven't posted in two days.
GuyInFreezer pretty much prod-dodged with an unvote after promising to catch up...

Of these people, only llama hasn't been posting anywhere on the site.

@mod: how long can a player go without posting in thread before we can ask for prods?
If it's 48h, I'd like to order three, please.

[Derangement]

I bet everyone missed my 194.

I saw it, but thank you for pointing it out again, for those who might have missed it the first time.
I just expected a follow-up up on this:

========This is the point where I'm seeing walls and will stop until tomorrow=======

Did I misunderstand you when I thought you hadn't finished analysing the thread at the time, and would post your thoughts about the rest soon?

[Derangement]

@mod: how long can a player go without posting in thread before we can ask for prods?
If it's 48h, I'd like to order three, please.

You may ask for a prod at any time. I generally give a player three days before prodding unless a deadline is imminent, in which case waiting only two days may be appropriate. On the whole, activity in this game has been very healthy.

Okie dokie!
Thanks for the guidelines.

[Derangement]

@GIF: Could you please clarify on whether or not you're now caught up on everything that came after Post 144?

If you are, I'd also like to ask why you chose not to elaborate on that as much as you did in your quote-stripping Post 194, if that's okay.

Thanks!

[Derangement]

I'm caught up. I didn't quote strip the rest bc I got lazy.

Alright, fair enough!

I was looking forward to another chunk of awesome like the first, but I can accept this answer for now.

[Derangement]

oh equinox is a common townread? news to me

hint: i haven't read anything but pages 1 and part of 9/10

maybe i'll actually follow up on my promises after lunch! ciao

I understand that you've replaced in, and there's a bunch of stuff to read through, but this kind of thing strikes me as stalling.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I'm getting a feeling that if multiple people are waiting on a player, delays like this tend to reduce their interest in a game, leading to only half-hearted scum hunting later.
Only scum benefits from remaining an unknown quantity for as long as they can, while everyone else suspects each other.

Hi! Who's scumreading my slot? Who's townreading my slot? Bye!

Reading this again, it strikes me as gauging how much lurking you can safely get away with.

UNVOTE: GuyInFreezer
VOTE: Marquis

[Derangement]

As a side note, my initial apprehension of Bubs for the things I've asked him in Post 223 is making me not feel good about him taking this long to clarify what should be a simple matter of sharing his reasoning, if he's town.

Especially if we keep in mind that (stalker powers activate! ):

• #223 was posted on
  Thu, 19/Feb/2015 01:12:28
  ;
  
• Onion Bubs visited the site multiple times since then, the last one being on
  Sat, 21/Feb/2015 01:26:51
  ;
  
• It is now approximately
  Sat, 21/Feb/2015 08:40:00

I know, I'm reading a lot into everyone's timing.
While it can be due to any number of reasons, I still can't help but suspect those who, being aware of questions directed at them, take their time to think of a good reply while other votes and accusations get thrown around.

[Derangement]

I'm blaming this delay on the bank for blocking my card when I tried to renew my car insurance because that got me angry and I wanted to avoid having another angry post. So let's see what it was you wanted me to answer.

Welcome back, and sorry to hear about your bank woes.
Hope it gets better soon.

If I do not make it obvious why I'm voting someone, then that is because either:

• <snip>
  
  
• I'm more interested in determining someone's alignment than I am in convincing everyone else of my current read on them;

1. <snip>
   
   
2. Couldn't you do this without use of a vote, at least to begin with? Give the players some stuff for them to respond to (such as the questions you asked me), and then if you think their responses aren't as townie as they should be,
   then
   put a vote on them. At that point, you have a reason to believe they deserve the vote, plus you can then compare the way they behave under pressure to the way they behave ... erm ... not under pressure.

I often do just that.

However, there are also the occasional times when I'll want to gauge whether the thing that made me suspect someone was done on purpose.
Or even if I'm just reading too much into things that are actually innocent.

I believe we can get just as useful information from

which

issues are brought up in a person's defence, as we can from what is said to placate those accusations.

I have a question for both of you and for anyone else who agrees with these posts. Scum will try to do pro-town stuff because it makes them look more townie and thus they are less likely to get lynched, right? Well what's the townie's motivation to do anti-town stuff? If you can't answer that, then why, for all intents and purposes, should "anti-town" be treated any differently to "scummy"?

First and foremost, I feel the need to point out that there is an important difference between scummy-looking null actions (which

feel

iffy, but upon close inspection don't actually seem to benefit either faction), and actual anti-town posting (which actually seems to make things worse for town, or better for scum).

The former is mostly a matter of play-style, and isn't a reliable indicator either way.

The latter, however, can be because of any of the following:

1. Scum did it.
   Lynch this.
   
   
   
2. A town player did it on accident.
   Avoid being this guy at all costs.
   
   
   
3. The town player's reason for doing it arrives at a different conclusion than
   your
   reasoning does.
   One of the two is probably wrong in their logic.
   
   1. If you're wrong, then this action was not really anti-town.
      The sooner others help you realise this, the faster you can go back to finding actual scum.
      
   2. If the other player's wrong, then they need to be made to see this before they cost town the game by making further bad plays.
   
   
   
4. A town player made a gamble, believing that the potential for a good outcome out-weighted the price town had to pay if it backfired.
   Ideally, one should avoid gambling if it would gain less than one stands to lose, after accounting for how likely one thinks each outcome is.
   
   
   
5. A town player knows something the others don't, and their action was actually safer than it appeared to be.

The distinction between scummy and anti-town comes from which of these scenarios you're looking at.
Problem's telling (a) apart from (b) through (e).

[Derangement]

I will move my vote to him in 24 hours unless he posts something of substance in that time period.

why are you bothering to vote for prawneater when you're expressing an interest to vote for Marquis with the game in its current state?

I'm not necessarily scumreading you, but that point reaaaaaaaaaaaally feels like coaching

I'll second the question, with sprinkles on top:
What was your reason for doing things the way you did, and

announcing

intent to vote later?

If you can, please explain why this is preferable to voting Marquis now, and moving your vote to Prawneater later if Marquis posts something to your liking.

[Derangement]

I'm not at all convinced that Tripod is just really terrible town and not scum, but i feel that lynching Llama would give us more information about Tripod than lynching Tripod would give us information on Llama.

I

really

don't like this.

You're outright proposing we chain lynches on these two players, depending on their flips.
This alone is already catastrophic if

both

of them happen to be town.

But then, here's the implications you're assuming:

1. Llamascum would go a long way towards town-reading Tripod, at which point i'd be happy to minimize his harmful effects by ignoring him. it would prove him terrible but harmless, which is a big improvement.

   scum!Llama
   =>
   town!Tripod
   , which (by contraposition) is equivalent to:
   
   town!Llama
   <=
   scum!Tripod
   
   
   
   

2. Llamatown would cast even more suspicion than we already have on Tripod, and i could easily see me voting for him the next day because of it. it would show that he really is both idiotic and dangerous, having L-1'd a townie with a possible power role on page 2.

   town!Llama
   =>
   scum!Tripod
   , which is also equivalent to:
   
   scum!Llama
   <=
   town!Tripod

Add both A and B together, and you're assuming that there is

exactly one scum

in {Llama, Tripod}.
Your conclusions would be undesirable (town-read on a mafioso) if both were scum, and outright catastrophic (two mislynches) if both were town.

Why, then, do you assume only A, and specifically decline to accept premise B when you say this:

However, if we swapped over and tried to lynch Tripod to get information on Llama, it wouldn't work as well i don't think. Sure scum-Tripod would clear Llama of most suspicions, but town-Tripod wouldn't do anything.

So, if Tripod is town, Llama can be town after all?
Why does the order in which you choose to lynch change how many scum you think there are among those two players?

---

Also:

Llamatown would cast even more suspicion than we already have on Tripod, and i could easily see me voting for him the next day because of it. it would show that he really is both idiotic and dangerous, having L-1'd

a townie with a possible power role

on page 2.

I can't stress enough how bad an idea it is to try and actively figure out who has or doesn't have a power role, at this point in the game.

Vote: Llama

because he's on the Cogito List, because lynching him will provide valuable information about Tripod, and because he avoid justifying himself until severely pressed, and even then does so minimally, because he's blendy, and because llamas make terrible war mounts.

Normally, I love light-hearted banter, but there's such a thing as too much of it, if it gets in the way of scum-hunting by cluttering arguments with fluff.
RVS-like arguments have no reason to appear outside of the RVS stage like this.

[Derangement]

Hello, I'm here - an afternoon of board games turned into a full day unexpectedly. Full catch up tomorrow or lynch me

hi. it's snowing really hard. i'm cold. so i'm inside all day.

i have some business to take care of rn. then after that, i'll try my best to devote some time to mafia. thanks and maybe!cya later tonight.

Thankies!

[Derangement]

Does he prefer to play town or scum? (CDB, you can answer this if you see it first.)

Would it make a difference?

[Derangement]

Allow me to clarify why I don't like the plan Onion's proposing.

If tripod flipped scum then sure it would bonify Llama, but if Tripod flipped town, that wouldn't tell us much about Llama. So a towny L-1'd someone on page 2. what does that say about llama? not much. that's why we should do it in the other direction.

This states that the possible scenarios are:

1. Town!Tripod
   voted
   Scum!Llama
   into L-1;
   
2. Scum!Tripod
   voted
   Town!Llama
   into L-1;
   
3. Town!Tripod
   voted
   Town!Llama
   into L-1.

If Llama flipped scum, it would bonify Tripod and we shouldn't lynch him probably ever. If Llama flipped town, it would be another strike against Tripod and, added to other cases, might mean we lynch him, or we might not.

This argues that the most likely scenarios are:

1. Town!Tripod
   voted
   Scum!Llama
   into L-1;
   
2. Scum!Tripod
   voted
   Town!Llama
   into L-1.

Why is scenario C missing from this list?

To me, it feels like an unwritten assumption that Tripod is more likely to be scum than not.

Which makes the vote for Llama feel

wrong

.
Like Onion's doing it to gather reasons to (maybe) lynch Tripod later, and not because he actually thinks Onion's the scummiest of the two and needs to hang.

Its hard to see them both being town, but i suppose its possible. the Cogito list also contains CBD and GIF, both of which are by no means being town-read. But none of those people got L-1'd on page 2, so lynching them produces less data at this moment.

I urge anyone to use caution when using the Cogito list as a guide to finding scum.
Having played with CES

is

the simplest explanation for why he was NK'd, but it's not the only one.

It's fine to use it as a starting point, but don't let it become a crutch that prevents you from accepting a scum-team with no members in it, if you think there's evidence towards that. :3

[Derangement]

In other news: I'm fine with killing one of the onions for sanity's sake.

We should just have a poll on which onion we think is scummier and lynch that one.

Onion Bubs is the scummier of the two imo.

Sanity is for the weak!

I'm not going to try and lynch someone, if I simply see them as bad-town right now.
I'd rather try and correct their ways while there's still time, and focus on lynching scum.

Now, if someone

does

look scummy, they'd better have a good explanation for why they did what they did.

[Derangement]

Anyone else realize that onion is basically basing his vote on the fact that he thinks that if I was scum it would mean UT is probably town and if I am town is a small tell against UT (which is something I could say for about half a dozen pairs). Also (maybe?) him not understanding my votes - note this isn't not liking reasoning but its not understanding which as far as I can tell he is the only player who actually doesn't understand it. Times like this is where its nice that he basically made posts that are basically town slips.

I'd have been voting him right now, if not for those slips.
As it is, I'm struggling with myself, trying to decide how likely scum!Onion would be to purposefully townslip like that.

[Derangement]

I think I get where the disconnect is coming from, now.

I'll spoiler the following bit, because it's mostly logic theory, and not actual scum-hunting.

Spoiler: How implication works

In its simplest form, and adopting Onion's arrow-length conviction-o-meter™,
( X ----> Y ) means "If X is true, then Y must be true".

I disagree with part of this quote:

Implication statements don't say anything extra about the situation. This statement is only meaningful if the antecedent A is true. it becomes meaningless if A is not true, or if the consequent D becomes known. so keep that in mind.

If X is false, then yes, the implication tells us nothing about Y.

But, if Y is false, then we

can

use the implication to figure something out:
If X were true, then the implication tells us that Y needs to be true as well, which would be inconsistent with our premise of a false Y.
This means that X

cannot

be true, when Y is false.

• So, (X ----> Y) is equivalent to (Not X <---- Not Y).

---

How uncertainty works

Now that we understand how regular implication works, we can add uncertainty to the mix, and repeat the same thought process.
Assume Y is false in the following three examples.

Take ( X ---> Y ), or its english version "If X is true, then Y is very likely to be true".
If X were true, then Y would be very likely to be true as well, which is not possible.
This means that X is very likely to be false.

• So, (X ---> Y) is equivalent to (Not X <--- Not Y)

Likewise, take ( X --> Y ), or "If X is true, then Y is probably true".
If X is true, then Y would probably be true as well, which is impossible.
This means that X is probably false.

• So, (X --> Y) is equivalent to (Not X <-- Not Y)

Finally, take ( X -> Y ), or "If X is true, then Y

might

be true".
If X is true, then Y

might

be true as well: an inconsistency.
This means that X

might

be false.

• So, (X -> Y) is equivalent to (Not X <- Not Y)

---

Conclusion

If you assign a certain degree of certainty to the belief that "if X then Y", you

must

also assign the same degree of certainty to "if Not Y, then Not X", for your belief to be consistent.

With this in mind, we can look at Onion's premises.

Spoiler: Onion's presented argument

1)

(A) Scum!Llama

--->

(D) Town!Tripod

2)

(B) Town!Llama

-->

(C) Scum!Tripod

could either of these fuck up? sure. it is remotely possible that tripod L-1'd his scumbuddy on page 2, but yeah it seems pretty damn unlikely. its only a degree of certainty after all.

These

are

equivalent to:
1')

(B) Town!Llama

<---

(C) Scum!Tripod

2')

(A) Scum!Llama

<--

(D) Town!Tripod

Statements (1/1') mean that it's very unlikely that both Llama and Tripod are scum.
I'm okay with this.

(2/2') tell us that

probably at least one of Llama/Tripod is scum

.
I'm not as certain of this as onion is, but let's keep his view in mind, since it's his argument.

Now we will explore lynching Tripod first, which is not something i recommend.

3)

(C) Scum!Tripod

--->

(B) Town!Llama

for the exact same reasons as used in conditional 1. Because one L-1'd the other, they very probably aren't both scum.

4)

(D) Town!Tripod

->

(A) Scum!Llama

yeah i dunno about this one. If this happened all we'd know is that a townie known for bullshit behavior L-1'd someone of unknown alignment on page 2. it IS a confirmed townie'd suspicions of another player, so weight can be placed on it, but not too much. i probably wouldn't lynch Llama from this evidence alone.

We can see that (3) Is exactly the same as (1'), which is expected.
(4), however, is much weaker than (2'), meaning only that "

maybe at least one of Llama/Tripod

" is scum.

Why does the strength of Onion's belief that at least one of Llama/Tripod is scum depend on the order in which we learn their alignments?

The only way this makes sense to me, is if he believes (or is pretending to believe) that Tripod is more likely to be scum than Llama, and is mistakenly carrying this bias into how much a town-flip of one of them would reveal about the other's alignment.

I seriously recommend that Onion meditate a little on how certain he is of there being at least one scum between Llama/Tripod and build his case with that assumption in mind

at all points

, or pick a different line of thought altogether.

Choosing whom to lynch based on how much we might learn from a mislynch, especially when the logic behind why we'd learn different things is faulty, is

not

beneficial to town.

[Derangement]

:/ one of us is confused and i sure hope it isn't me.

A --> B aka IF A is true, then B is true.

is logically equivalent to

!(A AND !B) aka Never is A true and B false.

is logically equivalent to

!A IOR B aka A is false, B is true, or neither.

Those are the only equivalents. none of these say anything about A with a known B. you are thinking about biconditionals (<-->) which might crop up later down the line if we keep arguing this way.

A <--> B is equivalent to B <--> A.

so i'm pretty sure you are wrong. here, have a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

I am, in fact, speaking of implication (---->), and not of equivalence (<-->).

If you'd read my proof, step-by-step, you'd understand

why

I say those things are equivalent.
Here, have another two, in hopes you'll see the light this time.

Spoiler: Logic Theorem

1. X ----> Y
   
   is equivalent to (by Material Implication)
   
2. (Not X) OR Y
   
   which is equivalent to (by Double Negation)
   
3. (Not X) OR (Not (Not Y) )
   
   which is equivalent to (by Commutativity)
   
4. (Not (Not Y) ) OR (Not X)
   
   which is equivalent to (by Material Implication)
   
5. (Not Y) ----> (Not X)

Spoiler: Truth Table

Basing this on the fact that (p ----> q) holds if either p is false, or q is true:

X	Y	X ----> Y	Not Y	Not X	(Not Y) ----> (Not X)
True	True	True (because Y is true)	False	False	True (because Not Y is false)
True	False	False (neither)	True	False	False (neither)
False	True	True (both)	False	True	True (both)
False	False	True (because X is false)	True	True	True (because Not X is true)

[Derangement]

I am, in fact, speaking of implication (---->), and not of equivalence (<-->).

If you'd read my proof, step-by-step, you'd understand

why

I say those things are equivalent.

EBWOP: and by those things, I mean (X ----> Y), and (Not Y ----> Not X) are equivalent.

[Derangement]

In the meantime, Marquis needs to start making himself useful with some more thoughts about the game besides a town read based on a single post.

<snip>

I will move my vote to him in 24 hours unless he posts something of substance in that time period.

Add this to the list of unfulfilled promises.

Time for your randomly scheduled, friendly neighbourhood stalker report:

• Post #269 was written on
  Sat, 21/Feb/2015 14:59:39
  
  
• Onion Bubs last logged in on
  Sun, 22/Feb/2015 20:48:46
  
  
• The post you're currently reading (#318) was written approximately on
  Mon, 23/Feb/2015 23:00:00

Seriously, what's going on?

[Derangement]

In the meantime, how are you getting that information Derangement? Every time I try to find out when someone last came onto the forums all I get is "Last visited: - "

Exactly the same way you are.

The problem is that some players show nothing, like you pointed out, and you need to see what posts they make to stalk them.
Others, like you, actually show up a date and time.

I think it's a forum profile/login preferences thing, if I remember correctly.

[Derangement]

• If it's the vote on prawneater, I viewed him as the scummiest player at the time and I already said why.
  
• If it's being willing to move the vote to Marquis, his lack of substance and his failed promises were iffy up to that point, but it would require him failing to make good on another promise for me to view him as the scummiest player. With the exception of my initial random vote on onion, my vote has always been on the player I think is scummiest and I don't have enough of a reason to change that.
  
• If it's me announcing my intention to move my vote to Marquis, it's partly because I was talking about the reads I was getting on certain people and my vote is relevant to my reads, and partly because I wanted to know if Marquis was actually going to be helpful and I figured applying some pressure would help me find out. I'd like to know why you think I should've kept it hidden.

Thanks for answering all three.
I was interested in hearing all of these answers.

Tripod already said most of what I wanted to say about this topic, so I'll just follow it up with a pair of short questions, if that's okay.

What did you hope to accomplish, by voting Prawn?
What do you hope to accomplish, by voting Marquis?

[Derangement]

this is a reminder to myself to be here tomorrow morning and also tot ry and get emotionally attache dto this game

This makes me a sad panda.

Please stop stalling and play, replace out, or be lynched.

[Derangement]

i'd just have ignored you as i usually do as scum

i'll be on my comp and looking at this game for a few hours. don't act like deadline is today; i have other more important things to finish first

phone. on. toilet.

Why didn't you?
Why would you ignore it as scum?

[Derangement]

@onion: Won't be home for a couple of hours yet, so I'll save logic explanations for when I have a keyboard to do it comfortably.

My issue is not with your terminology, but with what I perceive as faulty reasoning being used to support a vote, regardless of my current read on the people involved.
Usually, it's best to let the accused defend themselves, but in this case, since the flaw is not in a misunderstanding of actions or intent, but a failure to reach the right conclusion from the premises you assume, the maths lunatic in me feels obliged to point it out.

My attempts at explaining why it's incorrect are in hopes that you'll either provide a valid reason for your current vote, or change who you're voting for.
Letting bad reasons for voting go unchallenged might end up with people being misled into making

more

incorrect conclusions, which scum could ride all the way to a possible mislynch.

As for Llama vs Tripod, I currently have llama as the towniest of the two.
Not quite a solid read, but more than enough to prioritise.

[Derangement]

@onion: Make no mistake, I'd have asked for a proper reason even if I agreed with the vote itself.

I'll try to stick to an argument specific for our game, since the generic case seems to be difficult to understand for those who haven't dealt with abstract logic before.

I agree with points 1 and 3 (scum is unlikely to L-1 other scum like that), so I'll focus only on the remaining two.

4 If Tripod flips town, it means that a townie L-1'd somellama, which doesn't say much about Llama's alignment.

This acknowledges the belief that town!Tripod doesn't know Llama's alignment, and would L-1 him either way.

2 if Llama flips town, it means that Tripod L-1'd a townie, meaning that Tripod is even more scummy than we currently thought.

This assumes that, if llama is town, scum!Tripod is more likely to L-1 him that town!Tripod.

Why

do you assume this, given the assumption you make in (4)?

Because if you

do

believe that
(2):

scum!Tripod

is much more likely to L-1

town

than town!Tripod,
then the flipside of that coin is that
(2a):

town!Tripod

is much

less likely to L-1

town

than scum!Tripod.

[Derangement]

If you disagree with why (2) is the same as (2a), let me know.
If you disagree with why (2a) is NOT compatible with (4), please explain why.

Barring any objections to the previous two lines, I expect you to abandon your belief of either (2) or (4), and continue your scum hunting using only the one premise you kept.
Please let us know which one it was, and what conclusions you reach.

[Derangement]

On a completely unrelated note.

Because L-3 is pretty far away from lynch. L-2 is much better.

Would you also have voted if he'd been at L-2, before your post?

Maybe.

I think I'd like to know more about this, after all.
Could you please elaborate, Prawn? :3

[Derangement]

Let me see if I can bring myself back to this game some time today or I'll replace out and save some angers.

Thank you for the consideration.
Hope everything's okay.

[Derangement]

wait ya know what? if both Llama and Tripod are extra-info lynches, why am i voting for the one that isn't insanely anti-town?!

I had assumed it was because of this:

I believe that both tripod and llama are about equally scummy. Tripod is anti-town and dangerous and crazy, while Llama blends into the background, chooses to disregard questions asked of him, and places only votes that are popular.

While I may not have agreed with that particular evaluation, I can understand where it might have been coming from.

Does your change of vote mean you have re-thought how likely one of them is to be scum, or is it merely a preference for lynching active anti-town behaviour over lynching what you see as background blending?

[Derangement]

So I reread Marquis' Post 347, where he explains that he lied due to fear of being quickhammered, then claims VT, and now I feel the need to ask:

Do quickhammers without declaration of intent, this far from the deadline, really happen outside of newbie games with any frequency?
If any of you feels they might do such a thing, what is your reasoning for not declaring intent first?

[Derangement]

Thankies.
The discussion prompted by the early L-1 made me think that quickhammers only really happen by accident (or by "

accident

"), and not because anyone actually thinks lynching without declaring intent first might be a good idea.

Which is why I'm finding Marquis' reaction to his own L-1 a bit

too

panicky.

---

As an aside: Yay! Another person with a kitty avatar now! :3

[Derangement]

As a quick reminder, these questions for Bubs haven't been answered yet:

What did you hope to accomplish, by voting Prawn?
What do you hope to accomplish, by voting Marquis?

Stalker report:
Bubs last post was on

Tue, 24/Feb/2015 01:12:37

Post #333 was made on

Tue, 24/Feb/2015 08:21:44

Onion Bubs last logged in on

Thu, 26/Feb/2015 00:26:38

Approximate current time:

Fri, 27/Feb/2015 08:20:00

@mod: Could we please prod Bubs?

[Derangement]

@prawn:

Because L-3 is pretty far away from lynch. L-2 is much better.

Would you also have voted if he'd been at L-2, before your post?

Maybe.

I think I'd like to know more about this, after all.
Could you please elaborate, Prawn? :3

Did you miss the question, or are you choosing to not answer?

[Derangement]

in over my head here. need to learn from my mistakes.

replace me out, please.

*hugs the Marquis*

Sorry to see you go.
Hopefully things will look better for you soon. :3

UNVOTE: Marquis

[Derangement]

I liked your drunken rooster better, UT.

You had your birdy-time.
Us kitties need love too!

[Derangement]

I was originally planning to wait for our replacement and prodded people, but maybe this will encourage Prawn to actually do something about Post 411, instead of focusing on Llama like his life depends on it.

VOTE: Prawneater

[Derangement]

Why are you voting prawn, UT?

This can now be an open question, by the way.

I'm having a hard enough time reading some of the less active people in this game.
Seeing prawn simply fail to acknowledge a question that'd help me get a better idea of where he's coming from makes me a little upset, so I did the one thing I

know

would get his attention.

Speaking of less active people, ChannelDelibird hasn't posted anything here in the last three days, while still being active elsewhere on-site.
I hate to always be that person, but...

@mod: Can we ask for a prod, pretty please?

[Derangement]

Greetings everyone!

According to the votecount I assume my slot is not exactly in the best position. Please let me know if you think I should focus onto something specific while I read. Thanks in advance.

Welcome aboard, NJAC!

Your predecessor did a pretty

atrocious

job at keeping his promise to catch up before asking for a replacement, so I'll be glad if you can do better.

[Derangement]

hi NJAC, we recieved a roleclaim from your former slot owner already, so it would be a good idea to get one from you as well. his roleclaim can be found in post 347. will you roleclaim?

...what the hell?

UNVOTE: Prawneater
VOTE: Onion

[Derangement]

@derangement what the hell what? he already claimed once! is this some obscure scum-tell i've invoked?

I don't know. Is it?

What did you expect your question to accomplish...

1. if he claimed the same thing?
   
2. if he claimed something else?

[Derangement]

so either he says 'no i won't claim again' which might totally mean something, it might mean that the claim was wrong and marquis was a ridiculous idiot, which is what i suspect. or he might claim VT, which won't do anything, which is what i'm expecting. or he might claim something else entirely, which would be a giant huge scumtell, which is what i hope. but me talking about it has ruined the whole thing probably.

If you were trying to fish for NJAC's reaction, why did you include Marquis's original reaction? Or, hell, since we're all about people being anti-town here, what made this course of action seem pro-town to you?

Pretty much this.

If your intent were to try and catch scum in a lie, you wouldn't have helpfully linked to the post where Marquis claimed.
Any scum player worth their salt will now certainly have read what's behind the link, and will play the rest of the game accordingly.
They might have missed it before.

So, this reads to me as one of two things:
Either you don't fully believe Marquis' claim, and are trying to figure out town!NJAC's role, or you're warning scum!NJAC that his slot already claimed, so he won't give himself away.

Which faction onion would do either of these things?

[Derangement]

@Derangement
no i don't trust marquis' claim. he lied to us about catching up, so now i don't trust a word he said.

If this is true, then you're saying you don't know NJAC's role.
And you're actually suggesting for him to claim, at L-3, using the fact Marquis already claimed as the reason why it's OK?

You cant have your

cake

claim and eat it too.

[Derangement]

@tripod
i was hoping for a read on his inactive shitty slot. the 'good' answers were 'yes i'm VT' which i would have read as 'yes, the situation that marquis was in warrented a vt claim and i might be scum because of it.' or 'no i'm not going to claim' which i'd read as 'i disagree with what marquis did in that situation' which would give me a reason to not try to policy lynch him because the policy lynch is good.

Why didn't you just ask if he agreed with Marquis' decision to claim, then?

@you can't have your cake and eat it too
i'm more suggesting that he re-affirm or don't re-affirm his claim. Marquis was terrible and lied, and there's no reason to believe the roleclaim meant what we think it meant.

Why do you want to know what someone's role is?

When

do you want to know what someone's role is?

i think a policy lynch on the marquis slot would be ok. its kinda shitty to have NJAC read 20 pages only to die, but a real lurker like this is really really not good for us. there's a reason the policy lynch exists, and the policy lynch is pro-town.

I'm getting mixed signals here.

Do you think a policy lurker-lynch is

better

than lynching one of your scum-reads?
If you can, please explain exactly what you'd hope to accomplish with a NJAC policy lynch.

[Derangement]

i'd be most happy with a tripod lynch because he's my biggest scum-read right now. however, seeing how i'm the only vote on him, with a deadline looming, i'd be willing to settle for second best, being the policy lynch. (subject to change a la big thinks).

This makes sense.
I'm curious what you consider a big change, though.

but maybe i'm just mad at the slot because Marquis lied. I'd REALLY like to lynch marquis for lying, but we can't do that. i dunno. i'll add it to the big think list.

Yeah, I'm not a fan either.
Doesn't mean I'm not going to push my scum reads first, though.

Especially when it only takes four votes to lynch at deadline, so no-lynching is unlikely to happen.

@you can't have your cake and eat it too
i'm more suggesting that he re-affirm or don't re-affirm his claim. Marquis was terrible and lied, and there's no reason to believe the roleclaim meant what we think it meant.

Why do you want to know what someone's role is?

When

do you want to know what someone's role is?

If you can, please either acknowledge you understand why I'm asking these questions, or answer them.

[Derangement]

Rawr. Checking in and will catch up in a bit.

Hiya!
Welcome to the nuthouse!

All done.

Holy poop, that was fast!

Onion-My evil twin. As scum I typically try to write out all of the facts to help keep my story straight and prove to others how "we" can win by logic. I barely read half his posts though. I couldn't handle it.

VOTE: Onion

This is just bad.

If you wanted to catch scum, you would

not

skim someone's posts because what you see so far looks iffy.
You'd happily gobble them all up, then bury the player under a massive pile of evidence.

@snscompt1

I think your list is fake.

I call B.S. on you reading Llama as town. Which Llama posts do you like? Do you like any of his cases?

UNVOTE
VOTE Prawn

Quite asking stupid questions.

There's no way you'd think those questions are stupid, unless they hit too close to home.

UNVOTE: Onion
VOTE: snscompt1

lol

Hey everyone! I found a scum!

*High five!*

[Derangement]

you really need to get over yourself and realize there's more ways to play this game than just your narrow interpretation of what is "pro town"

I understand this.

I'm willing to let people convince me of their alignment, even when I disagree with their methods.
Your reaction test is a perfect example.

Doesn't mean that I won't suspect those that look fishy while they're at it.

[Derangement]

...that was aimed at onion, not you...

Thought you were posting that in srs' defense.
Carry on, then!

[Derangement]

*

There's no reason for an onion wagon. The reasons for his read on LlamaFluff he gave after his initial wagon were very likely genuine.

You don't want to read onion's posts, UT? Don't! No one is making you.

Personally, I haven't read an onion post since page 7 and I'm getting along just fine!

Do you believe that Post 430 is a poor reason to suspect onion?

Derangement, could you be a dear and vote NJAC or Llama, please?

I don't like the lurkyness and/or tunneling of those slots either, but it is disheartening to see how little voting for them helped improve their activity in the past.

I'd prefer using my vote to try and weed out whether any of the active people is scum, and keep policy lynches as a last resort.

[Derangement]

Don't be a drama queen.

Do you think PR-hunting is

not

scummy?

[Derangement]

I think "PR-hunting" is overstating it and I think you're projecting something sinister onto it that's not really there.

I'm waiting for Onion's reply to convince me of this.

[Derangement]

Conclusion, Prawn's actions as of before sns are just a bit scummy. but just a bit. why the wagon on him? i trust derangement so

Derangement, you voted Prawn in 425 because of his place on the Llamawagon (as stated in 411). is that the case? why do you find his position suspicious? (i also find it suspicious, but why do you?)

If I recall correctly, at the time of Post 411, Prawn had been focussing on Llama too much for my tastes, with little recent hunting for other scum.
There was only the proposal to lynch one of the onions

(#296)

, which I didn't agree with. He claimed it was reaction-fishing.

Llama was over-tunneling Prawn in return, having

no

recent scum-hunting interactions with anyone else, with made it hard for me to figure out which of the two was most likely scum: The one doing nothing on the side, or the one doing maybe questionable things.

I didn't quite like the reaction test, so I thought I'd ask him about something else that came up when I was re-reading ISOs

(#411)

, in hopes of getting a better idea for Prawn's motivation.

Seeing him post some more

(#417)

, while skipping over my question frustrated me:
I was truly torn between him and Llama, and he was not helping me decide either way.
So I voted him to ensure I got an answer.

(#425)

To clarify:

I do

not

think it's suspicious to be the fourth person on that wagon, putting Llama at L-2.
I might have done the same thing myself, if I'd read Equinox's answer

(#24)

before the vote happened.

What I wanted to, was to have Prawn commit to a less vague answer about putting Llama at

L-1

, and hopefully get an explanation why.
He did not disappoint.

(#434)

[Derangement]

So i acknowledge your questions derangement. I'd hope NJAC would make up for Marquis but he isn't, and the only situation where NJAC re-claiming would be harmful to us is if he really had a power role and really claimed it, which is both unlikely, and i'd very probably not believe him unless he had some evidence. in every other situation, NJAC re-claiming would provide us with a tiny little bit of information, which would be good because right now i have exactly zero information on him.

Thanks for answering.

I think I get where you're coming from, so let me point out why I disapprove of you asking for a claim if you reject Llama's, and therefore don't know NJAC's role.

If he has a PR and claims PR, scum now knows who to shoot.
If he is a VT and claims VT, scum now knows who

not

to shoot, making it more likely a PR will die.
Yes, there is information to be gained for both factions, but scum gains a

lot

more, since NJAC is not being threatened with a hammer at the moment.

The whole reason intent-to-hammer (and requesting a claim) exists is to avoid mislynching PRs, letting them be confirmed or refuted by their night actions, and possibly coercing scum to spend their NK on them, instead of someone else.

Requesting a claim at most other times does more harm than good.

[Derangement]

Seriously we need to just lynch Prawn.

We are not lynching NJAC because of the VT claim. That one is easy to sort out.
We are not lynching onion because of the whole three scum + what their friend apparently told him. Even if he was scum I really doubt he had the idea to post that in thread to apparently fake town slip or something

We are not lynching me for the same reason we are keeping NJAC alive

We are not lynching anyone else (particularly GIF) because I don't think a wagon can form fast enough

If you VT-claimed, I missed it. (and why would you

do

that, when no one expressed intent to hammer?)
If you didn't... then what reason

are

you giving to promote your own survival?

Its going to be a prawn lynch or no lynch here, basically guaranteed. Check out how he is trying to justify a lynch of another null read now too:

Also, his gifs kinda annoyed me. That said, I never found bubs particularly scummy, which is why there's no case.

Then he basically just tacks on "OMGUS on sns". I seriously think every scum read of his is someone who called him scum first or was lurking (Marquis). Literally the entire case on sns from Prawn is "I don't like his read and he called me scum and I don't agree with that"

I'm guilty of jumping at the OMGUS, myself.

I can understand an emotional response and refusal to answer, but his Prawn vote

(#480)

felt

wrong

, given how he admitted he didn't have a good enough read, and needed to ISO him first.

Waiting on sns' promised next post, since he should be past the emotional reaction now.

[Derangement]

Also, I'd really really like to hear

some

kind of input from NJAC, before time runs out.

Day One Deadline

: March 5, 2015, at 6:45 AM PST.

Countdown

: (expired on 2015-03-06 06:45:00)

[Derangement]

Because the deadline clock was apparently to set to March 6, the deadline will be shifted to March 6, 2015, at 6:45 AM PST. My apologies.

Ours is a kind and benevolent Mod. <3

With luck, we might get GIF to chime in on time now, too.

[Derangement]

@Derangement 562
"I think I get where you're coming from, so let me point out why I disapprove of you asking for a claim if you reject Llama's, and therefore don't know NJAC's role."

by which you mean reject Marquis' and therefore don't know NJAC's role, right?

Eep! Yes, I meant Marquis, not Llama.
That's what I get for morning-posting.

its a quasi-confirmed townie, and those always get NK'd. forcing the NK is always good, and forcing it onto a VT is even better. i don't think the scum want a confirmed townie running around.

but is it not true? in your experience do the scum just leave believed VT claims alone because they are less likely to be a power role than a random other target?

Spoiler: My opinion on theory.

I only have two games under my belt, so not that much personal experience to speak of.

In my second newbie game, the town cop was lynched day one.
Another (very scummy-looking) player later claimed doctor (effectively VT because that meant scum would have a roleblocker).
They weren't NK'd, leaving town to guess whether the claim was a lie, or if scum was WIFOMing everyone with the night kill.

The crux here, is the

quasi

, in quasi-confirmed townie.
Scum can claim VT too, and unless someone investigates the player and comes up with a contradictory result, you have no way of telling whether the claim is true or not.

In this sense, claiming VT says no more about someone's alignment than just saying "I am town", and we both know how that goes.
So, yes, I can

definitely

see scum NKing someone else if they feel like taking a better shot at a PR, and leave the claimed VT's continued credibility to WIFOM.

To play devil's advocate, if claiming VT were a good means of generating quasi-confirmed town, it'd be common practice for one or two players to do so immediately at the start of day one, every game.
The fact that this doesn't happen is probably due to the wisdom of those that have been playing Mafia for longer than we have.

P.S.: The claimed doc was actually scum, but it could definitely have been otherwise.

protip: derangement is always right about everything.

Gosh, no!
I make mistakes like everyone else, and am still getting used to playing the game on forums, to boot.

I encourage everyone to challenge my ideas, whenever they disagree with them.
Two heads think better than one, and it

really

helps to get feedback from someone who approaches things from a different angle than me.

Case in point:

onion is also town for 181 unless something major changes in what I think is going on.

If it weren't for this, I'd likely have a

very

different opinion of Onion prior to his happyfun wall time.

I'd

really

like it if we did not lynch Llama today.
Still waiting on SNS' "next" post.

[Derangement]

Will just claim then. I am a one shot tracker. That is why I have been trying to keep Marquis slot alive so much.

I had assumed you were softclaiming a Cop/Hider/Weak something.
That would have meant that not lynching you today would either force scum to NK you/Marquis, or give town definite information on Marquis' alignment if we later got mod confirmation of your role.

As a claimed tracker, you'd need to either:

1. successfully guess who is scum
   and
   win at the WIFOM game of who sends in the night kill, to get a guilty by seeing they visited the person who got killed;
   
2. successfully guess who has a town PR, getting an innocent by seeing they visited someone who's still alive. This only works if scum has no PRs of their own.

Seeing someone go nowhere does

not

confirm that person as town, as long as there's more than one scum, and I think it's weird that you suggest it does, especially after strongly hinting who your tracked target might be.

With that said, I'm

not

okay with a Prawn lynch, and would

still

prefer avoiding Llama's.
I'll support lynching either:

• SNS:
  
  Didn't like his OMGUS;
  Still waiting on why he's voting Prawn.
  
• NJAC:
  
  still not contributing;
  VT claim is hard to prove/disprove;
  If he flips scum and Llama's town, that
  greatly
  improves the tracker's usefulness.

[Derangement]

Thank you!

UNVOTE: snscompt1
VOTE: NJAC

[Derangement]

I can see enough of a pattern to Llama's posts that he's at least had this in mind for a little while, regardless of the strength of the heat on him, it's such a godawful plan that I have to give him enough credit to say that he surely wouldn't be banking on it like this as town. It just doesn't sit right with me, like too many things about Llama in this game. He remains my preferred lynch.

I dunno man

I've seen some people have *really* wonky theories about what information results are valuable

he might genuinely think that's a town mindset

Will you consider lynching someone else today, then?

[Derangement]

it should be pretty clear from that post that I think he's scum?

Gotcha.
Thought you were saying he was pulling an Onion, with the "he might genuinely think that's a town mindset" thing.

[Derangement]

the only way I can interpret it that makes sense is "I have a cop guilty on prawn"

He claimed one-shot, and is proposing we use his ability tonight, so that can't be the case.

[Derangement]

Ooh, thanks for the theory thread link, Equinox!
That reminds me of something important that can influence how much tracking someone who went nowhere is worth.

@mod: If scum have a power role with a night action, is that player allowed to personally do the night action

and

the factional kill in the same night?

[Derangement]

@derangement, were you prefering a not-llama lynch because you were sensing his claims? or for some other reason?

My initially strong recommendation to not lynch llama, despite his play day one, was because I was seeing what I thought was a Cop (or weak-role equivalent) softclaim.
That would have made it so Llama would either be NK'd, saving us a mislynch, or we could get confirmation of Marquis' alignment later, should llama ever flip town.

Once he explicitly claimed tracker, my recommendation lost some of its weight, but not all of it:

1. If llama says he tracked the scum that did the NK, then either llama or the tracked person is scum. That's fantastic!
   
2. If llama says he tracked a player who targeted someone that's
   not
   the NK, then the tracked person can confirm llama as a tracker, at the cost of confirming themself as a PR.
   If the trend of everyone being one-shot continues, then this is not an issue, since they'll have no shots left anyway.
   
3. If llama says his target went nowhere, we have no way of knowing if it's because they're a VT who took no night action, scum who took no night action, or if it's because llama is scum.
   This outcome is only helpful if it causes scum not use their PRs (if any exist, and their player can't NK on the same night) to try and achieve it, or if we lynch scum today, so it's best not to pre-announce who Llama plans to track.

My preference for not lynching Llama today is because if we lynch scum, option C now makes Llama almost as good as a cop, and even if we don't, there's still a chance Llama might be smart or lucky enough to to pull off an A or B for us.

[Derangement]

Also, to elaborate on the two people I'm currently okay with Lynching, SNS is my top pick (null/scumread), and NJAC is a backup one (lurker/liar policy lynch).

While some people say Bubs looked town, there's a few things of his that sounded off to me, later in the day.
Unfortunately, he replaced before he could answer my #410.
His replacement went and OMGUS-voted prawn, and is yet to return to this game after his initial blitz catch-up to explain why he did it, or follow through on his promised "next post".

With only (expired on 2015-03-06 06:45:00) to go, swapping votes away from NJAC risks a no-lynch, so unless three other players explicitly state their preference for an SNS wagon over NJAC's, and declare intent to vote him soon (I plan to be awake for another two and a half hours after this post, but probably not much longer), I'll settle for the policy lynch today.

[Derangement]

That was an unexpected NK.
Can't say I was town-reading GIF, even before his V/LA, so I'm thinking scum took him out because of either his stance on Llama probably not being scum, or due to his Post 632.

I can't know for sure what plan he had in mind, but I can take a guess, and suggest what I think is the ideal way to handle Llama's tracker result:

1. Llama reveals who he tracked tonight;
   
2. That player states whether or not they took any night action;
   
3. Llama confirms or denies this, revealing the full result of his tracking;
   
4. If that player took a night action, they confirm or deny Llama's tracker role, by revealing
   who
   they visited at night.

This way, if we're lucky, scum!Llama might accidentally out himself by claiming to have tracked a PR, but guessing their target wrong.
Similarly, town!Llama might confirm himself

and

his target by actually knowing who they targeted.
Thoughts?

Also:

SNS:
Didn't like his OMGUS;
Still waiting on why he's voting Prawn.

That's enough reason? I don't understand why keep picking at me.

When I see someone do something I don't like, I call them out on it.
I also prefer pushing for lynches on my scumreads over policy lynches, and I was not willing to lynch Llama yesterday.

The fact that you

still

avoided explaining why you voted Prawn, when asked about it, is one of those things I'd like to point out.

Could you please share your reasoning?

VOTE: snscompt1

[Derangement]

Oh...
Hadn't thought people actually voted due to being annoyed.

Thanks for clarifying, anyway.

[Derangement]

VOTE: snscompt1

Why are you scumreading me? Are you still scumreading onion?

Why are all your posts devoid of scumhunting?

Please tell me you're not serious.
You can't be this daft.

I'm not sure why your standard reply to questions directed at you is to dodge them, but it'd be immensely helpful if we didn't have to ask the same thing repeatedly to get a better read on you.

Please?

[Derangement]

Doing a bit of re-reading while the day's off to a slow start.

Before I forget, here's a quick summary of who voted for whom, during day 1, for future reference and ease of access.

Spoiler: Day 1 votes

[Derangement]

Your plan was to put it quite simply; bordering between dumb and pointless. The only way I would at all slow play my claim was if I actually got a result that had worth. Anything else would either risk giving away extra information if I actually was scum, which is all your plan did. Increased the chance of me actually being able to do damage if I was scum and didn't decide to give a fake guilty result. If your intent was to try and trap a fake tracker claim, you just have them claim the result and if its wrong then it gets countered.

My reasoning was that since the PRs we saw so far were all 1-shot, I was assuming others would be too.
This way, someone being outed as a PR after their action would be no different from an outed VT, with the upside of not telling scum

who

they night-actioned.

You're absolutely right in correcting my idea that a full tracker result could just as well be debunked without going into specifics.
I'll keep this in mind next time.

Tracked UT nowhere which confirms something I saw that basically should make UT unlynchable.

If that's all right, I'd like to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean with unlynchable.
Yesterday, you could

guarantee

a prawn lynch, and that did not happen.

you'll note I'm not confirming VT as my role

Sanity check: you

are

, however, confirming having taken no action tonight, right?

[Derangement]

Went nowhere + other tell I was talking about is why UT should be basically unlynchable in this game. Two fairly solid town tells from a single slot. Also figured the game would move to prawn instead of the likely town VT claim slot who was basically a lurker lynch, I still don't get that one.

Thanks for the prompt answer.
While I don't think the other thing is a VT tell, I might be able to get behind your "went nowhere" result as weighting on UT's townieness.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, do you still think that scum were most likely to send the scummiest-read of them to do the NK, because that's already the most likely one to get lynched?
How does that affect the (unlikely) scenario where UT is scum?


As for the not-prawn lynch, I'll be pretty straightforward:
I

really

don't like the day 1 duel between you and Prawn, but think that it's massively unlikely for you to be

both

scum.

Tracker claim means I'd rather keep you alive that day, in the off chance you

are

Town, and your result turns out to be helpful.
But that didn't change my scum read on you, so a Prawn lynch would have been a terribad idea.

[Derangement]

So, reading through day 1's Llama vs Prawn again

still

hasn't changed my mind on which of the two I think is scum.
Llama has a nasty habit of wording his interpretation of other people's statements in the way that'll make them look the scummiest, and I find myself often disagreeing with the kind of points he's trying to push.

@Llama: have you re-read the thing you wanted to re-read, and if so, would you like to share any insights you may or may not have gotten out of it?

[Derangement]

@Onion: I personally do not put too much stock into abstract vote statistics analysis, and prefer to focus on more concrete things, like who was voting for whom during the most decisive moments, who sheeps other players often,

why

people say they're voting, and if their actions match those reasons.

Nonetheless, if you think you can glean some insight from looking at the votes history, then at the very least I recommend you keep a few things in mind:

• Different players can be more or less active than the rest.
  Someone may have more votes you consider "scummy" or "town-looking" simply because they have more votes overall;
  Lurkers, on the other hand, might appear very null-ish under this kind of analysis, regardless of their alignment.
  
  
  
• How important each vote was, at the time it was made, and how long it stayed there.
  Early RVS votes, for example, are usually inconsequential, unless they stay there long after people started seriously piling serious votes on the same person (or on someone else!).
  Contrast with a vote for a small-ish wagon, which might have been the tipping point that made more people consider flocking to it.
  
  
  
• Most votes for someone are also unvotes away from someone else.
  Did someone flee from a town-lynch once it seemed inevitable?
  Once we catch one of the scum, did anyone's unvote ever prevent them from getting lynched, or dismantle a wagon?

Goes without saying that all of these things are extremely subjective, and should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis whenever possible, but I'm hoping that they might help you out.

[Derangement]

Carry on, then.

[Derangement]

Well, I'm not sure what, if anything, we can glean from (NJAC+GIF)/total votes, for the time being.

If you're working under the assumption scum will vote town more often than town will vote town (is this actually true?), then perhaps once we have more town flips, and/or a bigger sample, someone will stand out.
Right now, I wouldn't trust this statistic even if there were an outlying player: they might just have been unlucky to have vote-swapped between

these

two specific town.
Not knowing anyone else's alignment means we're only looking at a very narrow slice of the votes, when counting which of them are on town.

The second statistic

does

have Bubs/SNS standing out from the rest of us.
I can see it being due to their preference for big but infrequent wall-posts, but which doesn't deter them from voting as often as the more active players.
Of these eight votes, two of them drew my attention: Bubs' temporary 24h vote

(#269)

, and SNS' OMGUS

(#480)

.

I'd personally love to hear from

all

the less-active players more often, so here's hoping day 2 isn't as weird as the first one.

[Derangement]

To reiterate, in case Llama missed my questions for him the first time:

Just to make sure we're on the same page, do you still think that scum were most likely to send the scummiest-read of them to do the NK, because that's already the most likely one to get lynched?
How does that affect the (unlikely) scenario where UT is scum?

have you re-read the thing you wanted to re-read, and if so, would you like to share any insights you may or may not have gotten out of it?

[Derangement]

Just to make sure we're on the same page, do you still think that scum were most likely to send the scummiest-read of them to do the NK, because that's already the most likely one to get lynched?
How does that affect the (unlikely) scenario where UT is scum?

Scum can do a bunch of different things. The correctly play tends to be make what is most likely to be good, or what is least likely to create a poor result scenario. Basically UT is town. That one comment I pointed out regarding N0 stuff, the negative track, and you could easily argue that him hammering and ending up on a mislynch when we didn't need a majority are all reasons he is town.

I do think UT's probably town, but I

completely

disagree with most of the reasons Llama's presenting.

UT himself said his N0 comment was something he'd do as any alignment/role.
And about the negative track result, notice how Llama chooses not to commit to a yes or no answer on his #729, and sidesteps it with a vague "scum will do what's best for scum, and UT is town".

What I'm trying to get at, is that if Llama were still following this train of thought:

The argument for tracking VT that has claimed, especially if I am reading number of scum right,

is that if scum (before all this happened) they would be most likely to submit a kill as the player who is already claimed is usually the "expendable" one

, and just statistically in a two scum setup the chance of getting a "false positive" meaning hitting scum who didn't act is low enough to justify a significant town tell.

then he'd expect scum to issue the NK from the most suspected player.

And UT is someone we do

not

suspect right now. So why does him going nowhere prove he's not scum, if according to #599, scum!Llama is the perfect candidate to take no night action?

It bothers me that I don't agree with Llama's reasons for his scum-reads

and

his town-reads.
I get that scum would build bogus scum-cases on townies to force mislynches, but why would they build bogus town-cases?
I do

not

think Llama can be scum together with UT, so it can't be trying to shape the game for his buddy.

[Derangement]

Will try and catch up but I'm having trouble following what everyone is trying to say. The huge text blocks don't help.

If there's anything I said that you don't understand, feel free to ask for clarifications about it.

Or don't, if you don't want to figure the game out.

[Derangement]

I'm guessing most of you believe or are uncertain about LF's claim as you haven't piled votes on him. If everyone could TL;DR their feelings about LF and his claim, I think that'd help a lot.

My initial reaction to Llama claiming 1-shot tracker instead of 1-shot cop was that he'd done a mild towntell, since a cop fakeclaim would have been much more effective at convincing us not to lynch him.

His continued arguments toward the strength of a "went nowhere" track, coupled with his experience at playing Mafia and listmodding, have me thinking he picked tracker because it was a more

plausible

role, since a 1-shot cop would be strictly better than an already confirmed gunsmith, with no wiggle-room for unknown sanity, and a weak-something PR might not be normal enough to pass suspicion.

So, my thoughts on Llama? His game reads like scum who's more interested in making others look scummy than figuring the game out.
I asked people to not lynch him yesterday in the off chance that I was wrong, and he got us a solid result from his track.

Only reason why I'm not voting him right now is because I'm voting for lurking scum.

[Derangement]

So, my thoughts on Llama? His game reads like scum who's more interested in making others look scummy than figuring the game out.

Define "figuring the game out".

Asking people questions, and trying to generate as much information as you can, instead of limiting yourself to commenting on some posts, while power-focussing on Prawn like you did day 1.
Your day 2 is starting to look a

lot

better in this aspect, even if I still don't agree with most of the arguments you're using.

Do you think that prawn, regardless of alignment, actually hasn't been lying about certain things this game? Like how his reason for unvoting Marquis according to him happened a couple of pages AFTER he unvoted him? I will gladly subscribe to lynch all liars in those types of situations.

This is simply

wrong

.
As far as I am aware, prawn

never

voted Marquis, and your continued portrayal of him as having done so feels outright manipulative.
Please doublecheck your accusations.

If you're referring to this:

I don't have strong scumreads other than LF. Most folk are townreads so I'm willing to POE lynch Onion Bubs or Marquis.

I've played with Marquis recently.

His lack of play is not alignment indicative, but if he doesn't improve or replace out, he's a fine lynch.

Re: Marquis

- His early non-posts do not say anything of his alignment, but it's fine to lynch him as he is an anti-town player.

His recent buddying of me seems town though. I think I'm pretty unpopular at the moment and him putting his neck out supporting me doesn't seem to serve hypothetical scum-Marquis.

then my take on it is that prawn had a scum read on Llama, a null/scum read on Bubs, and an initially null read on Marquis, while townreading everyone else.

It looks like prawn was suggesting a

policy

lynch due to Marquis' lurking.
Once marquis started defending prawn, prawn's read on him changed from null to town.

I see no lie, no inconsistency, and definitely no after-the-unvote change of reasoning.
Please clarify

exactly

what you think Prawn lied about.

---

Do you think its at all suspicious that TTH backed off voting me to move to a mislynch that he never really justified a vote for beyond essentially "gut"?

Not really.

She shared her reasons in Post 459, and we knew she'd support an NJAC lynch as early as Post 496.
Once I expressed why I would prefer not to vote Llama, but would vote for SNS or NJAC

(#601)

, she moved her vote.
The timing makes sense if she did it because she agreed with my reasoning.

Side note on sns: Why do you think that scum votes NJAC there when NJAC not only had already enough votes for a mislynch (meaning he could easily avoid being on a mislynch be stalling) but also would put me as a PR closer to a lynch. It seems like a vote geared at keeping me alive, which is something that I don't really see scum trying to do in that situation when you could just stall and see what happens.

Its a big reason I like one of TTH/Derange as scum. I don't see that wagon as pure town, GIF flipped town, UT and onion are going to be town as well. As I keep going back on it I like sns a bit for town just because of the timing of the vote. All he has to do as scum there is nothing and chances of lynching a PR increases.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Scum wanted either:

1. a free mislynch of NJAC (like you've accused TTH of wanting), in which case, SNS contributed to that and should not be townread;
   or,
   
2. a PR mislynch on you, in which case, sure, SNS would be town for avoiding it, but
   so would TTH and I
   , for building the wagon that overshadowed yours.

You're giving people different reads for the same reasons.
Why is that?

[Derangement]

And I am saying that's a fundamentally flawed idea because it increases your chance of a really bad result (a went somewhere without that spot being NKed player). I play conservatively with roles. Make the plays that have the lowest chance of "very bad" as the result, which is exactly what I did.

Do you think all power roles in this game are one-shot?

[Derangement]

Welcome back, Tripod!

What's your take on SNS's prodge-lurking, and Llama's current oddness?

[Derangement]

Whoa. Why Onion?

[Derangement]

There'd be 2 paths to take here, the high risk and the low risk. low risk is fake-tracking someone others have a town-read on, and saying a negative result. this would make it very hard to disprove the role claim, and improve your longevity. the high risk route would involve picking someone you want to ace and saying a positive result on them, and trying to get them lynched, and then trying to fight off your own lynch the next day. which would be dumb but a lot more fun. people have said stuff about Llama being a conservative player.

There's also a mid-low risk variant of the first one: Scum!Llama could actually pick

anyone

, and say he got a "went nowhere" on them.
Final result's just as inconclusive, except if people didn't already have a town-read on the person, they might not accept going nowhere as a slight towntell.

I'll share more of my thoughts on the matter once Llama answers this:

Do you think all power roles in this game are one-shot?

[Derangement]

On a slightly different note, it's now been three days since both SNS

and

CDB posted.

@mod: Could we please request a prod?

[Derangement]

Do you think all power roles in this game are one-shot?

Yes. But to answer the question I can see coming from you the correct time to use each type of night action differs, and tracking a player who doesn't have any more actions while not as bad, still outs a PR

Glad you and I think alike there.

My question is, then,

why

would outing a spent PR be a bad thing?
Aren't they like a confirmed Vanilla?

[Derangement]

does the majority of a majority system grant us one more mislynch before Lynch or Lose? i'm still a bit hazy about how it works. would be cool if it did that though.

The majority of a majority system changes only what happens if time

runs out

.

If you're in LyLo, town voting town is still an instant loss if scum quickhammers.
If you're in LyLo, and a no-lynch happens, it's also still an instant loss (unless someone prevents the NK).

The end result then, is that in 3vs2, it'll take three to lynch, or two at deadline.
When the deadline hits, all players who aren't using their votes are pretty much agreeing to lynch any person with two votes already on them (or agreeing to no-lynch if no one has two votes!).

In 2vs1, this game is actually

exactly

the same as all the others: two to lynch, still two to lynch at deadline.

if we lynch Llama, we'll get less information out of it because we can't predict your method of interacting with him. A scumflip from Llama would go a long way to townifiying the average player in your situation, but your playstyle reduces the value of the information gained.

for you, it only slightly townifys you

.

I'm not sure I understand why.
Playstyle is only a

part

of the game.

Do you believe that scum!Tripod and scum!Llama might interact with each other in the way they did this whole time?

Your day 1 posting made me think you were assuming this:

didn't i say earliery on that tripod and llama ought not both be scum?

Did your opinion change in the meantime?

[Derangement]

so that's a no? we don't get 1 more lynch before LoL?

Normally, once scum have a majority of the votes, they control the lynch each day, and kill every night, effectively winning the endgame.

The one weird scenario where this might

technically

break is a 2vs2 or 1vs1, where, since this game seems to require a majority (instead of simply half the players) to no-lynch, the fastest wagon would go through when time was up.

@mod: Could you please clarify how many votes it takes to immediately end the day with a no-lynch, and what happens when town and scum have the same number of players?

[Derangement]

They were indeed. Im always online and always checking this thread. I just never had the motivation to sit down and actually work at it. If my slot does get lynched, Prawn, you better have other scum in mind because Im not scum. Which means you should be looking for at least two other people. Just a tip so you dont get stuck in the same rut.

Toodles and good luck guys. Sorry I lurked.

I don't like this post.

"When I flip" is still no more proof of alignment than a regular town claim, and feels odd at this point.

If

you flip town (which I find increasingly doubtful), then we'll worry about reviewing the PoE part of our reads.

[Derangement]

Greetings and salutations, Green Crayons!

Welcome to a thirty-two page thread with some

preeetty

confusing moments in it.
Your predecessor did some major lurking before he left, so I'm afraid you have only a few days before the deadline comes knocking.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on things so far.
Good luck!

[Derangement]

@Derangement:

Welcome to a thirty-two page thread with some preeetty confusing moments in it.

What did you find confusing?

The whole Prawn vs Llama back-and-forth definitely made me scratch my head, as was the way in which he chose to handle his claimed tracker shot.

1. Want to lynch onion the most.

lol @ folks saying "would onion-scum REALLY come up with the roommate scenario, that's just TOO MASTERFUL FOR SCUM" and then ignoring the onion wallposts of convoluted logic that supports exactly that type of mentality

I do get what you mean.
I sorta want to scum-read him for the repeated bad logic, but on the other hand, I'm having a hard time reconciling the thought of someone who posts repeated instances of what I see as rookie questions or mistakes, with master-scum who'd think of the roommate idea.

Is there any specific post or posts from Onion that you find so scummy that you'd prefer an Onion-lynch over Llama's?

[Derangement]

Oh wow.
I hadn't noticed how

much

stuff there is on Onion, if we assume his town-tell is faked.

There's still something I'd like you to clarify, though, please:

4. Appears to have knowledge about Llama's alignment.

Post 183 caught my eye during my read through, because I thought onion was saying that CDB being on Llama's wagon, pre-Llama flip, was suspicious. This looked like onion had tipped his hand about knowing Llama's (town) alignment. Rereading, though, I see that in Post 180, onion is saying that all slots on any bandwagon (except first and hammer) are suspicious.

Why it's alignment indicative:

I still think this points to a scum perspective, and knowledge about Llama's alignment. I'm not convinced this universal aspect of the theory in Post 180 really allays my suspicions about onion preemptively suspecting the folks on Llama's bandwagon. Assuming for the sake of argument that all slots on a town bandwagon are scummy, per onion's theory, that wouldn't hold true for slots on a scum bandwagon. That is, onion has taken a questionable principle that applies to reviewing

town bandwagons

, and has preemptively applied it to Llama's bandwagon while also still suspecting Llama.

What if Llama's actually

scum

?
How does this affect your reads on both of them?

[Derangement]

So I went through a couple of other games, to see if anything popped up, and now I have a question for onion that might seem like a bit of a non-sequitur.

You're back in school, and taking a masters in mathematics.
Is it okay if I ask what area of maths?

[Derangement]

Derangement

we can only lynch one person at a time

stop this foolishness

I know, hun.

I'm not pushing for a Llama vote at the moment.
What I am, is questioning the validity of Crayons' argument.

[Derangement]

Thanks for the prompt answer.

An ongoing masters in computational maths or logic would have earned an immediate vote from me, but I can see how someone into algebra might actually have little enough exposure to implication stuff that the misunderstandings from day 1 cropped up.

[Derangement]

help me understand this thing called rolefishing that people tell me i'm doing and that i'm scum for.

Without going into too much theory detail, to avoid cluttering the thread:

Knowledge of players' roles helps scum pick their NKs, so it's in town's best interest to keep that kind of thing unknown.
It's why you don't see every game start with a mass-claim.

In

certain

scenarios, the benefit to town overshadows this downside.
Lynching PRs hurts town

a lot

, for example, so it's important to share your role when someone declares intent to hammer you.

Asking for someone's role in a way that the benefit from it isn't evident (or worth the price) is dubious at best, scummy at worst.

[Derangement]

Out of curiosity does anyone actually know why TTH voted NJAC?

I might be wrong, but the impression I have is that she did not like the slot's brief reads, when Marquis posted them, nor the extended lurking from all involved.

[Derangement]

caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan we lynch onion now and stop pussyfooting around

I'd like to hear Crayon's case on Llama, before I decide whether my vote moves.

[Derangement]

Hmm... Crayons, who do you think is most likely to be the scum team?

[Derangement]

@UT:
Would you like to explain what the deciding factor in drastically changing your opinion regarding onion was?

I'm a big fan of your walls. remind me about them if I start voting for you again

I'm no longer certain he's town, but still...

[Derangement]

I think I might help with that, actually, if nothing changes with her next post.

[Derangement]

I'm willing to be surprised, if she can pull it off.
Not likely, but hey!

[Derangement]

Onion

Towntell notwithstanding, Onion has a few bad posts that I'm currently attributing to being a new player.
It's not so much what the bad stuff he posted is, but how he writes it, and how he then reacts to accusations afterwards.

Every instinct I have goes "why, onion, why?", whenever he gives us reason to suspect him, but when we bring our issues up, it sometimes even takes him a while to realise

what

the accusation is.
I believe scum!onion would have known what part of his post had scummy motivations, and would try to explain that asap, rather than drawing attention to himself by talking more about it, in a way that is effectively asking people to build a case around him by explaining why what he did is wrong.

I'm

not

willing to lynch Onion.

Green Crayons

Bubs did a few suspicious things, and replaced out before he could clarify why.
SNS was... oh my gosh, I didn't think it was possible to look so scummy in so few posts.

And then we have Crayons, who completely blew my mind in the opposite direction.
Great detailed cases, whose premises don't sound forced, including a case on Onion that went against what I think was popular opinion.
I personally disagree with some of his conclusions, for reasons expressed in this post, but his cases aren't

bad

.
I just don't think they're strong enough, given the whole picture.

Where I was thoroughly scumreading him before, now I'm no longer super-sure of my scumread on the slot.
I don't think he'll be able to perpetuate this kind of thorough posting, if his cases are on town.

Possible scum.

LlamaFluff

Llama's day 1 focus on prawn confuses me.
His way of trying to portray his scumreads in the worst possible way also strikes me as excessive.

And yet, he's responsible for repeatedly strengthening several of my townreads with his reminders, and little details that he points out.
His day 2 game has

significantly

improved in my view, and I actually like his defense of why he tracked who he did, now that I've asked all I wanted to ask.
After interacting with Llama some more, and having him clear a few of my issues up, I'm starting to see how his confusing play might simply be due to a major flaw in communication.

Once more, I find myself

not

wanting his lynch.

TellTaleHeart

TTH is someone I've been trying to keep an eye on, ever since day 1, and can't really read one way or the other.

She peeks in to drop the occasional comment or question, but doesn't share a lot of her thoughts with the rest of us.
And where I might have be able to imagine her as quiet town day 1, her day 2 is giving me pause, since there really

isn't

much to look at, aside from her continued exchange with Llama.

I was hoping for some show of scumhunting, or even a satisfactory answer to Llama's questions, and instead TTH chooses to do neither.
Why?

Possible Scum.

It's getting

really

close to the deadline, and I still don't see other people voting Crayons due to his predecessor's play, so I'm going to hope we can lynch TTH instead of Llama. Please?

UNVOTE: Green Crayons
VOTE: TellTaleHeart

[Derangement]

I did not see this one coming.

While I may have had a townread on Equinox in early day 1, it's definitely not something that stayed that way as day 2 progressed.
I'd have thought the obvious targets were Tripod or myself, and seeing us both alive is making me want to do some re-reading.

A quick check tells me that:

• Tripod and I scumread TTH, with Equinox being not against lynching her either.
  
  
  I don't think this particular read influenced the NK much, if at all.
  
  
  
• Tripod scumread Onion, I townread Onion, Equinox seemed to be actively looking into him.
  
  
  Killing me would have helped scum if Onion were town;
  Killing UT would have helped scum if Onion were scum.
  Killing equinox
  might
  have helped scum, depending on whether they thought his suspicions would lead him in the right direction, but I find this an odd way to go about it.
  
  If Onion is scum, it makes UT's survival less desirable to scum. Him being alive looks weird.
  If Onion is town, it makes my survival less desirable to scum. Me being alive looks weird.
  
  
  
• I scumread Crayons, Tripod agreed with Crayons (and was weirded out by it).
  
  
  If Crayons is scum, it makes my survival questionable.
  If Crayons is town, then UT's survival is questionable (but not as questionable?)

NK analysis based on people's reads at the time points to a possible UT/Onion scumteam, or a Derangement/Crayons one.
I personally find the former to be rather unlikely, and don't agree with the latter.

---

Looking at it from the other way:

@Crayons:
You say you had a townread on Equinox.
What made you think of him that way?
Did I miss something in his late game?

@Onion:
Could you please clarify what you had in mind, when you wrote:

try not to lynch equinox while i'm gone.

[Derangement]

VOTE: CDB

Consider yourself motivated.

Actually.

UNVOTE: CDB
VOTE: TTH

I've been trying to figure out why this feels

odd

for a while now, and kept drawing a blank.

I may not want to vote CDB right now, but I very much do want to hear from the slot as soon as possible, either in the form of CDB himself, or a replacement, so I can get where Crayons was coming from.

And I just realised that the CDB vote is a red herring:
What's pinging my weirdometer is his blank vote for TTH.

Crayons' entrance made me feel like Llama and Onion were his top two scumreads, with TTH somewhat less so.
He seemed to be pushing Onion with some conviction, and, without an explanation for today's vote, it feels like it could be motivated by how easy lynching her might be.

If it weren't for the super-weird NK making me paranoid, I'd have jumped on this wagon immediately.
As it stands, I'd like to ask Crayons' to elaborate on TTH, and how his read on her compared to onion changed since day 2, please.

Likewise, would it be okay if I asked for your opinion on Crayons, TTH?
Thanks!

[Derangement]

@Derangement:

I'm going to answer your questions about reads with quotes because the answers are already ITT.

1.

VOTE: CDB

Consider yourself motivated.

Actually.

UNVOTE: CDB
VOTE: TTH

I've been trying to figure out why this feels

odd

for a while now, and kept drawing a blank.

So you're searching for a reason to find me scummy, couldn't do it on your own, and are now opening it up to the thread to come up with a "good enough" justification for you to jump onto?

Quite the opposite, actually.

You'll notice I wrote that in the

past

.
Your votes were looking strange to me, and I didn't voice it aloud until I figured out why they were bothering me, because I didn't want to be influenced, and possibly misled, by others.

I find your choice of interpretation is interesting.

That said, thanks for answering
Even being entirely made of quotes, it still helps explain things, and tells us that there are no new reasons aside from those.

[Derangement]

Do you guys like GC's case on Onion? I find that I don't agree with many of the points. Last game I played with GC, he was scum and had to make cases out of necessity. And at least one of them was really contrived. I might have that same feeling again with the Onion case.

I don't think points 1 and 3 are scum-indicative.
2 is a maybe for me. The posts GC linked are some of Onion's classic logic walls, but I get town vibes when I read those.
4 might be a forced point on GC's part. I think I follow (but don't agree with) Onion's logic that any D1 wagon that forms quickly has scum on it and there are certain slots that are scummier than others. To call it a scum-slip is reaching maybe?
5 I don't like Onion's play either, but I wouldn't paint it as scum trying to role-fish. I think it's simply too dumb of a play for scum and I can picture town-Onion thinking "oh this play is clever and will help town".

I couldn't spot any outright falsehood or misrep.
What makes me not agree with the conclusion Crayons had about Onion's alignment is how a great many of those reasons are circumstancial, or open to different interpretations.

Sure, if you already think onion is scum, then those explanations work.
But I think a better label would have been

"why this might be alignment indicative"

, since I can also think of non-scum reasons for what Onion did.

The one point GC raised that I really can't agree with was 4, as I pointed out day 2.
It feels like reaching, and in hindsight can be turned around just as well, to say

GC

knew Llama was town, and was building a case on onion based on that, even while llama was one of his scumreads.
Does that sound more convincing when

I

say it?

[Derangement]

also also also i'm not liking Derangement posts lately. 905 contains a question for me about not lynching equinox, which he then dropped, and 915 contains questions for GC which are then dropped in 920. it kinda looks like showing off bait cases to see who bites. maybe its scumhunting though.

I was asking for clarification about where each of you stands, regarding some other player.
That kind of information is hardly sufficient to make a scum case on anyone, but I'm hoping it'll help me narrow down which

pairs

of people can or can't be the scum pair together, based on their interactions, and whether one of the two could have come up with the NKs.

Put simply, my reads differ enough from UK's that we can't both be right, and yet I've got a decent town read on him.
So I'm trying to find a different angle from which to look at our scum-reads, to see which ones don't make sense under that new light.
Still need TTH's and CDB's feedback, though.

[Derangement]

REALLY?

You want to fight over a grammatical syntax as a buffer to my accusation in all but name that you're scum posturing?

That'd be silly.
I'm trying to clear up any misconceptions that may have occurred.

To rephrase what I was trying to say:

I thought there was something odd about those posts, and couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Then I realised the reason wasn't the CDB vote/unvote, but rather the fact that my mental image of GC would have favoured a different vote.

So I made Post 915 to find out why

that

was.

[Derangement]

drunking posting is cool

Drunk/sleepy posting is pretty amazing.

People will often come up with completely different approaches, compared to their usual selves, with bonus points if those are also accompanied by scum slipping.

[Derangement]

Come back to us, CDB.
Pweeease?

[Derangement]

only scum would post pandas

I considered "happy cat has run out of happy", but sad panda is a better wording for my thoughts on CDB.

[Derangement]

Seriously, though.
While this game's special deadline rule helps prevent no-lynching, I still think it's in our best interests to avoid stalling the day to that point, since all that does is allow a

smaller

group of players to decide whom to lynch, meaning scum won't need to work as hard to ensure a mislynch goes through.

@mod: Could we please prod the players who haven't posted in 3+ days?

[Derangement]

I rather hoped that TTH and CDB would chime in, since their feedback would have been pretty useful

before

I fully voiced my thoughts in the thread.
So I waited.
Then prods and prodges happened and I waited some more.

I'm not willing to wait longer, so in the interest of moving things forward:
I'm scumreading Crayons and TTH, and have a disturbingly absent read on CDB.

The weird NK gave me pause, and made me want to doublecheck my reads, in case I could find something wrong about any of them.

And then Crayons voted TTH.
Because day 2 left TTH in a position where (even after Equinox was NK'd) she might very well still get lynched, I half-expected that if she is scum, her scum-buddy would try to push someone else, in hopes that maybe some non-TTH wagon would take the spotlight, and she could be saved.

While my initial gut feeling told me that this vote meant I was wrong about either GC or TTH, and this was a case of scum voting town, or town voting scum, now that I had some time to think about it, I

can

see this as bussing:

Scum!GC first voted town!CDB, hoping to ease scum!TTH's life, just like I expected.
He then had some time to think, and found an even better alternative.
Bussing TTH by

starting

the wagon capitalizes on post-NK paranoia by being just the kind of move that distances the two of them, while also putting Crayons in the unique position of having plenty of time to later be persuaded to vote elsewhere without looking like he's vote-hopping.

With this possibility in mind, and provided things stay as they are, I'm willing to lynch:

• Green Crayons - scumread;
  
• TellTaleHeart - scumread, lurking (while active in other threads);
  
• ChannelDelibird - lurking (while active in other threads, even
  after
  his prod was issued).

VOTE: TellTaleHeart
Please contribute.

[Derangement]

I'll also accept a scumclaim or a self-vote as acceptable low-effort alternatives.

[Derangement]

not gonna vote yet just in case, but consider my vote on TTH in spirit!

Is it okay if I ask what the "just in case" is, or would you prefer to explain later?

[Derangement]

I mean

there's a small but nonzero chance that there's two scum left

it wouldn't be a super balanced setup, but....

I don't want to lose right now

Not having played a closed game before, I'm not sure whether unbalanced games are frequent enough for this kind of caution to be warranted, but I can see where you're coming from, and will follow suit.
UNVOTE: TellTaleHeart

Since the only downside to playing it safe is ghost-votes being absent from the vote-counter, I'll try to keep some sort of unofficial accuse-o-meter going every so often.

[Derangement]

Bussing

I don't bus.

There's a problem with this kind of statement.

If you're scum, even if you had not bussed before, you show awareness of it, which means you're also aware enough of your own meta that you can easily go against it when it becomes convenient.

As it stands, I'd like to take it one step further, and point out Mini 692: Boost Mafia as an instance where you

did

bus one of your buddies (TDC).

Ergo

Your theory is wrong.

Ergo

Setting up my mislynch after TTH's flip based on your wrong theory is bad.

I'm not trying to set up any lynches based on associative tells.
I'm merely explaining why I no longer have a problem with thinking you can be scum at the same time as TTH.

I like to think the cases on both of you are good enough to stand on their own.

While my lynch pool remains unchanged, I think I'd prefer to lynch GC first now, if we can.

FOS: Green Crayons

---

Unofficial Day Three Accuse-o-meter #3.1

Green Crayons – 1

+1

– prawneater

, Derangement

TellTaleHeart – 1

+1

– Green Crayons

, Untrod Tripod

With

7

alive it takes

4

lynch, and

3

to lynch at deadline. Deadline is

April 8, 2015 at 6:35 AM PST

.

Not Voting - 6 - ChannelDelibird, onion, TellTaleHeart

, Derangement, Untrod Tripod

Countdown

: (expired on 2015-04-08 06:35:00)

[Derangement]

Stop looking for permission from the thread to vote me.

The only thing I'm looking for in the thread right now, regarding you, is two more "ayes", followed by your flip.

[Derangement]

RL is absolutely kicking my ass right now. I may do a catchup over the weekend and I may not.

Sorry to hear about that.

Hope things look better for you soon.

[Derangement]

derangement, i see you vote hopping and i don't like it. what's this noise with FOSing GC? didn't i see one of your reasons for suspecting him is because you suspect TTH?

Not in the slightest.
Bubs left before he could answer one of my suspicions, and SNS nearly broke my scumdar.
I suspect this slot, and I have for a while now.

Now, Crayons' entrance

was

quite impressive, and the way in which he pushed TTH today (my other scumread) made me pause to re-evaluate my position on the two of them.
I expected scum!Crayons would have avoided putting more heat on scum!TTH, and his vote went against that.

So I thought I might have been wrong on Crayons being scum, or on TTH being scum.

The bussing theory is not a reason for my scumread on either of them.
It's the reason why I can be at peace with still having scumreads on

both

at the same time.

---

As for why I've changed my preference from a TTH lynch to a GC one, I'm seeing a lot less awesome from the player on day three.
His use of self-meta (not bussing in the last five years) as a defence for why he's not scum is

exactly

the kind of argument scum will make, even as they merrily go against said meta.

I may not be very experienced, but I'd say there's an important distinction between behavioural self-meta, where a person knows how they usually react to things as some alignment, or what general impression their play gives the other players, and then there's action-based self-meta, where a person takes or doesn't take a certain kind of action, depending on alignment.

The former is a subtle thing, open to interpretation, and since a lot of it stems from the player's personality, it can be hard to avoid.
A person can be self-aware enough to know they're shy/talkative/sassy as

insert-alignment-here

, but even if they try to avoid that, it can take effort, and they might not be as successful as they hoped.

The latter, on the other hand, comes from an easily changed conscious decision.
If a person's aware they always/never do something as scum, then why

wouldn't

they go against their usual choice of action at times, if they stand to gain from it?

Put simply, if the player

always

respects their own self-imposed meta, then it's a trust-tell, which is an actionable offence on this site.
Otherwise, it's a worthless argument, since that player can and will eventually go against it.

but i do have a problem with a GC lynch. that guy's awesome. Bubs was awesome and pro-town, sns was... not town pandering at least, and then GC comes in with amazing cases, data, things that make sense, really pro-town stuff that he really didn't need to do as scum. Sure, the i don't bus thing is irksome, but it ain't all that.

Then our opinions differ on what GC's alignment is.
Hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other, if GC fails to do it himself.

i'm hesitant to go into day 4 with lurkers still present. i really want to fix that. TTH is scummier than CBD only because we have more data on her than the bird. so even though it seems like a better lynch, it isn't really. we should replace one and lynch the other. i won't vote for GC or tripod at this moment.

I don't want lurkers around either.
I can understand TTH's meatworld issues, and hope she makes a swift and fruitful return to us later, but am frankly surprised that CDB has not replaced yet.

But I want scum around even less than lurkers, and what I see of GC isn't helping his case.
Is Prawn the only other person who's not smitten by his entrance?

[Derangement]

I've been expressing enough doubts about you that scum!GC could have mustered a reason to vote for you instead of bus his buddy. there would be no reason for scum!GC to vote for scum!TTH at that point in the game.

I thought so too, at first.

If they were both scum, him voting TTH seems to draw unwanted heat on her, at a time where people were

already

suspecting her, after llama's flip.

But the thing is that there aren't really any new accusations to go with that attention. It's just a vote, at a time when no other votes were on her yet, and I doubt people are hammer-happy enough to lynch TTH while she's not posting, if the deadline is far away.

So the end result is that the vote makes GC seem like he's a different alignment from TTH, without adding any

real

danger.
He'll try to find a reason to suspect someone else, use the time he has to see what accusations stick, or who can't explain themselves clearly enough, and

then

he'll unvote her, in favour of his new target.

End result: TTH is still as safe as she'd be if he hadn't voted for her in the first place, but now people might believe he can't be scum together with her.

---

If they're

not

both scum, then I find it a lot more difficult to explain why town would post like sns's everything, and GC's #931, #967, #975, which feel like purposeful misinterpretation or nitpicking at best, than it is to explain TTH's lurking, and am prioritising accordingly.

Can you see what GC intended when he made those posts?
Do you agree with the points he's trying to raise in them?
I know that since I'm one of the people he's trying to find an angle on, I'm not in a position to be 100% objective about it, but it feels reach-y.

[Derangement]

I'd like to start the day by reminding everyone that there's only five players left and we haven't lynched scum yet.
That makes me pretty certain that...

We are now in LyLo

That means that if even

a single townie

votes for another town player, we immediately lose the game if scum quickhammers.
With this in mind, I strongly recommend that no one cast any real votes until we have three people expressing their desire to lynch the same player.

I need to do so some rereading with TTH and UT's flips in mind, but I'll be

reeeeeally

surprised if GC isn't scum.

FOS: Green Crayons

@onion: do you still think he's awesome?

[Derangement]

My apologies, prod received!

Had a project deadline looming that stole way too much of my time.
It's now 7am, so I'll be going to sleep, but I'll be sure to

properly

post once I'm awake again.

[Derangement]

No plan survives contact with the enemy.
I said I'd post as soon as I'd wake up, and ended up not being able to.

I'm really,

really

sorry about that.
Prawn or no prawn, nothing kills interest in a game like inactivity, and I'm ashamed to admit I ended up contributing to that, big time.

So, without further ado, postings!

All I recall from the Derangement and prawn "vote GC" mantra is that sns was suspicious.

I'd be happy to try to explain my slot's prior occupant's play if you give me something more specific to respond to.

This is one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios for you, I'm afraid.

Despite sharing the slot with Bubs and SNS, you're not

actually

them, so at best you'd be speculating on why either of them did what they did.
Since you don't actually know their reason, you'd need to try and come up with a plausible answer, and you'd do said figuring out with the assumption that they are town, regardless of your actual alignment.

Unless there's something blatantly evident that everyone else missed, or a tidbit of information that not everyone knows yet, I think it's unlikely that you'll come up with an explanation that Prawn or I haven't thought of ourselves, and decided that your slot being scum is more plausible as a reason.

So what's the case against me?

As a recap, my reasons to scumread your slot are:

1. Bubs' warning that he'd move votes in 24h unless Marquis contributed.
   It's a minor thing, where the kind of answer Bubs gave would be much more significant than the action itself.
   Sadly, his replacement left my #410 unanswered.
   
   
   
2. SNS' OMGUS felt really off to me. He justified it as an emotional response.
   
   
   
3. SNS's continued evasion, where instead of answering our questions, he reacts to the act of being asked.
   
   
   
4. SNS's prodge lurking. I'm well aware of the irony of this point.
   
   
   
5. SNS's departure post.
   The "when I'm lynched" logic seemed forced, like it's being used as a last ditch attempt to confuse u and/or get prawn to change his read on SNS.
   This is a glorified townclaim (an utterly null action), obfuscated with hypothetical post-flip logic, worded in a way that suggests taking action before the flip even occurs.
   To make matters worse, his claimed reason for leaving is lack of motivation, which strikes me as the complete opposite of his enthusiastic catch-up, and the emotional OMGUS pointed out in (2), above.
   
   
   
6. Crayons' fourth reason for why he thinks Onion is scum, was possible knowledge of Llama's town alignment.
   At the time, Llama was one of Crayons' scumreads.
   Either this is a bogus reason, in which case Crayons is suspect for padding his Onion case with purposefully bad points, or it's a valid reason, in which case I'd argue it makes him look worse than Onion in hindsight, because
   Crayons
   might have had knowledge of Llama's actual alignment: he chose to push the Llama lynch, without even being bothered by the dissonance that is having one of his cases be based on the innocence of one of his other scumreads.
   
   
   
7. Crayons' steep decline in the quality of his posts, compared to his mega-tidy, way-more-convincing-than-it-should-be entrance.
   I expected he would not be able to keep up appearances like that, once he started to interact with us, and so far, I do not think I was wrong.
   
   His recent tone reminds me of SNS' belligerence pre-lurkage, and some of his posts directed at me and UT feel more like nitpicking, than purposeful scumhunting.
   
   
   
8. Crayons' "I don't bus" argument.
   Posted at a time when I was more interested in getting TTH back from lurksville than on GC, it feels more like saving
   his
   bacon for the day, than constructively contributing to the rest of us narrowing down who the second scum was.

CDB's catchup looks and feels town, even if it's substantively incorrect.

If you can, please elaborate on why his catchup is incorrect, and why you can be certain it's not you who is mistaken.

prawn and Derangement have been beating the Bub/sns/GC drum for so long, and so consistently, without actually following through that it feels forced and static.

Bubs gave me mild suspicion.
SNS broke the scale on my scumdar.
You continue to give me reason to suspect your slot.

I have been asking you for clarification when you do something I don't like, trying to convince people of my reads for a while, and I

have

been following through with my vote, attempting to get you lynched.
Short of doublevoting or vigilanteism, which sadly are not in my repertoire, I cannot follow through any further than that.

We need other people to vote along with us for that. I'm

really

hoping I was wrong in my town read of Onion, because I do not think I can get him to see past your first town-seeming neat cases, and actually see everything else your slot did, both before and after them.

[Derangement]

We need to start proposing scumteams when we talk about scummy people. Only so many combinations available

Agreed, and it bothers me quite a lot that, with TTH being town, I can't narrow down who GC's buddy is as well as I'd like.

I am inclined to think it's not Onion (which makes me fear we'll lose the game soon), both because of my belief that he wouldn't produce his early towntell on purpose, if he were scum, and because his current support of GC matches how I expect him to react to things that

look

towny or informative, regardless of whether they're actually helpful.

Unfortunately, Prawn's been fairly tight-lipped about about everything and anything regarding Onion or myself, and CDB's extended absence throughout the game makes things even harder on his front.
I'd like to hear more from both, please, since at this point I can see how either of them could play as they've been playing, given a scum alignment.

My hope is that we'll find out a lot more based on the next few crucial days, as people announce who they'd like to vote for, and why.

[Derangement]

i'm really glad the tripod flipped town because i would have felt really bad about discounting his terrible behavior only to have him be scum. i'd have to lynch every anti-town for the rest of my life.

While it was obviously not the case in this game, there's no such thing as too scummy to be scum.
People have different playstyles. Sometimes they'll look mega-town, sometimes they look like the poster boy for scummyness.

The important part is looking past the formulaic "information is good, risks are bad", and trying to figure out

why

those players are doing what they're doing.
What did they hope to accomplish? Do their actions make sense, given their responses, or is the mouth saying one thing, while the hands do something else?

Yes, there are things that are much more likely to come from scum than they are from town, and vice-versa. Quickhammers, bad claims, rolefishing...
But WIFOM is a thing, and sometimes scum

will

do something bad for their own health, if they think they can confuse everyone in the process, or even come out on top, because "scum wouldn't do that".

Derangement is alive, he's suspicious primarliy because if i were scum i would have killed him long before i killed anyone else other htan maybe equinox. tripod was too scummy to be scum, and derangement is too town to not have been night killed.

The GIF night-kill was unexpected.
The Equinox NK boggled me a lot, and strikes me as something designed to not shake things up too much, more than eliminating bigger threats.
It bothers me a little that you townread equinox that strongly, given the direction he was headed in, particularly as of late day 2.

UT's is the first kill that did not surprise me.
Given your opionion of his play since the beginning, I expected to die before he did, if you're town, but I can understand it if scum were afraid the tracking result would make lynching him too hard.

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can say about the too-town-to-live argument regarding myself.

This nearly happened to me in my last game.
I looked very town, my reads were repeatedly wrong, and I nearly made it into LyLo, where I would probably have been mislynched if I hadn't been killed the night before.
I believe the only reason that this didn't happen back then was because the one surviving scum player was fairly less suspicious-looking than the other two town, and NKing me meant he could take a low-risk victory mislynch.

GC is alive, he's awesome. i really liked bubs, and sns was so terrible that i can't really use his tells to be useful with bubs or GC tells, and GC came in with amazing power, and i really like both him and his slot.

Do you think his case on you was awesome?
Do you also agree with the arguments he presented in the

second

half of day three? Which ones did you find the most convincing?

[Derangement]

Who should I vote for guys?

...what?

[Derangement]

What are you doing, Onion?
I get that you'd like to lynch him, but this is just taking an unnecessary risk!

There's still several days until deadline, and we're likely to get an extension, due to CDB's V/LA.
Can I please please

please

ask you to unvote, until three people are okay with that lynch?

I am personally

not

okay with it, until I hear more from both CDB and Prawneater.
Way too easy to make a mistake that would cost us the game.

[Derangement]

Please don't be an Onion.
In the off case that I'm wrong about you being scum, I urge you to at the very least wait for CDB's input before you vote.

Prawn isn't going anywhere until he posts, either way, unless he self-hanmers.

[Derangement]

VOTE: prawneater

[Derangement]

Good game, everyone.
Sorry for being lying scum.

[Derangement]

also for a long time everyone was going on about some early town-tell from me, but for the life of me i don't know what it is. care to enlighten me?

You told us your drunk roomie walked in, you told him the basics of Mafia, and that you were looking for scum.
He guessed three people at random.

This is a town-tell exactly because I did not think you understood why it was one, so you wouldn't make something like this up as scum.

Basically, if you were scum, you wouldn't have been looking for scum, so your roomie wouldn't have made a random guess for you to post about in the first place.

ALSO i'm disturbed about the existence of the too-pro-town scumtell. why is that a thing?

Rule of thumb, it's good for town to have players around offering useful analysis and advice to each other, to better everyone's reads.
It's good for scum if those players die, so those that are left alive are not as active, don't notice key things as often, don't put together as good arguments, or whose reads are simply wrong.

So when a seemingly town-looking player survives for way too long, this surprises people.
Why

didn't

scum kill them?

The obvious reason is that maybe they can't: this "town" player is actually scum, but there's only one scum faction.
The alternative is a less likely one: that scum would be making a bit of a gambit and playing the WIFOM game: since there's no reason for a seemingly pro-town player to survive that long, they could try keeping them alive, and let town lynch them instead (bypassing docs, bodyguards, and watchers, and profiting from any incorrect reads in the meantime).

[Derangement]

Though I still really think bussing is bad as a general strategy.

But I can now see the temptation to do it. Man I just wanted to yell and scream that Derangement was scum.

But scum is probably my least favorite alignment draw. It feels so free to be town and ignorant of what's going on.

After I saw the degree of trust onion put in you towards the end, I strongly considered scum"slipping" on purpose if things started to look like people might vote you.
That way you could help lynch me without regrets, and live on to likely win the ensuing 2v1.

That said, yeah, I'll take cooperation over bussing any day of the week, if it doesn't seem suspicious for the town persona you've been playing so far.
I cannot stress enough how thankful I was for your spectacular entrance.

It was a pleasure to be in your team.

[Derangement]

There's a teensy thing in the scum PT that I'd rather not divulge, since I'm hoping to use it again in future games, so I'm looking into whether we can remove just those few posts, so you can enjoy the rest of the scum thread.

The gist of the strange NKs is that I expected people would suspect me if I lived too long without getting NK'd, so I tried to save the obvious NK targets for last.
This way people would have had time to get all of the wtf out of their system by the time we reached LyLo, instead of having the sudden paranoia fresh on their minds.

GIF's last post was possibly PR shenanigans.
I liked Equinox's play in the first day, since he seemed to be pretty on point, and inquisitive enough that I worried he might catch one of us over something subtle. So much so, that GC's suggestion made sense.

I think that at the time, my strongest town-reads were UT, who neither of us wanted to NK yet, and onion, who I wanted to keep around all the way to LyLo, in hopes that we could convince him to help us with the final mislynch.