Open 70 - Two of Four (b9) (Game Over!) before 595

[Goatrevolt]

Hey all. I should be able to read through the thread sometime today.

[Goatrevolt]

@goat - welcome, just to let you know you are on an L-1 wagon right now

Unvote

Reading through I'm on page 5 right now. Jtdyer is the scummiest player to me in my read thus far.

[Goatrevolt]

@goat - welcome, just to let you know you are on an L-1 wagon right now

Unvote

Reading through I'm on page 5 right now. Jtdyer is the scummiest player to me in my read thus far.

EBWOP: There are two L-1 wagons right now: Farside and Grimmy/Cass. I think trying to re-route to a third wagon before deadline (13 days from now) will be tough. I suggest you pay extra attention to these two on your re-read and bring up other suspicions when time isn't a big factor.

13 Days is plenty of time, and I really hate the way you're trying to make it out that we have to lynch one of those two players. We can certainly lynch someone else in that period of time.

I've finished my reread. I'll have to go back and make actual cases on people, but here are some initial thoughts.

My top 3 scummiest players in no specific order are: Cass/Grimmy, Shadowgirl/jtdyer and Strife220/Avinyl. I feel pretty good about everyone else in the game right now. I'm definitely not going to be putting my vote on Farside. I've seen literally no good reasons to lynch her and the two people currently on that wagon are two of the scummiest players in the game for me right now. The Cass wagon looks promising, but I'm not sure yet if I prefer that over a Shadowgirl wagon.

I just want to say that anyone suggesting that we should just ignore the Max lynch entirely and that there is no information to be gained from it is completely wrong. There is plenty of good information to be gained from it. For example, jtdyer had a horrible vote on Max that fits well with his history of poor votes and blatant bandwagoning day 1. Grimmy mentions that he was planning on voting for Max and then in 192 after Max is shown to be town, Grimmy says that we should focus on the people who voted Max. That's horribly scummy, because he was planning on voting for Max and then turns around and puts the blame on those who actually did vote Max. There is plenty of good information there, ignoring it is dumb.

Secondly, Look at mini 604 and compare dcorbe's play as scum in that game with this one. It's vastly different. Also, the near-lynch on dcorbe on page 3 was really awful. There's no way he should have been run up and nearly lynched that quickly and for that poor of reasons, especially with some of the awful votes like jtdyer's on his wagon.

[Goatrevolt]

Jtdyer/Shadowgirl

Vote: dcorbe

. Sorry dude, your explanation seemed lacking to me. Randomness isn't a bad idea, but switching between all these people to get them to post, when some of them are posting, doesn't make the most sense.

This is his reasoning for joining the Dcorbe wagon. This is horrible. He's voting dcorbe because Dcorbe has been pushing people to post more? Are you serious? How is that scummy at all? He doesn't think Dcorbe's play makes "the most sense" but doesn't even bother to elaborate at all as to why dcorbe is scummy or worthy of a vote. I'm really surprised this just got ignored.

Yeah, just leaving him chilling there is awkward. Waiting on claim still.

A claim could easily be WIFOM, it seems like waiting for that is pointless. Unless he claims something, and you happen to be that role. I'm not trying to push that lynch, just wanted to point it out.

Yeah...so here he wants to lynch Dcorbe without giving him a chance to claim. This is really awful.

Unvote

. Not feeling the dcorbe scuminess for now, but not sure about farside22. I'll do a reread on her and a couple other people tomorrow.

This right here really makes me think he's scum. This is after the dcorbe wagon starts to shut down. He jumps off the wagon because he "no longer feels dcorbe as scummy" and that's it. This guy just jumps on and off every bandwagon he can with literally no reasoning.

unvote

i dont know num's reasons for the vote so there is no reason for me to stick with it.

Max, you said you have evidence and were waiting for more people to respond. We are here, so what info do you have?

Vote Max

. You never really responded to this. Maybe you missed it, and if so, here it is again. There's nothing wrong with gut feeling, but you probably aren't going to convince someone to vote with just gut feeling.

Here he votes Max with another piece of awful reasoning. He first says there is nothing wrong with gut feeling, and then he votes Max? Why? He literally gives no reason for this vote at all. If there's nothing wrong with gut feeling why is he voting Max. He's voting Max because Max wasn't able to convince others of his beliefs? How does that make Max scum?

---

At this point we have Shadowgirl replace in. She hasn't posted much content period, so there's not much to judge her off of. This post right here caught my eye though.

I agree with dcorbe. I don't see what information we can possibly get out of Max's lynch - he hardly put up a defense and he was practically asking for it. How is speculating on possible scum partners for Max doing any good either - he didn't flip scum, no matter how much he seemed like it.

This discussion is getting us nowhere and only seems to be stirring things up for just the sake of it.

Vote: farside22

She shamelessly bandwagons Farside right after dcorbe votes for her. The reasoning here is not good. Farside and dcorbe are arguing about whether or not you can get good information from the Max lynch. How does that translate into farside being scum? It really doesn't at all. So why vote farside here?

FoS Shadowgirl

Reviews on Cass/Strife to come later tonight or tomorrow.

[Goatrevolt]

Do you really think Farside's freakout was a null- or town-tell?

This wasn't addressed at me, but I want to answer it anyway.

I think Farside's freakout day 1 and the back and forth with armlx is a town tell. Armlx wasn't pushing very good reasons for thinking farside was scum, so her self-righteous "you'll be proved wrong" attitude seems genuine town to me. This really sounds like a player who knows they are innocent being pushed for wrong reasons rather than a scum trying to weasel out of a bad case on them.

[Goatrevolt]

There's no doubt in my mind you were frustrated. My argument is that both anecdotally and logically, scum are edgier when attacks are made on them. They have more to lose by getting lynched, and they are more paranoid because they have lies buried in the game that may be being uncovered. So I believe scum are much more likely to freak out, regardless of the quality of attack made on them.

Yeah, but farside's freakout involved her voting for herself and the self-righteous "you'll be proved wrong" statements that struck me as genuine frustrated townie responses rather than a scum response.

I agree with you that scum tend to often freak out over weak cases, but voting for yourself under the premise that someone will be proved wrong is an unnatural scum response and something they would have to be faking. To me, Farside's responses seemed genuine and thus I find it a townie tell.

[Goatrevolt]

Grimmy/Cass

I'm frustrated with you. Get it right. I'm also not putting so poor person in my place to answer stupid questions that don't make you happy.

If you are frustrated with Armlx, then vote arlmx every chance you get. We would all know the reasoning behind it. Voting yourself is like this:

Holding a grudge is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

Grimmy
full of....wisdom

Suggests that farside vote Armlx at every opportunity, despite the fact that farside's frustration at armlx doesn't mean that armlx is scum. I'm not sure really why Grimmy thinks that being frustrated at someone is a valid reason to vote them.

I'd also like to hear if anyone has anything positive to say about max. Speak up now or forever hold your piece

But Im still not gonna be the one who drops the hammer. I would also like to see his defense.

as for the scum being on the wagon already, there is a chance the scum are people who havent even responded yet since Max hit l-1

Check also for who hasnt posted since the latest vote(s)

Grimmy
doing a quick check in

Right here Grimmy has nothing positive to say about Max, but holds off on dropping the hammer. There's nothing really wrong with this post, however it's interesting compared with his following post.

My list of suspects consist of those who voted for MAX's lynch. But because max was...well...Max...it is not nearly enough to cast a vote.

Ill reread and come up with a suspect later

Grimmy
we are down by 2 now...dammit

His list of suspects are those who voted for Max. However, in his previous post, he mentioned that

1. He thought scum could be the ones who hadn't commented yet.
2. He had nothing positive to say about Max, thus showing his support of the wagon.

If he supported the wagon, and mentioned that scum might be ones not on the wagon, then why would his top suspects be the ones who voted for Max? That seems horribly hypocritical to blame those voting Max, when I lumped him in the category of "willing to vote Max".

Also, the "down by 2...dammit" just sounds completely insincere and scummy.

He makes the long PBPA on dcorbe, which I find interesting, because he points out lots of scummy posts, but his end judgment is that dcorbe is a townie, and he doesn't really go much into how he arrived at that conclusion.

---

Cass replaces:

Ok, it is the first time I try this, so maybe forgive me some little mistakes? In alphabetical order:

Armlx: Hammered Max. Wonders who would kill Blonde. Neither seems to mean much, though. His case against me/Grimmy (post 216) seems pretty weak to me. however, the same goes for the cases of other players. So, again, a null-tell?

Dcorbe: Plays aggressively, tries to get responses. He voted me (Grimmy) for saying the scum was on Max' wagon. I admit Grimmy's reasoning there was... non-existent. Still: a bit harsh to vote based on that, but not really a tell. His behaviour does feel a bit scummy. I'm highly interested in Strife's forthcoming case against him.

Farside: Got to L-1 on day 1, threw a tantrum, claimed vanilla. I believe that is a scum-tell. Since then, she has been pointing at Dcorbe (a lot), Armlx (a lot) and is currently voting Shadow. It seems to me that she is trying very hard to shift the attention to others. I also felt she was working very hard to tie Dcorbe to Armlx, yet she isn't voting for either of them but now ties Dcorbe to Shadow instead.

Scummy.

Llama: Seems to be lying low? I am not sure about him, also because of the replacement (lots of those in this game, btw...). Could be lurkerish scum, I guess, maybe. I have not seen a convincing case against him.

Shadow: Has claimed town (unprovoked), has two votes on her. Farside thinks that Shadow and Dcorbe are the scumpair. I do not find this case convincing either, but then, I'm already assuming Farside is scum, so that could be tunnel vision on my part.

Strife: Switched votes, but he had just replaced. His predecessor did some dubious thing. He voted Alvinz for lurking. His post 212 (about not knowing when night ends) could be a sneaky trick. Or it could be proof he isn't scum. Right now I think he is a townie.

I'm not a fan of this post here. Cass pretty much avoids taking a solid stance on nearly everyone.

Armlx - Has made weak cases. Cass doesn't take a stance one way or another.
Dcorbe - Points out that he is aggressively pursuing people to get responses (pro-town). Then says his behavior feels a little scummy (unsupported). Cass doesn't take a stance one way or another.
Farside - The one person Cass takes a stance on. Cass calls Farside scum for
1. Throwing a tantrum and claiming vanilla.
2. Trying to shift attention to others
3. Tied dcorbe with armlx, but now ties dcorbe with Shadowgirl.

Throwing a tantrum isn't really a scum tell persay. Both townies and scum get frustrated. It all comes down to context (I disagree with LlamaFluff that it's strictly WIFOM). Trying to shift attention to others is a really weak tell in my opinion, because it's basically saying that if you're a possible lynch target, you're no longer allowed to have other suspects, which is dumb. I don't see how changing her targets from dcorbe/armlx to dcorbe/shadowgirl is scummy.

I'd like to hear Cass explain each of those and show how they point to farside being scum.
LlamaFluff - Lurks. Cass doesn't take a stance on him.
ShadowGirl - Nothing other than not finding the case on her compelling because farside made the case. Cass doesn't take a stance on her.
Strife - Points out something scummy about his predecessor's posts, but then calls him a townie. Cass takes a stance, but it's an odd one based on what he says about strife.

Overall, Cass holds off on taking a stance on all but 2 players, and one of those players she calls town without any real reasoning whatsoever. The lack of solid stances bothers me.

Heh, I might get lynched here because another player typed 'when' instead of 'if'... (gotta remember that one, in case I'm ever scum...)

Now, I had been holding back in my previous post, to see if something would happen (Strife's post for example, or a slip-up) to make me more or less certain of things.
Before, I thought that Farside was scum (as I said). Strife's case, however, made me see dcorbe as scummier. The worst thing I think dcorbe did: He first said that 'the scum must already be on the wagon', and later he argued that it was no use to look for the scum on the wagon. Which makes me think that the scum

was

indeed on the wagon, and dcorbe knows this is the case.

Now what makes me doubt still, is that both dcorbe and Farside seem scummy, but I'm pretty sure they are not scum together - if I had to pick a partner for dcorbe, it'd be Shadowgirl. And just in case I get lynched before I get back (just happened in another game, so excuse my paranoia), here's my full opinion:

if

Farside flips scum, I think Armlx is the other one.

If

she flips town, I think dcorbe and SG are scum.
And yes, before someone asks, I withheld my opinion of Armlx on purpose in my earlier post. To see if there would be any buddying or distancing in the next posts.

I dislike the way Farside jumped on the dcorbe wagon after seeing SG's wagon fail. I also dislike her logic that because three people seem linked to dcorbe, dcorbe must be scum. Especially as she herself seems to do most of the linking. So I still think a vote on her is the safer choice. In my next post I shall argue more in depth what makes me suspect her.

Vote: farside22

Cass states that dcorbe is scummier to him than farside. He then says that he sees dcorbe/Shadowgirl as a scum pair (what farside was arguing), and then he votes farside 22? How does that follow? Dcorbe is supposedly scummier now than farside, and Cass agrees with farside's logic about dcorbe/shadowgirl being a scum team, however then Cass votes farside for jumping onto the dcorbe wagon? How is that not horribly contradictory?

@Llama: 'scummier': Yes, you're right, that was not worded very well, one could read it like that. What I

meant

to say is that after reading Strife's case I saw dcorbe as scummier than how I saw him before (when writing my first analysis).

Back then, my list would have been: 1) Farside 2)armlx 3)dcorbe

Right now, it is: 1)Farside 2)dcorbe 3)armlx

(Please cut me a tiny little bit of slack on the linguistics, english is not my first language.)

Ok, this clears that up a bit. Apparently dcorbe is scummier meant scummier than his previous opinion and not "scummier than farside." Cass's previous post is not nearly as contradictory as a result of this.

After that Cass claims Vanilla townie and "appeals to emotion" about his lynch costing a townie, and asks for more discussion prior to lynching him. Both of those strike me as a null tell really. I don't see the appeal to emotion as being very scummy, because I've seen town do it just as often as scum.

Overall: I see some definitely scummy things here, such as Grimmy's stances regarding Max and Cass's lack of stance on players in his post where he covered everyone in the game. On the other hand, I've seen some townie tells, such as consistency in pushing farside, and what appears to me as a genuine desire to find and lynch scum. For that reason, I'd prefer a Shadowgirl lynch over Cass today. I'd still like to read through at least Avinyl/Strife though before committing a vote.

[Goatrevolt]

Vote Shadowgirl

My preferred lynch for today so far.

Strife: When you joined the game, you pushed your case on Dcorbe despite the fact that he had no votes and there were two L-2 wagons (farside, shadowgirl). However, when I replaced in, you told me to only focus on the two wagoned targets. Contradictory, no?

[Goatrevolt]

I wasn't a fan of Cass's 484 either, but I'm not going to hammer right now.

I'd like to see what else ShadowGirl is going to say, and I'd still like to review more before ending the day.

[Goatrevolt]

Unvote, Vote armlx.

Jumping on the new armlx wagon that fast? Really?

[Goatrevolt]

That isn't the first time either. Seems that happened way back when with dcorbe putting a vote on me for poor reasoning.

Aye. I pointed that out in my case on Shadowgirl.

I'd still rather lynch Shadowgirl over Cass, but if we near the deadline, I'm willing to vote Cass to avoid no lynching.

[Goatrevolt]

Does anyone have a list of every player that has claimed thus far?

I know farside and dcorbe (myself) have claimed, but I can't remember if either Cass/SG have claimed.

[Goatrevolt]

Ok, so just myself, farside, and cass have claimed.

For your farside-armix interactions though, they are good. I may be impartial to them a bit because I have had a town read on farside since I replaced into this game, but if Armix flips scum its something to look into. The other fault I really see with that pairing is that Armix seems to be the one that caused farside to breakdown and selfvote. That seems much much farther then scum would take it with another scum. WIFOM I know but I dont see scum taking it that far, ever.

I would say WIFOM, really.

I wouldn't dismiss that as WIFOM. I agree with LlamaFluff. I don't see scum taking it that far. This isn't a conclusive indication that farside/armlx aren't a scum team, but it certainly seems to be a point against it.

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on ShadowGirl. I personally am seeing this last vote on armlx (the timing if nothing else) to be quite suspicious. She makes a huge post against armlx, but doesn't vote armlx until Cass does (basically waiting for other support). She also ignores armlx's response to her case and brushes aside LlamaFluff's objection as WIFOM without any real explanation there. This, in addition to my previous case, makes me feel fairly confident that ShadowGirl is scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I haven't brushed them off - please read post 506.

You didn't address armlx's response. All you said about LlamaFluff's statement was that it was WIFiOM, without any real explanation. I'd say that's pretty much brushing it aside.

Also, you voting armlx wasn't really the issue. It was the timing and convenience of doing so. Rather than vote armlx when you pushed your case on him, you instead waited until someone else voted him before hopping on. It looks a lot like you're looking for an easy bandwagon rather than scum.

[Goatrevolt]

It could go the other way around as well - with me making a case as well it gives her a reason to vote that way.

That's actually true. Hmm... I'll need to look into it further.

[Goatrevolt]

I will say it's fairly suspicious to me that both ShadowGirl and Cass were voting for farside, and after some discussion of weather mafia and how farside's outburst was a townie tell, both are now voting for armlx.

Neither of them seem to really care much about the cases on the other, but they sure do like to sync up their votes together.

[Goatrevolt]

I'll hammer Cass tonight if there isn't more discussion to be had. I'd slightly prefer ShadowGirl, but Cass isn't far behind in the running, and I don't think things are going to swing to a SG lynch.

[Goatrevolt]

In mini 604, it wasn't just the lurking that was the difference between dcorbe's play there and here.

If you think about the early stages of this game, dcorbe is scum hunting, or at least making an attempt to. He's changing his vote around, trying to get people to discuss things, pushing for more discussion. In 604, he just laid around and only really said anything when pressured to. There was no scum hunting, not even an attempt at scum hunting really.

604 - Lurking, no scum hunting = scum
Here - Active, attempt at pushing discussion - town

Obviously that's not an airtight indicator that I'm town, but I think those meta arguments shouldn't just be brushed aside, either.

I can't really defend dcorbe's actions because I didn't make them, but I can look through your case on dcorbe and provide my opinion on it (or look through dcorbe's posts and try to to point out town-tells to counteract the scum-tells). There were a few positions dcorbe took that I can't really rectify, such as his statement that there was nothing to gain from the Max lynch, which I heartily disagree with. Still, though, I think dcorbe has some town tells overall--ironically, the part of the game I found him most townie in was the part he nearly was lynched.

[Goatrevolt]

TLDR: Meta for newbies is very unreliable.

Yeah, that is true. I still think his complete difference in play means something, but we can discuss that along with dcorbe town/scum tells tomorrow.

But now it's time to lynch some scum.

Unvote ShadowGirl
Vote Cass

[Goatrevolt]

I'm pretty sure it's SG and Strife. I still think farside is town, and I'm still leaning town on Llama, but he'd be my 3rd choice.

I think we should mass claim since we're at Lylo.

Also, I suggest that we be careful with votes, since it's Lylo. I'd stick with FoS's until we're ready to lynch people.

[Goatrevolt]

My preferred claim order would be

ShadowGirl
Strife
LlamaFluff

[Goatrevolt]

I protected Llama last night seeing as he's pretty much the driving force of the town - or seems to be, anyway. Very strong and vocal.

Night 1?

[Goatrevolt]

I'm going to hold off on discussion for now until we see Llama and Strife claim.

[Goatrevolt]

I'd also like a claim from Goat, also.

But I agree - we should wait for the other claims.

My claim came from dcorbe on page 3. I'm vanilla.

It's pretty clear to me who the scum are at this point, but I'll get to that later.

[Goatrevolt]

Yeah. The last two scum are LlamaFluff and Strife.

He's false claiming roleblocker. I mean just think about his targets. He thought farside was the most townie person in the game and he roleblocked her two consecutive nights in a row. That does not make sense from the perspective of a townie roleblocker.

He had me as a higher scum prospect on his list than farside and I was also a claimed vanilla (someone he didn't have to worry about possibly blocking a role), and he had already roleblocked farside once in the game. I was a much better roleblock target if he was actually telling the truth. LlamaFluff is a smart player, he wouldn't make such horrible decisions with his role.

I'll tell you why he wouldn't claim a roleblock on me. I'm the scapegoat. I'm the vanilla player who has a chance of getting mislynched here. If he claimed to roleblock me and the kill still went through last night then that would throw doubt on whether or not I'm scum, so he can't claim a roleblock on me.

The claim doesn't add up if he's town, for reasons I've pointed out. Farside was the absolute worst possible roleblock target. It was his most townie player. It was someone he had already roleblocked. I was a much better roleblock target.

However, I will tell you why farside makes sense as a fake claimed target if he's scum. He can't claim me, because it would lessen the chance of getting a mislynch on me. He can't claim ShadowGirl, because she already claimed doctor, and it would contradict her claim. He can't claim armlx, because it would make his claim less believable, with a dead target and all. He could have claimed strife, but perhaps he didn't because he wanted a more believable end game scenario when we lynched strife today and he flipped scum. That leaves farside, a safe target (claimed vanilla) and someone he doesn't mind confirming as a pro-town player, because nobody is interested in lynching her anyway.

------

Additional reasons for seeing those two as a scum pair.

1. The distancing that farside brought up.

2. Strife and I don't make a huge amount of sense as a scum pair, based on avinyl's attacks on dcorbe early day one, and strife's pushes on dcorbe day 2. If Strife is scum, then the most logical fitting target is also LlamaFluff.

3. armlx was the perfect night kill for a strife/llama scum team. He was unclaimed, a good shot at being a role, and the only other player who fit that profile was ShadowGirl, who was a good lynch possibility if she didn't turn out to be a roled player. LlamaFluff would have been the most logical kill for any other scum group, because he had a good shot of being a roled player, is a good analyst and wasn't suspected at all (armlx had some suspicion on him).

----

I know I'm pro-town. I feel fairly confident about farside being pro-town, and I believe ShadowGirl's claim. That leaves LlamaFluff and Strife...and all the evidence points to it being those two as well.

So. I say we lynch Strife and then Llama tomorrow? Or reverse order works for me too... Thoughts?

[Goatrevolt]

So you went the route of trying to further confirm someone you already thought was town and had already quasi-confirmed with a previous roleblock rather than going for someone who you thought was scummier and was also vanilla? Uh huh. Nope, doesn't make any sense.

Let's go through this again:

From there it was you or farside. I went with farside in order to make the highest chance of confirming a player that I could see. If farside was scum, given how clear she looked to most players, was the perfect player to submit the kill, the chance that she was protected was higher then roleblocked.

I'm sorry, this is a weak defense for targeting farside for the second time in a row. You're roleblocking farside AGAIN under the premise that

if she were scum

she'd be a good person to make the kill. The issue is that you did not think she was scum at all. In other words, you're targeting a player you think is town, who you have already targeted, to try to confirm even more that they are town? That's absolutely atrocious logic. You're a smart player. This roleclaim and your targets do not make any sense if you're town.

Then, you have completely contradictory logic for why you didn't target me. You targeted farside to try to further confirm her as town. However, your reasoning for not targeting me was that there are two scum remaining, so even if your roleblock didn't stop a kill, I was still a scum possibility. The contradiction is that there are two scum remaining, so even by targeting farside you didn't confirm her as town, because the other scum could have made the kill. The same logic you tried to use as a basis for not targeting me, you should have used to not target farside.

Your argument that you could have roleblocked me and the other mafia could have committed the kill and then I look townier and skate to the win is horribly weak anyway, not even taking into consideration the contradiction I just brought up. Are you trying to suggest that you're purposely not targeting scummier players with your role because you don't want to false-clear them? I'm sorry, but that's laughable. First of all, it doesn't clear them, and second of all, if you catch a kill then you catch scum. If you don't catch a kill, then you have nothing. You trying to catch a kill by targeting someone you think is town, and thus someone not making a kill, is ridiculous.

If this wasnt the right player by the way you choose to play, that does not mean that I am scum.

Come on man, you know this is a weak defense. You're trying to further clear a player you already think is town, by means that won't even actually clear that player. You absolutely know that the correct play is to try to target someone who you thought was scum, because if you don't catch a kill, your result is nearly meaningless. If you do catch a kill, then your result means a lot. You purposely using your role in a means that gives you the least possible chance of catching a kill is not smart play. It's not the play I know you would make if you were town.

The obvious reason he didn't claim to target me is because he didn't want to shed any doubt whatsoever on his plan to mislynch me for the win. If he was telling the truth, he would have targeted me in an attempt to block a night kill.

When I worked out all the situations, it was better to block farside again. It gave me someone that I can trust nearly 100%, it gave SG the ability to use her role without it getting blocked.

Bad logic. Trusting one player nearly 100% is not the goal. You already thought farside was town. You should have been trying to find scum. Also, ShadowGirl hadn't claimed her role last night when you "used your ability" so I fail to see how that factors in to your calculations. Can you explain that? Also, that's poor logic as well. If you had blocked ShadowGirl, then you could have caught her in a counterclaim if she didn't claim to be roleblocked last night. If she did claim a roleblock last night, then it would have proven both of you to be pro-town giving us a much higher chance of winning.

So yeah. I don't buy your roleclaim for a second.

[Goatrevolt]

Also, your math is flawed.

You're counting blocking another pro-town role as a negative effect, when it instead confirms two players as town, going a long ways towards sealing the game as a town win.

Mathematically and logically, farside was your worst target last night. Especially so since she was someone you had already targeted. I know you're a logical player. You would not have overlooked this and picked the absolute worst possible target if you actually were a roleblocker.

[Goatrevolt]

Llama's scum list yesterday (after Cass) was this:

Strife
Shadow
Armlx
Goat
Farside

Farside and I were both claimed vanilla's. If LlamaFluff is a town roleblocker, then he is not scum. Therefore, the mathematical chance of hitting a scum nightkill (assuming even odds) is 1/5. The mathematical chance of hitting a role by blocking an unclaimed player is 1/6 (1/3 players have a role x a 50% chance that Llama is the only role).

Blocking the scum kill is a positive effect. Blocking another role is also a positive effect because it clears 2 players. No result is a negative effect because it provides little information.

Therefore, if he targets an unclaimed player (Shadow, Armlx, Strife) he has a:

1/5 chance of stopping a kill.
1/6 chance of hitting another role.

In other words, he has an 11/30 or roughly 37% chance of a net positive result on a strictly mathematical basis. By targeting only players who have a decent chance of being scum (ShadowGirl and Strife by his own scum list) that chance goes up even more.

If he targets a claimed player (Goat, farside) then he has simply a:

1/5 chance of a stopping a kill.

In other words, only a 1/5 or 20% chance of a net positive result on a strictly mathematical basis. Considering me and farside were the two towniest players on his list yesterday, it makes even less sense for him to target one of us, farside especially.

So, in addition to the poor logical reasons for targeting farside, the math doesn't add up either. I really am having a hard time believing LlamaFluff, who apparently spent time looking at the math for making his decision, would be so horribly wrong with it. I could see his math being off if he was quickly making it up to cover up a false claim and try to justify his awful choice of farside, however.

He's scum. Strife is his scum buddy. One of those needs to be lynched today.

[Goatrevolt]

Made perfect sense to me, this way we have farside and me as confirmed town.

Haha. But it doesn't confirm farside, and for exactly the same reason you claim not to have targeted me. In other words, it's contradictory logic. You target farside, and confirm her as town.

Thats a nice strawman(?) there for one. You call me a good player so my choice obviously makes me scum.

Strawman isn't the term you're looking for here. However, I see no problems with my logic. You're a good player who claims to have made the most suboptimal possible decision if you're town, but the most optimal decision if you're scum. I think my conclusion that you're scum fits.

For the hundreth time though, I would rather have farside be as close to 100% confirmed as possble then block you and of been stuck in a situation where I have that nagging thought of "what if they didnt submit the kill". I get paranoid easily around situations where information that I am pushing is imparitive to a lynch, and did not want to be stuck having to vouch for two players who are both going to be using "he blocked me" to not get lynched.

Faulty reasoning. You're starting from the conclusion that if you targeted me, you wouldn't block a kill. Either you're assuming I'm town already (why target me) or you're assuming that whoever my scum buddy is would make the kill instead. I was very unsuspected yesterday, certainly less suspected than Strife, who you considered to be the other scum. So, if you thought I was the other scum, then logic would hold that I was the unsuspected one and thus the one to make the kill. Logically, I was a better target here.

Finally, the "trying to get farside as close to 100%" logic blows. Farside was already your most town player in the game. By roleblocking farside, you do not 100% confirm farside, so a roleblock on her last night is almost negligible in possible gain.

Well this doesnt make sense, I already knew that I was not targeting a player in the three who could have the last role. My logic already points at one of you to target for the block. Farside was far more likely to do a kill then you. Armix was suspicious of SG, SG of Armix. Strife was suspicious of you. I was suspicious of SG. As scum fearing a roleblock, Armix and SG wouldnt kill, they were both suspected by a possble blocker, Strife was in the same boat. I didnt expect any of those three to be submitting a kill as well. Once again I was at you two. I chose farside because it made one player as confirmed town as a roleblocker can make someone. Assume a coinflip, I can make two people 50/50 or make one person 75% confirmed. I like 75% more then 50.

This logic fails again. Your logic points at farside to be the most likely person to make a kill if scum. I'm the second most likely person to make a kill if scum. The only reason you would target farside over me is if you thought we were both scum, which you clearly did not as we were both the towniest players in the game to you.

The 75% math is faulty. Two 50%'s don't make a 75%, because it fails to account for other factors. The same person could be making the kill every night for one, unrelated to who is more suspected. For that reason, farside is a bad target because you've already targeted her.

You said it, if I dont catch a kill I have NOTHING. I didnt block and instead I am stuck with a WIFOMy situation of, "did he just not kill". I would rather be extra assured of situation one, then fairly sure of situation 1 and maybe situation 2. This is where I am comfortable. Also I didnt want to risk putting you in a "semi-confirmed" state, especially if I get NKed for any reason. Holding this semi-confirmed would give you a one up over anyone else in endgame.

This is a contradiction. You state that if you don't catch a kill you have nothing. Then you state that you used not catching farside making a kill as means to make her more townie to you. You're contradicting the nothing statement there. Also, you say you would put me in a state of semi-confirmed, also a contradiction.

Finally, i want to note the irony that you didn't claim a roleblock on me for fear of putting me in a semi-cleared state, when that's absolutely the truth. You wouldn't want ShadowGirl or farside to get any ideas that I'm a townie, right? You'd rather leave me as completely vulnerable to your scum lies.

So, to recap. You didn't target me because you wanted to target the scum most likely of making a night kill. Unless you thought farside and me was a scum team (you didn't based on yesterday or any reasoning today), then I was the most likely player of making a night kill for any possible scum team I was on. In other words, you were afraid of clearing me by targeting me and having the other scum make the kill, when in any scum pairing I'm in, I would be the one making the kill. For the same logic you didn't want to target me, you've used to clear farside. In other words, you're being contradictory.

Llama is using contradictory logic to try to cover up his false claim. The real logic is this: He claims to target farside twice in a row to force a mislynch on me, because targeting me would plant seeds of doubt in your minds and he wouldn't want that.

It made farside the most confirmed player in the game to me. I trust her to be a townie more then anyone else at this point. You keep saying to target someone you think is scum, but my problem with that is WIFOM on a miss. I target you, Armix dies. Well that makes me think you are more town, 50% chance that shouldnt of happened if you were scum. Then lets say strife flips scum. Now I am in a situation where I go back, well, thats 50% chance, I had a scum read on SG this whole game, she never saved anyone... This is a situation I do not want happening, and I played my nightchoice to avoid that happening.

Three points.

1. Farside was already the most confirmed player to you, so making her more confirmed is pointless.
2. You played your night choice based on poor logic that contradicts your earlier statement. If you don't hit a kill, then you have nothing, as you agreed. So your logic that you didn't want to hit someone who was scum but didn't make a kill for fear of false-clearing them is contradictory, because you already admitted it meant nothing.
3. You assume that you wouldn't hit the scum making the kill, ignoring the also good possibility that you do hit the scum making a kill, guaranteeing scum found. Ignoring this makes your position seem better, but doesn't actually make your position any better.

@ShadowGirl/Farside: I'd like to hear thoughts on this. Do you agree with me that his targeting makes absolutely no sense for a pro-town roleblocker, especially since his logic is contradictory, his math is faulty, and LlamaFluff is someone who has shown solid logic throughout the entire game?

[Goatrevolt]

I swear, if town loses simply for the reason that I didnt think to try and roleblock a power role, I will be pissed off and amused at the same time.

The only way the town loses is if people decide to actually buy into your complete BS logic for targeting farside twice in a row. I'm hoping farside/SG can see through the lies.

- I'm confused why the general assumption seems to be that SG's claim is guaranteed truth. Am I missing something here?

First of all, I love how his thought goes to SG being the one lying about her claim, not LlamaFluff. Scum team much?

I have 2 main reasons for believing it:

1. She claimed it first. If she was scum lying, that means that she'd have to risk the next two players to claim possibly counterclaiming her. This points to her telling the truth.

2. LlamaFluff's claim is complete BS. Since we have at least 1 role, if he's lying and scum that means she's telling the truth.

[Goatrevolt]

Why as scum would I of made the most suboptimal decision?

You didn't. You made an optimal decision for scum by claiming to roleblock the player you found most town twice, providing nearly irrelevant results. As scum, you want irrelevant results, because it makes your job of lynching townies easier. You made the most suboptimal decision as town, because said roleblock was destined to provide the least useful results.

What I thought N2 was that farside was the best person to block. Period. If my logic failed my logic failed, but that is what I thought.

Nah, you can't brush it aside this easily. You're trying to throw out the idea that you should be able to get away with making poor choices with your role. That couldn't be farther from the truth. When someone claims a role, and the logic for why they made the choices they did doesn't seem to make sense, it's scummy. Why would we even ask people who they targeted with their role if we weren't going to examine it?

Basically, the pro-town motivation for your targets is far less likely than the pro-scum motivation. The pro-town motivation is to target the same person twice to try to uber-confirm them as town. I've already pointed out why this is logically unsound and contradicts some of your other statements.

The pro-scum motivation is simple. You pick one player and confirm the hell out of them, which leaves everyone else as possible scum. In other words, you claim a power role and you claim targets that provides the least benefit to the town, which is exactly what you did. You claimed to be a roleblocker. Your targets and results provided the least possible benefit to the town by semi-confirming a player as town who you and me already thought was town.

Undermining my claim by saying I used it poorly instead of showing that I am scum.

This is a bad defense. Using your role poorly like you have is how I am showing you as scum. What, do you think that because you can claim a role you are above scrutiny? Did you just expect that you could claim a role, everyone would just jump to the conclusion that because you claimed a role you are town and I would just roll over and die?

You're arguing that how someone uses their role is a null-tell towards their alignment. I'd love to see you back up that assertion.

If SG had saved farside and I had gotten NKed, you probally would be trying to get her lynched right now instead. You picked the claim where the user made the worse choice and went for them.

Bad analogy. Bad logic. Misrepresentation.

If ShadowGirl had used her doctor role to protect someone she thought was scum, you can be certain I would be after her throat. Why? Because it doesn't make sense if I'm looking at things from her shoes. As a town doctor, her motivation is to protect people who are likely to get night killed. If she thinks someone is scum, then they are unlikely to get night killed, because scum don't get night killed in this game. Therefore, if she claimed to protect someone who she thought was scum, I would be suspicious of her. There would be no townie motivation for that action, and the way she used her role would be means to find her suspicious.

For that same reason, I find you suspicious. As a town roleblocker, your motivation is to find and roleblock someone who you think is scum in hopes of stopping a night kill. If someone claims to be a town roleblocker but claims to protect their most town player not once but twice, I have very good reason to be suspicious of that claim. The way that player used his role is certainly a means for finding them suspicious, because it doesn't make sense from the vantage point of them being town.

Your argument that I'm this big meanie who's picking on you because you didn't use your role well is bad. You act as though the way you use your role is a null-tell, when in fact it's a scum tell.

2) Again, stop making me into scum for not making the best night choice. I didnt want scum running around that had the ability to claim any extra towniness over anyone else.

I'll address this one more time. You claimed in one post that roleblocking a player and having a night kill made that same night means nothing about that player, because it could have been their scum buddy making the kill. I said that, and you agreed with it.

Your logic for not targeting me contradicts this statement. You were worried that I would be "more townie" because of this, but you also stated that it means nothing. 100% Contradiction. Your claimed motivation does not match your logic.

3) Again, I would rather risk having the town not be able to arrive at the correct lynch then have you running around tomorrow saying "Llama blocked me N2"

You agreed this was bad logic. You could have pointed out that this was poor logic. Instead you didn't make a decision because you were worried about someone bringing up logic that you knew was faulty and could dispute. That doesn't make sense.

Outside of having a bad target, I dont think you have really had anything to say about me being scum.

Your bad targets are enough, because they fit the mindset of a false-claiming scum and not the mindset of a pro-town player.

However, I also think you're scum strictly from process of elimination.

I believe ShadowGirl's claim for the reasons I brought up before. Her claimed targets also make sense from the mindset of a townie in her position. I think farside is town. I know I'm town. That means you and strife are scum. The fact that your claim and subsequent description of why you chose your targets is scummy and contradictory makes me even more confident that you are scum, and hopefully will be enough for ShadowGirl and farside to make the right decisions, since they don't have the luxury of having seen my role PM.

@Shadowgirl - Why did you save Goat N2?

She saved you night 2. It makes plenty of sense, because you were someone unclaimed, and generally regarded as pro-town. You were a likely target to get night killed, if you were town.

@Everyone - Can we lynch Strife yet?

I'd actually prefer lynching you, because I'm afraid you'll smooth talk your way out of this tomorrow. I'd be fine with lynching Strife though, as I'm pretty positive he's your scum buddy. It could be farside, but I'm banking on my town read of her. It can't be ShadowGirl for reasons based on the game's setup. Strife hasn't really done anything pro-town anyway. He's pretty much avoided most wagons and avoided taking strong stances on players.

[Goatrevolt]

I'll answer Strife's specific points in a bit, but I just want to say right now that he's really keen on pushing that ShadowGirl is the one lying about her role and not LlamaFluff. Strife/Llama is a scum team if I've ever seen one.

[Goatrevolt]

I just want to say right now that

Goatre's

really keen on pushing that

Llama

is the one lying about

his

role and not

SG

.

Goatre/SG

is a scum team if I've ever seen one.

Hey it works in reverse too! Hypocritical and paranoid much? I haven't even posted an analysis on Llama's claim yet.

The difference is that I've provided reasoning for believing ShadowGirl's claim and reasoning for why I think LlamaFluff is lying about his claim.

But I anxiously await what you have to say about LlamaFluff's claim.

[Goatrevolt]

LlamaFluff: Your claimed targets do not fit with a pro-town rationale for selecting targets. They fit with a scum rationale of "clear as few players as you can." You wouldn't have made that decision as town. You're a good enough player to where I don't buy your "oh my I just overlooked all the math and logical reasons for not targeting farside twice in a row" defense.

The PoE argument doesn't mean much, I know. I just was explaining additional reasons (for me) why I found you to be scum.

Finally, you keep saying I'm pushing poor reasons for finding you scum, but I'm not seeing

any

reasons for why you're pushing me as scum. From what I gather, your reasons are basically "I claimed a role, and therefore I'm town, so goat has to be scum." which is even more ridiculous.

[Goatrevolt]

This is a scum tactic, you are making the (false) reasoning that you are town and therefore what must be is a situation that is best designed to fit your points. Adding things like this to arguments are ways to make them seem much stronger then they are.

I want to address this because you're misrepresenting me here. You asked me point blank why I thought you were scum. I provided my own reasoning for thinking you were scum, which includes process of elimination. I explicitly mentioned that the PoE reasoning was only meaningful to me, and that I hoped I could convince SG/farside on the other reasoning, because I knew that my own PoE reasoning means nothing to them. So you're trying to blow this out of proportion when it's seriously a null-point.

Finally, you've provided no reasoning outside of process of elimination for why you think I'm scum. Hypocritical much?

[Goatrevolt]

That's fine. I won't be able to go through and make a case against you (involving more than just the scummy use of role) for a bit anyway. I still need to answer Strife's post as well.

PoE wasn't added to make me look better. It was an honest answer for why I suspected you. You asked me why, I provided you the reasons.

[Goatrevolt]

I'd rather lynch LlamaFluff today, because I do not underestimate his capabilities of smooth talk and manipulation of game mechanics to his benefit. I'd be fine with lynching strife, though, if SG and farside want to put off the ultimate decision of "which animal is scum" to tomorrow.

If we decide to lynch Strife today and he is scum, then we can control the scum night kill tonight. Do people want me to explain what I mean here, or would you rather I said nothing and we can WIFOM it out tomorrow? Personally I'd rather discuss it and control the scum night kill to hopefully maximize our chances of winning. There are two scenarios we can control (possibly more I haven't thought of) and we can pick which one we want to happen.

[Goatrevolt]

Thanks I think. I still say strife should go today, and for someone who seem pretty sure that he is scum, you really are hesitant to go along with that plan.

I'm hesitant to go along with that plan? Wasn't it you who a few posts ago were talking about how eager I was to "bus" Strife? You can't have it both ways.

Also I know what you are talking about regarding N3. I already have basically decided what I am do barring and massive development later in the day. I think this is left for WIFOM tomorrow, because any traps or plans can be countered if known going into the night.

I figured you would say that, because I know what you're planning on doing and I think you'll try to exploit the resulting WIFOM to your benefit. I'm pretty sure LlamaFluff's current plan is to not kill anyone and claim to have roleblocked me, thus framing me as scum. He's a sneaky one.

Anyway, I'm going to go ahead and say what my two scenarios are, and then we can decide which one we want to use (or none at all). These two scenarios cannot be countered unless the last scum is ShadowGirl or farside. If that is the case, they practically win anyway.

Scenario 1

: LlamaFluff roleblocks ShadowGirl. ShadowGirl protects anyone.

Llama is the last scum: He has to kill ShadowGirl otherwise he gets caught as not being a real roleblocker.

Goat is the last scum: I have to kill ShadowGirl otherwise you two confirm your roles and I get lynched.

Result: Dead ShadowGirl

Scenario 2

: LlamaFluff roleblocks me. ShadowGirl protects anyone.

Llama is the last scum: He can't make a night kill otherwise he confirms me as pro-town and he gets lynched tomorrow.

Goat is the last scum: I can't make a night kill because I get roleblocked.

Result: Nobody dies.



So those are two scenarios where we can control the outcome. One involves ShadowGirl dying and the other involves nobody dying. Unless someone can come up with a logical counter to my scenarios then I think they are foolproof and we should decide which one we wish to use. I'd go for the one that allows both farside and ShadowGirl to make the decision tomorrow (Scenario 2).

[Goatrevolt]

I'm pretty much thinking goat first on this one. Don't mind my paranoid self on this, but here is what Goat is missing with Llama's claim.

0-1 Player(s) will receive this Role PM (Roleblocker)
Roleblocker wrote:
You are a Roleblocker. Each night, you may PM me the name of a player. That player will be treated as having not made a nightchoice that night.

You win when all the mafia have been lynched.

RB is a town role. This is what the role would be if Llama is a RB. No where does this say he is working for the mafia so your logic is flawed.
So in the long run because I don't trust Llama 100% my vote will be for Goat.

What? I don't understand what you're saying.

My entire point is that Llama is mafia and not a roleblocker. Where is my logic flawed?

[Goatrevolt]

In case it's not clear, for the past 2 pages I've been arguing that LlamaFLuff is lying about being a roleblocker and is actually scum.

1-2 people have roles. When it was LlamaFluff's turn to claim, only 1 role had claimed. Him claiming to be a roleblocker is a null-tell, because if he's scum he knows he can safely claim it. My entire argument against him is that him targeting you twice in a row does not make sense from the perspective of a town-aligned player, and therefore he is lying, making up his results, and not a roleblocker.

In essence, yes roleblocker is a town aligned role. No, LlamaFluff is not actually a roleblocker. He's lying about that. You and ShadowGirl are going to have to decide whether or not you think he's lying. If you think he's telling the truth you lynch me. If you think he's lying, you lynch him. Please consider carefully.

[Goatrevolt]

One quick question to Llama: How do you know who alvinz blocked on the first night?

I PMed the mod asking who he blocked, he told me.

ShadowGirl, did you PM the mod and ask who jtdyer protected night 1? If you did and didn't get an answer then that would prove Llama a liar (or the mod horribly inconsistent, a non-possibility). This could be big. /crosses fingers

For the scenarios, I would prefer #2 because that lets more people decide what actually happens.

I see no objections to voting strife who doesnt even seem willing to come out and defend himself. A vote is emminant.

I'd prefer 2 as well, and I'm fine with lynching strife.

Also, LlamaFluff said emminent, when the correct word is imminent. I think that's an indication that he's lying and is scum. Or maybe it's just an indication that he fails at spelling . I'll have to mull it over...

[Goatrevolt]

Also I choose the fact that I cant spell, anyone who takes a look at my posts should know that

Unfortunate. I was hoping you'd choose the "lying scum" option. It was worth a try.

[Goatrevolt]

How about lynching scum with a strife vote?

I'm down with it. I want to make sure everyone's on the same page with night actions tonight and stuff first though.

[Goatrevolt]

I dont know if you think I'm town or not. My thougt is that we choose goat if he us scum, which I think he is. We vote him out and then Llama should block strife which would lead to one less person being NK.
I know this means you have to trust me and believe me when I say I am not scum with this thought in mind. I don't know whether to believe Llama or not myself. I don't understand why he would RB me if he thought I was town the night before. However it is because of that lack of trust and watching Goat and Llama's interaction that I am leaning on voting Goat on this one.

Farside, I don't understand this at all. You mistrust LlamaFluff so you're going to vote me?

I think I can suitably show that I don't make sense as a scum buddy to Strife. Who do you think my scumbuddy is then if you think I'm scum?

Goat and Llama seem to be arguing about everything except for voting strife and that strikes me as a bit odd.

I'd much rather lynch LlamaFluff today than strife, as I've stated plenty before. I'm just convinced that Llama/Strife are the last two scum, so it would be kind of splitting hairs for me to insist on only lynching one and not the other.

Farside, you keep stating that you think I'm scum. But why? Who do you think my scum partner is then? From what I gather from your posts, you keep saying you mistrust LlamaFluff and why he would target you twice, but then you keep saying you want to vote me anyway? If you think LlamaFluff's roleblock actions don't make sense, isn't the logical conclusion that he's lying and scum?

[Goatrevolt]

Simply put you and Llama are agreeing that Strife is who you want to vote for, which looks scummy. I pointed out the Day 2 votes that happened, plus the fact that I don't know if scum would out there scum partner on day 1 so easily as what almost happened with dcorbe.

Right. I don't think Strife and I make any sense as a scum team. Avinyl led the wagon against dcorbe day 1. Then after the wagon dissipated, Avinyl tried to push it again. Strife replaced in and has been gunning for me since then, along with accusing me for focusing on a 3rd target (ShadowGirl) yesterday when he was doing the exact same thing.

I'm not voting out Llama because of the claim. He could have made it up, but Llama hasn't done anything really scummy in my eyes.

Ok, but what have I done that's scummy? You keep mentioning that Llama hasn't done anything scummy to deserve your vote, but you haven't said why I'm scummy and deserve your vote.

If you're unwilling to vote for LlamaFluff simply because he claimed a role, then we've lost the game and I should just save my breath. I've already spent hours explaining why his claim does not make any sense.

As for strife. I'm trying to understand why you both think he is scummy. Both of you two's interaction is highly questionable where Llama is trying to look town by outing his scum partner, but leaning on Strife for the win (this is why I am leaning on voting out Goat).

That works either way. LlamaFluff is outing his scum partner (Strife) but leaning on me for the win, or LlamaFluff is outing his scum partner (Me) but leaning on Strife for the win. Do you see how this isn't valid because it works either way?

Any thoughts I have it is either Goat/Strife, Goat/ Llama.
Less likely Llama/Strife

Goat/Strife doesn't make any sense based on Avinyl and Strife gunning for me all game. Why doesn't Llama/Strife make any sense?



Here's why I think Strife is scum: The only stance he has taken all game is that I'm scum. He's avoided every major wagon except for the one on me. Yesterday, he asked me to focus on farside/Cass when I entered the game, which was both hypocritical and set up a false dilemma. It was hypocritical because he was focusing on me and didn't take a strong stance on either of those two players. It set up a false dilemma because there was no reason that we had to lynch one of those two.

In other words, strife has been sitting on the sidelines, and has pretty much been fence-sitting on every major wagon. He's shown contradictory and hypocritical logic.

Finally, he's the only player who makes sense as a scum buddy to LlamaFluff from my perspective. I'm not scum. I believe SG's claim, and I don't think farside is scum. That means the last two scum are LlamaFluff and Strife.

So you keep saying that you don't understand why I suspect Strife, but he has demonstrated scum behavior throughout the game, and is the only logical person who can be scum from my perspective where I am town. From my perspective he

has

to be scum, which is why I'm fine lynching him.

[Goatrevolt]

However you have to admit that you and Llama agreeing that strife should be the lynch looks scummy.

Llama and Strife both agree that I'm scum. Shouldn't that look just as scummy?

Perhaps on the surface it appears scummy, but if you look at it logically it makes plenty of sense.

Right now, pretty much everyone has agreed that the last two scum are between Llama, Goat, and Strife. So Llama thinks it's Goat/Strife. I think it's Llama/Strife. Strife actually has been pushing that it's Goat/SG, which suggests to me that he's avoiding busing his scum buddy.

Llama and I agreeing on strife really isn't that absurd even though it may seem weird. Llama and Strife both agree that it's me.

LlamaFluff's scum group of Goat/Strife doesn't really make any sense though, based on Avinyl/Strife's play this game, which I think certainly points to him being scum. The only scum group that makes sense from his point of view is Strife/Goat, but me and Strife don't fit. I think that's a fairly clear indication that he's scum. His only plausible scum pairing does not make sense.

[Goatrevolt]

Llama seems awfully anxious to get a lynch off before I post about why I think he and Goatre may be the scum team...

It's not me and SG anymore? How surprising. Nobody suspects ShadowGirl so you're looking for other ways to pin a mislynch on me? I'm shocked... /sarcasm.

[Goatrevolt]

Oh boy. A lot of good stuff to address in that post.

Llama's claim of roleblocker is definitely a null tell. I still think SG's doc claim is also a null-tell, and don't understand the logic that says otherwise. If Llama is pro-town, the fact that he targeted Farside over Goatre makes sense - better to be extra sure about someone than be half-sure about two people. If a pro-town roleblocker targets someone and the kill isn't blocked, you really get no information out of it. This post is wrong:

He had me as a higher scum prospect on his list than farside and I was also a claimed vanilla (someone he didn't have to worry about possibly blocking a role), and he had already roleblocked farside once in the game. I was a much better roleblock target if he was actually telling the truth. LlamaFluff is a smart player, he wouldn't make such horrible decisions with his role.

because if pro-town Llama targeted you and a kill went off, he would have gained essentially no information. If the kill didn't go off, town would still end up in lylo, with tons of wifom flying around as to whether scum no-lynched, if Llama was lying, or if Llama was pro-town and the block went off. If I was role-blocker and choosing between somebody I had a town-feel on, as well as somebody that was under a lot of suspicion, both vanilla claimed, I would pick the more trusted townie any day.

So first of all you step up to defend LlamaFluff. Did you read through all of the arguments between us. I've logically and mathematically shown that farside was the wrong choice. LlamaFluff even admitted that I was correct on that count. Please read through it all again, and then we'll talk.

At what point did you realize the the ideal role-blocker play would be to try and hit a power-role, Goat?

I realized it pretty early on. You stated that I didn't point it out until much later, which is pretty much false. I pointed it out as soon as I stood back and actually analyzed the "math" Llama was using to justify his actions, which I think came in my second post addressing his role claim.

I just don't see a player as smart as LlamaFluff using such poor logic and horribly false math. What does make sense though is that he false claimed it and kind of fudged some numbers together afterwards to try and justify his "role choice".

More interestingly is how Llama and Goatre are interacting. The "you should have targeted me not Farside" argument is flawed. This argument is highly flawed:

3. armlx was the perfect night kill for a strife/llama scum team. He was unclaimed, a good shot at being a role, and the only other player who fit that profile was ShadowGirl, who was a good lynch possibility if she didn't turn out to be a roled player. LlamaFluff would have been the most logical kill for any other scum group, because he had a good shot of being a roled player, is a good analyst and wasn't suspected at all (armlx had some suspicion on him).

Because Armix would be the perfect night-kill for absolutely any scum-pair. Unclaimed and not under heavy suspicion. What makes this special about the pairing Goatre is proposing?

The "you should have targeted me not farside" argument is actually completely logically sound. Out of LlamaFluff's 5 possible targets, farside is logically the worst possible roleblocking target. I'm logically the 2nd worst target, but still a far better target than farside. Please reread through my numerous posts on that topic, where I show how LlamaFluff's arguments were flawed there.

Any scum group that doesn't involve LlamaFluff would have benefited more from killing LlamaFluff at night, which was my point. LlamaFluff was less suspected than armlx by a decent margin, and is a strong analyst. The fact that he's still alive is a testament to his alignment.

Most interesting of all is this:

So. I say we lynch Strife and then Llama tomorrow? Or reverse order works for me too... Thoughts?

He makes an entire post on how Llama's claim is BS, and then concludes that I am the best lynch.

Again, I think you need to read these last few pages a bit better. Have you missed the numerous times I've said I prefer a LlamaFluff lynch or are you just ignoring them to further your argument?

Besides, I'm 100% convinced the last two scum are you and LlamaFluff. I don't see the benefit in arguing over the order in which you two are lynched.

N2 would have been the first chance Llama and Goat got to talk. The situation that's been set-up today hints at a conversation that looks like this:
"alright, well I'll say you and strife are scum, you say strife and I are scum, and if one of us gets lynched D3, the other will get to say "I told you so!" and proceed to mislynch strife for the win." (replace 'strife' with whoever claims vanilla D3). The situation works out great for a scum-team because they cover their asses no matter what happens.

These kind of arguments are springing up all over the place and they are not logically sound. Let me rewrite that post for you and see what you think about it:

N2 would have been the first chance Llama and Strife got to talk. The situation that's been set-up today hints at a conversation that looks like this:
"alright, well I'll say you and Goat are scum, you say Goat and I are scum, and if one of us gets lynched D3, the other will get to say "I told you so!" and proceed to mislynch Goat for the win." (because Goat's vanilla: hahahahahaha bruhahahah mwahahaha). The situation works out great for a scum-team because they cover their asses no matter what happens.

So yeah. That argument doesn't hold water at all. It's just propaganda.

This is also compatible with Goat choosing Llama to go last (find the vanilla), as well as his taking SG's claim for gospel. See here:

1. She claimed it first. If she was scum lying, that means that she'd have to risk the next two players to claim possibly counterclaiming her. This points to her telling the truth.

Confirms her as town stating scum wouldn't fake-claim in that position, which is completely wrong. Getting counterclaimed would be no worry to scum at this point: they can still get the other person mislynched, and they'd have the "hey I claimed first!" argument to use. Even if SG ended up being lynched, her partner would still survive til the next day. This is a BS reason for confirming someone as town.

Oh Strife! The strawman here is getting tiresome. You love to quote my first reason for believing ShadowGirl's claim and try to show how it's flawed. You really like to ignore my second and more important reason for believing her claim though. I'll restate it here and hopefully you won't conveniently ignore it this time:

2. LlamaFluff is lying about his roleblocker claim. Since he's a lying scumbag, and since there must be at least 1 roled player in this game, ShadowGirl is pro-town.

The fact that the "no u r" argument over whether or not the role-blocker choice was optimal is excessive and became unnecessary after the first 3 or 4 back-and-forths. Also consistent with a distancing, lining-up-lynches scum plan designed around me eventual mis-lynch. Just look at how unnecessarily long the argument on p24 went on.

Excessive and unnecessary? Not really. I'm intent on proving that LlamaFluff is lying about his roleblocker claim. Proving that he made the wrong logical choice and pointing out his contradictory logic was something that needed to be done. I suggest you actually read through those posts, as you seemed to have missed the point.

It's you and SG or you and Llama. Pre-massclaim signs were pointing heavily to you and SG. However I'm starting to get the feeling that if it was you and SG, the game would be over. D3 is pointing to you and Llama. What I do know is that I'd be happy with a Goat lynch today.

Would you be happy with a Llama lynch today, or would you rather go for the perfect scum win?

[Goatrevolt]

I read through the first 4 or 5 posts of the argument, then when I realized there was another half-dozen essays in there analyzing what optimal play was, I realized the the argument became irrelevant and marked it down as "going overboard for the sake of distancing." If I was a roleblocker and given the choice between you and Farside in the situation Llama stated, I would chose Farside. Reasons being: an unsuccessful block on you would provide essentially no information (since you were under suspicion and would be the less likely candidate to submit a kill), and a successful block on you would lead to the useless WIFOM situation of 'did mafia not submit a kill?' I'm not sure if I would have thought about trying to role-block a powerole or not. If you need to write a short essay and rant about probabilities to show why the Farside move is suboptimal, then it belongs in GD and not within the game. The argument breaks down to "is town-Llama smart enough to to overcome intuition and figure out what the truly optimal play is, and is scum-Llama stupid enough to not figure it out (or figure it out but lie about it)." The fact that the debate turns into thousands of words on game theory-like debate makes it look like you're just filling the thread with fluff.

Obviously the remaining posts were not irrelevant because I've already shown why farside is the wrong choice. Your refusal to read those posts and actually find out why do not speak in your favor. I don't really feel the need to restate it, so why don't you go back and find it? (Hint: the same logic you're using to show why I'm a bad roleblock target also applies to why farside is a bad target)

He's LlamaFluff, so he's the one filling the thread with fluff. Buh dunt ching!

I wrote 7 dissertations on why LlamaFluff made the wrong decision to make a point that his decision was highly sup-optimal for town, and not an intuitive decision for a town player to make. If he's making plays that are not ones that townies would make, then the conclusion is that he's scum. So yeah, there was a point to those posts. If you're unwilling to read them and find it, then there's nothing that I can do for you, but trying to fabricate those posts as nothing more than me trying to fill the thread with nothingness is really weak. I'd say your blatant dismissal of the points I made is pretty scummy.

It started out as you saying "lets lynch Strife. Llama would also be a good choice." Then I pointed out how you two agreeing here was suspicious, and then your next post on the issue had you flip it around to "preferring Llama, but strife is good too." Your stance changed after suspicion of a you-Llama team was brought up, thus your latter statements can't be used in your defense.

I've maintained quite clearly throughout the thread that I'm perfectly fine with lynching either of you in any order. My preference is Llama first, because I've played mafia with him before and I respect his play enough to be scared at his power of persuasion. But I'm fine with lynching you as well. I'd like to see you try to back up how this is scummy of me to want to lynch either of the people I think is scum.

My argument that you and Llama are buddies is based around something that was out of both mine and Llamas control - your reaction to Llama's claim. My argument works because a you-Llama team can plan around possible role-reveals. Your argument for a me-Llama team doesn't work because we could not have predicted your D3 behaviour, which my argument is based entirely off of.

Your entire argument is that LlamaFluff and I planned last night to "distance" from each other today. My argument is that you and Llama could have planned to "distance" from each other today. Hell, maybe Llama thinks that you and I are scum and our plan was to "distance" from each other today.

Do you see how this argument is dumb because anyone can use it?

Of course I'm going to highlight any argument that you make that's terribly flawed. Your first point is BS and your second point doesn't justify your first point. I'm only highlighting things that I feel are indicative of your alignment - which any BS statement is. And you seem to be admitting here that it's a BS statement, given that you're saying me quoting one of your points and saying it sucks is a 'strawman.'

I haven't admitted anything about your first point. ShadowGirl's claim, with two players to claim after her is a point in her favor. She seriously risks a counterclaim, for one. Now you're trying to argue that a counterclaim is not a big deal for her, and your reasoning is that "she claimed first so it means more for her." That's BS. If ShadowGirl got coutnerclaimed, she'd be in deep water. She was the top target for almost everyone coming into the thread. One other aspect of her claim that makes me believe it is that ShadowGirl seems fairly new to mafia, and does not strike me as the type of player who would be risky enough to try a gambit like this. Another point is that her post yesterday that farside showed suggests that she was a town power role. The final point is that LlamaFluff's role claim is crap and he's lying and thus she has to be town.

So yeah, I think there's enough reason to believe she's telling the truth.

Oh, and you were strawmanning me. The definition of a strawman is to only take part of a player's case and then show that the player's case is poor based on the excerpt you've pulled instead of the whole of the parts. Now let's look at what you've done. You've pulled only a part of my case out, tried to show that it was poor, and then suggested that I'm believing ShadowGirl's claim without any valid reasons. That fits the definition of a strawman perfectly and it's scummy as hell.

Again, if it takes 12 posts to prove that something was illogical, it's not indicative of alignment. What is indicative is the fact that you devoted so much attention to squabbling here. Your argument breaks down to "Llama is smart enough so that if he was pro-town, he would have sat down and ran through probabilities to figure out ideal play, but is stupid enough that as scum, he wouldn't have figured it out." Llama's defense is essentially OMGUS. Neither argument is adequate to make the conclusions that you've both made (especially with your stated 100% confidences), which is telling of your motivations.

Strife's reasoning: If you don't catch scum in under 12 posts then it doesn't count and they aren't scum. Moving on.

Another one of those questions that works the same way reversed...
You're the better lynch for today. Pre-D3 behaviour still makes a you-SG team realistic. Your post immediately after Llama's vote on me could have been scum letting their partner know they were around for a quick-lynch. SG didn't say anything until well after the unvote. I'd imagine that D3 would not be playing out as it is if SG was scum, but the possibility is still there. Llama's a good lynch, you're a slightly better one (hey, this DOES sound familiar! You know that scene in reservoir dogs...).

Heh, I knew this was coming. Going for the perfect win you sly dog.

Anyway, LlamaFluff's lynch makes a lot of sense because him as scum means ShadowGirl is 100% confirmed town.

Sorry, missed this point to a quote window. This argument doesn't hold water in a game that may have a doc.

It's a weaker point, yes, but I still feel Llama was the most likely to get NKed if he was actually town.

[Goatrevolt]

Strife's reasoning: If you don't catch scum in under 12 posts then it doesn't count and they aren't scum.

That should read: "If you don't catch scum in under 12 posts then it doesn't count and you can't use those arguments against them." That last part didn't really make sense.

7 more posts until strife and my arguments are no longer valid...

[Goatrevolt]

I've mentioned this before, but I think this is a really strong case as to why LlamaFluff is scum. I want to go over it again and more thoroughly. Hopefully this will be enough to convince SG/farside that LlamaFluff is scum and we can lynch him. Then tomorrow I can work on showing how strife is the scum buddy.

The case is kind of a "proof by contradiction" type of deal. Let's assume LlamaFluff is town, and then see what that leaves us with.

Farside: Farside's play this game strikes me as fairly solidly town. The outburst makes sense from a frustrated townie about to get wrongly lynched for really bad reasons point of view. LlamaFluff has also stated that he would never vote for farside. We can cross farside off the list of scum.

ShadowGirl: Fairly scummy play, mostly by jtdyer throughout the game. However, her claim of Doctor is a risky maneuver if she's scum, and strikes me as something that she would not false claim with a few others right after her in line. Farside also brings up a good point about her post from yesterday hinting at a town power role. We can fairly solidly cross ShadowGirl off the list of scum.

That leaves Goat and Strife as the only possible players to be teamed up as scum buddies. However, the question is now, do Goat and Strife fit as scum buddies to each other?

Let's take a look and see.

Early on, Avinyl leads a bandwagon against dcorbe. When that bandwagon reaches -1, he unvotes to give dcorbe a chance to claim. Llama thinks that's a distancing tell, but it's basically a null tell. Giving someone breathing room to claim doesn't really mean anything. After dcorbe's claim, farside unvotes and moves elsewhere. The key point is that after the dcorbe wagon had started to subside some, Avinyl jumps back on and tries to revive it. Then when he's told it's a counterproductive wagon at that point he jumps off and looks for other prey.

So basically, Avinyl starts the wagon, and then tries to revive the dying wagon on dcorbe. Scum almost never bus another scum buddy that hard and that early for no reason. Then when Avinyl got replaced, strife came in and has been hounding dcorbe/me all game. While not sure about whether or not he'd prefer ShadowGirl or LlamaFluff, strife still wants me dead, and he wants me to be lynched today. It just doesn't make sense that we're the same alignment.

Therefore, if we can't be scum together, then who is scum if LlamaFluff is town? There are no likely pairings that makes sense. I think that points pretty convincingly that LlamaFluff is definitely scum.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat and SG should be checking in at this point to prove they're not that scum team. Then I'll be sure it's Goat/Llama

I'm checking in. I'm not part of a Goat/SG scum team.

[Goatrevolt]

I will support either a Llama or Strife lynch. If SG/farside decide they want to lynch either of those two, then I will place my vote to make it happen.

[Goatrevolt]

There are 3 possibilities for why LlamaFluff's vote on you didn't result in a lynch.

1. You're scum.

2. He's scum.

3. Both

I'm really feeling pretty strongly about number three. Oh, and the complete change of opinion on ShadowGirl without any real reasoning behind it right after people start questioning why you disbelieve the claim reeks of scum.

[Goatrevolt]

See this is the BS that is starting to bug me. We are scum together, we get it, thats what you think. You still seem to be really damn hesitant to vote strife though, and for someone who you are so sure is scum I get the feeling that something else is going on.

How is that BS? I think the fact that strife changed directions on ShadowGirl like that when pressured as to why he didn't believe the claim is fishy. It's annoying you that I'm attacking strife? Why?

I've given my reasons for why I haven't voted yet. I'm fine with either lynch. I'll vote for either when SG/farside make up their mind.

[Goatrevolt]

farside, can you comment on my post 650?

Also, it was avinyl trying to get dcorbe lynched...repeatedly. Strife took up the banner when he replaced in. I think you're confused.

[Goatrevolt]

Llama, how is that any different than Strife thinking it's me and you but preferring my lynch? How is that any different than you thinking it's me and Strife but preferring Strife's lynch?

It's not. You're grasping at straws.

[Goatrevolt]

Everyone is pushing strife, everyone seems willing to vote strife. That doesnt apply for you in this case.

What? I'm willing to lynch strife. I'm willing to lynch you. I'll put my vote on whichever of you is decided on by farside/SG. What's the problem?

[Goatrevolt]

You really think strife and I fit as scum buddies? It's rare that scum attack their buddies that hard that early. The reason dcorbe was pushed to claim in the first place was because of avinyl. Then avinyl tried to restart the wagon after it had died. Then Strife replaces in on day 2 and tries to again get dcrobe lynched. It doesn't fit.

I don't see why scum have to be on a wagon. In a bigger game, I'd probably agree with you, but there are only 2 scum here, so them both not appearing on a day 1 wagon is not that ridiculous. Alvinz lurked extremely heavily day 1, and avinyl (strife) was doing exactly what strife finds scummy, which is putting your vote on someone else who isn't even suspected to ride out the day.

I think I've provided solid reasons why I don't fit as a scum buddy to strife, and I've provided solid reasonings as to why LlamaFluff and strife fit as scum. I hope you will carefully review those before making a decision to lynch me.

Also, SG, I assume Llama is your role model because you respect his play? I'll let you in on a secret. He's really good at playing scum.. I've played with Llama when he's scum before and he had me fooled the entire game.

[Goatrevolt]

By the way Goat stated that strife and Llama were looking to lynch him and had the same interaction that I am seeing today. I don't see this anywhere can you point to where Strife and Llama are talking about lynching you.

Strife has been wanting to lynch me all day. The only thing that's changed with him is whether or not he thinks SG or Llama is the partner, an opinion that has ebbed and flowed with the tide.

Llama has been more interested in lynching Strife but obviously wants to lynch me tomorrow.

Then again, I looked up to dcorbe too. In another game if it wasn't for him we would have lost at lylo - or at least I wouldn't have seen the light on the situation.

Still, the fact that both you are so willing to lynch strife just doesn't sit well with me.

After mini 604, I have a hard time looking up to dcorbe. He got called out as scum for his first post of the game.

SG, read post 637 about LlamaFluff and I both suspecting strife. Don't you find it weird that LlamaFluff and Strife both suspect me and are willing to lynch me? It's the same principle.

Also please answer the question in bold as honestly as you can.

I did. It's paragraph 2 from what you just quoted from me. I don't think that's conclusive at all. If this was a game with 4-5 scum then yes I'd agree, but 2 scum out of 9 players means there's a solid chance the scum avoided the wagon

You're playing the statistics here without regard to what lies behind them. Scum don't have to be on a day 1 wagon. There's no rule that states such. I think you should instead inspect the situation specifically and see if you think scum needed to be on the Max wagon. Every player in the game thought Max was scum, so it's perfectly plausible that it was a purely townie led wagon. Also, Alvinz was lurking hard and Avinyl was off suspecting Mr. Blonde while avoiding the main topics. I think those two fit perfectly well as scum.

Also, farside, if you don't think strife and I are scum together, then I'd like to direct you to my post 650 again, where it pretty much logically shows that LlamaFluff is scum in that case.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm also curious as to why people think I'm scum. Farside and SG, you both have mentioned that you want to vote for me, but what exactly are the reasons why you think I'm scum? I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I do encourage both of you to read carefully through the posts of today before you make your decision though. And I encourage you to do so with an open mind. If you read through today's posts already assuming that I'm scum, I don't think you're going to change your opinion. I'd ask that you read through them assuming it could be any of us three and then determine for yourselves who you think are the most likely. If you end up deciding that it's me, then so be it, but I'd at least like to know that your decision was made after a full unbiased review.

[Goatrevolt]

Actually Goat, Llama wants to lynch you tomorrow and strife is up for lynching you are Llama for today.
So unless you can point where they both say they would vote for you today as you and Llama have done with Strife your point on this is mute.

What point is this? I think you stated that you haven't seen where Llama or strife wanted to lynch me. I've stated that they both want to lynch me. Does it matter when? Strife has said in almost every single post he's made today that he wants me lynched and he wants me to be the first person lynched too. LlamaFluff wants to lynch strife today, but is dead set on lynching me tomorrow.

Anyway, I will oblige. Here:

If I woke up tomorrow and everyone said "lets lynch goat" that would be fine with me.

If the team is Goat/SG, then the town does have one power-role - Llama. It's looking like I'm completely wrong about my suspicions though, and that the team is Goat/Llama, with SG being our only power-role.

Goat and SG should be checking in at this point to prove they're not that scum team. Then I'll be sure it's Goat/Llama

Would you be happy with a Llama lynch today, or would you rather go for the perfect scum win?

Another one of those questions that works the same way reversed...
You're the better lynch for today.

dcorbe/goatre and SG pairing looks pretty solid to me.

Why do you think my willingness to vote either LlamaFluff or strife a point against me? Besides, what does whether or not LlamaFluff or strife say they want to vote me have to do with anything? Both of them stated that they think I'm scum. They will both flock to lynch me given the chance.

As for your answer to the question about scum being on a day 1 town lynch seems illogical to me. Why would scum avoid trying to take town a town person if they can and why would dcorbe in one comment say look at my lynch for scum and then get all bent out of shape when I bring up the Max votes?

What's better for scum? To be on a town lynch or to have that same townperson be lynched while keeping their hands clean? The scum didn't need to vote for Max. Everyone thought he was scum, and he was going to get lynched anyway. Better for them to look like the good guys who didn't join in.

I can't explain dcorbe's actions very well, sorry. I think he was wrong about his position about Max's wagon. All I can say is that he's a very new player. The other game I played with dcorbe he made tons of mistakes as scum. The difference is that he lurked a whole lot and didn't really make too many strong stances. In this game he was active and strong willed. Night and day.

[Goatrevolt]

The whole argument between you and Llama... it just seems as if you're both trying so hard to condemn the other. I mean, if either of you gets lynched - it looks good for you.

I've tried really hard to condemn LlamaFluff, because I do not think his actions make sense as a pro-town roleblocker. His scum team of me and strife also do not make a whole lot of sense unless you really feel that avinyl/strife were that deadset on busing me.

LlamaFluff really hasn't given any reason why I should be lynched.

[Goatrevolt]

When Goat said this I couldn't ave agreed more with him especially has Strife didnt' want to talk about anyone else. However this little bit about the Max wagon and looking at the scumminess around and on it seems to contradict his comment just now.

I'm not seeing the contradiction. I mentioned that it would be dumb to ignore the Max lynch. That doesn't mean scum were on the Max lynch. People seemed to be pushing the idea that since everyone wanted Max dead that we should just ignore everything regarding Max. I heartily disagreed with that. How people voted Max or did not vote Max is meaningful. In fact one of the two examples I provided was Grimmy, who didn't even vote for Max. Can you show me the contradiction?

This looks innocent enough but feels like a subtle role fishing trip

I think you're just being paranoid. How is that rolefishing? Rolefishing is trying to get unnecessary role information out of unclaimed players. Can you explain where I was trying to do that? I'm really worried that you've already formed in your mind the idea that I'm scum and are now viewing all of my posts from a pre-conceived notion that I'm scum, rather than viewing them objectively. I can't honestly see how this post can be construed as scummy at all, and I'm really worried by the fact that you see it that way. I'm worried that you've already made up your mind and that it doesn't even matter what I say anymore.

I just think for someone who was pushing at SG for your vote to move to Cass and really not looking at anyone else was strange.

The thing that I found most weird is how both Goat and Llama considered my outburst as a town thing.

I wanted ShadowGirl lynched. That wasn't going to happen. Cass was my second target, and I had made this clear many times throughout the day. I don't see why you're surprised I voted her.

I gave reasons for considering your outburst a town thing. What are you getting at?

I agreed with this and Goat still hasn't pointed out how Llama and strife are ganging up on him

I've explained that already twice. Both of them want to lynch me. Strife wants me dead today. Llama wants me dead tomorrow. I showed quotes where they made that clear.

I'm sure strife feels that Llama and I are ganging up on him, and Llama feels that me and strife are ganging up on him. Why you do keep singling me out here? Many of my actions today that you're attributed as being scummy are no different than the same actions that strife and Llama are taking.

Actually, I want to make a point of this:

There are three people. All three of us suspect the other two players. A lot of the same arguments that can be used against one of us can be used against all of us. Strife feels that it's weird that Llama and I both agree to lynch him. Well I think it's weird that Strife and Llama both want me lynched. Llama probably thinks it's weird that strife and me want him lynched. Keep in mind that many of these interactions are null-tells and can be explained from anyone's perspective. That concludes this public service announcement.

I don't see Strife attacking Goat as much as Goat is attacking Strife so like I said pointing out Strife's attack on you (pre-role claim) would be a good thing.

Does it matter who attacks the other one the hardest? Do scum attack harder than townies or is the other way around? I've been attacking LlamaFluff and strife harder than they've been attacking me today, but does that mean I'm scum or that I'm town, or null?

Either way, Strife has had me as his top target for pretty much the entirety of the game.

[Goatrevolt]

Vote Strife

I've changed my mind. My vote on strife is probably a grievous scum tell that will result in me being lynched (because only scum place votes, right?), but I'd actually rather lynch Strife first.

Here are my reasons. I don't know if people remember my "two scenario" post from earlier on. Chances are that people ignored it, but I'm going to reference it again.

I'd like to keep LlamaFluff alive for tonight, simply because in the very off chance that he's telling the truth about being a roleblocker, his role will come in handy.

Scenario 1. It involves LlamaFluff roleblocking ShadowGirl. ShadowGirl doctor protects farside.

This scenario forces LlamaFluff to shoot ShadowGirl if he's scum, otherwise he runs the risk of being caught by not making a roleblock.

This scenario forces me to shoot ShadowGirl if I'm scum, because otherwise the two confirm their roles with each other and I get lynched.

This scenario forces ShadowGirl to either no kill or kill someone else if she is scum. In other words, by doing scenario 1, we would either catch ShadowGirl if she's the last scum, or confirm her as town. While I think ShadowGirl is likely town, this would eliminate outside possibilities and improve our chances of winning the game by making correct lynches.

So, I'd like to lynch Strife, then do Scenario 1. Either ShadowGirl gets NKed and farside chooses between LlamaFluff or myself as the last scum, or something else happens, and we realize that ShadowGirl is the last scum and win the game. This plan covers more possible eventualities.

Of course, this plan only works if we decide to lynch strife. I'd like to hear farside, ShadowGirl, and LlamaFluff's thoughts on this plan though. If you're confused about how it will work, just ask me. I want this to be clear to everyone and have everyone see the benefit of it, and hopefully we'll run it and catch us some scum. Sound good?

[Goatrevolt]

ShadowGirl the scenarios are the same.

LlamaFluff, make sure you read this. You must "roleblock" ShadowGirl tonight. That way tomorrow we can eliminate another possible suspect.

Whew, I'm glad we lynched strife. Unless it's Llama/farside the game continues. Tomorrow we'll either be able to find out if it's ShadowGirl, or if she's dead, then we can lynch Llama for the win.

[Goatrevolt]

To clarify about the scenario. It's the same scenario, and you will be dead tomorrow if you are town and the last scum is either LlamaFluff or myself.

If you are the last scum, then you obviously will not be dead, and we'll know and lynch you. That's why it's a good scenario. It confirms your alignment one way or another.

[Goatrevolt]

No and if Goat was scum he would be celebrating and patting Llama on the back right now.

Yep. Unless the scum team is Llama/farside, we have lynched scum. And if that were the scum team, I assume farside would be celebrating and patting Llama on the back.

[Goatrevolt]

Why in the world would you suggest this when SG wasn't even consider suspicious any more?

She was a lingering possibility. I would have given maybe a 5% chance ShadowGirl was scum. Being able to eliminate possibilities and narrow down suspects is the best way to win a game in Lylo. Setting it up so that ShadowGirl dies gives us a greater chance of winning by cutting out that 5% chance. I know it's cold and heartless of me to set up a scenario that involves killing ShadowGirl, but I'm sure she'll appreciate it if we win.

Although, with a dead ShadowGirl I'm positive the last scum is LlamaFluff at this point. I think it's pretty clear that I don't fit as scum with strife based on dcorbe's interactions with avinyl/strife, and strife's desire to see me lynched first and foremost.

However, yesterday, strife was definitely covering for LlamaFluff. I'm sure Llama is going to say it's WIFOM, but strife was trying to push for Goat/SG and only changed to Goat/Llama when pressured for his stance. Strife originally didn't even question LlamaFluff's claim, and even tried to defend LlamaFluff's choice of you as a roleblock target. Instead he repeatedly questioned me on why I believed ShadowGirl's claim. It wasn't until later on that he started saying it was Goat/Llama instead of Goat/SG.

LlamaFluff is definitely the last scum here. I don't fit as scum with strife. LlamaFluff does. Let's lynch him for the win here.

Vote LlamaFluff

[Goatrevolt]

@Goat: I don't give a flying fig that SG was at 5% or 10% she was someone I trusted that I could bonce thoughts on. The fact that she felt Llama was a better player and seemed pro Llama makes me feel like wanting her dead was so it would be one less person to worry about for you more then Llama.

I'm a very logical player and I'm extremely competitive. Setting up a scenario for ShadowGirl to get lynched increases our chances of correctly lynching scum and winning the game. I'm going to make the play that best gives us a chance of winning this game. I have invested a lot of time into this game, and have thought endlessly about various scenarios of who the scum team is and how we can avoid losing to that scum team. I simply refused to lose to a possible scum team of strife/SG, even if it was unlikely. I set up a scenario which allows us to avoid that possibility and thus increasing our chances of winning the game and I stand by what I said.

I'm sorry that all the pressure is on you to make the right decision. I understand that having ShadowGirl alive would allow you two to make the right or wrong decision together and share in the win/blame. So, yes, I can understand your frustration, but I feel that what I did was overall for the best, by eliminating all possible pitfalls.

I trust that you can make the right decision. I simply do not make any sense as a scum buddy to strife. By process of elimination it must be LlamaFluff.

[Goatrevolt]

Here is a detailed explanation why I do not make sense as a scum buddy to Avinyl/Strife.

First of all, in post 25, Avinyl starts the game off with the first real vote of the game. He votes dcorbe simply because dcorbe has been moving his votes around, which is a horrible reason. Why would avinyl start a wagon on his scum buddy off of such awful logic?

In post 44, Avinyl keeps his vote on dcorbe, and then in post 45, Avinyl goes back into the thread and pulls out even MORE reasoning why dcorbe is scummy. I can see maybe voting a scum buddy as a busing technique but not actually pushing hard for their lynch, but Avinyl is looking for more and more reasons to lynch dcorbe. That simply doesn't look like one scum buddy to another.

In post 56, Avinyl tries to push Max into looking into dcorbe.

In post 63, Avinyl unvotes dcorbe so that he doesn't get hammered before the claim. This is really pretty much a null tell. Avinyl could be doing it to avoid the loss of his scum buddy, or he could be doing it because he doesn't want his hands to be dirty if a townie gets speed lynched page 3.

Then, after the claim, Avinyl goes back to voting for dcorbe again in post 95. If Avinyl was a scum buddy to dcorbe, pushed his scum buddy to claim, and then had everyone back off, do you think he'd jump right back on afterwards? I mean, that would be a supernatural amount of busing.

Then we have strife replacing in, and after his post with a bunch of comments on random people, he jumps right into Dcorbe with a vote. He continues to suspect dcorbe as his top suspect throughout the entire day. Then on day 3 he points out Goat/SG as his scum pairing, suggesting that I was still his number 1 target. He wanted me lynched yesterday, and he wanted me to be the first person to be lynched. He wavered on whether SG or LlamaFluff was my scum partner, but he definitely wanted me dead. This doesn't fit for a scum team. You think there would be some sign that subconsciously strife wants me to stay alive but there was no such thing. Strife does subconsciously suggest that he's LlamaFluff's scum partner, first by jumping to Goat/SG as the scum pairing, and secondly by defending LlamaFluff's choice in "roleblocks." Both of those actions suggest to me that Strife is stepping up to try to defend his scum buddy.

[Goatrevolt]

I'll look back through Llama/alvinz posts to see if I can find anything, but alvinz lurked so much that I doubt he has a whole to find.

There are 2 reasons why LlamaFluff is the last scum.

1. I don't make sense as a scum buddy to strife. He has to be the last scum by process of elimination.

2. His claimed night actions of roleblocking you twice in a row do not make sense from a pro-town perspective, but do make sense from a perspective of scum trying to avoid confirming as many players as possible.

[Goatrevolt]

What can you say about a post on day 2 Goat where there is no way anyone (scum wise) would know what power role was out there and say this?

What do you mean? Are you suggesting that alvinz was breadcrumbing being a cop? Llama claimed roleblocker not cop.

I think you're reading too much into that post. Investigate someone else. He's talking about the day. He means looking into someone else and see if he can find scum.

[Goatrevolt]

First of all. LlamaFluff, you had the exact same top 3 as me, so isn't it hypocritical for you to call me out for that top 3?

Llama's top 3:
Cass
Strife
ShadowGirl.

It's the same thing. Also, I explicitly said in that post that those were my top 3

In no specific order

. So you're trying to pin a case on me about changing from Cass to ShadowGirl is wrong, because I said those weren't in order.

Secondly, I did reread strife. I thought I mentioned it in thread, but I guess I did not. I reread him and there was not nearly enough to go on, so I voted for ShadowGirl, my top suspect.

You keep trying to say that ShadowGirl was number 2, and why would I vote for number 2, but that's pretty much false, because those top 3 weren't in order. If you look at the posts where I review those players, you'll see that I FoS ShadowGirl and do not FoS Cass. That's because I found ShadowGirl scummier. She was my number 1.

Goats actions this game have not lined up with the actions of a pro-town player. There was pushing SG that would result in a claim leaving only three unclaimed individuals, there was the ignorance of strife D2, even when he promised a reread on him, there was the meta-defense of his predicesor, there was the fact that he had SG above me as scum before he saw a claim, and finally there was the fact that he was willing to lynch a lower chance scum suspect in order to have a better win chance.

Pushing ShadowGirl who was unclaimed is not scummy. I thought she was scum. She was my top target. Of course I wanted to pressure her.

I did reread strife but I didn't mention it in the thread. That was my fault and if I get lynched for it I'll be frustrated. Although, I do not see how my failure to mention my reread on strife is enough to lynch me in any way.

Using meta arguments to defend myself is not scummy at all. I don't know how you're trying to show that as scummy. Are townies not allowed to try to defend themselves?

I had ShadowGirl above you before the claim, yes. After she claimed Doctor with 2 unclaimed players left, I instantly moved her down my suspect list because I did not think she was the type of player to claim Doctor like that as scum and risk a counterclaim with 2 more players to go.

I wanted you lynched because I was confident you were scum. I only later changed my mind because I realized that plan 1 would help to confirm or condemn ShadowGirl and increase our chances of winning. That's why I did it. Is it scummy for me to change my mind based on new insight that would improve our chances to win? I don't think so.

[Goatrevolt]

Not true. You also thought Cass was a suspect, and in almost every post you mentioned her as a good lynch, despite inital waffling on her. When you have two lynches, one is a claimed vanilla, and the other, even from a town stance, has about a 50% chance of being a power that you would be outing, is bad. This falls under rolefishing to me, as you want the possibly-roled dead over the vanilla claimed. As scum this makes even more sense as it outs a NKable role, or leaves me and Armlx with roles.

Voting for the player you think is the scummiest is now rolefishing? Give me a break. I was voting for ShadowGirl because she was the most suspicious player in the game to me. That's what you do with players you think are scum. You vote them.

It shows that you had strife in your top three then stopped mentioning him once you started doing analysis of others. The mention would however be enough to look back at and say "Yes I suspected him".

Yeah, I screwed up by not mentioning that I had reread strife and didn't find him as scummy as the other two. Again, if I get lynched because I forgot to mention that I had read the posts of my 3rd suspect I will be frustrated.

You seem to be trying to clear everything your predicesor did by saying "this doesnt look like scum dcorbe". While defending yourself is fine, this seemed to be asking for a complete exemption of anything that dcorbe had done.

You act like this is a weird idea and scummy. It's completely not. We used meta arguments with farside and weather mafia. Should we completely disregard those and call farside scum because meta arguments were used?

The point is this. Dcorbe's play in this game does not look like his scum play from another game I was in with him. Sure, that doesn't fully clear him, but how is it scummy for me to point that out? If his play in this game is drastically different from his play as scum, then I want to point it out, because it suggests that he is town in this game. I want others to read that game and compare his play and see for themselves.

You're trying to throw away this meta argument as a point against me. You're trying to turn something in my favor (dcorbe's meta says he's town in this game) against me (I'm scummy for bringing it up....how does that make sense?). Llama, you were in mini 604. You personally know that dcorbe's play was completely different and that it's a solid point. Your attempt to ignore this point just hammers home the idea that you're scum.

So she was town because of WIFOM saying she wouldnt reguarly claim doctor? Any role had the same chance of being counterclaimed, so why is doctor more believable, no nightkills the first two nights even points away from doctor odds wise.

It had nothing to do with the fact that she claimed Doctor. It had to do with the fact that she claimed a role at all. ShadowGirl seems like a relatively new player, and from my experiences, new players are not going to throw their neck on the line and false claim a role with a roughly 50% chance of a counterclaim. ShadowGirl was also the scummiest player in the game at that point, based on public opinion. If she had been counterclaimed, she likely would have lost and gotten lynched. When she claimed a role, it seemed likely to me that she was probably telling the truth. When you claimed roleblocker and your targets, I was basically 100% sure you were lying, thus definitely suggesting her to be telling the truth.

It was only very late in the day that I thought of the idea of confirming ShadowGirl's alignment. It was a plan with all upside so I suggested it.

You were sure it was strife/me or SG/strife it seemed. The common denominator was strife, and you still were not sure it was me so made the plan that involved you getting rid of SG. This uncertanty makes me not be 100% scum in your logic, even though you say I was. Now that made strife the obvious right play for you D1 because both situations made him scum. Yet you wanted me lynched even when you had doubts that I was scum. This doesnt add up.

I had tossed away the idea of ShadowGirl being scum and ignoring it as a "well we lose if this is the case anyway" scenario. With that mindset, it was you AND strife. It did not matter which order you were lynched in. I preferred lynching you because I know you and know you're a good player. I was fine with lynching strife though.

Then late in the day I thought about it and figured out a way to confirm ShadowGirl's alignment. It then became more advantageous to lynch Strife and confirm ShadowGirl's alignment to get rid of any possible loose ends.

I don't know why you consider this suspicious. I changed my opinion based on new evidence and a higher chance at a town win. How is that inconsistent at all with a pro-town outlook? I was working to figure out the most productive way we could utilize all of our night actions to narrow down suspects the most and make for a higher chance at lynching scum. That's not scummy at all.

[Goatrevolt]

Ok at this point I know what will happen, I will go back and forth with you for pages and pages if permitted. I really dont think this is the best thing to do, as it just makes this a bigger headache for everyone. I think the best course of action here is to basically leave it at "here is my case, there is your case" and let farside decide and ask any questions she needs to make the right decision.

We are split on what is a tell and what isnt, we both have presented all the arguments we want to (I expect you have, I already did), and screaming at eachother really doesnt make too much sense, albiet fun at times. If you want to keep up this charade, then fine I will play along, it just will run around in circles though I think.

Agreed 100%. I might have something else to present after looking back through alvinz/Llama's posts thoroughly, but I'm fine with leaving our present arguments at this.

So farside - Any questions?

[Goatrevolt]

hey farside, guess what?

[Goatrevolt]

WE WON!!!

I'm so happy you made the right choice.

[Goatrevolt]

You stopped the dcorbe wagon on page 3, and then made the right decisions at Lylo both days. /cheer

I was very nervous both days, but I'm glad you came through. Awesome job.

I've still never been lynched as a townie, and I'm glad to keep that streak alive.

[Goatrevolt]

Actually, that point scared the hell out of me. No scum on a day 1 townie lynch? I thought I was going to be dead for sure after that was brought up.

However, I think my point was actually correct. Everyone wanted Max dead, so the scum had absolutely no need to dirty their hands on that wagon, especially if the townies are going to do it for them.

[Goatrevolt]

But I thought Goatre's vote on me would have gotten him lynched, and totally didn't expect Farside to stress-lynch.

I was worried about that, but there is absolutely nothing scummy about me voting for the person who I think is scum. I was hoping that I could express that well enough.

I will also admit that part of my motivation for doing the "kill ShadowGirl" plan was that I didn't think ShadowGirl would follow through with a vote on LlamaFluff. Sorry, SG. There's no way I could have admitted that though.

I was also afraid that I had broken the game, by not giving the night choices at the time of replacement. Can I have more opinions on this?

I think the best way to handle it is to give the night choices as soon as that player replaces in. Here's your role, here's what your predecessor did last night. That type of thing. It could have possibly been gamebreaking in proving that Llama was lying about his role, but Llama answered the question correctly. If Llama had said that you gave them to him when he replaced in, then he would have been obviously lying.

[Goatrevolt]

Mr. Blonde must hold up a sign that says "kill me please." The scum tried to kill him night 0 in the other game I was in with him, but he got doc saved (lucky!).

He did seem like an unlikely kill target. The only reason I can think of is Avinyl was pushing him as scum, and maybe it was an attempt to be like "wow, my top scum target got NKed...looks like I'm not scum!"

[Goatrevolt]

I know i got replaced, but I looked back at this thread every now and then.

I wonder why scum chose Mr. Blonde to kill N1...

Blame it on Avinyl I wanted to kill armlx. He insisted on blonde. So ya i'm passive.

You should be happy then. Jtdyer protected armlx. That would have confirmed two pro-town players and stopped a NK. Ouch.

[Goatrevolt]

Wow, I can't believe it's finally over. -collapses-

Actually, the whole reason I said I specifically mentioned that Llama was my role model [even though it was true] was so that I might not get NKed.

I was worried that you wouldn't vote for LlamaFluff. Sorry for feeding you to the evil llama-scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I blame jtdyer. He really looked a lot like scum with his lurking + bandwagoning. My reasoning for thinking you were scum was mostly based on his play.

[Goatrevolt]

I've only played a doctor once, and I was awful at it.

I'd play the same way regardless of whether you are power or vanilla. A lot of people play safer as power, but then a lot of scum shoot those people playing the safer games to hit power.

[Goatrevolt]

Nah, I think you did well. Your doc protection choices were both solid ones as well. I probably would have protected LLama too, because outside of him being scum, he was the most likely to get NKed in my opinion.