Mini 745 - Moving Day Mafia (GAME OVER!)

[Herodotus]

/confirm

[Herodotus]

Vote dejkha

because if one vote is good, two votes are twice as good.

[Herodotus]

Vote: Herodotus

Because is reason was just plain stupid.

Beats q21's reason.
...by a little, at least.

[Herodotus]

Haha, yeah. Wait, mine or Herodotus'?

Hadn't thought about it that way, but both.

[Herodotus]

@Plonky: what do you think of acfan's suspicions?

@killa seven: Please elaborate. If you already know that someone is scum, we'd like to hear why.

Can't beat something that doesn't exist.

I'm reminded of the Mad Hatter, admonishing Alice for beating time, and shortly after telling her she can always take

more

than nothing.

[Herodotus]

I wasn't defending anyone, I was simply stating that I thought plonky's question was foolish. He took one bit of evidence, and decided to make a vote on it. I know it's only page 3, but it's still bad form. And I figured that dehjka had already covered why you were suspicious, but I wasn't about to vote for you over one thing, because that's exactly the thing which plonky did that I was FOSing him for. But to clarify, I found the fact that you saw that there were several people with two votes, and the unvoted to vote for somebody who already had several votes on him, while saying wagon's are the path to victory. I think dehjka was jumping the gun on voting for you, zeenon's vote is clearly OMGUS, however, please explain your reasoning, if any, for changing your vote the way you did.

It looks like you are confusing Erratus Apathos with Plonky. EA was the one who placed the third vote (on Zeenon,) and Plonky was the one who asked dejkah about the response.

Besides what Erratus Apathos said in post 51 and Plonky said in post 55, I can't understand ac1983fan's decision to use a FoS instead of a vote. Plonky had no votes at the time, but acfan is unwilling to place the first (L-6) vote? There may also be significance to his unvoting right before FoSing, but I don't know what it is.

At this point, though, Zeenon is more interesting to me. Two OMGUS votes against random votes? And calling something obvious that isn't?

Vote: Zeenon

FoS: acfan

@killer seven: You're right, you didn't claim to be certain. But the request for more detail stands.

[Herodotus]

Nope, I was responding to EA's staatements towards me. I was FOSing plonky in regards to his response to dehjka's response to EA.

The reason why I didn't vote is because I don't think there is enough evidence to make a real vote yet. I unvoted because my vote on page 1 was, like all others, a joke vote. It was page 2. It is no longer the time for joke votes by page 2.

Nevermind that post, you're right, I'm wrong. I was thinking of plonky. I was confusing them... I really need to think things through a little more what I post...

There's probably no need to get into this, as long as everyone understands what you were saying, but looking back, I think I was wrong to correct you. I probably thought you were talking about Plonky's change of vote, when you were really talking about EA's change of vote.
Also "random" votes are not "joke votes." Random votes are one of many ways to give people material to use in building a discussion. It is only by coincidence that people often make jokes while posting them.

this quote seems exceptionally scummy .
THAT explains my reason for his vote .
normally mafia try to bandwagon
people to be lynched casually in order
to not attract suspicion .
i would think that i wouldn't need
to explain that, but i guess
Erratus Apathos is a little slow .

EA wasn't the only one who asked you to explain.

bandwagon is a tool utilized by
the mafia
...
this tool can also be used by
townspeople ...

How confident are you that you know which is the case in this instance?

[Herodotus]

EA wasn't the only one who asked you to explain.

the only other person who asked
me a question was Plonky,

Q21 and I also indicated that you needed to explain yourself, whether it was in the form of a question or not.

How confident are you that you know which is the case in this instance?

i can't be confident,
but if he was trying to pressure,
he could have asked a question with it
instead of just stating it was bandwagon vote .

On page 2, what could he have asked you? And if you would agree that there were no meaningful questions, why did you decide he was mafia? You did say "this quote seems exceptionally scummy," which implies either confidence or overstatement.

Two things. One:

Have fun! If you aren't having fun, I want to know why, and if you're stopping others from having fun, then you'll be dealt with, most likely by forced replacement, if you're sucking large amounts of fun out of the game. Don't take the game personally, and don't flame other players.

Slightly hypocritical there, as you were being needlessly offensive to dejka earlier (i.e. post 61.) Naturally that doesn't mean to deserve to be flamed yourself.

Wagons don't lead to mislynches. Faulty evidence and crap logic lead to mislynches. Scum will of course try to combine the two, but wagoning by itself won't get the job done.

As a side note, I think good logic leads to day one mislynches more often than bad logic does, but that does not disprove your point.

@Tovarish: Happy Birthday!

EA's Mafia Scum, he's been here awhile. Do we really think he's stupid enough to betray his scummery in such an obvious manner. obvscum is frequently not scum.

Any idea who is?

[Herodotus]

If "good logic" leads to frequent mislynches, how is it good?

How does that sound like I'm not trying to get involved? I said what I was thinking, but if that's trying not to get involved then, yes, I guess I'm not.

As of now, the two major people I suspect is:
EA
Jazmynn

You're not participating in the discussion. You're just agreeing with wagons as inconspicuously as possible. Eat rope, scum.

Unvote
Vote: Zer0ph34r

Asked and answered.
In other words, in many games there are players who are going to act scummy to some degree regardless of their role. (I think Zero is an example in this game.) So they are frequently lynched while pro-town. There are plenty of examples, but the ones that come to mind first are ongoing. Here is Newbie 588 (completed) where on day one Mafiamurkrow was lurking and refusing to answer questions. While she was hammered a little early by mistake, it was pretty much inevitable in retrospect.
These aren't necessarily bad lynches - if they're acting anti-town they're almost as bad as scum - but strictly speaking they are mislynches.

To put it another way, the majority of D1 lynches are mislynches, and the majority of D1 lynches are based on good logic under the circumstances. Therefore at least some D1 lynches would have to be mislynches based on good logic, and I'd estimate that many are.

Please let me know whether you'd agree.

Also, congrats on your scumday.

@Killer 7:
Will you explain about almost everyone looking scummy? I'm hoping for a person-by-person list of specific scummy actions.

[Herodotus]

EWBOP:
By more often, I mean in absolute numbers, not relative numbers. I'm saying that if you looked at all past games, you would find more D1 mislynches that were based on good logic than D1 mislynches that were based on bad logic.

[Herodotus]

EBWOP Again:
I meant to say that you answered your own question (with an example) right after asking it. I don't remember what's that's called, but "asked and answered" means something else. Apologies for the poor communication; I should have spent more time editing.

[Herodotus]

i thought it was kind of obvious
my first vote was just a joke .. i guess not .

Yes, in isolation, it looked like just a joke, and I would have ignored it. It was your second vote that looked suspicious, which led me to scrutinize your first vote. Then I noticed they were both placed on someone who had just voted for you.

And, btw, why would anyone act scummy? And how am I the prime example of this game? What have I done that was even remotely scummy?

I didn't say you've done anything overly scummy (though I do expect to hear more from you in the future; holding back does look suspicious.) And no one called you a prime example of anything. I said I think you might act scummy regardless of your role. You might unintentionally say or do things that would lead the town to lynch you, even if you are town-sided. But this is only a possibility, and dwelling on it now will only make this game harder. My point was only that people do that sometimes.

It seems a little weird to be that Hero is unsure of what he thought. It's not often "probably" is involved when you're describing your own mentality. It seems like a possible slip to me, but I suppose it's up to everyone else as to how far they take this.

I simply don't remember what I was thinking. When I first read AC's post, for some reason I thought he was confusing EA and Plonky. I don't know why I thought that, but my best guess was that I thought he was talking about Plonky's change of vote. So that was "probably" the cause of my confusion.

Jazz, I'll be willing to let you of the hook with the random vote on Zee for now. Since that seems to be the only thing that can be considered even remotely scummy about you IMO,

there's not much point in holding it against you until we need to

(ex: if you do something else scummy). Even though it was fairly clear that the RVS was over...

I won't be overlooking Erat's play to get a discussion going though. Whether it was or wasn't just to get a discussion going,

it can still be a nice little bit to go by in the future. So I'll be keeping it in mind.

I don't like these two paragraphs. Not because your points are wrong, but because of how you seem to be using them. I could understand if you had said that the evidence simply wasn't enough to arouse suspicions/earn a vote/lynch someone on its own, or was weaker than the evidence against others. Instead, you comment on these things as if you are collecting evidence to use for making arguments in the future, rather than considering it in determining who the scum are. I don't know whether that's really what you are doing or not, but that is definitely what the scum are doing, and for the most part not what town-sided people are doing.

im here.

There can't be post restrictions in Mini Normal games, right?

Vote: Killer seven

Apparently you have over 1000 posts on the site, so it's unlikely that you don't understand the need to say something meaningful.

@AC: Random vote does not mean joke vote.

[Herodotus]

though i would like K7 to post, i cannot support a policy lynch at this time. i would choose it over a no lynch, but otherwise i feel it would do no good. if K7 chooses not to post, i would suggest requesting a replacement before following through on a policy lynch.

In principle, I agree. But is that even an option? I'm assuming the mod would not replace active lurkers:

Inactivity, Prods and Deadlines
Lurking is allowed as a strategy in this game but I expect everyone to post at least every other day. Any player who becomes inactive will be prodded after 2 days (weekends counting as 1), and will be replaced if there are no posts after 5 days of inactivity (weekends counting as 1).

I hope this doesn't end up becoming an issue, though. I'd rather K7 decide to either play or let someone else play in his place.

[Herodotus]

we

sh

ould all be voting and waving about accusations so we did not look scummy

and to root out the scum

.

Fixed. But how do you get from there to:

All that happens, and we quicklynch to avoid looking scummy.

For instance, I could vote for you right now; that would not lead to a quicklynch or shorten the day in any way. Several other people could even join me in voting for you, then we could all unvote, and day one could continue on until December.

To be scummy an action has to be intentionally beneficial to the scum. Were that the case EA would have had to be voting someone to L-4 with in the hope that that led to a quick-myslynch on the second (or soon thereafter) page of the game. - Not likely to happen.

To be townie his action would be with the intent of helping the town.

By these standards, K7's actions are scummy. If he is pro-town, he is intentionally making it harder for the rest of us to determine that. Also, he is intentionally making it harder to determine which other people are scum.

I do play, i just generally dont do much on day 1's.

If you survive to day 2, what happens then?

[Herodotus]

@Q:
I hope you understand that I wasn't quoting you to imply that you were obligated to agree.

I think Killer's decision is willfully anti-town. But if he will commit to being more active on day 2 and later if he survives that long, that would help reduce my desire to lynch him. That's why I asked the question at the end of my last post. If he is going to actively lurk throughout the game, we will eventually have to lynch him. It seems it would be better to do that on an earlier day rather than a later day when we will have enough information to improve our odds of hitting mafia. But if he will start playing tomorrow, he could make up for today.

[Herodotus]

unvote

A K7 lynch seems premature... I was glad to see a couple votes added, but I'd prefer that we at least gave ourselves some time before possibly finishing him off. I might revote, even hammering if necessary, but I don't see the need to rush.

Also, Killer claiming or not has nothing to do with the reasons he is anti-town. I prefer my question (will he commit to future participation?) over Jazzmyn's request for a role claim.

[Herodotus]

Im town nothin special, go ahead and hammer big boy.

Interesting. I don't see any way your claim and/or antagonism will help whatever team you are on.
With a literal invitation to hammer, I think we should reconsider the possibility that he is a jester. It could be reverse psychology, but why phrase it to offend?

i wont respond to your threats.
can you tell that i dont care by now?

What is it that you don't care about? The statement of the threat? His vote? His reasons for voting? Whether you are lynched? Whether the side you are on wins the game? All of the above?

what do you think his answer will be to a request to "commit to future participation"? Do you expect scum to say no, they will not commit to future participation? Do you expect town to say no, they will not commit to future participation?

A rational town-sided person should answer this question honestly, though I'll grant he does not appear to be acting like a rational town-sided person. There is a mathematical reasoning behind this, but I'm not sure if it's best to share it. But anyways, if he does make that commitment, and it is later proven to be a lie, he will probably be lynched for the lying+lurking combination. Maybe that's why he hasn't answered yet?

@EA and dejka: Could you each tell us why you are voting for Killer Seven? We could all assume that we know, but it would be good to hear it in your own words. And it would give you an opportunity to make a case against him.

@Plonky: I'm sorry that your huge post got eaten, but could you at least make a little post?

[Herodotus]

Killa7, if you do not post something remotely constructive within the next 24 hours, I will definitely vote for you. I don't really give a crap if this is your playstyle, it is not helpful to the town.

vote: killa seven

I gave you 24 hours, and you decide to post stuff completely unconstructive? When you have posted something even moderately constructive, you fail to post reasons. You have not answered several of the questions you have been asked.

Is it just me, or can anyone else confirm that these posts were only about 11 hours apart? 11 is

less than half

of 24. And AC, no claiming that you are posting from a ship traveling at relativistic speeds, or from somewhere near a black hole: then your time would be dilated, not contracted.

[Herodotus]

Herodotus- voting killa seven because of his short posts, which i agree doesn't help at all. (although his unvote seems like he is scum trying to buy some town points)
...
also, since [K7] is posting more regularly, why isn't anybody unvoting? we should look into the people voting him. i'll start off:

Vote: Herodotus

, for his wishy-washy voting patterns.

Um... wtf?

Also,

dejkha- he has NOT given a reason to vote killa seven at ALL.

He was asked questions multiple times and refused to correctly answer them and he's yet to make a post with useful content. That's not to mention the lurking.

Dejkha also made other relevant comments in post 182.

Also,
You completely left zero and tovarish off your list of K7 voters... are they your scumbuddies? And if I'm on your voter list because I previously voted him, Jazzmyn ought to be too for threatening to hammer him.

Mod: Don_J is not on the votecount on page 9 or 10.

Updated, thank you.

[Herodotus]

It was not so much jumping to conclusions as wanting to see what you had to say about it. But yes, I am liable to come up with random theories.

Your explanation that you forgot them is pretty questionable. They are listed in the votecounts, and your point appeared to be that you were looking for scum on his bandwagon. Then when I mention that you didn't include them, you just say that "their reasons were probably the same as the others?" You could have checked that before posting. If you were looking for discreet wagon-joiners, isn't it important to not miss, then casually dismiss, two voters?
Whether this is evidence of scumminess on your part I don't know right now.

[Herodotus]

This is an overwhelmingly problematic and troublesome argument. Notice my point about being anti-town and being scummy not being the same thing. I point-blank refuse to lynch non-contributors for the simple reason that I am here to scum-hunt, not lynch unhelpful people. Policy lynching of this kind is far worse than what killa seven is doing.

I don't mean to make a straw man out of this, but if you literally mean that you "point-blank refuse to lynch non-contributors," then (active) lurking becomes a guaranteed victory for scum (unless they are vig-killed. And I can see how that would be better than lynching lurkers.)

Consider, also, that killer has posted a lot more since the wagon on him built up. It's not a lot, but it could help to determine his alignment if someone will analyze what he said and look at his "meta." Pressure works. And it's only pressure if it might lead to a lynch. So I think that willingness to consider lynching a non-contributor is useful to prevent non-contribution, even if you only follow through occasionally.

[Herodotus]

And to reiterate, I knew that 24 hours hadn't past, but killa seven had posted, completely ignoring my post directed towards him as well as several questions directed towards him. So therefore, he made it clear that he wasn't going to post anything remotely constructive within my deadline.

That would have been fine except you then wrote:

vote: killa seven

I gave you 24 hours

, and you decide to post stuff completely unconstructive? When you have posted something even moderately constructive, you fail to post reasons. You have not answered several of the questions you have been asked.

[Herodotus]

As in I was going to give him a 24 hour window. Maybe I should've worded that better.

Ok, that does seem to be a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote. At first, it looked like you were suggesting that the 24 hours were up.
On a related note, does anything about the timing of the votes on killer7 strike you as suspicious?

Top of page 11 vote count:

killa seven 5 (Zer0ph34r, Tovarish, Erratus Apathos, dejkha, ac1983fan)
ac1983fan 1 (q21)
ZEEnon 1 (Jazzmyn)
dejkha 1 (Plonky)
Herodotus 1 (ZEEnon)

Not voting: killa seven, Herodotus, don_johnson

With 12 still packing it takes 7 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

Prods: None at this time

[Herodotus]

As in I was going to give him a 24 hour window. Maybe I should've worded that better.

Ok, that does seem to be a reasonable interpretation of what you wrote. At first, it looked like you were suggesting that the 24 hours were up.
On a related note, does anything about the timing of the votes on killer7 strike you as suspicious?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

Because the order and timing of votes on a wagon can sometimes suggest a scummy reason for voting.

[Herodotus]

I've never seen a vanilla claim stop a lynch wagon though.

all the more reason not to let it stop this one.

How is that?

Are you not reading the thread?

HE CLAIMED VANILLA

. He is, therefore, either a townie, a member of the mafia with a claim which I've never seen stop a lynch wagon, or a really stupid power role. I obviously have no actual idea if he's town or scum or some sort of jester or some other wierd shit. I'm voting him because he has displayed the most ANTI-TOWN behavior

AC, this might sound like a stupid question because you might feel that you've already answered it, but how probable do you think it is that Killer is scum? There are presumably 2, 3, or 4 scum out there, so let's say the average probability of a player being scum right now is 1/4. Would you put Killer above or below that?

Uhhh, no. If I believed killa seven was town, I would absolutely not be voting him, because lynching town flies

directly

in the face of my win-con. I don't buy for one second that you believe k7 is town but think he should be lynched regardless.

Same question. Above or below baseline probability that Killer is scum?

I'm puzzled, as mentioned before, as to why a lynch at the moment is best. Especially since we are targetting an annoyance rather than actual scum.

My intuition tells me that you don't know for sure whether Killer is scum (in which case, you would be too,) but I think there is a better argument for lynching Killer than just annoyance.
I agree that finishing the day right now is unnecessary.

So basically, although I would prefer to lynch scum, a killa seven lynch looks like that it will be the only lynch I'm willing to support today, because of reasons I have listed.

Just because Killer is the only alternative at the moment doesn't mean there will never be another. Keeping him at L-1 doesn't just mean that you think he's a good lynch, it means you are done looking for any better lynches.

q21 and your posts are trying to lynch me, how the hell am I going to be swayed by that? That's the only alternative being presented to a killa lynch at the moment.

If you want another alternative, present one. (Whether you need another option depends on whether you think K7 is scum, naturally.) On the other hand, if your primary goal today isn't to find scum, but to not get lynched, then your best strategy is to keep your vote where it is, not make any other cases, and hope Jazzmyn hammers next time she logs on.

Top of page 12 vote count:

killa seven 5 (Zer0ph34r, Tovarish, dejkha, ac1983fan, don_johnson)
ac1983fan 3 (q21, Erratus Apathos, Plonky)
ZEEnon 1 (Jazzmyn)
Herodotus 1 (ZEEnon)

Not voting: killa seven, Herodotus

With 12 still packing it takes 7 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

Prods: Will check in the morning

[Herodotus]

I've never seen a vanilla claim stop a lynch wagon though.

all the more reason not to let it stop this one.

How is that?

it is a wifomic reason to halt a wagon. scum can, and do, fake claim vanilla. someone claiming vanilla is not a valid reason, in and of itself, to halt a wagon. if K7 is town, then he should be posting content to avoid being lynched as by not doing so he would not be playing to his win condition. claiming "vanilla" and saying "go ahead and lynch me" doesn't seem like a very town play to me. it sounds, to me, like scum trying to justify their lurking by feigning indifference to the game.

I still don't understand. I understood your statement to mean that decisions made by other towns in the past to lynch vanilla claimers should guide our decision here. I don't see the reasoning you are using. I can agree with the part about justifying lurking. The scum don't want attention; that would be a motivation not to post. If that's his intent, it's obviously backfired. But would you guess that his vanilla claim increases the odds that that's the case? As opposed to refusing to claim or claiming a power role?

[Herodotus]

I still can't understand this:

I've never seen a vanilla claim stop a lynch wagon though.

all the more reason not to let it stop this one.

The words AC wrote, and their connection to the words you wrote. AC is clearly referring to what other towns have done in the past. If vanilla claims never stopped other towns' wagons, why is

that

a reason not to let one stop this wagon? I'm guessing you've already explained it in some fashion in your posts since I asked, but I don't see the reference to continuing the past policy.

---

the vanilla claim is irrelevant. it should not sway us one way or the other. refusing to claim or claiming a pr would have sparked discussion and also put him in position to be counterclaimed, two things scum tend to avoid. the vanilla claim does support the idea of him being scum and feigning indifference, however, aside from that, the claim itself is really irrelevant as it also supports the theory of lazy townie. that said: i think he's our best shot at scum as of right now.

Does that mean that anyone who claims townie and doesn't seem to care if they're lynched on day one is likely scum? Also, even if Killer is our best shot right now, isn't there a good chance that we will, in time, be able to find a stronger scumtell than the possibility that one player's indifference is feigned?

---

What do you think of the AC wagon? He's estimated only a 1/6 chance the person he's voting for is scum. Obviously, you'd rate the probability a bit higher, but would you say that AC's own statements indicate scumminess on his part?

[Herodotus]

Q- In response to your earlier question, it's simply an inferrence I drew- possibly a flawed one. Should we adhere to that line, and that is the reason it was posted, to "motivate" us into adhering to it, we would all be voting and waving about accusations simply so we did not look scummy.
All that happens, and we quicklynch to avoid looking scummy. Ergo, short day. Yes, I realize that is quite farfetched- I guess I was pointing out the worst case scenario without informing you that it was.

Tovarish, now that you're back, how do you get from making accusations and votes to quicklynching? As I said before,

For instance, I could vote for you right now; that would not lead to a quicklynch or shorten the day in any way. Several other people could even join me in voting for you, then we could all unvote, and day one could continue on until December.

Until a majority of people are voting for one person, votes are fully reversible. And hammering on a quicklynch is a poor way of avoiding looking scummy.

[Herodotus]

Of course they're reversible, I'm waiting for killa seven to redeem himself and am more than willing to remove my vote if he can reconcile his scummy actions some how and prove himself a member of the town. Last I checked, that was how the game is played. Perhaps I am not understanding the point of your questions?

Yes, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about Killer; In post 186 you responded to Q21's post 171 and suggested that voting and making accusations would lead to a quicklynch. I asked you about it in post 187, but you went away before responding.
I suppose my question isn't too important, but I don't see how you get short days/a quicklynch out of Don's "if you can't find scum its because you are."

[Herodotus]

Just letting everyone know, I'm here and following along, but I have nothing to comment on and still feel the same way toward K7. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.

How about AC?

I guess I should offer my opinion on AC. I'm working on another post right now, so I'll include that with it.

[Herodotus]

I just realized something. Killer's lack of avatar makes his posting appear even sparser than it already is.

On AC:
I think AC is making scum-like mistakes that scum would purposely avoid, like admitting he believes his target is a townie. Scum would generally try to make themselves look less suspicious by pretending that their opinion is that their target is scummy. If AC is scum he really would have no reason not to do so. That doesn't clear him, because it's strictly WIFOM, but it suggests he is being sincere, and sincerity is pro-town. Not that he isn't suspicious, but he would not be high on my list for today's lynch, even if I think his ideas are incorrect. He also makes me a little more doubtful about lynching K7 -- I think a lynch should usually be performed because the voters consider the person likely scum. That means we should take some more time to agree or disagree on that point.
More later, I have to go for now.

[Herodotus]

Um, major question:

Why is everyone considering lynching right NOW?

I have seen Day 1 last for 30 pages, and to me that's perfectly acceptable.

I see few benefits to lynching killa7 at the moment. For the town, it is sub-optimal to even consider lynching someone who is probably town. The ONLY people who gain tremendously from this move are the scum.

I am quite saddened that only q21 and erratus seem behind me.

Vote: ac1983fan

. I agree with all the comments said about him.

Now this is a far more interesting wagon. For those still voting for killa7, I'd like to know why you

honestly

cannot find anyone more scummy than him, because that's either scummy or suggests somewhat under-par scum-hunting abilities (which is, essentially, what killa7 is being accused of.)

How was Erratus behind you? Just because he unvoted doesn't mean he's opposed to the Killer lynch. And why did you think ZEE wasn't behind you?

Mod: Plonky and EA may need prods by the time you read this.

I typically check for prods in the morning, if they have not posted by then I will prod them.

[Herodotus]

Scum already know who town is and it's not uncommon for them to just get on a bandwagon. They just want town to lynch themselves, so...

That seems pretty reasonable. But just getting on any random bandwagon is useless at the beginning of the game. What bandwagons should scum join, and when should they join them? In this post, I answer those questions.

The order and timing of votes on a wagon can sometimes suggest a scummy reason for voting.

Suppose you're scum. You want a town-sided person lynched, but you don't want to look like you want a town-sided person lynched. Ideally, you wouldn't even be voting for the person, but it's hard to get someone lynched without voting for them. So whom do you vote for, when do you vote for them, and what do you say about them? In general:
1. You vote for someone whom others have indicated they find suspicious. It's sometimes dangerous to make a poorly-received argument, and it's easy to push a wagon that has town-sided support.
2. You avoid placing the L-1 vote or the hammer on a townie. Everyone knows that results in scrutiny and suspicion. But obviously, you can't always be early; you don't know what wagons are heading to likely lynches. And you certainly don't want to hop on every wagon that forms. That looks suspicious, too, and besides, you have scumbuddies to share the wagon-joining. So you join the ones you expect to go somewhere, and you join them as soon as you're pretty confident in them.
3. You say things others will infer as indicating you are suspicious of the wagonee, but nothing you'll regret later when they flip townie. Keep it minimal, non-committal, and convincing. Most of the time.
4. For extra credit, you vote after another person (a town-sided person, naturally) has suggested/stated that they too will vote for the bandwagonee, but before they do so. That way, you get to place a relatively earlier vote, with the benefit of knowing that the wagon will continue to grow toward a lynch.

[Interlude]

When I read this I find it a little contradictory. You claim not to be "too suspicious" of anyone, but the way to address, accuse and then vote don looks to me like you do, in fact, find him to be "too suspicious". True, not true?

Not true. He's the most suspicious to me right now and I'm the only one voting him, so that's where I'm placing my vote at the moment. If he already had votes on him, I'd probably hold off a little while.

Dejkha is a careful voter. There's no way he'd vote for someone who already had votes on them, unless he was confident he'd found scum.
[/Interlude]

Consider the following timeline:
{Vote count excerpt: killa seven: 3 (Herodotus, Zer0ph34r, Tovarish)}

If killa doesn't post something constructive within the next couple of days, I'd support his lynch...

Post or die.

Unvote
Vote: killa seven

(Dejkha asks Killer7 some questions, but makes no argument, in post 182.)

Killa7, if you do not post something remotely constructive within the next 24 hours, I will definitely vote for you.

Vote: Killa Seven

vote: killa seven

I gave you 24 hours

[well, 11 really]

, and you decide to post stuff completely unconstructive? When you have posted something even moderately constructive, you fail to post reasons. You have not answered several of the questions you have been asked.

{Vote count excerpt: killa seven: 6 (Herodotus, Zer0ph34r, Tovarish, Erratus Apathos, dejkha, ac1983fan)} = L-1, and it looks as if AC placed the L-1 vote. Because technically he did, but for vote timing purposes, he'd practically voted back when K7 only had 3 votes.

@EA and dejka: Could you each tell us why you are voting for Killer Seven?

Because I don't tolerate lurking.

(Not because you think he's scum?)

@EA and dejka: Could you each tell us why you are voting for Killer Seven? We could all assume that we know, but it would be good to hear it in your own words. And it would give you an opportunity to make a case against him.

He was asked questions multiple times and refused to correctly answer them and he's yet to make a post with useful content. That's not to mention the lurking.

(Minimal, non-committal, and factual.)

[Interlude]

I don't see you saying anything to anyone else voting for him. I'm pretty sure most of them think that he is town, since scum knows claiming vanilla will likely not save them.

Uhhh, no. If I believed killa seven was town, I would absolutely not be voting him, because lynching town flies

directly

in the face of my win-con. I don't buy for one second that you believe k7 is town but think he should be lynched regardless.

Unvote
Vote: ac1983fan

This might not be particularly scummy; you're leaving the most promising wagon for the second most promising. You could have scummy or pro-town reasons for doing so.
But it's kind of weird that you indicate that you think K7 is scum

for the first time

, then unvote in the same post. Also, the town win condition is a bit more subtle than "never lynch town, ever," so I don't think you really mean "directly." Finally, if AC is scum, and K7 is town, then AC does know that K7 is town but wants him lynched regardless. If you don't believe AC wants townies lynched, then you don't believe AC is scum. So why are you voting him?
[/Interlude]

TL,DR version:

(with some additional information)

My analysis depends in part on assuming Killer Seven is either town-alligned, or at least not a member of the only scum group. (He could still be a SK or second mafia group if either exist.) This is not guaranteed to be true, but it's likely.
I am pretty sure there are one or two mafia members on the Killer bandwagon.
Dejkha and EA both joined during the time when it was most advantageous to scum, particularly if AC is town-sided.
Dejkha made some questions prior to voting, but did not explain his vote, and has pretty much lurked since then. When asked for an explanation, he listed some mundane reasons without making any argument or even definitively stating he found Killer scummy. This is distancing himself from the lynch.
As I pointed out in post 149, Dejkha was "evidence collecting" earlier instead of "evidence considering." It's like he wants a bag full of arguments he can make against each other player whenever he needs one later.
EA didn't state that he found Killer scummy until the post in which he unvoted. There are some strange things about that post, as well.

Vote: Dejkha

Moderate FOS: Erratus Apathos

[Herodotus]

unvote

herodotus, I think your thought that dejkha finding killa7 scummy and thus making the votes for the lynch go away from him was a bad/stupid thought. Regardless of scum or not, no body wants to be lynched and (hopefully) everyone will vote based on whatever reason, hopefully if they think they're scum, but thinking that he voted for someone to get votes away from him is just illogical. No one can vote for themselves (at least I don't think) and unless dejkha said something specific about this, it's just an odd assumption to make.

Yeah, that thought would be kinda bad... glad I didn't think it.
I definitely never said that Dejkha was trying to remove votes from himself or Killer.
And you are allowed to vote for yourself; it's just almost never a good idea.

[Herodotus]

Zero,
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to argue. I think Dejkha is scum who was trying to get Killer lynched. He wanted people to add more votes to Killer, not take them away.

Still Dej, do you not believe that k7 is scum?

No, I do believe that he is scum.

What was he going to say? "I'm voting for a townie?"

[Herodotus]

Tovarish,
I wasn't trying to be mean, or an example of that word you used. I was rolling my eyes because there's only one "good" answer to that question, and because someone gave a "bad" answer to the question already.

Further, if you think it was unclear earlier whether he found Killer scummy, it's not because Dejkha didn't have opportunities to tell us.

[Herodotus]

And yes scum do have a reason to post that they think their target is town, namely their target usually IS town and they don't want to look bad for accusing an innocent. By hiding behind "sacrificable innocent" bullshit, they can lynch an innocent without looking bad for a plan going wrong.

Sure, but it would be easier to hide behind "guess I was wrong." Especially consider if the lynch doesn't go through -- if AC said he thought K7 was scum, and K7's alignment is never revealed, AC would probably never have to be held accountable for being on his wagon. But even if the lynch happened, we all know that everyone makes mistakes. There are pro-towns on the wagon practically every time a pro-town is lynched, and normally it's because they were mistaken about their target's alignment.

"scum-like mistakes that scum would purposely avoid"? Are there scum-like mistakes that scum would

not

purposely avoid?

Maybe not; I don't know. Ask someone who is better at this than I am*. One possible example is things they wouldn't know better than to do, i.e. relatively unknown scumtells. But either way, I was referring to things that scum would specifically avoid doing. My sincerest apologies if my statement was redundant. That would be semantically incorrect of me.

You know what's better than semantics? Anything else at all. Yes there are very rare circumstances where intentionally lynching town is beneficial, who gives a fuck? And when I said I didn't believe AC's story, I'm pretty sure AC being scum wasn't a part of that story

What I could not figure out is why you said that you don't buy (this does mean the same as believe in this context, yes?) that AC thinks K7 is a townie who should be lynched. To break it down into two parts: Do you believe AC thinks K7 should be lynched? Do you believe AC thinks K7 is town?

If I believed killa seven was town, I would absolutely not be voting him

WTF? I didn't say I thought he was scum in that post.

Are you just referring to the level of certainty you were using? If so, you are nitpicking.
Obviously you didn't say you were sure he was scum, but the point is that this was the first post in which you indicated either way whether you had more of a town-read or a scum-read on K7.

It's a lurker pressure wagon. Joining in any order is inherently advantageous to town.

And joining when you and Dejkha did is even more advantageous to scum.

Try again.

There's no need. It is unlikely that I haven't just either voted or FOS'ed either one or two scum. The only questions are which of you to lynch first, and whether maybe only one of you is scum, while the other just stumbled into looking scummy.

*If you'd like, you can make a joke that everyone is better than I am.

[Herodotus]

Basically I see his 24 hour warning as scum hoping the wagon would continue to grow and that he would have the opportunity to place his vote near the end of it to try to get some assurance that it happened. His warning means that when questioned about his vote he could say, "But I said I was going to do it."

This is possible. But it seems like if he voted, and the wagon didn't grow, his vote would easily be excused as "pressure."
Also, unless K7 had a major change of personality or replacement, AC was somewhat obligated to vote and "support K7's lynch." To fail to do so might have drawn suspicion; consequently AC didn't really stand to gain much in terms of assurance that he'd only have to participate in the wagon if it grew first.
Although this raises the question of his timing again. It's possible that the reason he didn't wait 24 hours is because he wanted to reach a lynch before anyone had an opportunity to unvote and/or because he thought being the L-1 was much better than hammering.

His comments about k7 not being scum, just unconstructive townie, seem like preparation for dealing with the fallout of lynching k7 and getting a townie flip.

I still think that, as scum, he'd be better off claiming a 30-40% scummy read on Killer. The fallout he's currently experiencing was pretty much inevitable, and harsher, than having an opinion that some townie he was voting was above baseline likelihood of being scum. Even 40% is less than half, so he could easily say Killer was more likely pro-town than scum but still above the "lynchworthy threshold."

The way your case is presented pretty much precludes dejka and acfan of being scum together (not to say that they can't be, just not using your reasoning) and I like my acfan vote at the moment.

I think that finding either to be scum would look good for, but not entirely clear, the other. I'm not sure about the implications for Killer and EA, but if AC is scum that would refute my strongest single point against EA.
AC has definitely given off some scum-tells today, so I can understand liking your vote on him. I'm not convinced he's scum, though. Maybe in a couple days I should reread him in isolation. I need a new frame of mind, because right now I'm reading him with a bias toward thinking he's pro-town because that's my current read.

[Herodotus]

there are plenty of people not doing shit, you guys are so focused on me "not helping" that you fail to see the others coasting it out, what about EA? he hoped on my wagon saying post or die.. then posted once then came back to hop on AC's wagon with another weak excuse once he was taking heat, i may be lazy somtimes but i dont just throw my vote around like a frizbee and abandon wagons because they lose steam.

I was taking heat? You were the only one attacking me, and like I said before: if I was scum, I wouldn't care one bit about you attacking me, since I'd know you're going to lurk your ass off rather than do jack shit to get me lynched.

Good point about not throwing your vote around by the way. It's sooooo protown to refuse to change your mind when new evidence comes up.

LOL this made me laugh

I don't get the joke. Both of his points are valid IMO.

[Herodotus]

But the question is whether AC, as scum, would gain any advantage from the pseudo-vote. The same explanation, pressure, could be used for an immediate vote on a wagon that did not go farther. Is his pseudo-vote more likely to bring pro-towns to the Killer wagon than a regular vote would? I can see how that is possible, but only if it drew extra attention, which he would not want if he's scum. Or is the pseudo-vote more justifiable in the event that Killer is later proven town?

I don't get why you would want things to move along, but put the deadline in 2 WEEKS.

I don't get why you would want things to move along, but put the deadline in 2 WEEKS.

i agree with this. i read it a couple times because i thought i read it wrong.
the deadline is far off so i don't think it will help spark discussion for a while .

Wanting the deadline to arrive sooner is quite anti-town. Also, it will make the Killer lynch you say you oppose more likely.
And if either of you is interested in moving things along or sparking conversation earlier, all you have to do is post ideas and questions.
Here's a question for ZEE. If I recall correctly, the last argument you made that someone was scummy was against me for wishy-washy voting. Do you find me the most suspicious? If not, whom?

[Herodotus]

I'm just confused as to why you are on the killa seven bandwagon for the reasons I posted in my previous post.

I'm not. It is still possible that I would support a killer lynch today, but I haven't been voting him since page 9, and I don't expect to return to him without a good reason. Note also that my current suspicion is based on guessing he is town-aligned.

And yes scum do have a reason to post that they think their target is town, namely their target usually IS town and they don't want to look bad for accusing an innocent. By hiding behind "sacrificable innocent" bullshit, they can lynch an innocent without looking bad for a plan going wrong.

Sure, but it would be easier to hide behind "guess I was wrong." Especially consider if the lynch doesn't go through -- if AC said he thought K7 was scum, and K7's alignment is never revealed, AC would probably never have to be held accountable for being on his wagon. But even if the lynch happened, we all know that everyone makes mistakes. There are pro-towns on the wagon practically every time a pro-town is lynched, and normally it's because they were mistaken about their target's alignment.

So? That hasn't stopped (and shouldn't stop) anyone from scrutinizing players on a mislynch. Not that saying "it's okay to sacrifice (townie)" does either, of course, but it's nowhere near as common.

The point is the relative degree of suspicion/scrutiny. I said it's

easier

(more effective might be a better way to put it) to defend yourself saying you misread someone's alignment than it is to explain that you wanted to lynch someone you admit you feel is a townie. Also, if Killer's alignment is not revealed (i.e. if scum-AC's plan to get him mislynched fails,) then AC never has to worry about being scrutinized/suspected over having believed him to be likely scum. Since the scum have freedom in manufacturing their opinions, taking the path of greatest resistance is not generally worthwhile.

"scum-like mistakes that scum would purposely avoid"? Are there scum-like mistakes that scum would

not

purposely avoid?

Maybe not; I don't know. Ask someone who is better at this than I am. One possible example is things they wouldn't know better than to do, i.e. relatively unknown scumtells. But either way, I was referring to things that scum would specifically avoid doing. My sincerest apologies if my statement was redundant. That would be semantically incorrect of me.

Yes, scum only avoid scumtells they know about. Thing is, so do townies. Nobody intentionally makes scumtells. I guess what I'm saying is, if scum would avoid saying something if they knew it would lead to suspicion on them, why wouldn't a townie also? Why is this a thing that town is more likely to do?

1) It is my suspicion that scum are more guarded about the things they say. I might be wrong about that.
2) Town-sided people tend to want to get more information about their thoughts out. A townie knows that lying just to avoid suspicion may be sabotaging his own team. Thus all else being equal, openly admitting something that you know could be used against you makes it a pretty weak tell in general.

Well, yes. I guess when I said I don't believe those things I should have specified that I didn't believe he was town and also those things. Obviously I lose at semantics.

This is a written game. If you write something, don't count on everyone assuming you mean something completely different. Plenty of scum-tells are based on people (accidently) writing what they really mean instead of what they want others to think they mean. Check out the comments about Plonky, in this game.

If I believed killa seven was town, I would absolutely not be voting him

WTF? I didn't say I thought he was scum in that post.

Are you just referring to the level of certainty you were using? If so, you are nitpicking.

It is not nitpicking. There is a world of difference between a policy lynch and a regular lynch.

Obviously you didn't say you were sure he was scum, but the point is that this was the first post in which you indicated either way whether you had more of a town-read or a scum-read on K7.

I didn't really indicate my read, so much as deny that I had a town read. (This, on the other hand, is nitpicking.)

And this is convoluted. You were voting for Killer, but you wouldn't have been voting for Killer if you believed he was town, but you didn't think he was scum, and didn't indicate any read when you said that? Nonsense. And even if it made sense, you would be admitting that you still hadn't told us at the time whether you found Killer scummy. It was already suspicious to think that you waited until the post in which you unvoted.

It's a lurker pressure wagon. Joining in any order is inherently advantageous to town.

And joining when you and Dejkha did is even more advantageous to scum.

Okay. How is advantageous to scum? Oh wait I remember, because I was voting obvtown k7. And also that k7 is obvtown because I'm scum trying to lynch him. I guess I used the "circular logic" joke too early.

It's not circular at all, because I never used your scumminess to clear AC and K7 (though if we lynch/vig/investigate/etc. you two and you both come up as scum, then we will have evidence in favor of both of them, I think. And me, because I wouldn't bus two scum partners out of the blue.) But even if it were circular, that wouldn't make it wrong. There are only a finite number of possibilities, and the argument I made fits with the information available. It would be an even stronger argument if K7 and AC were proven town, but arguing from probability is acceptable.

Somehow, I think if your voting order tell was really that likely to catch scum, it'd be used in every game, or at least in a lot more than just this one.

It's not in every game that someone says "I'm going to vote for you later!" then "I'm going to vote for you 24 hours from now!"

On the off chance that you didn't pull it out of your ass, where did you get it from?

Are you asking because you want to learn about new strategies, or to discredit my argument? Because in the first case, you'll have to wait until the end of the game. And in the second case, you are making a genetic fallacy by requesting that I appeal to authority when I'm arguing from reason, not authority.

[Herodotus]

We're not going to see proof on day one. We could if someone were to really mess up, but we shouldn't expect that.

I feel very strongly that NO player here should be permitted to deliberately and willfully refuse to play the games that he signs up for purposes of building up a meta that he can later exploit.....

In fact, they are not. It's a violation of the Forum Rules and Guidelines. It's entirely up to the mod to decide whether and how to respond, but if Raider decides that Killer is not playing to win this particular game, we may see a forced replacement.

[Herodotus]

ONE game post in the past 24 hours?

This is how the town lost in my last game. At least half the town was lurking, so the scum decided they might as well lurk too. Not one of the scum ever died.

If people don't have more that they want to say on day one, I think it's time we went ahead and lynched Dejkha to make sure he's scum. He hasn't said anything of consequence since Wednesday, so to all those on the killer wagon, I say why not choose the lurker against whom we have a few pieces of evidence of a scummy motivation? If you really want Killer dead, we can consider that issue tomorrow if he's still alive. There's some chance we have a vig, and I'd say vigging a useless person is better than lynching them, if they need to die.

[Herodotus]

What do you want me to respond to? I have nothing to say. I've been reading everything, but now it looks like you're just desperate to make a lynch. So, simply put: make the effort to make a better case against me (because the one you have right now seems very poor) or screw you. Trust me, either one is fine with me.

Yes, you have nothing to say... that's why I accused you of lurking.
Yes, I very much want to make a lynch. We have about a week and a half left, and deadline-lynches are very bad (though not as bad as no-lynches.) But instead of "any lynch will do," I think you'd be a good subject for that lynch. I don't expect you to agree.
And I will probably bolster my case on you later...

People often only notice stuff when someone makes a detailed case, repeats it 3 times, and then make 15 "So why isn't Glork lynched yet" posts afterwards.

I've re-read AC, and my opinion hasn't changed much. He's done at least one scummy thing, the FoS on Plonky, and some anti-town things, such as not making cases, and leaving his vote on someone he calls a likely townie. But I would put him at only slightly above baseline probability of 'winning with the scum.' He's consistent, and seems to believe in his own case for why it's in the town's best interests to lynch Killer.

So basically, although I would prefer to lynch scum, a killa seven lynch looks like that it will be the only lynch I'm willing to support today, because of reasons I have listed.

I would like to know

exactly

what you meant by this. If you wouldn't mind, please restate this sentence such that there is no possibility whatsoever of misinterpretation (though you don't have to restate the reasons.) And also state whether you still agree with it.

Yes, Anti-town =/= scummy. In fact, Anti-town > Scummy. Anti-town behavior hurts the town, scummy behavior is just scummy. A townie can be the scummiest player in the game, but he can also be the most anti-town player in the game, which is far, far worse. I am trying to help the town.

But based on your suspicions/lack of suspicions, a K7 lynch would be wasting time. To take it to an extreme, lynching everyone who displays anti-town behavior but is not likely scum would take several days, and the scum would have won before we were done. Obviously you aren't suggesting taking it that far, but doesn't every day matter? You said yourself that every day is equally important.

I'm keeping my vote where it is because I feel comfortable with it, and there's nobody else I'd feel comfortable voting. I don't find anyone scummy enough to present an alternative,...

It's not as if you auto-lose the game if you're wrong about suspecting another player on day 1.

[Herodotus]

does anyone know if plonky dissappeared from the whole site, or just this game?

He appeared to be an alt of another player. This was his first game, but he posted as if familiar with the site, etc.

But you expect others to agree? You better remove the "probably" from the next statement if you want any hope of getting people onto my wagon.

It depended in part on whether you did something anti-scummy, or someone else did something scummy, in the meantime. Probably was an entirely appropriate word to use.

[Herodotus]

In chronological order:

One:
The page 2-4 argument between EA and Dejkha was obviously manufactured. Dejkha pretty much admitted that in post 44, and I don't think many of us really believe that EA's post 32 was suspicious. The question was whether the argument was manufactured to:
a) Create an issue to talk about
b) Distance from a scumbuddy
c) Appear to be distancing from a scumbuddy, so if Dejkha was revealed as scum, we'd say "hey, he was distancing from EA!"
If that was the only issue, I would think that (a) was far more likely than the other possibilities. But now, I find it less likely.

Two:
In post 128, Dejkha makes statements about five different players. In two of those statements, he indicates that he will put the idea in his evidence bag to use to accuse someone later if he needs to. This is the scum motivation for looking for scumtells; the pro-town motivation is in evaluating the information to decide which people are scum. In a third, he says "I suppose it's up to everyone else as to how far they take this." It looks like Dejkha wants others to make arguments so that he doesn't have to. His explanation for the evidence gathering, that he could use his evidence bag against scum, doesn't clear him, because it's at least as useful to someone who

is

scum.

Three:
The Killer wagon. It was at four votes, with another player promising to vote. Adding Dejkha's vote, that effectively put it at L-1, which means he made a lynch likely. But he did not make an argument to go along with his vote, and avoided even saying whether he thought Killer was scum. I invited him and EA to tell us about their reasoning, but he kept his answer non-commital (not indicating an actual read on Killer,) minimal, and opinion-free.
The point about his timing is that I suspect he was trying to take advantage of AC's indication that he would vote. Because of what AC said, Dejkha knew that the wagon would grow, and knew he could place a relatively tame L-2 vote. If the lynch happened quickly, he could even act like he didn't expect Killer would be lynched, and say his vote was only meant to be pressure.
If AC and Killer are both town-sided, then what Dejkha did is exactly what scum would like to do -- get the town to lynch town-sided people with minimal visible involvement from themselves.

Four:
As I said before, Dejkha has been lurking. He's not the only one, and he's posted several times on page 15, but without saying much. The only post of his I could find containing anything resembling scumhunting since his vote on Killer two weeks ago was post 246 "Wouldn't that logic only work if you knew who was town?" Other than that, he's just been asking people to make cases for him (see post 304.)

[Herodotus]

At the time of that statement, nothing I had read throughout the thread had made me think anyone was scummy enough for me to want to vote for them. However, killa seven's playstyle hurts the town. And actually, it's worse than lurking, since he actually posts when prodded, but never provides any useful information to the town. Therefore, at that time, the killa seven was the only lynch I was could support, simply because his playstyle is incredibly anti-town. Now, however, cases have been brought up that have made me reconsider.

That's what's bugging me. Your original statement gave a sense of "no matter what, I won't support any other lynch." Maybe I was just misreading it.

If I find somebody a little suspicious, I'm not quite willing to vote for them.

That logic could lead to lots of no-lynches, but I suppose at this point we're past the issue.

It's not in every game that someone says "I'm going to vote for you later!" then "I'm going to vote for you 24 hours from now!"

Then why don't

you

say them every game?

For one thing, saying those things insincerely could lead to a lynch-all-liars mislynch.

(which will more than likely continued to be argued because of his awful counters which will probably end up being a disguised version of "don't even bother explaining")

Whether you're scum or not, bullying will only antagonize people toward you.

You need a read from me on someone I'm voting for? Shouldn't the vote at L-1 pretty much say by itself "I think he's scum"? That's not the mention the reply I gave in 214. And like you said when you asked me for my reasoning: you could all assume you knew why I voted. And I assumed you did also, so that's why I didn't explain it when I voted.

Assuming we know why you voted is bad. If you're scum, it might let you choose a reason later based on circumstances, or if you're town, it might lead people to find you suspicious when your reasons are better than what was assumed. I think you already knew this. As a side note, people would not necessarily have seen your vote as L-1 (which was part of my point.)
The person who voted before you, EA, has stated that "I was voting k7 because I had very little read on him, and hoped lurker pressure would draw him out. The read I had on him was a weak scum vibe in which I had very little confidence." Clearly your vote for a different reason did not speak for itself. In fact, votes seldom do; votes posted without an explicit reasoning are very different from typical votes. As far as post 214 is concerned, that's the post I'm calling minimal and non-committal. And the fact that you only said that little after being specifically prompted means you were trying to say even less.

If I have a change of opinion or something to point out, I'll let you know. I don't post for the sake of posting.

Helping to find the scum doesn't always start with, or even necessarily include, changing your opinion.

Other than these two points, I'll let others decide for themselves how they feel about your defence in your post 371. There are different ways to interpret some of your actions in this game. You've listed motivations based on your being town-sided, and I've offered motivations based on your being scum-sided. Mafia is not a game of offering people the benefit of the doubt -- it's up to the town as a whole which interpretation seems more likely.

[Herodotus]

I guess someone upset about having lynched Zero in his last game decided to write a warning to all future towns Zero's a part of.
"Zer0ph34r has been lynched on the first day of every game he's been in so far. Two of these times were due to the fact that Zer0ph34r claimed to be scum when he was not..."

But:

I agree with Porkens's implication that it would be foolish to let him use his meta to survive regardless of scumminess.
There is, first, a chance he has been intentionally building a meta to exploit, and I'd not want to let him get away with it when he happens to be scum. But even if it's all unintentional, it would still work to his advantage if he was always discounted.

Helping to find the scum doesn't always start with, or even necessarily include, changing your opinion.

I know, that why I said I have "something to point out". Meaning if I have anything to comment on, question or find suspicious, I'd say something.

True, and in retrospect my response did unintentionally gloss over that part of what you said, but I would expect you to have been able to find something to point out. Or at least comment on what little Killer said in the meantime.
I think I can see a non-OMGUS reason for your fos on Porkens, but I'll let you tell us about it. This would be another example of a situation where it's important that you state your reasons.

[Herodotus]

Tell me that's not a hammer. Bad timing, IMO...

[Herodotus]

There were a small handful of details that needed to be addressed, after which we might have been virtually guaranteed to find scum. Now it may be too late.

[Herodotus]

It's not just a single post by a single player that would be relevant.
Also, we've just settled our D1 lynch on a possible scum instead of a likely scum.
But to be fair, twilight inherently makes me nervous, so maybe I'm overreacting.

[Herodotus]

Oh well, I guess that as a historian, I should be used to trying to get information out of dead people. As far as the possibility of my own death is concerned, allow me to breadcrumb.

Someone said something important recently, but they need to slow-play.

[Herodotus]

I think Zer0 wrote that.

Bull. You wrote it. Since you're lying about it, you are scum.
That's what I was trying to breadcrumb. More in my next post.

[Herodotus]

The history for Zero's wiki page is available along with the page itself.

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... on=history

The page was created by a copy+paste from Dejkha's wiki entry, then it was edited.

The same user (well, IP address) created and edited Zero's page who has written some of the material on Dejkha's own wiki, in the first person.

[Herodotus]

I didn't want to mention it until Dejkha had a chance to state that he had written it. After all, writing a wiki entry on another player isn't necessarily a scumtell. Claiming you didn't is.

[Herodotus]

LOL
If you're telling the truth, this is a pretty absurd situation.

[Herodotus]

I'm really surprised at dejkha's death.

Why? I'm more surprised about the fact that q21 was a cop.

@Zero: So is everything on your wiki page written by you?

[Herodotus]

Why? I'm more surprised about the fact that q21 was a cop.

Given that he was chopped up into bits, I'm assuming he was SK'd and not vig'd. He was a strange choice for a scum kill imo.

I agree that the flavor text does suggest non-vig. Why do you think he was a strange choice for a SK? And why are you not considering a second mafia?

[Herodotus]

He was a strange choice for an SK because he had a lot of suspicion on him (might have gotten hung if I hadn't hammered K7) and probably would have gotten himself hung sooner or later. Seems like a waste of a nightkill.

Ok, I agree with this... though there could have been a motive we can't see. Maybe if Zero is the SK, he was worried his brother might be able to figure it out from out-of-game information. Or something Dejkha said worried the SK.
Regardless, we now have three confirmed innocents, and the game deserves a re-read from all town-sided people with that in mind.

[Herodotus]

He was a strange choice for an SK because he had a lot of suspicion on him (might have gotten hung if I hadn't hammered K7) and probably would have gotten himself hung sooner or later. Seems like a waste of a nightkill.

Ok, I agree with this... though there could have been a motive we can't see. Maybe if Zero is the SK, he was worried his brother might be able to figure it out from out-of-game information. Or something Dejkha said worried the SK.
Regardless, we now have three confirmed innocents, and the game deserves a re-read from all town-sided people with that in mind.

I'm assuming by three confirmed innocents, you mean three

dead

confirmed innocents, right? Unless you have some triple cop investigative ability.

Do you think these are the only interpretations of what I said? If so, do you think they are both possible? How would you even rate the possibility that we would have more than one cop?

[Herodotus]

I just wanted to make sure you meant killa7, q21, and dejkha are three confirmed innocents.

yes.

[Herodotus]

Sorry I won't be able to say much today. I've been playing in marathon day, and now I need to get some work done. I plan to make a full reread tomorrow if I can.

The assumption that I should be dead because I am a strong player is wrong. Setting aside that it's WIFOM, there's the more important fact that I'm no stronger than others here. My best guess is that the mafia left me alive on the assumption that I would lead the lynch against Dejkha. They did not know he would be NK'ed, but they knew he'd be a wasted lynch, and that I'd probably support and argue for it.
That's assuming the flavor means what it appears to mean.

[Herodotus]

He was a strange choice for a scum kill imo.

Why do you think he was a strange choice for a SK?

I take it from reading this in context that by "SK" in the bolded sentence, you are referring to a "scum kill" rather than a "serial killer", yes?

No, I meant serial killer. I must have read his post too quickly, and I was also assuming Dejkha was serial-killed, and so that was what he'd be talking about.

Given that he was chopped up into bits, I'm assuming he was SK'd and not vig'd. He was a strange choice for a scum kill imo.

Kinda funny that Porkens didn't notice what you pointed out here. It may implicate him, though I'm not sure ATM that it does. I wish I could say it was an intentional trap, but it wasn't.

[Herodotus]

A point of strategy:
Assuming the kills were mafia(Q21) and serial killer(Dejkha):

Hunting for the SK is not as important to the town as hunting for the mafia.

Consequently:

The SK should claim now

(assuming we are right that there is an SK.)
SK's are typically Night-Kill-immune. Even if you are not, you can say that you are and the scum will believe you. They won't want to waste a NK failing to kill you, so they won't try. They will have to endgame you or push for your lynch.
But, the town will not lynch you, because you have a major goal in common with us -- the whittling down and elimination of the mafia. That you chose Dejkha to kill last night (I assume that you believed him to be mafia) means you recognize that you don't want the mafia to get too far ahead, and now that our cop is gone, our odds of killing the mafia in the future have decreased. So we know that you'll be trying to take out the mafia, especially given the threat that they could become a majority soon. Also, knowing that you are the SK will help us find the mafia.

[Herodotus]

I'm far more surprised that dejkha died than I am that q21 was the cop and got killed.

It wasn't that Q21 got killed that surprised me; it was the fact that he was a cop. I will explain this after the reread that I plan to make.
I can see potential reasons for an SK killing Dejkha, but let's let him/her explain that when they claim. Speculation could possibly be harmful when we should be finding out the truth soon.

[Herodotus]

Oh. Actually Porkens and I were consistent all along.
You (Porkens) said he was a strange choice for a scum kill. (Maybe Jazzmyn interprets this as strictly meaning mafia-kill?)
Then I asked why he was a strange choice for a serial killer-kill. (which is a specific variety of scum kill)
Then you answered that question.

If one was to assume that "scum kill"="mafia kill", then my question would be incredibly out-of-place. And so would your answer.

The reason for my question was that I agreed Dejkha would be a strange choice for a mafia kill, but I didn't think he was too bad of a choice for a serial killer.

[Herodotus]

This feels like such a trap, but it also makes logical sense.

Claim - Serial Killer

I killed dejkha last night because he felt like the scummiest to me. I wasn't expecting their to be that much flavor in the night scene, but...

Assuming there is three mafia (the most likely amount), lynching me today would be a mistake for the town, as it would very likely put you in lynch or lose tomorrow. If we go after mafia today and are successful, then the town and myself will both be closer to winning. If we go after the mafia today but hit a townie instead, and I don't hit mafia tonight, the town will have already lost, and it would just be between myself and the mafia. So basically, lynching me today is not your best course of action.

It was not a trap. It helps the town more than it helps the SK, but the only group that your claim hurts (if it is true) is the mafia.

You are correct that if you are indeed the SK, then lynching you is not the best play for the town.

But now, reason suggests that someone will counter-claim.

AC just made a claim that, if unchallenged, will make sure that he will not be lynched. This would be quite helpful to him if he is mafia, and might even be advantageous if he is a vig with an unusual killing method. So it could easily be a fake claim.
I'd like to mention to the mafia (assuming AC isn't mafia himself) that it's in their best interests to counter this SK claim. I've already explained why we won't lynch the SK. The only way we will lynch AC in the foreseeable future is if we have a good reason to doubt his claim.

This is your only shot at getting this opposing killing role killed.

It's only slightly better than a 50-50 chance, since your partner(s) will find reasons to choose to believe you as the town figures out which is the real SK, but if you don't take this chance, your odds of winning the game will drop.
So if AC's claim is true, the mafia should bite the bullet and counter it, because it is their only chance to kill him. On the other hand, if it's a fake claim, the real SK should counter it both to out a mafia and for the same reasons they should have claimed in the first place.

[Herodotus]

TBH, I was half-expecting Jazmyn to come out of left field with a SK (Serial Killer) claim.

That is still possible. If she did, that would be a somewhat plausible counter-claim. AC gets credibility points for being first, but there's a chance he is mafia. Like I said, there is definitely someone out there whose best interests are to counter-claim; we will see what happens.

[Herodotus]

After consideration, I don't believe acfan's claim at this time.

vote: acfan

Aside from the numerous suspicions already discussed about acfan, there are some other D1 issues.
In multiple posts on day 1 (viewtopic.php?p=1509480#1509480 last sentence, viewtopic.php?p=1523852#1523852 third paragraph, and also via his frequent references to and attitude about being cautious about votes,) acfan breadcrumbed that he was a cop. (I think this may be the real reason why Q21 believed him to be scum.) I almost called him out for soft-claiming, but figured if no one else was saying anything about it, he was probably really the cop and possibly the mafia wouldn't notice. (This was also the reason I defended him, and the reason I was surprised that Q21 was a cop - I was thinking ac was a cop.) But since a cop is dead, people would notice his fake-breadcrumbing while rereading day 1, and his plan to fake claim cop was severely weakened.
Second, with all of acfan's breadcrumbing, there was a good chance that the mafia picked it up. If acfan is not mafia, they should have chosen him as their night kill target on the suspicion that he was the cop. It would have been incorrect, but it would have been a more likely guess than Q21. Unless the mafia knew acfan wasn't really a cop, which they would only know if he is a member of the mafia.
Also, the fact that an innocent (Q21) who suspected him was killed by the mafia is a bit suspicious (though on its own, it would not have been a big enough factor that he wouldn't have wanted to kill Q21.) Regardless of the WIFOM, acfan definitely had a reason to want to kill Q21 last night.

Acfan knew he was a likely lynch, but also that the town would not want to lynch the SK. The best way for acfan to make sure he would not be lynched is to claim a role that (a) had a reason to falsely breadcrumb cop and (b) was somewhat helpful to the town.

For these reasons, I think it is very possible that he is a mafia member lying about being the SK.

However, in the unlikely event that acfan's claim is not countered by either the real SK or a mafia player (in which case we start evaluating whom to believe, with acfan at a disadvantage) I will unvote. Acfan, if your claim is true and it stands up against the likely coming counterclaim, you will be in a decent position. If someone else had claimed SK, things might be different, but you are the player who had the most to gain from fake-claiming SK as a mafia member. We will decide whether to believe you when the counterclaim comes.

[Herodotus]

In multiple posts on day 1 (viewtopic.php?p=1509480#1509480 last sentence, viewtopic.php?p=1523852#1523852 third paragraph, and also via his frequent references to and attitude about being cautious about votes,) acfan breadcrumbed that he was a cop.

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't breadcrumb anything. Show me the post where I did it.

I just listed two posts, and even pointed out the specific sentences.

So lynching somebody who's not contributing but likely a townie is far better than some of the other possibilities, like lynching the cop or doc.

^ Said when you were the next most likely candidate.

A police officer wouldn't arrest somebody on one little bit of evidence, unless it was pretty damning evidence. If I find somebody a little suspicious, I'm not quite willing to vote for them.

^"A police officer wouldn't do ____, so I'm not going to do ____."

And anyway, as an SK, I would never claim anything but vanilla, SK, or Vig.

You are damning yourself here. This does not support your claim, because there is evidence (whether it it correct or not) that you were planning to claim cop. By your own meta-claim, that would dispute your SK-claim. You'd be better off shutting up until we know who is going to counter your claim, then choosing your arguments based on which player that was.

Maybe somebody else q21 was suspicious of was mafia. IDK their motivations.

He had other suspicions, but other than you and Dejkha, they were pretty mild.

DOUBLE EBWOP: Even if you really

are

the SK, I am personally FINE with the sub-optimal lynch. I was just being quiet about Herod's silly plan because, shit, he was aiming to out 2 scum.

I tentatively disagree. Right now, I don't think we should lynch acfan until/unless we are pretty confident he is mafia, and not the SK. I would be

very

suspicious of anyone else who votes acfan after you right now.

[Herodotus]

Acfan, you seem to misunderstand what I mean about breadcrumbing. It's not a roleclaim; it's not "intended to make everyone think you are (role.)" It's generally intended as something to either point to later in support of an actual claim or inform a townie or two while hoping not to tip off the scum. The fact that I thought you

overdid

it means you definitely did it, whether you meant to or not. And I also think it's part of what made Q21 suspicious of you.

Regardless, your defense is incredibly premature. We will be better able to evaluate whether your claim is true once we know who is countering it, and I won't support your lynch until they do. I guess I have to

unvote

until then. But

fos: acfan

obviously.

[Herodotus]

@Porkens:
It's not silly, even if that isn't clear ATM. It will be much easier to explain in concrete terms later, once more players are dead and their roles are revealed.
In case it helps, the point of my plan was to reach the Nash Equilibrium of the game. Now that either the real SK or a mafia member has claimed SK, it is in the other party's best interest to counter-claim. Overall, this sequence helps the town, since it means that we gain more information (unspecific as it may be,) but the key point I'm taking advantage of is that an unchallenged claim may do serious damage to whichever side

doesn't

claim SK.
So, now we wait for the lurkers, who make up about half the living players, to get their prods...

[Herodotus]

If anybody does cc, they need to be the lynch today, because I am the SK.

I assume this is intended as opinion? I can't say I'd necessarily agree with you. I have a reason to think that a counter-claim would be believed by others besides myself, but it's not time to share that yet.

Hero: do you believe acfan's claim?

I'm starting to, though my earlier statements reflect doubts that I still hold. And I still expect a counterclaim.

If acfan is the real SK, then the mafia (assuming they are not a single player faction) are playing poorly here. They need the SK dead, and it would be worth outing one of their own as "miscellaneous anti-town" to get him killed. Consider how often scum bus each other; that is a case of lynching one team member to make the others appear pro-town. Here, they would have a better reason to make a smaller sacrifice. They are foolish not to take this opportunity.

[Herodotus]

i would like some more input on this situation. we seem to have lost several players. i prefer lynching confirmed scum.

The missing players thing is getting to be a serious strategical obstacle.
As far as lynching confirmed scum, that's obviously not a

bad

plan, but it's more complicated than that, since there are also some advantages to keeping acfan alive if he's the SK. A lot depends on what the missing players have to say. For one thing, I don't think that a lynch should be carried out as a response to the fact that some players are missing, or even while they are missing if there's a chance their input may have value.

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind EA ...

Note to self: if I'm ever in a game where I'm scum and Plonky isn't, I must remember to lurk the hell out of that game.

... of the fact that Plonky has been replaced.

vote: EA

[Herodotus]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind EA ...

Note to self: if I'm ever in a game where I'm scum and Plonky isn't, I must remember to lurk the hell out of that game.

... of the fact that Plonky has been replaced.

vote: EA

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this vote. Can you explain please?

EA is lurking, and I consider this particular bit of lurking suspicious. As Porkens pointed out in 497, he's conspicuously said nothing about acfan's claim or whether he will counterclaim. Also, I've reviewed the votes on the last few pages of day 1. EA had no votes during the last two pages before the lynch, which really stands out if you diagram the votes/claims/cardflips. I've made such a diagram, and I'd be happy to post it, but I have no idea how.

Am I particularly suspicious that EA is scum? Not really, but he needs to post a lot more or I will be. Lurking and/or noncontributing seems like a strategy that scum are more likely to take after a townie was mislynched for it. They can rely on remorse to make town-sided people hesitate to carry out a second lurker lynch.

To say a little more about acfan: I wanted to wait for Tovarish or his replacement to chime in first. Apparently the mod isn't okay with our waiting, so I will provide more exposition sometime soon, but I'm not feeling up to it at the moment.

[Herodotus]

Let's assume for this post that acfan is the SK (the only people who might believably CC right now are Tovarish or EA.) Then the people who really need him dead are the mafia. In fact, they have such a strong motive to get him killed that they should be willing to out one of their own to get him killed. That was my point in saying that someone would need to counterclaim. As long as acfan is alive, the game has an element that is detrimental to the mafia and beyond their control (unless acfan can in fact be NK'ed -- a fact which he would obviously not want to reveal.) But he can't be lynched without the help of the town, so the mafia need our help to eliminate him. His lynch is thus a potential subject for compromise. As long as the mafia has such a big advantage (they're 2 townies and a cop ahead,) the town deciding to lynch him with nothing in return would pretty much hand the game over to them; but if they made a sacrifice of information to get him lynched, it would still be very advantageous to them, but the game would still have some balance for the remaining factions.
To throw out some rough numbers generated purely by intuition, say the probabilities of win are as follows:
(town, mafia, SK)

1. We lynch someone other than ac on the basis of suspecting that person: if we hit a town-sided person, ac will definitely try to hit mafia; if we lynch mafia, he's unpredictable. Either way, there's a good chance that exactly one mafia member will die and tomorrow will somewhat resemble today. There's a risk of killing two town-sided people, but assuming three mafia and slightly better than random guessing, the probability of that is less than one in four. And that's still not a guaranteed loss. And one or two dead mafia would be quite beneficial.
(25%, 40%, 35%)

2. We lynch ac without finding out who the mafia are: then there remains a group of either two or three mafia who have strictly improved from the beginning of the game. Our odds at best slightly improve, but the mafia has gained enormous dividends. Compare this situation to a typical, one scum-team game, where the mafia has around 60% odds; here we'd be starting with four dead town-sided people, and acfan's lynch would not have resulted in much information.
(28%, 72%, 0%)

3. A mafia member counterclaims or confesses to being mafia, and we lynch ac: then there is one uncovered mafia who has an extra day and night to live, and there are one or two mafia remaining after that person is lynched tomorrow.
(42%, 58%, 0%)

4. A mafia member counterclaims or confesses to being mafia, and we lynch them: not much different from the first scenario, except the town and acfan are guaranteed not to accidentally kill two town-sided people. This may be worse for the mafia, but there is no chance the town will choose it, because it's worse than option #3.
(30%, 33%, 37%)

My point is that killing acfan might help the town slightly, but it helps the mafia greatly. In fact, it is so helpful to them that it's worth it for one of them to confess in order to get the SK lynched. And it's safe to do so, because it will give us a better reason to lynch acfan. But if the mafia isn't willing to meet us halfway, then I support taking a chance, since it doesn't hurt our odds by more than a couple percentage points.


@Don, I understand what you're saying, but in the unlikely event that you think you've gained some information, I can assure you that your information will be misleading.

[Herodotus]

EBWOP:
Scenario 3 should be more like
(35%, 65%, 0%)
since if there are three mafia, we'd still be in LYLO on day 4 with two of them left.

[Herodotus]

hero: i don't know if i want to gamble. that's basically what you want us to do. also, we are all completely ignoring the fact that their may be a two player scum team and not three. i believe that would screw up the math for most of this.

porkens: in mini 730 i believe you only had one partner, correct?

Well, we have to "gamble" either way; the game of mafia has plenty of chance involved. If we lynch acfan and he's the SK, we might be in lylo tomorrow, which is a gamble, and if we keep him alive, it's a gamble. And my exact words were "I support," so yeah, that's what I want us to do -- I don't understand what you mean by pointing that out.
As far as having two mafia is concerned, that was my first thought when acfan started talking about tomorrow being lylo, but yesterday I saw Invitational 10 with 3 mafia, 1 SK, and 8 town-sided people. So I don't know how many there are, but it's definitely easier to figure the odds under the condition of 3 mafia members, and that's definitely a possible scenario. I'd also think that if there were 2 mafia, that would just boost the town's chances in all scenarios, maybe also adding a little to the SK's odds if we don't lynch him. It's also significant that we won't know fur sure until the game is over.

i just don't see acfan as sk, especially since he doesn't seem to know whether or not he is immune to nightkill.

It's possible he intentionally chose not to state it one way or the other for the WIFOM. But whether he says it or not doesn't really matter, I think. If he lives until night, the mafia would want to NK him, because killing him is pretty important to them, but they're also not sure whether they can. Honestly, I think I'd prefer he didn't tell us; that information (which I note that you subtly asked for) would help only the mafia. In fact, if he does answer, he should probably lie. Or tell the truth but make it look like a lie. Or lie but make it look like he's telling the truth but pretending to lie, etc...

hero: my suspicion of you has faded. i have mulled it over and though your posts seem a little contrived it occurred to me that if you were scumbuddies with acfan there is no way you could have known of the existence of sk before the start of day 2. do scum ever get to day talk outside game threads? i highly doubt that scenario. also, ea's behavior has been off since the start of this discussion, especially his chiming in for a poorly reasoned vote on porkens. anyway, barring a scum confession, counterclaim, or juicy exchange, i will only be moving my vote to avoid a no lynch. acfan claimed anti town. i think we are foolish to bargain with scum.

I also doubt that the mafia can daytalk, though if acfan and I were mafia, we could have arranged for some signal that would have indicated that I wanted him to go along with the claim request. But I think it would have been a bad idea for two mafia members to put such a ploy together.

i just don't see acfan as sk, especially since he doesn't seem to know whether or not he is immune to nightkill.

Is there any pro-town reason for you to want acfan to reveal whether he is immune to nightkill?

[Herodotus]

And anyway, scum trying to kill me in the night would not help them as much as killing a townie, so there would be no real point in doing it anyway.

Your point about the mafia is not true at all. They want you dead much more than the town does, especially when they're ahead. You are a swingy, anti-mafia, killing role. In fact, they'd really like to get you lynched today, because you'd logically be trying to target them until two mafia have died.

It looks like EA is out of the game, which means his lurking was probably unintentional.

unvote

i never asked him to reveal. i would rather he didn't, however, when he approached the subject in an earlier post it sounded as if he did not know. i.e. it didn't seem like he was bluffing or avoiding. i will look back for the quote when i have time, but it was something in particular that stood out to me.

I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but maybe you can find whatever it is you are referring to. I've reviewed him and not found it. You said that you doubt his claim because he hasn't told us whether he's NK-immune. That implies he needs to state it one way or another to convince you to believe him.

porkens: in mini 730 i believe you only had one partner, correct?

It would have taken about 30 seconds to look this up, even if you hadn't been in the game. Very strange that you chose instead to ask Porkens, who may have had to look it up himself if he didn't remember the number of that game.

acfan: why would one think there might be a "pro town" roleblocker? possibilities are endless, but your statement seemed to exhibit actual knowledge and not just a possibility. your statement says you "hope that the pro town roleblocker knows the numbers", not "if there is a protown roleblocker, i hope he knows the numbers." get it. seems lilke a slip to me.

I don't see how it's a slip. This is a normal game, so no scum would start with information about town power roles. There are very, very few ways he could have learned of the existence of such a role. But he's been guessing that there's a RB/Jailer since post 507.

And besides, acfan doesn't have much left to slip. I'd imagine that claiming a scum role must be pretty liberating.

@Zero: So what you're saying is that you're a cop, but you're not sure of your sanity? If that's your claim, you should probably tell us your N1 results. And I would not worry about the rest of us assuming that you're sane.

[Herodotus]

The question town-sided people need to ask themselves about the acfan lynch is, do you feel ready for what is probably three days worth of LYLO? Personally, I see that as much more risky than trusting him to act in his own best interests (I hope it's obvious why acfan as SK doesn't want three townies to die by tomorrow morning.) But if you're certain you know who at least some of the mafia are, then maybe LYLO is safer.
As I think I've made clear, my threshold is for one of the mafia to claim scum. That would lead to a mafia-favored, but still balanced, endgame. And it's in their best interests to make that claim, as it will lead to an acfan lynch today, which is important to them.
Otherwise, I am comfortable assuming that acfan is competent enough not to hand the game to the mafia.

[Herodotus]

Otherwise, I am comfortable assuming that acfan is competent enough not to hand the game to the mafia.

Why are you comfortable? He got it wrong on night one, what's to say he won't do the same tonight?

I don't see what you see there Don...

I don't think he intentionally chose a townie on N1. Dejkha would have been a possible day 2 lynch.
If you just doubt his ability to select a mafia member, we could always suggest a target for him via a secondary vote. If this is somehow more dangerous than relying on our ability to lynch three scum in a row on the next three days, with a majority of only one, then I don't see it.

Speaking of votes,

unvote

for the reason stated in 571.

[Herodotus]

Hero: are you 100% sold on the idea of three scum? i understand playing to worst case scenario, but i wonder if we are backing ourselves into a corner on this one.

No, but it seems more likely than not. Are you sold on the idea of two mafia? And how does the uncertainty alter our strategies?

unfortunately, your idea of suggesting a second kill for him again relies on town trusting a claimed(but not confirmed) sk.

He knows that if he kills a townie, he probably loses on the spot. I trust him to do whatever he can to avoid that, and that he is able to judge his own capacity to find scum compared to a pseudo-vote.

But you know what? I don't think we should do anything until the replacements show up, whether it's lynching acfan or not. And if Tovarish and EA aren't replaced, I don't see how the game can reasonably continue. I'm tempted to ask for V/LA status until the replacements arrive, because I am worried that soon I'm going to be posting just for the sake of following the posting rule.

[Herodotus]

@Zero:
If you answer Don's question in 597, please remember not to quote the mod's PM.

@Porkens
I'm curious about your "new plan." Do you think Zero is a better lynch than acfan? If we do lynch acfan today, I'd rather not have informed the scum whether we do or do not believe Zero's claim.

[Herodotus]

i would also like people not voting to explain why they are not voting.

Sorry, didn't see that until after my last post.
I don't want a lynch to happen until either a mafia member comes forward, in which case I'd probably vote for acfan, or the replacements have shared their opinions. I have no problem with waiting.

Top of page 25 vote count:

Porkens 2 (Erratus Apathos, ac1983fan)
ac1983fan 2 (don_johnson)
Zer0ph34r 1 (Porkens)

Not voting: Jazzmyn, Sotty7, Looker, Zer0ph34r, Herodotus

With 9 still packing it takes 5 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

Prods: None

Still looking for a replacement for EA. Looker has not picked up his role PM as of this post.

[Herodotus]

I'm finding Don is asking/suggesting seemingly innocuous questions to which the scum would want to know the answers more than the town would. If Zero is telling the truth, I don't see what information we can derive from his selection, but the scum might figure he'll try the same target again. If he's lying, I don't know whether stating a particular target would likely help us to figure that out (though I suppose it might.)
I could be wrong about the usefulness of knowing his selection, and I also don't yet know Don's motive. Just pointing this out.

[Herodotus]

(Hadn't seen 605 and 606 before last post.)

I tried investigating killaseven for suspicion of scum.

After he was dead...?

Um... you weren't roleblocked.

[Herodotus]

I'm finding Don is asking/suggesting seemingly innocuous questions to which the scum would want to know the answers more than the town would.

questions plural? please list them.

Just 2, ATM:
You asked Zero whom he targeted.
You "suggested a question" (can't think of the best way to describe it, really) to acfan whether he was NK-immune. You didn't explicitly ask, but you put him in a position of believing that answering that question would be beneficial to him as it would support his claim.

[Herodotus]

in response to "they could kill you overnight":

They could do that. But what if that failed? A lynch is the only unstoppable (well, almost unstoppable) method of killing somebody. All others can be prevented by roleblocks, protections, etc.

^^ post i was referring to. just seems like this would have been a good chance to at least hint at immunity. hard to say, but this statement pinged ignorance to me.

You're taking that out of context. Here:

there is, of course, the possibility that your maf and fakeclaimed. In that scenario, I bet the SK would stay quiet.

Why would the SK not cc? the SK would want to get rid of me also in that situation if he were smart. But I'm the real SK, so any cc is maf.

They would just kill you over night.

They could do that. But what if that failed? A lynch is the only unstoppable (well, almost unstoppable) method of killing somebody. All others can be prevented by roleblocks, protections, etc.

He was obviously talking about an SK killing him if he were mafia making a fake-claim. Either you read this with a confirmation bias, or you're trying to make it look like something it isn't.

i guess i'm okay if someone would like to claim roleblocker. it could play to our favor now.

THERE! AGAIN!
Seriously, you might have a pro-town reason for wanting to know this, but do you have any explanation for why it's okay to inform the scum who, if anyone, has this role? And what the town has to gain from a claim? Maybe start with that explanation,

then

invite someone to claim. Or, if you're mafia, please keep doing what you're doing. Or just claim.

^^^ = bullshit. i stated my suspicions rather clearly. why are you so sure acfan is not mafia?

I didn't say you didn't state your suspicions, I said that you let acfan think it would support his case if he stated his NK-immunity difinitively.
I'm not "sure" that acfan is not mafia; in fact, I was the first to suggest his claim could be fake. It depends in part on whether someone (Looker or EA's replacement, I suppose) counterclaims, but if no one does, his claim is pretty believable.

He still coulda been roleblocked. You're both making assumptions here.

You're right. He could have been, but if he was, it's not "the reason" why he didn't get a result. So there's no indication that he was.

@Jazzmyn: I can easily imagine multiple cops with different sanities. I think I've seen that before, if not in a game, then at least in Mafia Discussion.

[Herodotus]

vote jazzmyn

Well this is certainly new and different.

What's your reasoning?

Nothing more than to be new and different, wondering why the three that noticed my vote (exlcuding jazzmyn because she was the one voted) did and why others didn't.

I'm pretty sure everyone noticed, but as for myself, I didn't mention it because someone else had already asked you for your reasons. There didn't seem to be much to say about your vote until you either provided your reasons or made it clear you weren't going to.

Since I voted you for no reason, I would like to give you the pleasure of informing me who, out of the following five, you think is scummy (and why).

erratus, don_johnson, zer0ph, scotty, herodotus

I can understand excluding yourself and Jazzmyn, and acfan because of his claim, but it's interesting that you left off Porkens... please remember to let us know at some time why you did that.

Also, have you completed a read-through? Do you have any comments about anything from before you entered the game?

[Herodotus]

Looker and Zer0 for maf.

Tovarish's last post makes him/Looker look relatively pro-town. He asked the mod to replace Killer -- if that had happened, the Killer lynch would have been much less likely.

[Herodotus]

Well, it's not a definite thing, but it seems to me that if Tovarish had been mafia, he would not have wanted K7 to be replaced, because he'd rather that K7 be lynched.

[Herodotus]

@Don
I guess that logic isn't bad, but if the mafia have some (unlikely) means of neutralizing the RB's action, we'll have a false scum-read, and otherwise they may kill the person. Whether we have a doctor is not public knowledge. I suppose that if we do, that supports your plan, while if we don't, it would just throw away a town PR.
Another problem is that we'll have trouble telling the difference between a scum RB and a town RB. Either might have a motive to block acfan.
Also, it's worth noting that if we do not in fact have any role blockers, the scum may find that knowledge useful as well.

There are instances where Hero seems to be directing the scum team almost.

I hereby direct the mafia to send in one of their own names as their NK tonight.
But seriously, if I were mafia, I'd be claiming right now in order to get acfan lynched. It's a little frustrating that they're hurting their team along with the town, presumably because of the preconceptions people have about the scum role. People play it like a survivor, when it's a team role.

[Herodotus]

BTW, I've never lynched a mafia member in all of my 5 games, so that sucks.

Neither have I ever been on a successful wagon that lynched scum -- in fact, no scum has ever been lynched in any game I was in (though I don't have 5 completed games.)

What/who is SK, Sotty?

SK stands for Serial Killer.

well thanks, now I feel dumb! but yeah...let's see, i think...YOU'RE scummy...you, the one reading this post...

you mull that over while i give the thread a THOROUGH lookin over

I've mulled it over and decided it's something scum would say.

vote: Looker

[Herodotus]

I've been thinking about the possibility of a town RB claiming, as has been suggested, and although I understand the arguments both in favour of it and against it, on balance, I think that it's better that the RB not claim (if we have one). We don't know if we have a doctor to protect him and we don't know if the scum have a RB as well, which, if they do and if we do not have a doctor, could just negate the town RB's ability and also open him up to being NKed by scum.

I may not be 100% with you on the details, but I agree with the sentiment.

Porkens, respond plox:

So making no sense = scum to you?

Do you really think a scum would make this kinda play right now, especially seeing that no one was actively looking in his direction

. I had asked him to actually participate in the convo, but no one was making cases on him.

It just screams confused/out of depth townie to me.

Bold is a WIFOM defense. But I'll bite; yes. So far, in all his games, Zer0 has claimed scum (according to his infamous, self-written, wiki) even though he was town. In this game he claims cop. His is a meta which I believe is consciously motivated and built.

WIFOM isn't automatically false. For instance, suppose you're in a 3-player LYLO with one vote, and the third player doesn't hammer. WIFOM correctly suggests that person is town-sided.

[Herodotus]

unvote, vote sotty7

rereading zeenon gave me mixed feelings. they spent the majority of the day defending K7(referring to them as townie quite a bit), never really built a case on anyone else, but ended up voting K7 anyway. odd. now you're posting fluff.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 24#1519424
I didn't like the abrupt switch either, but it did follow Jazzmyn's post 339 which made a case against K7, so a change of mind seemed at least plausible. I'm undecided.

@Looker: I've asked you whether you've read the thread yet, and I think someone else did, too. There are a handful of specific points and questions you should address.

Yea, but anyway, will come up with something nice, pleasant, and fat to give you soon.

I'm looking forward to it.

@Porkens: ROFL.
But seriously, last time Zero was a cop, he claimed that truthfully. He might be lying now, but I don't know whether either interpretation of his meta really affects the odds.
I don't understand why you pointed out "Bold is a WIFOM defense" for a reason other than to disagree that it applied.

And q21 is making moves like I would (on page six, keep in mind

You must be feeling nervous, given that the mafia killed Q21 last night.

[Herodotus]

HANG HIM PLOX

Please take the time to make more of a case. Quoting just one thing he said that looks inappropriate isn't going to be enough here. Is there more to consider? Day one? Slips?

[Herodotus]

I see a flaw in acfan's plan. If the scum have either a RB or doctor, they will base their use of that action on whether the consensus candidate for acfan's NK is on their side or not. Even if it outs one of their number, they can buy some time by preventing ac from killing one of them, while if he will target an innocent, they can allow him to kill that player.
This means that we don't want the mafia to know whom he will be targeting if he kills tonight.

[Herodotus]

HANG HIM PLOX

Please take the time to make more of a case. Quoting just one thing he said that looks inappropriate isn't going to be enough here. Is there more to consider? Day one? Slips?

Do you really need me to put a case up against Zer0? I would imagine sorting by poster and just looking at all of his, side by side, would be enough.

Well, 8 people could do this individually, notice different things, and reach various conclusions. Then we could not talk about it, and individually either vote for him or not. Or one person could actually make a case, and people could comment on that case or add to it based on their memory or rereading. I think the second is more constructive.

[Herodotus]

A deadline with a player missing? I was afraid that might happen. Then after activity started to pick up again, I figured the danger was over.

How can we determine whether EA is scum?
And if he isn't, what if we need his vote? Setting aside his current vote on Porkens, if EA is town, it would be much harder to lynch a mafia member today.

[Herodotus]

I effed up that night investigating! Btw, does anyone have a suggestion of who I should investigate tonight? [Assuming I'm not lynched or killed.] If not, I'm going to investigate acfan1983 [assuming he is not lynched or killed].

Definitely

do not

investigate:
Dejkha
Q21
Killer 7
(whatever person we lynch today)

Other than that, it would probably be better not to investigate:
acfan: we already know he will be "guilty"
yourself: if you're really a cop, you should be "innocent"
... while these investigations could help indicate your sanity, they wouldn't provide any useful information.

Of the remaining people (if they are still alive):
Archaist
Don_J
Herodotus
Jazzmyn
Looker
Porkens
Sotty
... you'll pretty much have to decide on your own, though listening to suggestions might be helpful. Most of the time, you shouldn't state in the thread whom you are going to investigate in advance.

---

::hops up and down like a whiny brat:: I just wanna plaaay!! I'm not hurtin anybody!

Please begin. Seriously -- you refuse to even tell us whether you have or have not read the game so far. It's entirely your choice to play or not; if you're not going to, then ask to be replaced.

---

@Archaist:
Very happy that you have joined us.

Post #568: ac1983fan claims he is NK immune, which is not pro-town at all. Without that information the mafia could have wasted a NK attempt on him, but now that possibility is significantly reduced as I doubt the mafia would be willing to make such a gamble.

It is my suspicion that Don_J intentionally drew this information out of acfan. He's answered this argument, but his defence isn't a 100% thing.

Since Post 102 was nonspecific (I mentioned "ongoing games,") let me clarify that I was mostly referring to Zero's games in which he claimed scum when he was town. Also, my previous game included Empking, who is known for looking suspicious.

Also see post 552, in which I explain why a mafia member still ought to come forward even if they can't convince us they're the SK. The deadline weakens this argument, I suppose.

Post #395: Hammers killa seven pretty quickly.

I disagree with the timing of the hammer, but Porkens did indicate in advance that he would place it if K7 reached L-1.
Everyone should note Porkens has stated that he would hammer AC if he reached L-1.
I don't like his statements of intent, but it's better than doing it without warning as soon as someone reaches L-1.

---

Some of us (me included) do not trust acfan to act in the town's best interest so it would be preferable to be able to direct his night kill to 'test' him, as it were, but we simultaneously run the risk of mafia interference in the event that they have certain roles available to them, which would lead to us being no better off tomorrow even if we do adopt acfan's plan.

And if the mafia has a busdriver, the town would almost certainly lose.

Top of page 30 vote count:

ac1983fan 2 (Zer0ph34r, Archaist)
Porkens 1 (ac1983fan)
Zer0ph34r 1 (Porkens)
Jazzmyn 1 (Looker)
Looker 1 (Herodotus)

Not voting: Jazzmyn, ac1983fan, Sotty7, don_johnson

With 9 still packing it takes 5 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

Prods: None

[Herodotus]

Yeah, freakin' hilarious, Herodotus. You're saying I shouldn't investigate at all?

That's not what I said at all. Point out where I supposedly said that.
You asked for suggestions, and I divided the players into three categories, one you should not consider, one I wouldn't recommend, and one that would theoretically be most useful.

Check the part where I wrote "of the remaining people..."
I think you should choose any of the seven names following that line. Most people playing cops like to choose the person they find most suspicious, while some of the most experienced players choose on a different basis.
If you want, you can choose yourself or acfan; but even then you won't be entirely certain of your sanity. Also, if the mafia kill you before you have time to make any more investigations, it won't matter what your sanity is.
Just don't investigate someone who is dead.

And I really wonder how you decided all this meant I was telling you not to investigate. It's unfair and sometimes offensive when you imply someone said something they didn't say.

[Herodotus]

And if the mafia has a busdriver, the town would almost certainly lose.

I've looked at the wiki but can't find anything on this - what is a busdriver?

@Looker: if you aren't going to play the game, please request a replacement.

Regards,
Jazz

Sorry, should have been two words.
http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... Bus_Driver
The wiki calls it a pro-town role, but I can't think of any reason why a mafia couldn't have this power. That said, it's quite uncommon.

Does anyone have anything to say before the day ends?

[Herodotus]

i am pretty sure you mean the opposite of sweet. odd choice of kill, especially considering how suspicious looker's posting was. i sure would like to hear from our "cop".

I would imagine that the mafia figured suspicious posting implied Looker was trying to avoid being nightkilled, or at least would mean Looker wouldn't receive doc protection.
@Porkens: sweet? really?
That said, I'm glad we won't possibly be mislynching them.

mod: I have a bad cold at the moment, and might not be posting a lot during the next few days.

Noted I will not start prods for a couple days anyways.

[Herodotus]

There are about 5 different types of cop:
sane
insane
random (which I guess is rare)
naive
paranoid

http://www.mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php ... p#Sanities

I don't understand why Don is choosing paranoid. Assuming Zero is telling the truth, the only one we can say for sure that he isn't is "naive."
If Porkens is guilty, Zero could be sane, paranoid, or random.
If Porkens is innocent, Zero could be insane, paranoid, or random.
The argument that Zero can't be sane b/c Q21 was a cop basically assumes that Q21 was sane.

Don, you knew that there was a RB because you were blocked, but I still don't understand whether you are certain that said RB must be scum, and why.

[Herodotus]

i am speculating. thinking rb is scum because otherwise town could be overpowered(if zero is telling the truth, which i believe he is). i shudder to think of this games balance if you throw in a town rb.

Well, if Zero is town, I'd think the mafia would have blocked him, rather than relying on doubt about his alignment and sanity.

ebwop: although now i wonder if zero could be something like a mafia aligned role cop. that could explain the death of our doc.

If true, that would clear Porkens... though that is a pretty specific role.
I think someone already mentioned this, but it looks like Porkens and Zero are not scumbuddies.

[Herodotus]

i am speculating. thinking rb is scum because otherwise town could be overpowered(if zero is telling the truth, which i believe he is). i shudder to think of this games balance if you throw in a town rb.

Well, if Zero is town, I'd think the mafia would have blocked him, rather than relying on doubt about his alignment and sanity.

i disagree. i would think mafia would want to block doctor in that case.

Blocking the doctor is only useful if the doc protects the person you kill -- not overly likely for Looker.
I suppose we could imagine other reasons not to target Zero, but I'm leaning toward thinking that the RB is pro-town.

[Herodotus]

Blocking the doctor is only useful if the doc protects the person you kill -- not overly likely for Looker.
I suppose we could imagine other reasons not to target Zero, but I'm leaning toward thinking that the RB is pro-town.

i thought blocker may be pro town. i was hoping to clear that up yesterday and last night. i just don't see it. reason not to target zero: zero claimed cop in a game with a cop, and his sanity is in question. if zero is not mafia then he is not doc, therefore someone else is doc, therefore, scum roleblocker chooses someone else to block hoping to hit doc. get it? not sure what looker has to do with this theory. if rb is pro town, then how do you see the set up of the scum team? i.e. game balance is necessary, no?

Here's what I was trying to say:
RBing a

known cop

when they don't know his sanity has some positive expected utility for the scum most of the time.
RBing a

known doc

has utility only if the doc would be protecting the person they want to kill. Otherwise, it's nearly useless.
Do you think the scum would anticipate even a small chance that Looker would have received doc protection?

As far as game balance is concerned, it can be hard to estimate what would balance a game. Cop sanities, millers, a RB targeting a JOAT, Paranoid Gun Owners, and incorrect vig kills are examples of things that can turn power roles into liabilities.
Here's a hypothetical:
Assume we really have two cops, and that Q21 is naive while Zero is paranoid. Typical play might mean Zero gets a guilty on N1, and claims early on D2. An alive Q21 then counter-claims, and the town seriously considers lynching one of the cops on the suspicion of a fake-claim, or lynches the person Zero called guilty (making it a somewhat random lynch.)

[Herodotus]

If I'm not mafia, then how am I not doc, don?

Zero -- do you mean you're really a doctor?

[Herodotus]

If I'm not mafia, then how am I not doc, don?

Zero -- do you mean you're really a doctor?

^^^ rolefish?

---

you claimed cop. do you want to be a doctor now?

^^^ rolefish?
Seriously? When I ask, it's rolefishing, and when you ask, it's something else?
The only difference I see between my question and yours is that you reminded Zero of his earlier claim. I asked my question largely to check his consistency after he asked an odd question.
If you and he are scumbuddies, your rephrasing may have been a matter of prompting him to be consistent. I would say it was also an attempt to dirty me, but the fact that you asked the same question was just too visible for that attack to go anywhere.

---

why not? to wifom a bit: if you were scum, would you roleblock the

village idiot

only player who has claimed a power role, and it wasn't doctor?

Yes. Not every time, but in general. If I intended to hunt for a doc while leaving that power role alive, very likely. That's the normal scum play in the analogous situation in F11, for instance.
In fact, even your original question stinks. Whatever you think of a player's intelligence has no bearing on his role, his sanity, or the results he posts in the thread. If Zero was unblocked, the whole town gets to see a result; if Zero was blocked, the town does not get to see a result. I don't see the scum assuming he would investigate a dead player again.

---

@Zero: In case you're still wondering, Don said that you can't be a town doctor presumably because you claimed to be a cop, and to have a result. A town-sided doctor doing that would be throwing away his team's chances.

---

Post # 805 will get some analysis later, as the explanation Zero gives is obviously impossible. Also note that Zero suggested assuming he was paranoid before he even had any results... then he gets a guilty. I'm still more inclined to believe his claim than not, but I'm less confident about it than I was yesterday.

[Herodotus]

Porkens is at L-1. I would consider hammering, but I just feel too uncomfortable about Don right now.

i.e. you asked him who he is, i asked him who he wants to be.

What did you mean by that, by the way? To me, it just looked like a different way of wording the same question, though possibly with an inflection that suggests the roles he claims are chosen by him (i.e. fakeclaimed.) Since the distinction seems to mean something to you, tell us what it is.

please explain your comment.

Well, if he was changing his roleclaim, he needed to do that explicitly. Also, if he was, that would be pretty scummy. See where I wrote in post 807 "you claimed to be a cop, and to have a result. A town-sided doctor doing that would be throwing away his team's chances." If he changed his claim, I would pretty much assume he was scum. But I didn't really think he would. More than all of that, I was trying to get Zero to figure out the answer to his own question, which was "because you claimed something else."

To answer about the explanation in post 805 being impossible (and I'm

not

saying it's a lie,) Zero could not have just accidentally used the word "doc;" he was referring to something Don had said, and Don used the word "doc."

[Herodotus]

what makes you uncomfortable with me?

I think I've already said enough. Let me summarize here. This is not meant as an argument that you're scum, just a list of the many times I've pointed out things you've done that made me uncomfortable with assuming you're town. TBH, I'm probably going to let it all slide, as there's a good chance you're right about Porkens. Your unvote from him looks a little peculiar, btw, but I think I understand and agree with your reason.

Day 1:
Your "all the more reason not to let it stop this one" comment about K7's VT claim.
(for reference http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 05#1510305)

Day 2:
Your immunity-fishing of acfan.
(for reference http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 30#1555330)
(Miscellaneous reference http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 91#1556991)
You wanted the RB to claim, but only gave any reasons after being questioned.
(for reference http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 53#1563453)

Day 3:
The assumption that Zero is paranoid.
(for reference http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 33#1605433)
Your post 800, which suggests I'm rolefishing, while you feel fine asking a similar question (and you really need to explain this supposed distinction, and the significange of it, between our questions. I'll grant you the timing, but you are clearly implying there is something else of importance.)

There is also this.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 33#1561733

also, i have never been "blocked", what kind of pm does one get in that situation?

night one, i watched herod and i believe i was blocked. recieved a message stating i was unable to perform my action. sent mod a pm to clarify and recieved exact same message a second time.

Hmm....

[Herodotus]

i explained the rolefishing comment. to repeat for both you and herod:

i don't care what role zero posseses. he claimed cop, that's fine. if he wants to say he's doc, i'm okay with that. i don't need to know which he is.

why do you?

that is the difference between our questions. the other difference is that yours came first and with no other content. what i do know is that zero targeted porkens last night and offered up the truth when asked. so for now, he gets the benefit of the doubt.

the bolded question is still unanswered.

I answered it in post 817. To put it briefly, if Zero can't keep his claim consistent, that makes me doubt it. And if he is not a cop, but claimed that he has an investigation result, how does that make him anything but scum?
And if you don't care what role Zero has, why did you ask

you claimed cop. do you want to be a doctor now?

And what is the substantive difference that you keep alluding to? You've mentioned the timing already, but you also claimed that

my question to zero was different than yours

you asked him who he is, i asked him who he wants to be

You have not explained how the semantic difference between our questions is of any importance, but you claim it is.

my unvote is suspicious? really?

Did someone say that? I don't remember reading anyone calling it suspicious.

@Porkens: I haven't voted today. I think Don is the only one who has unvoted, other than when you briefly voted him.

@Jazzmyn: You say you don't think Don is scum. I want to agree, but there are some obstacles, as you can see. Are my doubts misplaced? Can you reconcile some of the issues?

@Zero: You're 75% sure Porkens is scum, but you aren't voting. Do you have any arguments or questions?

[Herodotus]

So if he said something about himself being a doctor, you would not suspect that maybe he was scum, the whole cop thing was a fake-claim, and calling himself a doctor was a slip in which he had forgotten his fake-claim? I would.

As far as role-fishing itself is concerned, it doesn't seem right to call it role-fishing when you ask someone who has already claimed one power role whether a statement they made indicates they are a different power role. It's consistency-checking.

"Peculiar" in this case meant it made me curious, and I felt I should consider what motivations you might have for it other than what you stated. I also said, "I think I understand and agree with your reason."

Can anyone explain to me this big difference between asking what Zero is and what he wants to be? To me, Don appears to be saying the same thing over and over, "You asked X, but I asked Y. Also, don't forget the timing!" while I take X and Y to be

effectively

the same. If I'm just the one player who doesn't understand his perfectly acceptable answer, I'll just drop it; there's no point in Don and I talking past each other. But if I'm not the only one, then could someone try to elaborate what I'm saying here? Or can someone clear it all up?

[Herodotus]

Well, if Porkens is scum, I don't think we're in LYLO. Sotty is pretty much the only person I can see as likely to be Porkens's scumbuddy considering today's votes plus Zero's report. From other peoples' perspective, I can't be ruled out, but I don't think that will be a big problem.

More tomorrow or the next day.

[Herodotus]

Well, if Porkens is scum, I don't think we're in LYLO. Sotty is pretty much the only person I can see as likely to be Porkens's scumbuddy considering today's votes plus Zero's report. From other peoples' perspective, I can't be ruled out, but I don't think that will be a big problem.

More tomorrow or the next day.

Why do you think that?

At the time, I was planning to vote for Porkens right now, which would help remove any suspicions based on vote patterns that he and I were scum buddies. But I just don't feel confident enough in the case on him to do so. I have one other idea for a scumteam, though it's two people, so mislynching right now wouldn't be fatal. Still, I want Porkens to defend himself. If he continues not to, or if his defense is poor, I'll vote him, but one way or another, what he has to say could help the town.

@Porkens's last post: You have a lot more points to address. Jazzmyn and Archaist listed some.

I'm starting to think that today is the right day for the RB to claim. They can confirm that Don was blocked N1, and their other target may be able to confirm that they were blocked on night 2. Still not 100% sure that it's best.

[Herodotus]

Does your evil grin mean the scum team just won, Don? Was it you, Jazzmyn, and Archaist?

[Herodotus]

don backing up zero's claim by saying he tracked him was a good move.

Actually, that made me suspicious of both of them (along with Don's reminder to Zero to maintain a consistent fiction.) But Zero taking forever to vote for Porkens made me adjust my theory.
Zero, you really didn't need to take so long before lynching Porkens. Once you had Archaist's vote, it was almost over.

[Herodotus]

Also, I was not even night kill immune. I lied about that part, because I knew if I didn't say it, scum would prolly go after me for a night kill and I would likely lose...
I really wish I had no killed night one....

Did you have any abilities other than your night kill? If not, that sounds challenging.

[Herodotus]

for some reason the scum seem to like killing me night one.

Burden of Proficiency. When you were throwing your vote around it looked to me like scumhunting. I had the impression that you were the most skilled player among us; maybe the scum felt the same way.

[Herodotus]

I see the thread hasn't been locked yet.
Here's something that will blow your minds: I seriously considered claiming to be mason buddies with acfan toward the end of day 2. I don't know whether he would have gone along with it (he should have,) but I figured the fakeness of the claim wouldn't cause any harm, since either my death reveal would show it was a lie, or I could retract at any time if I was alive. And if acfan died before I did (he'd have been lynched before me, if it came to that,) it would be obvious we weren't mafia buddies. So the only effect I could see was reducing the odds of acfan being lynched before I wanted him to be.
I didn't because I was worried about even/odd parity, and ruining the chance of future scumtells resulting from peoples' reactions to acfan. (Sadly, I found Porkens's reaction most suspicious.) Also, it didn't seem right to take control of the town with a lie.

[Herodotus]

Hmm... I think there's a chance people might have believed we had discussed possibly making a fake-claim of some sort if needed in order to draw out a counterclaim, then confirming each other.

If one of us was going to be lynched, wouldn't it have been AC? Given that, would the revelation that we had lied about being masons necessarily be seen as scummy? Yeah, probably. Lynch All Liars, if nothing else.

[Herodotus]

Okay, maybe you're right. I was thinking I could count on the confirmation that acfan didn't have scumbuddies to demonstrate that the mason claim shouldn't implicate me.