Mini 945: Mafia in Bawlmer - GAME OVER

[MacavityLock]

Confirm. Now get me some Lake Trout.

[MacavityLock]

Vote: Sidekick

for showing up to the thread and adding literally nothing to the game.

[MacavityLock]

Promoting discussion, actually.

I agree with CyberBob. What is the purpose of said discussion? What are the potential end results?

[MacavityLock]

And, a random vote after quote walls and quote pyramids of dialogue? Not buying that for a second. I almost said something the first time you made that claim but I decided to see if you would try and justify it later.

What random vote are you talking about here?

[MacavityLock]

Whoops. Sorry, strike that part. I got the whole thread jumbled in my head. I feel really stupid.

Heh, it's OK. But it does feel extremely good to be on page 2 and be in the thick of a real game.

Disagree, it's not OK. Mixing up a thread after less than two pages bespeaks skimming.

Note to self: Remember this exchange if xvart flips scum.

[MacavityLock]

Sorry for confusion. I agree with that part, productive couple of pages. It's the "Heh, it's OK" I have a problem with.

[MacavityLock]

Well, you're excusing him for something that I'm not sure is a legitimate/townie mistake.

[MacavityLock]

Whoops. Sorry, strike that part. I got the whole thread jumbled in my head. I feel really stupid.

Heh, it's OK. But it does feel extremely good to be on page 2 and be in the thick of a real game.

Disagree, it's not OK. Mixing up a thread after less than two pages bespeaks skimming.
Note to self: Remember this exchange if xvart flips scum.

Can you explain what you're implying here? Are you suggesting a connection between chevre and xvart?

I don't like offhand dismissals of things I find scummy. If xvart flips scum at some point in this game, I will likely want to look at Chevre.

[MacavityLock]

I like the Sidekick votes.

Well, in the meantime, since DC is at L:1-1/2, I think he should first explain and defend himself, and then if he stays at L-1-1/2, claim.

What does "L-1-1/2" mean?

I also know now that exposing power roles at this stage is a bad idea.

Did you not already know that?

[MacavityLock]

Just to clear things up, I've played one game, and halfway or so through a second; both on the Road to Rome.

Even with just one complete game under your belt, shouldn't you know not to out the cop?

What does "L-1-1/2" mean?

Oops. I probably should explain this. Sidekick voted and put DC at L-1, so xvart unvoted just to get him off L-1. So I figured it was sort of L-one-and-a-half.

Hmm, another case of not paying close attention to the thread, this time, re: vote count and someone actually at L-1. I think I dislike this more than xvart's flub.

I'm tired and really want to go to bed right now, but let me say that while DiamondCrush is still suspicious, Cyberbob is to him as I am to dramonic right now. I still deny that I was trying to defend him and instead assert that now's not a good time to lynch the claimed miller, but now CB has very similar thinking about DC. I know how much trouble I'm in right now, and so should Cyberbob.

I'm not sure I get it. Backing off someone at L-1 on page 4 is not the same as using kid gloves with a claimed miller like you did, SC. How is it similar?

[MacavityLock]

I'm tired and really want to go to bed right now, but let me say that while DiamondCrush is still suspicious, Cyberbob is to him as I am to dramonic right now. I still deny that I was trying to defend him and instead assert that now's not a good time to lynch the claimed miller, but now CB has very similar thinking about DC. I know how much trouble I'm in right now, and so should Cyberbob.

I'm not sure I get it. Backing off someone at L-1 on page 4 is not the same as using kid gloves with a claimed miller like you did, SC. How is it similar?

All DiamondCrash said in his defense is basically that he's a newbie. Cyberbob is giving him undue leniency in my opinion.

That's fine, I have no major problem with that viewpoint, but it doesn't answer my question. How is Cyberbob's interaction with DC similar to yours with dram? They're two very different situations.

----

This poses an interesting couple of questions to Neto.

1) Did you mean mafia playstyle as in how do you play as scum or how do you play in general? My response was in general.

2) If 1, what is the purpose of the question since scum has no reason to answer legitimately?

I agree, (1) is a very useful question. I read it a general playstyle, while SC obviously didn't. Oph, why did you ask (2) without letting Neto respond to (1) first? If Neto was asking specifically about scum-style, I agree that it's kind of a ridiculous question, potentially one that distracts from main discussion. By pointing that out, haven't you let him off the hook?

----

Do you think that the DiamondCrash thing is failtown or scum?

Leaning scum, awaiting his responses to open questions. DC, now may be a good time to claim.

Can you list the two players you're most suspicious of and why?

Sidekick and DC.

How would you describe your mafia playstyle?

Responding to question in terms of general playstyle. Early game, questioning for inconsistencies and looking for out-of-proportion responses. Once a scum has been identified, connections play a larger role.

Also, Neto, you entered the game with 3 suspects. Why no vote on any of them?

----

Oph and SC, please do us all a favor and limit quote pyramids. If at all possible, cut down the quote to just what you're responding to.

[MacavityLock]

No, I just saved us time and 2 posts by giving him the point to argue right then and there.

I honestly don't think it's a helpful question in either form.

People's self-metas are worthless.

Then why qualify your second question? The way you asked your second question specifically only applied if Neto was asking about self-scum-meta. Isn't what I italicized different than what you were originally asking about?

Sidekick and DC.

You missed the "and why" bit.
You missed the "

Should be obvious, but sure.
Sidekick - Has done nothing useful or original, brought someone to L-1 with redundant questions.
DC - You don't out a cop.

Is that last sentence a typo?

[MacavityLock]

Sorry, busy weekend, so I've got a bit to catch up on. I took a look at the claim etc, and I have no major issues with anyone hammering DC. The saying "doc" instead of "cop" issue is much bigger for me than the "I claim..." issue, but yeah, not really believable.

The only objection I would have to not hammering right now is to wait for Sidekick's replacement, just to squeeze as much info as possible out of the lynch. Really though, I can't see anything all that useful/readable coming out of that.

So, yeah, green light from me.

[MacavityLock]

EBWOP:

The only objection I would have to not hammering right now is...

"The only objection I would have to hammering right now is...". Leave out the "not". Accidental double negative.

[MacavityLock]

I'm still suspicious of Sidekick/Ythan but I'm going to a) see how Ythan answers the points against him and b) go back and read DC's thoughts on people.

Re: (a) - What are the points against Sidekick that Ythan can answer for?

*evil stare at apayah*

What's this all about?

[MacavityLock]

While I generally agree with Cyberbob on not letting replacements off the hook, this is a situation where it seems to be a loaded question to Ythan. The points against Sidekick amount to:
1) Lurking.
2) Adding little of worth to legitimate discussion when posting.
3) Bringing someone who has since flipped scum to L-1.

Ythan can't answer why Sidekick did those things, and you're not going to get good answers from him no matter what. So, you can find fault with his answers no matter what. That's a pretty scummy line of questioning, to me.

----

Lock's iso1 is a terribly hypocritical vote.

It was a semi-random page 2 vote based on 3 worthless, contentless posts that didn't even contain so much as a random vote.

2 is riding Bob's coattails.

Yet asking different questions than Cyberbob.

4 is a soft accusation he doesn't take anywhere.

Because xvart has generally gotten better.

Starting in 8 he keeps pushing a wagon on my pred even though he never added anything to his initial reasoning.

Doesn't mean I didn't have reasons for it, most specifically the contentlessness together with the L-1 vote in record time, which I did clarify in my iso 11.

In 9 he adds another flimsy case to his portfolio, on Chevre.

And I've still got my eye out Chevre, thank you very much.

10 he wants to wait for DC to answer questions made by other players before he decides how he reads him.

Yup, you caught me, I want to hear answers from people before making decisions about them.

[MacavityLock]

So, you can find fault with his answers no matter what.

I think it's kind of significant that you leapt straight to this particular assumption rather than considering the fact that all I wanted to see was

how

he would go about dealing with such a tough question (this is something I have said before, mind).

That's why I asked you the question first, rather than accusing straight away. The fact that you attacked me for said question, and didn't actually respond to my question is why I feel more confident in my read that this wasn't on the up and up.

Also, do you really think that post 183 "answers for questions posed to Sidekick"?

[MacavityLock]

You say I'm coaching, I say you're asking loaded questions.

By the way, if I am coaching Ythan, doesn't that mean that he's necessarily scumbuddies with me? Yet,

I think he did quite a nice job of it, all things considered, and I agree with a number of the other things he's said.

Glaring inconsistency.

Between the DC L-1 unvote and this inconsistency,

Vote: Cyberbob

.

[MacavityLock]

Coaching != buddying. Cyberbob is twisting his own words.

[MacavityLock]

Yeah, no it doesn't. Were I scum and you not, what would be the purpose of me coaching you here? If I instead say nothing, and you gave a "bad answer", that's great for me, because I can attack it.

Again, I'm not admitting to any coaching here. I'm calling Cyberbob out on his loaded question.

[MacavityLock]

And the ad hom has begun. Yeah, I'm happy with my vote.

[MacavityLock]

Ad hom only works if the characteristic being brought up is irrelevant to the topic at hand (intelligence is highly relevant). It does make for a good excuse to avoid commenting on anything else though, I agree.

What else do you want me to comment on? I think you were asking a loaded question. You think I was coaching. I've heard your arguments, and they haven't swayed me. You've heard mine, and I presume they haven't swayed you. So, I guess we could keep going around and around, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish.

[MacavityLock]

Sorry, busy weekend, so I've got a bit to catch up on. I took a look at the claim etc, and I have no major issues with anyone hammering DC. The saying "doc" instead of "cop" issue is much bigger for me than the "I claim..." issue, but yeah, not really believable.

Slightly confused here. You said you were rushed, but yet you looked at the claim and were OK with a DC lynch. So why didn't you lynch him yourself?

At that point, xvart was offering to hammer in a few hours. There were more people who had yet to weigh in on the DC hammer. (In fact, both Cyberbob and Dizzle offered their opinions of DC's claim after this post.) I didn't feel like there was anything to gain from hammering straight away.

MacavityLock: can you explain "!=" ? I've seen so many people use it and I don't know what it means.

"Is not equal to". It's coding syntax.

MacavityLock and Cyberbob are my two biggest suspects at this point, although neither is near scummy enough to put a vote on.

Why am I a suspect?

----

Just like Ythill! Macavity I expect some strong moves against SC for asking such an obviously loaded question.

Huh? SC hasn't posted since yesterday.

[MacavityLock]

Huh? SC hasn't posted since yesterday.

So? You should be stamping out all "loaded questions" regardless of when they were asked!!!!

And the "loaded question" you're referring to is...? And what does "Just like [Ythan]!" mean? Seriously, what are you talking about?

[MacavityLock]

Which is nothing like you asking a replacement to explain the actions of his predecessor. They are not similar situations.

[MacavityLock]

Sorry, busy weekend, so I've got a bit to catch up on. I took a look at the claim etc, and I have no major issues with anyone hammering DC. The saying "doc" instead of "cop" issue is much bigger for me than the "I claim..." issue, but yeah, not really believable.

Slightly confused here. You said you were rushed, but yet you looked at the claim and were OK with a DC lynch. So why didn't you lynch him yourself?

At that point, xvart was offering to hammer in a few hours. There were more people who had yet to weigh in on the DC hammer. (In fact, both Cyberbob and Dizzle offered their opinions of DC's claim after this post.) I didn't feel like there was anything to gain from hammering straight away.

In fact, now that I think about it, why didn't you ask the same question to Cyberbob and/or Dizzle? Both of them checked in right after me, gave their approval for the lynch, but didn't hammer.

Now checking back on it myself, I can understand not asking Dizzle, who talked about waiting for the Sidekick replacement, similar to what I said actually. But Cyberbob made no such noises about delay for replacement. Why specifically question me on this when I wasn't the only one to do this?

----

It's not clear to me when the "semi-random" bit of your vote reason goes away, MacavityLock. I'd expect something between your ISO 1 and 8 as to why you believe Sidekick was scum.

Fair question. It was at the time of my iso 8, which was my first post after the L-1 vote. I realize now that I should have elaborated at the time, but I didn't. Not sure what else I can say other than that the L-1 vote together with low content really struck me as scummy.

In 9 he adds another flimsy case to his portfolio, on Chevre.

And I've still got my eye out Chevre, thank you very much.

This comes off to me as being flippant instead of actually defending the Chevre case. (And yes, the Chevre case is weak. In my opinion, it's also invalid if xvart is town.)

Because at that point Chevre hadn't posted at all during Day 2 due to a V/LA. You're right, all I have on Chevre (until my above question) is Day 1 and gut.

You say I'm coaching, I say you're asking loaded questions.

By the way, if I am coaching Ythan, doesn't that mean that he's necessarily scumbuddies with me?

I've coached town as scum. So no.

Fine, whatever. I'll say it again: I wasn't coaching, I was trying to figure out Cyberbob's loaded question.

[MacavityLock]

In fact, now that I think about it, why didn't you ask the same question to Cyberbob and/or Dizzle? Both of them checked in right after me, gave their approval for the lynch, but didn't hammer.

If you would've done it first, there would've been no need. But yes, now that you mention it, they did.

That doesn't answer my question. Why did you specifically ask me about this? Also, why would

I

have asked about it? You're the one who thinks it was/might have been scummy.

[MacavityLock]

The fact that she asked me about not hammering DC and did not ask Cyberbob and Dizzle when they did the exact same thing is an inconsistency. Yes, that makes me suspicious of her.

[MacavityLock]

I believe it's self explanatory, but mine is to jumpstart discussion somehow. Your way however, is a little more sophisticated.

No, it really isn't self-explanatory. Thus far, you've said that the following is why I'm scummy:

For what I commented on earlier about the hammer (although that's decently explained) and what you've done today.

You haven't said anything about what I've been doing today, nor why it's scummy. You thought that my failing to hammer issue was scummy (and didn't say why), but did not find either Cyberbob or Dizzle scummy for doing the exact same thing. When questioned about it, you said the following

If you would've done it first, there would've been no need. But yes, now that you mention it, they did.

This a) admits that they did the same as I, b) doesn't answer why you failed to find this scummy coming from people other than me, and c) attempts to turn the question back on me.

The vote on me is poor, hidden under the guise of "discussion", and when questioned about it, your responses aren't answers, they're brush-offs.

Unvote. Vote: Chevre.

----

Ythan, I still don't see how I was twisting what Cyberbob was saying. He even admitted that he said exactly what I said he did.

Well my specific wording was "explain the points against him" so I can see where ML might get that from. Either way I still don't see it as a loaded question.

Our interpretations may differ, that's fine. But how was I twisting anything?

----

MacavityLock has made some weak as heck cases on Sidekick and Chevre.

How was my Sidekick case weak? Uselessness and potential quicklynching seem pretty darn good for a Day 1 case. More than 1 person agreed with me on it Day 1.

And yes, I've already said that I had no case on Chevre. (I do now, but that doesn't enter into it.) I didn't have a vote on her Day 1, she wasn't ever in the top 2 of my scumlist Day 1. I had gut, and said as much.

[MacavityLock]

Also, OMGUS on Chev.

Why is it OMGUS on Chev, but you didn't mention anything about OMGUS when I voted Cyberbob?

Also, why is OMGUS scummy in this situation? I think her vote on me is crap, I have detailed why I think it's crap, and I think she's scummy because of the poor case on me.

[MacavityLock]

Do you think that Chevre has answered your question satisfactorily? Do you see why her questioning me about, and considering me scummy for the non-hammer post, but did not do the same to Cyberbob and Dizzle is contradictory? Why isn't what I wrote a proper case?

[MacavityLock]

Take a look at my iso 1. That's the first vote that occurred on Sidekick. It was semi-random, but it's a valid point, and it stayed pretty valid throughout the day.

[MacavityLock]

I'm expecting Chev to flesh her answer out as I asked, but she hasn't posted since.

After you specfically asked for it, her fleshing out was "Because he is my biggest suspicion." Maybe there's more to it, but she had at least one opportunity to elaborate and chose not to take it.

And as far as your idea of sticking to your RV on SK, if you've been here since '08 I'm sure you know better than that. Show me that SK tends to flake as scum but not town, or she's just a flake, which are a dime a dozen.

I know nothing of Sidekick's meta. But I didn't vote for flaking, I voted for posting non-contributory uselessness, which I have said more than once. Those are two very different things, so now aren't you twisting?

[MacavityLock]

This is a poor vote, but it was an attempt to start discussion (which

worked nicely

got responses only from ML or people on ML's wagon

), and you

outlined

shot down

what little suspicion I had on you in your post.

Fixed.

I would love for everybody else (half the game: Apayah, dramonic, Netopalis, xvart, Dizzle) to at least chime in on my wagon and/or my cases on Chevre and Cyberbob.

@mod,

request prods on Neto and Apayah. It's been a week since either of them posted.

[MacavityLock]

I'm the big wagon, I'm at L-2, the L-2 vote on me was made for "discussion purposes", half the game hasn't made their opinions known, and we're less than a week to deadline. That rather aggravates me.

[MacavityLock]

Wait. Why are we lynching MacavityLock again? Did I miss something?

From what I can tell, most of the votes he's picked up have been from people who didn't like the way in which he went after me before about the question I put to Ythan.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly true about Cyberbob and Ythan, though given that I was questioning Cyberbob to begin with, there may be a measure of OMGUS in his vote.

As for SC:

MacavityLock has made some weak as heck cases on Sidekick and Chevre.

Nothing to do with my questioning of Cyberbob, SC already admitted that my case on Sidekick didn't suck, and I have made it clear that my Day 1 case on Chevre was pure gut and at no point merited a vote. (It has now, but again, I don't think that's the point.) He needs to give a better reason for keeping his vote on me.

And Chevre:

This is a poor vote, but it was an attempt to start discussion (which worked nicely), and you outlined what little suspicion I had on you in your post.

where I said

Thus far, you've said that the following is why I'm scummy:

For what I commented on earlier about the hammer (although that's decently explained) and what you've done today.

You haven't said anything about what I've been doing today, nor why it's scummy. You thought that my failing to hammer issue was scummy (and didn't say why), but did not find either Cyberbob or Dizzle scummy for doing the exact same thing.

So, you know, she admits that she has no case and L-2'ed me for discussion.

At least 2 of the votes on my wagon are awful, and a 3rd might be OMGUS.

----

The major thing I have against xvart is the difference between his ISO 10 and 11 posts. In 10, he declares DC failtown but in 11 he says he's ready to hammer DC which he eventually does. Granted, some things occured during 10 and 11 but it felt like scum giving up on his partner to me....and apparently no one else.

But xvart wasn't the only one to do this. At least one other person did in Cyberbob. (See his iso 10 & 12 vs iso 14.) One could make the case that you did too.

Do you think that the DiamondCrash thing is failtown or scum?
Can you list the two players you're most suspicious of and why? ...

1. Well, it's definitely fail no matter what his alignment because he's likely going to be lynched for it, nevermind the potential outing.
2. Oph ...
Sidekick ...

Your answer to (1) is pretty fence-sitty. And given that DC isn't in your list of two suspects, it's not obvious to tell where you stand on him.

I don't see what makes xvart's turn-around that much worse than some other player's.

----

So xvart votes bob in agreement with scummy Lock regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

This is twisting my words. I NEVER said that Cyberbob was scummy for not hammering. I have no problem with the fact that he didn't hammer. I was pointing out that Chevre questioned (and voted) me for it, while she did not do the same to others.

----

Chevre still has questions that have been posed to her that she hasn't answered.

[MacavityLock]

So xvart votes bob in agreement with scummy Lock regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

This is twisting my words. I NEVER said that Cyberbob was scummy for not hammering. I have no problem with the fact that he didn't hammer. I was pointing out that Chevre questioned (and voted) me for it, while she did not do the same to others.

How am I twisting your words exactly?I said

-xvart votes
-for bob
-agreed with Lock
-who is scummy

xvart is picking up on something that I asked Chevre about and running with it against Cyberbob. xvart is voting Cyberbob for a reason I haven't endorsed and I do not agree with.

Certainly true about Cyberbob and Ythan

Explain this in a way that doesn't make it look like you're brushing off every part of the accusations against you except what you can twist into something ridiculous.

I don't understand the issue. Cyberbob said that all votes on me have to do with my questioning of him earlier in the Day 2. I have pointed out that 2 of the votes on me really don't have anything to do with that.

[MacavityLock]

Yes, that's fine. I wanted to be sure that yours was not the only answer out there to Neto's question of why I'm the big wagon at the moment.

[MacavityLock]

...I still see no case on Chevre. I also don't remember you being as reactionary as you were in posts 274 and (especially) 290.

See my isos 26, 28, and 30 for my Chevre case.

By reactionary, do you mean defensive? All I have to say to that is that I don't want to get lynched, and the way the game was going (me as L-2 big wagon, no one else commenting on it, approaching deadline), that looked like the way it was going to go. Does me not wanting to get lynched make me any more likely to be scum?

[MacavityLock]

So xvart votes bob in agreement with scummy Lock regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

Then what was the point of saying this, if it wasn't about associating me with xvart's vote?

[MacavityLock]

Why mention me then?

So xvart votes bob

in agreement with scummy Lock

regarding not hammering a wagon he didn't have a problem with.

Does that change make a difference?

Also, how is this critical of xvart?

[MacavityLock]

I don't see how that answers my questions.

[MacavityLock]

Yeah, you really didn't answer my questions. Stop being snide and answer them.

The thing that I said and xvart is agreeing with is a fact. That Cyberbob did not hammer in that post is a fact. How does it make sense to criticize someone for using that fact in his own argument?

[MacavityLock]

I have asked how your criticism of xvart makes sense. You haven't answered it once, not even a little bit. Now stop being petulant and calling me names, and answer this legitimate question.

[MacavityLock]

Then I'll ask you to quote where you have answered how your criticism of xvart makes sense. You probably won't, whatever, and which point, I'm done too and I'll let others weigh in.

[MacavityLock]

I said this questioning xvart for voting bob based on

something you had said

a fact

.

I'm

completely daft

trying to understand how your criticism makes any sense

.

And then you do this for a while.

Fixed.

[MacavityLock]

I'm trying to find scum by asking interesting and useful questions. Isn't that more important?

[MacavityLock]

Given that we still haven't gotten a catchup post from our new replacement, I'd be more comfortable if we had another couple days.

@backup-mod

, what say you to deadline extension?

[MacavityLock]

I vote Mcactivitlock

I'm sorry, that's only the second worst misspelling of my username that I've ever seen. Also, why?

[MacavityLock]

I have no problem with someone misspelling my name, and expect that the vote will count. I just think it's hilarious. (My favorite misspelling of all time was someone calling me "MagicavityLock" in a newbie game.)

[MacavityLock]

I have no issue with Cyberbob calling people out to prevent No Lynch.

luke has not yet answered why he voted me yesterday, so, yeah, he should do that.

@mod

, due to end of term project, I think I need a LA until Friday.

[MacavityLock]

OK, project finished.

Yeah, I agree with SC and Ythan. That's not a reason, luke. You haven't explained why you voted me yesterday. You haven't explained why the first vote on Chevre (mine) is any different than anybody else's vote on Chevre. Also, why is the fact that she was Watcher relevant? You've promised content for a while now without payoff.

Vote: luke

.

[MacavityLock]

I honestly can't tell if that's sarcasm or not.

[MacavityLock]

I'm thinking one scum faction, probably three players in a game this size. Yes no?

Seems likely. Three less-than-two-kill nights strongly suggests single faction. Given 12 to start, neither a single faction of 4 nor single faction of 2 make a ton of sense.

It's not long enough for a prod to happen so I doubt it's a big deal, but I will be unavailable after tonight until either late Friday or early Saturday.

[MacavityLock]

Interesting. I believe Ythan's claim, mostly due to

Blown up v shot. Anyone care about flavor? Might just be the new mod unaware of some flavor convention Konowa had planned for the game.

Why jail SC last night?

[MacavityLock]

Also, ML, what about Ythan's comment makes you believe his jailkeeper claim?

Blown up v shot. Anyone care about flavor? Might just be the new mod unaware of some flavor convention Konowa had planned for the game.

Really reads to me like someone trying to figure out whether or not he prevented a death N2, either by protection or roleblock.

Why jail SC last night?

Didn't want to jail the same person twice in a row if nothing happened the first time.

I get the "why not RB me again" part, but why SC specifically?

I'm less concerned with the abbreviation than the actual "quick wagon" comment. Only scum "quick wagon" to my knowledge. And as you noted, you were not a part of it.

Scum do X, Dizzle did not-X, therefore Dizzle is scummy? I don't get it.

We are in great position now. When we lynch Dizzlescum then we either win or can be in a better position to prove/analyze the jailkeep situation.

I don't see why you're even considering an outcome of "win" right now.

Assuming that all the power roles in the game are the ones we know about, two goons vs. a watcher, a jailkeeper, and eight vanillas is horrendously imbalanced toward town.

Why assume 2 goons?

My experience with Neto as a player is not extensive but his play in this game definitely has surprised me. Then again, I haven't seen him active recently.

Yeah, this.

Who wants whom.

Give me a day or two. I'm in the weeds right now and need a re-read.

Also, any reason you didn't include yourself on the list?

[MacavityLock]

Unless it's a matter of suspicion I'd rather not explain how I chose and might continue to choose my target.

OK, makes sense.

Regarding not including myself in the list, I already know who I want.

So that list is for your edification only?

[MacavityLock]

I get that, but why assume a 2nd goon as opposed to some scum power role?

[MacavityLock]

Ophanim was rarely present. When he was present, he mostly suspected DiamondCrash. One point of interest is that he did attack MacavityLock and Dizzle, albeit lightly. I don't believe that either of them were attacked that often by that point in the game. Thus, the scum could have thought that Ophanim would likely go after them on D2, but that his comments would likely go unnoticed if they went ahead and killed him off.

First of all, rarely present? He averaged over a post a (RL) day. Secondly, if you're really looking at players who Ophanim attacked, how could you possibly ignore SC? Other than DC, SC was clearly the person who Oph had the most interaction/argument with. Also, I would love to see where you think Oph attacked me. The closest I can find is his iso 8, which includes the phrase "Human nature-tell."

Did you actually re-read Oph?

Interestingly enough, MacavityLock has been

off

every lynch of scum, but

on

every lynch of town. In fact, he is the only player with that record.

I'm sorry, that is incorrect. 2 reasons why that's incorrect.
1) While I was not a vote on DC's lynch, I gave my specific approval of it and chose not to hammer. At least 2 other people did the same.
2) Cyberbob was one of those people, and does in fact have the exact same record of off DC's lynch and on both other lynches as I do.

Between these two things, it reads like you had your conclusion already in mind, and tried to find a few data points to back it up. I don't like that at all.

[MacavityLock]

Neto is demonstrably wrong, both in his read of Oph's interactions and the lynch wagons. Does that not interest you? Why are they "little points"?

[MacavityLock]

Really, I feel that ML didn't respond to the substance of my arguments.

Um, what arguments did I miss? I see 3 reasons that you've voted for me.

1) Ophanim attacked me - I don't particularly read Oph as attacking me at all. Also, Ophanim attacked other players (at least 1 still in the game) far more than me.

2) Wagoning - I stated early that DC was one of my top 2 suspects, I considered him scum in your "failtown v scum" question, and I gave my approval for the lynch. So does the fact that my vote wasn't on him really weigh that much?

For the other 2, I had legitimate suspicions of 2 townies who got lynched by majority. Were my arguments on either of them bad?

3) Dizzle's slip - I have no control over Dizzle, so I can't really respond to this, can I?

What else would you like? Did I miss anything?

That's not what I said. I'm questioning the conclusion you drew.

Then, can you explain how he missed Oph's much more antagonistic interaction with SC? How he called Oph "rarely present"? How he missed Cyberbob's identical vote pattern to mine?

Why isn't my conclusion legitimate?

[MacavityLock]

There are literally 3 points that Neto made in that wall of text, and I have pointed them out and why I had issues with some of them: Oph's attacks, my wagon pattern, and Dizzle's slip. That's it. Find me anything else in that post that I

could

respond to.

[MacavityLock]

1) Cyberbob and ML were the only players to have never voted for scum and always voted for town. However, Cyberbob's play shows him to be a strong pro-town player, so I discount his scumminess.

I'd like to ask here why Cyberbob gets a pass for his play, but I don't. You say he's been a strong pro-town player, but don't say why. Without a flip, how do you know?

I'd also like to bring up xvart. He was on DC's wagon approximately as much as Cyberbob and I were, and he was also on both town lynches. Why does he get a pass?

2) Ophanim attacked SC and ML, although he only attacked ML obliquely. What do I mean by that? Well, let's look at the only times that Ophanim mentioned ML:

...

Basically, Ophanim had very little positive to say about MacavityLock's play. It's no stretch of the imagination to think that he would turn towards attacking MacavityLock on the next day. Did he attack other people? Sure, but in those posts, you can at least see an undercurrent of distrust.

So, that "undercurrent of distrust" is enough of an excuse to vote me? This is so vague and so weak, how can you actually call it a point against me?

3) Yes, I was wrong about Xvart and Cyber being on the wagon early. That was a careless mistake. I was working through things quickly. Not important, though. Their play has been so obviously and overwhelmingly pro-town that I'm not really sure why we're having this conversation. If one of you folks wants to put up a case on it, by all means, go ahead.

Again, how do you know that they're "obviously and overwhelmingly pro-town" without a flip? You're allowed to have that opinion, but the 3 points you've brought up against me are pretty weak, in light of the fact that there's just as bad (re: wagoning) or worse (re: Oph) on others.

Is it that they're pro-town, or that they've just had less heat on them than I have?

4) Dizzle and MacavityLock have been suspiciously connected. Dizzle asks ML a lot of open-ended questions that try to appear probing but are really just designed to lead him to safe answers. If you look at MacavityLock in isolation and search for each time he mentions Dizzle, he doesn't even mention him D1. On other days, it's never anything other than to include him in a list or put out a defense on him.

Oooh, connections. Tell me how I'm connected to flipped scum DC, and that's allowed. On Day 1, that's allowed. On Day 4, you've got to do better than this.

I'll repeat myself again. It does not follow. That it does not follow requires no explanation. The start and the finish, they are connected. That I see that they do not, that is my evidence. How much explanation do you require for something that isn't there?

Yet again you state something and refuse to explain. So I'll repeat myself again, Neto was just plain wrong in half his points, all things that are not hard to miss: Oph was very clearly active. Oph very clearly had more attacking interactions with people other than me. The vote patterns are right there in front of him. The fact that he did miss all of these things strongly suggests that he came to the conclusion of who was scum before going out and looking for evidence of it.

[MacavityLock]

Apologies, had to proctor a final exam today. I will likely be completing my re-read for tomorrow morning, at worst tomorrow evening.

[MacavityLock]

So, over my re-read, the two that jumped out as scummy were xvart and Neto.

xvart -

The whole jumping the gun and misreading things at the very top of the game is strange, and could definitely come from skimming, a scum trait. I don't like that dramonic was in his top 2 on Day 1. Unless dramonic was specifically acting scummy and was worthy of a regular Day 1 case, I have a hard time seeing a miller lynch as all that useful. The same goes for xvart's focus on dramonic on Day 2. Yes, he has to go eventually, but there's other stuff going on and trying to shift focus to dramonic seems like a distraction. It seems like an opportune time to attempt to drum up a mislynch. In the post where he voted dram Day 2, he was talking about other stuff and didn't even provide his reason for voting.

xvart - Did you vote DC solely for his terrible claim?

I didn't vote solely for his name claim; but I doubt I would have voted for him (unless a deadline forced me to) if it weren't for "claiming" a town roleblocker role.

I'm not sure I understand this. Was the word "claim" enough to get you to hammer? SC brought this up too, but I don't see it. Scumbuddy finally giving up and trying to manufacture a reason to bus? There are much worse things about that claim, and it's weird that you focused on the word "claim".

A very intriguing NK... why kill the claimed miller? Possibly the only really neutral person in terms of relationships... I'm guessing someone(s) may have been on the right track yesterday. Time to go back and look at some FoS's.

Was he trying to set up some sort of mislynch via an unlikely dram-miller kill?

He was on both town wagons, and was the quick hammerer on luke. There's no doubt that the luke lynch was quicker than it needed to be.

Claim, lukepuke. I am on standby to hammer post claim as needed.

Was it really needed so soon?

Additionally, xvart's Chevre vote was L-1 and a direct follow of Cyberbob, and didn't even point out L-1-ness or request a claim.

Isos 38-40 deal with trying to direct the Ythan jailing, when it's easily plausible that the scum still have something to mess with Ythan.

----

Neto -

Iso 1 puts DC in the famed "3rd suspicion" spot. Just high enough to be able to say you thought he was suspicious, but not an all out bus, if you can avoid it. I also wonder if the "DC failtown vs scum" was a poll question designed to figure out if he needed to bus to stay safe.

The multiple reads of Chevre in iso 11 remains very strange, though they aren't completely contradictory.

His Chevre vote was also clearly an unoriginal follow, though certainly not as egregious as xvart's.

I've also discussed my issues with his being wrong about things in his attacks on me, and why I think they come from a player who found his targets before finding his evidence.

I don't have a major problem with the low post volume (as in I don't think it's directly scummy), but it leaves us with much less to work with, so I'm "normalizing" his scummy factor vs his post volume.

----

All told, xvart clearly has more things I find scummy, so

Vote: xvart

, but I wouldn't be against backing a Neto wagon.

[MacavityLock]

ML: That's an interesting read on Xvart, but how do you reconcile the fact that Dramonic was killed with the fact that Xvart found him to be scummy? It seems as if Xvart thought he would be lynched, he wouldn't waste a kill.

Well, he tried and failed twice to drum up a lynch on dram. Maybe trying a different tack?

[MacavityLock]

But why would he be so worried about getting rid of Dramonic? Dramonic didn't even

mention

Xvart. At all.

Oh, well, that I can't answer. Maybe dram was onto a remaining buddy? Maybe they caught some secondary power role tell? I don't know.

Yes. Typically townies wouldn't say "my claim is this..." or "I'm claiming this..." They say "I am..."

That's pretty weak, in my opinion.

[MacavityLock]

ML/SC - What are your thoughts on the way this lynch seems to be going?

Well, I'm not interested in lynching you at this juncture, but it's not my job to defend you either. I've made my cases against the people I am interested in lynching today, and neither has responded in any meaningful manner. Neto didn't respond at all, just riffed on my xvart-case. xvart responded to only one of my many points.

[MacavityLock]

I've made my cases against the people I am interested in lynching today, and neither has responded in any meaningful manner. Neto didn't respond at all, just riffed on my xvart-case. xvart responded to only one of my many points.

I'm waiting with bated breath for any real response.

[MacavityLock]

Was he trying to set up some sort of mislynch via an unlikely dram-miller kill?

Who is the "he" that is trying to setup some sort of mislynch? Me? A mafia member?

Yes, this is in reference to you. If you are a maf, it would seem a reasonable tactic to make the unlikely dram-miller kill, and then use that kill to attempt to set up mislynches by looking at who dram suspected.

Was it really needed so soon?

Yes, as I assumed you agreed with since you were voting for a lack of content, and his next post provided no content.

There was one post and less than an hour between luke's vanilla claim and your hammer. I know that a vanilla claim doesn't often change much, but the whole operation was very fast.

Now, I wanted him lynched too; he was clearly scummy. But I don't see why you were in such a rush to hammer.

Additionally, xvart's Chevre vote was L-1 and a direct follow of Cyberbob, and didn't even point out L-1-ness or request a claim.

I can't respond to this because I can't remember; whenever I put someone at L-1 I always tell them to claim. I can't remember ever voting to L-1 without asking so maybe I didn't realize it was L-1. But I'm typically fairly careful about voting so I just don't know.

Your vote was the L-1 on Chevre, and it did not include a request to claim. See posts 371 and 383 to check.

[MacavityLock]

Now, I wanted him lynched too; he was clearly scummy. But I don't see why you were in such a rush to hammer.

I didn't see a reason to wait since I agreed, you agreed, and a majority of the town had agreed.

Still seems unnecessarily quick.

Your vote was the L-1 on Chevre, and it did not include a request to claim. See posts 371 and 383 to check.

No kidding? Isn't that exactly what I just explained? Or is this one of those times that by keep asking the same questions makes the person look scummier?

Wasn't a question. I was just confirming that that was what happened, since you "can't remember" even though you're "typically fairly careful about voting".

[MacavityLock]

Cyberbob, any comment on my case on xvart?

Also, Neto hasn't posted in 5 days, and needs a prod.

Prodded

[MacavityLock]

Really inopportune time to have been stranded an hour away from where I live due to flat tires. On borrowed time on a friend's comp, so don't expect much from me for a little bit.

That said, there are some rather ridiculous things about Cyberbob's vig claim. First off, we've only ever seen one kill a night, at most. Second of all, we're assuming two scum left, right? So, if a vig mis-killed last night and scum killed, that ends the game in a scum win. A townie vig

should not have killed

last night.

I need to ponder this for a bit, and I should be back safe at home in a day or so (hopefully). Don't go a-lynching while I'm away, please.

[MacavityLock]

Sorry about the emergency V/LA. I've been trying to sort through everything, and here's a nice long post for people to digest.

----

First, let's examine possible pairings based on claimed night actions.

From my perspective, the possibilities are as follows:

Cyberbob/SC - Cyberbob-scum successfully killed N2 & 4. SC-scum tried to kill on N3, which Ythan successfully prevented.
Cyberbob/Neto - Cyberbob-scum successfully killed N2 & 4. One of the scums tried to kill SC N3.
Cyberbob/Ythan - They've been playing a long con, trying to set me up for N2 & 4, and probably SC too for N3. Chose to not kill on N3.
SC/Neto - 3 missing kills, all prevented by Ythan. Ythan targeted killing SC-scum N3 and successfully prevented scum from killing me N2 & 4. Unlikely!
SC/Ythan - Chose to No Kill 3 nights in a row. Impossible.
Neto/Ythan - Impossible. See SC/Ythan.

Analysis results: Ythan can't be scum unless Cyberbob is also. Cyberbob is likely to be scum, and for Cyberbob to not be scum, Ythan had to target either the killer or the killee correctly 3 nights in a row. SC is right is his analysis.

Nope, just the one of the mafia missing their kill on Nights 2 and 4. Which is not completely out of the question given that Ythan is both a protector and a roleblocker.

Then, what happened on N3? Does your 639 recant this?

For completeness sake, I'll include the pairs including me. Obviously, I'm biased, so feel free to check my work.

ML/Cyberbob - Cyberbob-scum successfully killed N2 & 4. One of the scums tried to kill SC N3.
ML/SC - 3 missing kills. Ythan targeted killing scum N2-4.
ML/Neto - 3 missing kills. One of the scums tried to kill SC N3.
ML/Ythan - Impossible. See SC/Ythan.

Results: ML/Cyberbob is approx. equivalent to Cyberbob/Neto. ML/SC and ML/Neto are approx. equivalent to SC/Neto, unlikely based on correctly targeting killer or killee 3 times in a row. ML/Ythan result is the same; Ythan can't be scum without Cyberbob also being scum.

By the way, crunching the numbers, if Ythan jails completely randomly, that's (2/9)*(2/7)*(2/6) = 2.1%. Even if you bump up those probabilities because your gut reads feel right, it's still going to be unlikely.

----

Second, it's role-claim time. I'm a cop. My investigations are as follows: Over N1, I investigated Sidekick/Ythan and received an Innocent. Over N2, I attempted to investigate Cyberbob, and received a No Result. Over N3, I investigated Dizzle and received an Innocent. Over N4, I attempted to investigate xvart, and again received a No Result.

I believed Ythan's roleclaim right away because I had already gotten an Innocent on him and it fit so well: I got blocked N2, when he claimed to block me. You're damn right I don't want your blocking me to get me lynched today, Ythan; it's LYLO and I don't want to lose.

----

Now, let's go back to the possible pairings. Ythan's got the Innocent, which leaves any pair with Cyberbob, Neto, and SC. Given the Miller in the game, I've been worried about a Godfather also being in the game, which could potentially be Ythan. Even given that, Cyberbob/Ythan only works if Cyberbob is some sort of RB and Ythan is a Godfather taking credit for Cyberbob's blocks. That, or Ythan is some sort of super RB-and-GF scum. Both are unlikely, made even more unlikely by the fact that they would have had to choose to No Kill N3. So, we're back to the triple.

Cyberbob/SC and Cyberbob/Neto strike me as far more likely than SC/Neto. It's the difference between Ythan correctly jailing once and Ythan correctly jailing 3 times. Given that, it makes sense to lynch Cyberbob-scum today and worry about SC vs Neto tomorrow, with more results. (If I'm dead, Ythan can clear someone as not the killer. If I live, I can provide a result, unless Ythan blocks me again. Etc.)

Play-wise on Cyberbob, he's still been on every mislynch, his backing off of DC on Day 1 still doesn't look great, and as I said, a townie vig shouldn't have killed last night for fear of ending the game.

I'm really close (like 97.9%) to voting for Cyberbob, though that Neto/SC pairing still bothers me.

[MacavityLock]

Cyberbob #1 obviously. Based on my recent read from yesterday I'd say Neto is #2.

[MacavityLock]

Ythan, questions for you: For Cyberbob to not be scum, you needed to jail correctly all three nights. Do you have a case on the SC/Neto pair that makes this reasonably likely? If so, who gets the lynch first, and why?

[MacavityLock]

He has actually.

Iso 74 - N3

Would it interest anyone to know that I jailed SC last night?

Iso 77 - N1 & 2

Didn't n1. ML n2.

Iso 121 - N4

Are you also attacking him because you're the one I jailed last night, ML?

Easy reference list:
N1 - No one
N2 - ML
N3 - SC
N4 - ML

See my very long recent post for full analysis of blocks, missing kills, etc.

[MacavityLock]

Ythan, any response to my 659?

[MacavityLock]

There are definitely some holes in Neto's analysis post.

Now, looking at this logically, we can likely discount some of these scenarios. It's unlikely that the scumteam would target ML on Ns 2 and 4, since there was a high probability that Ythan would jailkeep ML. They'd be better off going after Cyberbob or Ythan. Therefore, we can discount the SC/Neto pairing.

By N2, Ythan had not yet revealed his jailkeep-ness. Thus, the scum would have no way of knowing that I would likely get jailkept. Therefore, this whole argument makes no sense.

As I see it, our best shot today is in lynching SC. Given the two possible scenarios (Cyberbob lying and an ML/SC pair), both could work with SC as scum. I don't feel that we're going to get any further than that, as evidenced by the stalling discussion.

There are

not

2 plausible scenarios here, from your perspective. Cyberbob lying does not constitute a single scenario. Neto-perspective, there are 3 possibilities: Cyberbob/SC, Cyberbob/ML, ML/SC. "Both could work with SC as scum" is complete BS, because there's one entire scenario from Neto's perspective that doesn't work with SC as scum: Cyberbob/me.

Definitely some pretty big lapses in logic there, which I don't like at all.

Again, the only way Cyberbob isn't scum is if Ythan jailed correctly 3 nights in a row. I think this is very unlikely. And no one's brought any arguments to the table that make me think this is any more likely.

Some questions:
Ythan, what is your other idea that you'd like to try out?
Cyberbob, from your perspective, is there any way that SC isn't scum? If not, why aren't you voting him?

Ythan, I'm not understanding your "top two" approach. We're lynching one person today, and my top one remains Cyberbob, as of right now. Between Neto and SC, I don't know, but I agree that based on lack of quicklynch it doesn't make sense to lynch Neto today. It's almost certain that at least one of Cyberbob and SC has to be scum.

[MacavityLock]

Meh...my point was that we were either dealing with Cyberbob = Vig or Cyberbob != Vig. I didn't think there was a great deal of value in trying to determine a partner since

Cyberbob would need to be lynched today if he were not the vig

.

Right, so why are you about to vote SC?

[MacavityLock]

My point is this: If Cyberbob is not the vig, SC is scum. If Cyberbob IS the vig, SC is likely scum. Therefore, I think our best shot is by lynching SC.

Neto, from your perspective, why is Cyberbob/SC much more likely than Cyberbob/me?

Cyberbob/Neto is looking really likely, in my mind.

[MacavityLock]

Again, the only way Cyberbob isn't scum is if Ythan jailed correctly 3 nights in a row. I think this is very unlikely. And no one's brought any arguments to the table that make me think this is any more likely.

Seriously, can anyone make a case on not-Cyberbob that outweighs this fact?

[MacavityLock]

By the way, crunching the numbers, if Ythan jails completely randomly, that's (2/9)*(2/7)*(2/6) = 2.1%. Even if you bump up those probabilities because your gut reads feel right, it's still going to be unlikely.

That's 1/50. That's pretty overwhelming to me.

[MacavityLock]

Like I've said, if someone can make a case that makes Cyberbob-not-scum reasonable, or a case that you did manage to hit either the killer or the killee every night, I'm all ears. I haven't heard a case that satisfies.

Percentages aren't sufficient, but they're certainly something that need to be factored in to the discussion, especially when they are this overwhelming.

[MacavityLock]

Have I voted yet?

[MacavityLock]

Yes, it is relevant. I'm still reading to see if I can find a case that outweighs, and waiting to hear others' arguments.

So, no, I'm not "holding to them [percentages] with unwavering confidence". It does however act as a strong piece of evidence in favor of Cyberbob-scum.

[MacavityLock]

I don't understand the question.

[MacavityLock]

No one has made any case for not-Cyberbob today, much less a compelling one. The closest anyone's come is Neto's 681, which is full of holes. Cyberbob's 626 is the weak, especially in LYLO, Neto vote, and his 631 is "lynch randomly". And all you've been doing, Ythan, is polling top two scum suspects. None of these things are

cases

.

Let me also remind you of some other stuff.

Play-wise on Cyberbob, he's still been on every mislynch, his backing off of DC on Day 1 still doesn't look great, and as I said, a townie vig shouldn't have killed last night for fear of ending the game.

Between all that and the percentages, I think we have some solid evidence that point to Cyberbob-scum. Do you take issue with that?

[MacavityLock]

The fact is, all combinations are equally as unlikely.

This is not a factual statement. Based on the jailkeeping, some combinations are in fact less likely than others. Not only that, even if they were equally likely, that doesn't explain why you were willing to put your FoS-vote on SC. If they are equally likely in your mind, you should have been completely up in the air about who to vote.

We do have a plausible scenario that fits Cyberbob's vig claim. The fact that it is even-night does seem a bit too convenient...but not so inconvenient as to make me think that we should simply go ahead and drop everything in favor of going after Cyberbob.

Yes, that's fine. So, make a case on someone who's not Cyberbob that isn't full of faulty logic.

[MacavityLock]

You were previously saying that percentages are enough for me. They're not, and I'm reminding you of the rest of my Cyberbob case. Do you disagree with that case? Do you think there is a case of as much substance on anyone else?

[MacavityLock]

In my opinion, Chainsaw isn't a tell until the protectee has flipped scum. Do you really think that alone is enough to outweigh things like Cyberbob's claimed vig that could have lost the game for town?

[MacavityLock]

Have you been paying attention to anything I've been saying?

[MacavityLock]

Cyberbob, why you no answer me question?

[MacavityLock]

MacavityLock also ignored DC - his first post mentioning DC is asking for a claim from him.

I'm sorry, this is incorrect. I discussed DC and questioned him in my isos 2, 8, and 9 before requesting the claim in my iso 10.

[MacavityLock]

Cyberbob, question I was referring to:

Cyberbob, from your perspective, is there any way that SC isn't scum? If not, why aren't you voting him?

[MacavityLock]

Looks like this has been a momentous day.

In that case, why did you suddenly vote Netopalis before Ythan called you out on it?

Because.

I really didn't like your response to my claim and felt like putting on a vote for the hell of it.

Good question, bad answer.

Well, somebody's going to win here, I guess. I'm not voting yet, I want to see reactions before I do so.

Yeah, not true, given the 5 player LYLO. When I first read this post, it seemed like he was getting ready to set up a quicklynch with Cyberbob. But then he goes and votes anyway. Weird.

Ythan, you need to jail me.
ML, you need to investigate Cyberbob or Strangercoug, whoever we don't lynch.

If there is no kill, ML gets a result and we know whether I'm scum or the other person is scum. If someone is killed, the person that Ythan jailed cannot be scum. Therefore, either way the game goes, we will have a solid result for tomorrow.

I think it's reasonable to try to coordinate tonight. Ythan, do you think we can do this in the open and still solve the game?

Additional worry: Godfather.

Either you're town and you're not scum or you're scum and SC is town. Because there is no reason to say this otherwise.

Can you explain? I don't understand.

[MacavityLock]

Ythan, your 771, which was basically cross-posted with my 772 almost answers my question. Give me a few minutes to work it out on my end, and I'll get back to you.

[MacavityLock]

Give me a bit more time. I think I can solve the game, if we coordination Ythan. I should have something in an hour or so.

[MacavityLock]

EBWOP: Yeah, "if we coordination". I grammar good today. "If we coordinate, Ythan."

[MacavityLock]

Yeah, I don't think I can solve the game today. I think I can solve the game pending us lynching scum today. Stay posted, plan coming soon.

[MacavityLock]

OK, I think I've built a reasonable plan, but it (a) requires coordination between Ythan and I, and (b) the less the scum know about it, the better. I think it could be manipulated by a roleblocker, a busdriver, redirector, or something like that. How do you think I should release this plan? To the general masses now? Coordinate tonight and then reveal tomorrow if I'm still alive?

Of course, as we all realize, no plan can guarantee a win right now. We have to lynch scum today.

[MacavityLock]

Neto, my plan is an extension of your plan. Your plan is just as susceptible to a maf RB, busdriver, or redirector.

[MacavityLock]

Well, the plan is pretty simple. It's basically Neto's tonight, the reverse tomorrow night if necessary:
Lynch one of Cyberbob or SC today, I investigate the other, Ythan jails Neto.
If all 4 of us survive to tomorrow, No Lynch tomorrow, Ythan jails (Cyberbob or SC), I investigate Neto.

Jails will likely be the more reliable ability in terms of declaring guilty or innocent at this point, due to possibility of Godfather. I don't want to post the conclusions based on possible outcomes right now, because with any luck scum will slip up, but in all honesty, they should be pretty obvious.

Does this make sense, or risking too much to a RB, busdriver, or redirector?

[MacavityLock]

On second thought, I think I want (Cyberbob or SC) jailed tonight and Neto investigated, and the reverse the following night if necessary.

[MacavityLock]

Agreed. First off, Ythan, are you good with jailing (Cyberbob or SC, whichever we don't lynch), and me investigating Neto? Just want to be sure no signals crossed.

As for the lynch, I'm still in favor of Cyberbob going, but I definitely see what you guys are saying about SC being blase about his own lynch.

[MacavityLock]

Neto offered to get jailed. I worry that if he's scum, he has a trick up his sleeve to deal with this, which is why he offered.

I doubt it matters much, but that's what I'd prefer. Again, I don't want signals crossed, so let's just make a decision and agree on it.

[MacavityLock]

I've played in many games with SC. We've now been every iteration: scum buddies, me-scum him-town, me-town him-scum, and we just completed a game where we were both town (like yesterday). By far my favorite scum-tell on him is FoS or HoS-ing a scum buddy with little reason to do so. I haven't seen that this game. His attacks on DC seemed legitimate, but then DC was pretty obv-scum. I see limited interaction between both him and Cyberbob and him and Neto. If anything, I'd say I see more interaction with Cyberbob: Days 1 & 2 based on reactions to DC, and today with the relatively early vote. If I had caught any meta scum tells on SC, I would've brought them up earlier.

I don't think I have any good meta town tells on him, so I certainly don't feel comfortable "clearing" him in any way. I have brought up this FoS/HoS scum tell with him before (I caught him with it in the me-town, him-scum game), so it's perfectly likely that he specifically avoided that tell because I'm in this game. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

tl;dr: My best scum tell on him didn't show up this game, but I have nothing to suggest that he's town either.

[MacavityLock]

Ugh, didn't see that scum buddy bit. Nevermind.

:} Did I catch ya? Really, by that point of today, the sides had already been set. I have a hard time reading anything horribly interesting into it.

Could it simply be that he is aware of this meta?

Yes, absolutely. To repeat,

I have brought up this FoS/HoS scum tell with him before (I caught him with it in the me-town, him-scum game), so it's perfectly likely that he specifically avoided that tell because I'm in this game. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

tl;dr: My best scum tell on him didn't show up this game, but I have nothing to suggest that he's town either.

[MacavityLock]

I thought my being a gambler was clear to you. Only scum should be putting their life first, and since I'm convinced Cyberbob is scum, most likely with Netopalis, my money is where my mouth is. He was quick to vote Netopalis for almost nothing, and since he dodged my question at 746, I'm still debating whether he is actually scumhunting right now.

I checked and SC is the one player who continued to fixate on a specific lynch once we cleared up that he should know who the two scum are.

I see what you're saying. I want to check out the Cyberbob/Neto pairing once more, but I'm getting closer to comfortable with a SC-lynch.

Ythan, please confirm that you're good with jailing (Bob or SC) tonight, and that I will investigate Neto.

[MacavityLock]

Remember how I said I had a plan, but that it was best not to talk about it so that we can hope that scum makes a mistake? Jerk. If there's a Godfather at all (which just as well could be you), there's a chance that the game is not completely solvable. This was always possible in the plan. So, we do what we can, and worst case we have a regular LYLO with no additional info. Now, are you going to stop talking about it?

[MacavityLock]

OK, if I haven't been able to convince you of a Cyberbob/Neto pairing by now, I don't think I ever will. And I do see a reasonable SC/Neto case. Plan is go. Are we still at the same vote count as last published by Amished?

[MacavityLock]

Do you want me to vote first for some reason?

[MacavityLock]

<crosses fingers>

Vote: SC

[MacavityLock]

Vote: Neto

. Looks like Ythan did in fact block the kill all 3 nights.

[MacavityLock]

I will have notes soon, but for right now, let me just say FUCK YEAH!

[MacavityLock]

OK, notes:

First off, I have to say that this game was absolutely epic. Thank you so much to Amished for picking it up before it got mod abandoned. Really good modding. That was a lot of work that paid off.

As a scum team, I do think we were slightly under-powered. Between a watcher, a JK, and a partial vig, a roleblocker would have been really helpful. The only thing we had to counteract any town powers was SCs bulletproof-ness. At least with an RB, we could have dealt with the whole Ythan on-freaking-top-of-us issue.

Still, I'm a huge talker, and the day talking helped

immensely

. We definitely had to talk stuff down in our QT, and there was a lot of plan adaptation that had to go on during the days. For example, we had a plan for SC to claim some sort of X-shot bulletproof vest to explain the lack of kill on N3, but had to shift midday once Ythan came out with his jailkeeper target. My emergency V/LA due to car trouble was real, as evidenced by the lack of quicklynch on Neto D5 after Cyberbob had voted for him. Still, I can't say I didn't exploit it, as I was able to use that time to come up with the perfect cop claim post. I wrote and re-wrote that post so many times, you have no idea. Do

not

give scum-me day talk.

Every night from N2 on, we pretty much thought we were going to cruise to victory. And every morning, our kill failed. It was so ridiculously frustrating, but honestly, that's what made the game awesome.

Ythan, you and I will probably end up butting heads in every game we play, no matter what our alignments are. Our playstyles are, how you say, not compatible. I look forward to dealing with you again. I know you already have a title in the queue, but I'm totally nominating you for YLIZA, play on ELIZA. Your posts remind me so much of what it does: just turning what someone said and turning it into a question.

I loved exploiting Dizzle's slip and was really hoping to get a chain lynch where I would go, and Dizzle would be an obv-scum final mislynch to bring us the win. So, that's kind of why I was fighting back on his lynch. P.S. Neither SC nor I were on that Dizzle mislynch.

The last day, I realized that we needed to pull the jailing to Bob instead of Neto, because with SC flipping bulletproof, it would have given credence to the vig. So, it would be easier to get Bob to vote for Neto than to get Neto to vote for vig-confirmed Bob. I had forgotten about different kill methods, but that partially confirmed Bob's vig-ness as well.

Cyberbob, if you hadn't voted, I would've claimed guilty on Neto, suggesting that he was a rolecop (which is why the scum kept trying to kill me N2 and N4) and that the only way for him to have any shot of winning would have been to try to get me lynched. I had to kill Ythan N5 because he was pretty much entirely confirmed, and we couldn't let it get to N6, when Bob would have another vig shot.

SC, thank you so much for listening to me when I told you to stop bussing me on D2. And great job staying completely under the radar. BTW, my SC meta analysis from post 821 is completely honest (except for not seeing his meta-scum tell, of course). Do you mind revealing our QT? I don't mind.

[MacavityLock]

You know what? I'mma release the scum QT. We had day talk, and as you'll see, my response was <sigh>.

[MacavityLock]

Ythan, why'd you JK me N4?

Yes, you did very well. We only tried to kill you 3 times.