Mini 1405: The Simpsons Mafia (Game Over)

[Plessiez]

VOTE: guille2015 for not confirming.

[Plessiez]

Self-voting seems silly. I don't believe it's indicative of alignment though.

saulres

-- what made you suggest that Klick was

forced

to vote for himself? Both Klick's self-vote and qwints's response seemed like ordinary RVS joking to me.

D3f3nd3r

-- what was the purpose behind your 10? I don't think set-up speculation is very useful at the moment. Why did you not comment on Klick's self-vote?

VOTE:

Who is this meant to be a vote for? (And did you really not know this was a bastard game when you signed up?)

Anyway, I think it's most sensible to just treat this as an ordinary game for the time being. (The "bastard" games I've seen on site recently haven't been that terrible, really.)

[Plessiez]

DoubleJD and havingfitz's decision to ignore the discussion in favour of placing random votes is noted.

D3f3nd3r -- have you played in (or read) many theme games? (The games I've seen have been designed so that mass name-claims aren't very helpful; scum usually either have fake names to claim or actually do have town-sounding role names).

In general, discussion about whether or not anybody is forced to self-vote should wait until Klick returns to the thread. However, D3f3nd3r is right that it's a bit strange Klick hasn't been around to explain his vote -- he has been posting elsewhere on the site.

VOTE: Guille2015
for not stopping by and saying 'hello'.

This is a better wagon than the Mhork one, I feel, given the next post:

But then you confirmed as a sure thing. Saying you vaguely remember him do it seems like a cop out for when or if he flips town. But I do remember. He did that as Town in Open 455 and you said nothing about it. Actually you went after the player who voted for Klick because of that. I remember you were town in that game.

This is a misrepresentation. Both of this game and, funnily enough, of the game you link to.

(1) At no point has Mhork "confirmed as a sure thing" his vote on Klick. Quite the opposite, really: in 21 he says he is "36% sure" (so not very sure); he begins 22 by saying "oh, and more serious.." (with the obvious implication that he

wasn't

serious in the earlier post).

(2) In Open 455 Klick did self-vote, and another player (Disturbed_One) did vote for him. But Mhork didn't vote for Disturbed_One

because

of this -- in fact, he only voted Distrubed

after

D_O, under some pressure, moved his way

away

from Klick. Mhork actually says "Dude ... I was with you up until that horrid last vote". That is, rather than voting D_O for his Klick vote, he implies he supported it.

[Plessiez]

Your exaggeration here was weird,

but you're encouraging attacks on yourself which is town

. You get town cred.

Why is "encouraging attacks on yourself" town? I don't understand why you would think this.

@Plessiez

: Your 29 bothers me.

I don't understand the basis of your confusion.

DoubleJD made a single random joke vote instead of commenting on the discussion. This is (clearly?) a different thing to commenting on the discussion a bit and then later placing a random vote, which is what Rufflig did (his very first post was a reaction to D3f3nd3r's 10). I treat them differently because they are obviously different.

My "buddying" of Mhork consists of pointing out that guille2015's reasons for voting him seem contrived. Do you not agree with this?

[Plessiez]

Vote Defender

First posts of Que?

Er. I'm afraid I don't know what this means. Can you explain?

My "buddying" of Mhork consists of pointing out that guille2015's reasons for voting him seem contrived. Do you not agree with this?

Hm. In retrospect I do agree that was your argument.

"In retrospect" you agree that was my argument? Okay. But my question was meant to be: do you agree that my argument is correct? What do you think about guille's reasons for voting Mhork? (Is he right, and if not, is he merely mistaken or is he knowingly misrepresenting the facts?)

We now know that Klick has done this twice, once as mafia and another time in a game that is still on-going.

Klick was town when he self-voted in 455 (and that game is over, obviously). His self-voting therefore seems entirely null. However, having read 455 a bit more, I have a queston for Klick:

In Open 455, Klick was town and self-voted. A town player and a scum player both joined the wagon: Klick reacted to both of them (and voted for the scum). Compare that to this game, where both qwints and Lord Mhork voted for Klick after his self-vote. So far he's been quiet about both.

So

Klick

-- what do

you

think about the people who joined your wagon? Any read on either yet?

(Also, Klick, you're an alt of kondi, right? Otherwise Open 434 doesn't really give any meta for your scum play... assuming the answer to that question is 'yes', I'll read that game later.)

1) Perhaps not a sure thing, but the intent that it was serious, even if just 36% was clear. The words "More Serious" means that the previous was serious.
2) This is correct, I was remembering just the vote. After reviewing the post his intent seemed that Klick's vote is scummy. Regardless, I am satisfied with were I am.

Not persuaded by either of these responses, really. Don't want to waste much time on (1) -- I think it's general usage that introducing a topic as "more serious" in no way means the previous topic was serious. Quite the opposite, in fact - "more seriously" often implies "more serious [than a thing that is not being taken seriously]".

But arguing about English usage seems like pedantic time wasting. I maintain that it's obvious Mhork was no more serious than qwints; both votes were firmly tongue-in-cheek.

More interesting is (2). You see, I can understand half-remembering an event from a previous game and not bothering to read it to be sure. And I can understand linking to a previous game to support a point. What I don't understand is doing both at once. You provided the link to Open 455 -- did you really not read over it to make sure you'd remembered correctly? Why not?

So, are you saying that his vote is nonsense and should be treated as such?

I'm not sure whose vote you meant by "his vote". If Klick, see above. If Mhork ... well, certainly I'd have felt happier about his vote if qwints hadn't already voted for Klick before Mhork did. My suspicion (even before reading Open 455, which seems to support the idea) is that town are more likely to be the first to vote for a self-voter. Scum dont want to make waves. A hypothetical Scum!Mhork, though, might have seen qwints's vote as a sign it was safe to vote for Klick without drawing attention. So I think Mhork's vote is largely meaningless as an alignment-tell, yes (while qwints's vote is a very slight point in his favour).

[Plessiez]

So,

saulres

, just to be clear:

You think I'm "defending" Mhork

and

implying he's a good wagon.

In the same post

. (You realise how little sense that makes, right?) And you think it's "scummy" to still be okay with lynching more than one person ... on page 2. I honestly don't know what to say to that.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: D3f3nd3r

Rufflig

, I'm confused about the timing of your vote.

D3f3nd3r makes noises about people name-claiming in 10, and clarifies this further in 18 and 26.

You are around to read these posts (you actually reply to 10, in fact). You do not comment on the name-claiming idea. You do not vote for D3f3nd3r.

Instead, in 27, you vote for guille. After this, D3f3nd3r says nothing further about name-claiming (his only posts are 30 and 46).

Then in 53 you vote for D3f3nd3r. In a subsequent post, you justify this as being "my way of saying that I'm not open for name claiming".

That is: when D3f3nd3r was talking about name-claiming, you ignored him and voted for guille. When people are talking about voting for guille, you decided that D3f3nd3r's earlier posts suddenly merited a vote. Do you see my problem with this?

(1) If posts 10, 18 and 26 are why you were voting for D3f3nd3r, why did you not vote for him at the time?

(2) What happen between your post 27 and your post 53 that made you decide it was necessary to comment on the value of a name-claiming plan. Was somebody other than D3f3nd3r pushing this plan? Who?

(3) What do you think about the wagon on guille? Or should I read your 41 as saying you won't be reading over the linked games to check whether guille was misprepresenting the events of Open 455?

Also, your 58 rings some alarms. D3f3nd3r (correctly) asks why disagreeing with him means you have to vote for him, and you shrug the question off with a joking non-answer. Do you always assume that somebody pushing an idea you disagree with is scum?

[Plessiez]

Defender, you seem to be going on a bit about the bastardry of the game, which is a bit weird as the mod seems to have given out what the bastard element is in the advertising post.

Link? I think I've read all the advertising for this game (like you, I was a pre-\in), and I don't know what the bastard element is.

The mod's post in the queue gives the following (my bold):

Notes:

• This is a bastard game setup!
  I will repeat, this is a bastard game setup! Sign up at your own discretion.
  
• The setup is partly based on different agendas. So a player might have a secret agenda in addition to their factional win condition.
  
• Expect... strange... things to happen
  . Or not!
  
• The only thing I will guarantee is there is NO Cult faction or Jester faction
  .

So ... what is the bastard element of this game?

I'm not sure whose vote you meant by "his vote".

<rant mode>

Please, context is good. The occasional name instead of personal pronouns are good. Brief quotes are good.
Please consider what your post will read like if read in isolation. Will the references to other people be obvious.

</rant mode>

I agree with the advice in the rant, though I'm not entirely sure why you quoted my 48 before giving it. That post certainly does use full names and brief quotes. Since you've read 48 though, do you mind sharing your thoughts on Mhork/guille2015? Or ... well, anybody but D3f3nd3r, really.

I certainly agree that D3f3nd3r's posts so far aren't

helpful

, but I don't see them as scummy.

[Plessiez]

Trying to get a mass name claim without a good reason and while trying to avoid responsibility is a sure fire scum tell.

Interesting theory. Except now D3f3nd3r, Mhork and Ztife have

all

tried to do just this. Do you believe all three are scum?

I was semi-serious about name claiming:

if we do, it's a double-edged sword, both sides benefit

.

Personally, im in favour of a name-claim

. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars.

It could be useless as well, in which I won't see why it would hurt to name claim

. However I feel that defender has been sitting in the fence too much with his name-claiming plan and not been explaining his points clearly.

I can agree that the name claim would prolly have merit, but

have you given thought to the possibility that some roles might be stronger if they know flavor? Or if knowing flavor would help private win conditions? 'Course we may have a flavor cop, so that could help...

I'm torn

.

All three have suggested a mass name-claim, and all three have been sure while doing so to point out that a mass name-claim might not actually help the town. Do you still trust your "sure-fire scum tell"?

Or do you believe (as I do) that this is actually a sign that all three are inexperienced in this sort of theme game? (By "this sort of game" I mean: "theme games in which a mass name-claim is possible", since obviously there are theme games where people aren't given uniquely named roles at all). Personally, I don't believe in any "sure-fire" scum-tells, and I'm always a bit dubious when people claim to use such a thing.

[Plessiez]

Baby Spice

-- you seem to have missed a question I asked:

Since you've read 48 though, do you mind sharing your thoughts on Mhork/guille2015? Or ... well, anybody but D3f3nd3r, really.

Add Rufflig to the list of people I'd like to hear your opinion on.

[Plessiez]

After reading 59 and 82, I think DoubleJD is my strongest town read at the moment. Like him, I am bemused that mass name-claiming suddenly became such a talked about option -- it's obviously not a good idea, and I think it's a waste of time to discuss it today.

Ztife, i think you're scum unless this is like your 1st or 2nd theme.

Since I have too much time on my hands today, I can tell you it's not Ztife's first theme game. It's not D3f3nd3r or Mhork's first theme game either, in fact. But only one of them has played in a game where an early mass name-claim was an option. More on this below.

Ztife has, as far as I can tell by the site's search function, played in two completed theme games: The Werewolves of Millers Hollow and Mini 808. But if you look at these games, players did not get uniquely-named roles, so they aren't really relevant -- a mass name-claim was never on the table, so playing in these games wouldn't have taught Ztife that early mass name-claims are a bad idea.

Similarly, D3f3nd3r seems to have played in three theme games (recall that I asked him about this in 29). But (consistent with what he said in his reply, 30), a mass-claim was never an option in those games either. In both Mini 1344 and Judge, Jury and Executioner players did not have uniquely named characters as role name. And in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, although every player

did

have a unique character-name, in this game the character names were revealed in the starting post by the mod. So, again, not a relevant example - there was no option for a "mass name claim".

Finally, Lord Mhork seems to have played in two theme games. These were Good vs Evil, Law vs Chaos and the (just finished) Mini 1396. The first game didn't have uniquely-named characters for roles, but the second one did. (It doesn't seem that Mhork - who was town in Mini 1396-- was tempted to suggest a mass name-claim in that game, either, for whatever that's worth).

In summary

- all three people talking about a mass name-claim are obviously inexperienced. Although they have all played in theme games before, only one of them (Mhork) has played in even one theme game where everybody has a uniquely named role.

That said, I really think this whole discussion is a waste of time, and that calls for a mass name-claim are signs that a player is inexperienced in this sort of game, not indications of alignment. If I had to pick a suspect from the three, I'd pick Ztife (who is calling for a name-claim

and

voting D3f3nd3r, which seems weird given the reason most people are voting D3f3nd3r). But I really have no solid read on any of them, yet. Guille2015 and TheRufflig are much more suspicious, in my opinion. Would prefer to see pressure put on either one of them.

[Plessiez]

The rufflig is kinda townish at the moment.

Townish? Really? I'm not seeing that at all. Why do you think so?

Rufflig's justification for the timing of his D3f3nd3r vote still seems off to me. His reactions to other people's questions also seems a bit too defensive -- he seems to favour humourous deflections to straight answers, and his reaction to saulres seems over the top as well. So I've been looking back over his posts. I don't think things add up.

According to Rufflig's 77, he felt after reading D3f3nder's 26 that D3f3nder was "umabigious[ly] ... testing the waters for a mass name claim". He believes, if I'm reading 88 correctly, that this is "a universal scum read". However, Rufflig doesn't vote for D3f3nd3r immediately because the game had yet to "shift out of RVS".

Rufflig

-- if you think somebody has done something unambiguously suspicious, why wait until RVS ends before saying so? Why not try to end RVS yourself by placing a serious vote?

Another problem I have with this is that when Rufflig posted his 41, the game had -- to my eye --

already

clearly shifted out of RVS. Both guille, myself, Klick and Saulres had placed obviously non-random votes. And yet, in this post, Rufflig seems happy to keep his "random" vote on guille and not to vote for somebody he (apparently) had real reasons to suspect. This doesn't seem like the behaviour of somebody who had already become supsicious of D3f3nd3r and was planning to vote for him.

Note also that while Rufflig votes in 53 he doesn't mention "name claiming" as a reason until 56. This is just after sword_of_omens brought name claiming up again in 55. This is either a slightly odd coincidence - sword just happened to talk about name-claiming between Rufflig voting and giving his reason, even though nobody else had talked about it for a while - or suggests that Rufflig only decided his "reason" for voting for D3f3nd3r

after

reading sword's post.

Although Rufflig explains his vote as being based on a "universal scum read" (in 88) he seems to moderate his suspicions very quickly. By 97 he seems to be willing to believe that

none

of the people pushing a mass name-claim are scum: "No, you can't all be scum, but I'll bet at least one of you has a secret agenda". If he really thought pushing a mass claim was so suspicious, why the change of heart?

Rufflig

-- if you weren't voting for saulres, which of {D3f3nd3r, Mhork, Ztife} would you be voting for? Or would you be voting for somebody else entirely?

I haven't looked at guille's 103 in detail yet, though I see he's also voting for Rufflig. Will decide which of them I'd rather leave my vote on later this evening.

[Plessiez]

I think I'm going to add

havingfitz

to my list of town-reads. Gone back on forth on this a bit. His comments (in 90) about D3f3nd3r being a typical day 1 mislynch ring true and mirror my own thinking a bit (in rereading D3f3nd3r's past games for meta, I noticed D3f3nd3r does indeed get mislynched as town a lot). Sure, this could be an attempt to curry favour with D3f3nd3r, but ... the way it's written, I just don't get that impression. Somebody trying that wouldn't place the blame for being mislynched so squarely on D3f3nd3r, in my view. This doesn't feel like an argument fitz would advance as scum (whatever D3f3nd3r's alignment).

I've also got a provisional town-read on

saulres

, and don't think I'll be voting for him today. He's active, asking questions, and pushing at people when he doesn't like the answers he gets. My experience is that this just isn't the way most scum players begin a game. (Actually,

saulres

-- link me to whatever game you consider to be your best scum game, please.)

He's also right that there's something of a contradiction (in 77) between, on the one hand, Rufflig's statement: "My personal feeling is

'I don't give a damn about what happened in another game'

" and, on the other hand, Rufflig's decision to bring up a past game of his as a reason for voting. (He doesn't name the game, but a quick search suggests Rufflig meant Mini 1392). I mean, at the very least, the claim is revealed as hyperbole - Rufflig

does

care about past games, and bases his opinions on them, he just doesn't want to read games he didn't play in. I don't think this contradiction itself is actually very suspicious, though - hypocrisy isn't a scum-tell.

If guille were to flip scum, then obviously I'd reconsider the fact that saulres started voting for me just after I made a case on guille. But in the absence of that sort of information, I don't see much scum-motivation for saulres's play so far.

[Plessiez]

I'm definitely not a fan of people not explaining their town-reads. Generally, when I ask somebody for their town reads, it's not simply to learn

who

they think is town, but to learn

why

. It's often hard for the mafia to manufacture genuine-sounding reasons to view other people as town. It's obviously

not

so hard to just name a few people as town and refuse to explain why you think that. And really, if you're worried about giving away secret knowledge about Cop results or Masons or whatever (Rufflig's scenarios 1 and 2), and those people aren't in any danger of being lynched ... well, just don't mention these people as town-reads! People don't need to know that you think certain people are town if you aren't willing to explain why yet.

That said, having read his posts in Mini 1392 I believe Rufflig when he says he makes a policy of not explaining his town reads, so ... meh. Annoying, but probably not worth pushing for now.

If Rufflig is alive later in the game, somebody should come back to these town-reads of his and ask him to explain what he was thinking.

On the other hand, I'm pleased to see (115) that D3f3nd3r doesn't understand the point of not explaining town-reads. I'm less pleased that so far he has made one RVS joke vote and otherwise given no suspects and no town-reads at all (explained or otherwise).

D3f3nd3r

-- we aren't going to mass name-claim. Please stop suggesting that we do - it's a waste of time. Instead, please give us (at least) three town-reads or scum-reads. Explain your thinking.

[Plessiez]

saulres -- link me to whatever game you consider to be your best scum game, please.

I'd have to give you the only one I won as scum: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=84&t=23074

Hmm. I've looked at that game a bit already, but I didn't realise it was your only scum-win. I was actually hoping to read something into your choice of which game to pick as your "best". Oh well. Will look at the linked game more later, time permitting.

If Rufflig is alive later in the game, somebody should come back to these town-reads of his and ask him to explain what he was thinking.

Abracadabra, your request is granted. Take a look at the post just before yours. I explained the reasoning for most of my town reads there.

122 isn't much of an explanation of your town-reads, though? It's just a statement of a fairly generic rule of thumb -- one which you admit in the same post isn't even the sole thing determining your reads. It tells me nothing at all about your alignment or how you're reading the game.

I mean, really. Of the five people you call town in 108: Mhork, Baby Spice, DoubleJD and qwints each have a

single

town-read. (And none of those town-reads are on people who seem to be in any danger of being lynched right now; in other words, they aren't exactly ruling out viable options).

I simply don't believe you think this is reason enough to call somebody town (if you claim you do, then why isn't Klick, with his early town-read on guille, on your list of town-reads?).

As far as I'm concerned, you've yet to properly explain your town-reads. I also think it's a bit odd that you give five town-reads early on day 1 (on what seems to be a flimsy basis at best), and immediately start trying to push the idea that having town reads is itself a town-tell. Have you ever talked about this as a town-tell before? (A site search of terms like "more likely to have town reads" and "keep their lynch options open" suggests not, but I'm happy to admit I got bored of the search fairly quickly.)

In my next post I'll get to guille's 103; I've been putting that off far too long.

[Plessiez]

Happy new year, everyone!

Now, where was I ...

103 is clearly a post made in a hurry. But I think it's a post made by scum in a hurry, rather than town -- some of the oversights and omissions are hard to explain otherwise.

The structure of 103 suggests it's either a list of reads or a list of responses to pressing questions. But a closer look shows that it isn't either one. Some of the entries on the list are pure filler (the entry addressed to Klick says so little about this game it could easily have been written before the game began; the entry about havingfitz is just a reference to a past game they both played in) some offer no thoughts at all (the entry addressed to Baby Spice doesn't give any opinion on her alignment or ask her any questions), and some entries are clearly about other people than the person named (the Sword of Omens entry is about Mhork, for instance).

Why would town in a hurry include this sort of padding and filler? The scum motivation is clear, however -- guille was in a hurry to create a post that

looked good

. So he came up with the format first, a list which suggested he had lots to say to everyone, and then he struggled to find things to include.

Anyone I missed I didn't find prominent to include in this post, [...] I find most suspicious Ruffling and Ztife. Ztife basically for DoubleJD who I have as a town read along with Plessiez.

So guille claims that Ztife is one of his two top suspects. (In fact both his top suspects are popular, safe choices). But Ztife

doesn't appear on the list of names

at all! That seems very strange. Why list nine other players -- and include things like the Klick entry -- and forget to mention one of your

top suspects

? Well, maybe the list was just of the more active posters? No, that doesn't work either. guille lists people like Sword of Omens and havingfitz (who each had four posts at the time) and yet doesn't have time to give an entry for Saulres (who had

fourteen

, many of them quite long, and was clearly one of the most active players in the game).

I'm happy with my vote where it is. But some questions for guille (if he finds time to reply during his V/LA):

(1) What do you think of saulres, and why did you not list him in 103?
(2) What exactly did you mean by "Anyone I missed I didn't find prominent to include in this post"? Why made Klick "prominent" but saulres and Ztife non-prominent?
(3) For that matter, what do you think of qwints (who is the only person you don't mention at all in 103)?
(4) You say Ztife is a suspect "basically for DoubleJD who I have as a town read". What does this mean? You have a town-read on DoubleJD so you feel compelled to echo his suspicions? What is the case on Ztife?
(5) At the top of this post, you say:

By post 47, I knew that my argument was pointless to the point of it being ineffective. So, 47 was an attempt to keep it alive until LordM responded.

Why would you want to keep alive an argument you've already decided is pointless? What's the town-motivation? Am I just not reading this properly?

[Plessiez]

(Has anybody else had trouble connecting to the forums today? Kind of annoying.)

Rufflig is town.

Yeah, that was my gut impression after reading 136 too. Definite sense of "frustrated townie" to that post. Compare it with Mini 1251: Rufflig was lynched as scum in that game and his reaction to being pressured was much closer to the deliberately measured lack-of-overreaction I'd tend to expect from scum. (But,

Rufflig

, your "deal" was offered to

me

, right? Not saulres? This is very important

for my ego

.)

But first, about the name claim. I see this being mentioned/occurring in some past minis. I don't care what happens about it at this point...

Funny how you finally come to that only after I said you have a lyncher wincon.

Meh. Rufflig already brought up this possibility in 97. You certainly weren't the first to suggest it. But why don't you think Ztife might have a lyncher win condition? Ztife's (apparently) even more keen on the idea of a mass-claim than D3f3nd3r is (that's the basis of Ztife's vote, after all -- Ztife claims to think mass-name claiming is a good idea, and suggests that D3f3nd3r isn't encouraging a mass claim

enough

).

Actually, I'd like to see more from

Ztife

. D3f3nd3r stopped talking about mass-claiming and started giving reads. Now it's your turn. Reads on people who aren't D3f3nd3r, please.

[Plessiez]

(But, Rufflig, your "deal" was offered to me, right? Not saulres? This is very important for my ego.)

You are correct. You're the one who has been hounding me after nearly every post of mine recently. The offer is still open.

Hmm. I'm sorry if you feel I've been (unfairly) pushing you this game; not been my intention to do so. As I said above, your reaction in 136 gives me
more of a town-read on you, so I probably won't be pressuring you further, at least for a while.

(No interest in making a deal on this, though. Can't imagine why anyone would be, to be honest )

@DoubleDJ 146

I'm not voting him for being a lyncher. I was noting how the first post he made which did anything other than discuss nameclaims came after I explicitly called him a lyncher, and in it he said all of a sudden "I don't care what happens about it at this point..." after having nothing else to say all game. (I expect that the lynch wincon is a secondary one and not his full role.)

Except that (as I said in 142) people had

already

talked about the possibility of him being a lyncher. And people were already voting him because of the mass name-claim push. None of that made him start giving reads. But suddenly you repeat that he might be a lyncher and he's so terrified he starts throwing out reads? Please. Your efforts to take credit for this are ... well, arrogant at best, absurd at worst. Feels like you're just posturing for the town-credit.

Were you similarly just posturing in 118 when you complained about people not answering questions? Are you planning to get around to answering mine? Why are you focusing on D3f3nd3r and giving Ztife a free ride?

[Plessiez]

Re: D3f3nd3r lyncher comments: I just didn't remember other people said it, and anyway

I don't really care about it. As I said, that's not why I'm voting for him

.

Really?

Then I'm confused.

In 111 Rufflig asked you for reads. Here's your answer:

I lean town on DoubleJD for his stand on the name claim,

D3f3nd3r clearly has a lyncher wincon because he can't seemingly talk about anything except trying to get people to name claim

, and I'd love it if people would start actually answering questions they were asked so we can form reads.

So when you were asked for reads, you talked about D3f3nd3r having a lynch wincon because ... you don't really care about it and it's not why you suspected him? Are you saying you didn't suspect him at all at this point? In which case, why mention him when asked for reads?

And my question -- which I repeated in my last post -- was why you'd decided (in 118) that D3f3nd3r "clearly" had a lyncher win condition and not come to a similar conclusion about Ztife. (I don't see why this question needs to wait until Ztife responds -- I'm interested in what you were thinking then. How is anything Ztife might say in the future relevant to that?)

[Plessiez]

So, your "read" on D3f3nd3r was "has a lyncher wincon (but could be town or scum, I've no idea)"? Are you saying you didn't suspect D3f3nd3r before his "scumslip"? Please be more clear.

The difference between [D3f3nd3r] and Zifte is he had 11 posts at the time,

all

of which were either fluff or talking about nameclaims. Zifte still only has 5 posts, but at least he's talked about other things.

Other than his (kind of hypocritical?) vote for D3f3nd3r, what has Ztife talked about that D3f3nd3r hasn't?

I'll get you started:

Before your 118, D3f3nd3r had...

* placed a RVS joke vote (7)
* talked positively about a mass name-claim (or hinted at it) (10, 18, 26, 71, 112)
* briefly commented on Klick's self-vote (18)
* briefly discussed Klick's meta (30)
* responded to questions about his experience level (30)
* asked Rufflig why he doesn't explain his town-reads (112, 115)

Before your 118, Ztife had...

* placed a RVS joke vote (24)
* talked positively about a mass name-claim (80, 93)
* briefly commented on Klick's self-vote (24, 80)
* briefly discussed Klick's meta (45)
* responded to questions about his experience level (93)
* voted for D3f3nd3r (80)

What are these "other things"?

[Plessiez]

I'm not answering anything else until Ztife posts and answers my questions. You're already causing problems with what I was trying to do.

You were asked about your reads (in 111) and noticeably didn't give Ztife as a suspect. This despite the fact you'd already asked him your questions (in 96). So you didn't ask those questions because you had any sort of scum-read on Ztife. And Ztife has already posted and ignored your questions once. But now you're refusing to answer questions until Ztife answers yours. In fact, the specific question you're ignoring is a request to explain a factual claim: 'Ztife has talked about things D3f3nd3r hasn't' which you

just now made

. I see.

You could at least have a go at answering the question below. Notice that it has nothing at all to do with Ztife:

So, your "read" on D3f3nd3r was "has a lyncher wincon (but could be town or scum, I've no idea)"? Are you saying you didn't suspect D3f3nd3r before his "scumslip"? Please be more clear.

While you're at it, I notice that you've justified both your "serious" votes in this game (against me and D3f3nd3r) by claiming that certain word choices ("better" in my case, "others" in D3f3nd3r's case) suggest we had "a scum mindset" or were thinking "how scum think". Is this an approach to scum-hunting you have found useful as town in the past?

[Plessiez]

And speaking of Ztife...

A couple of senarios for example why I think a name-claim could be useful than not.

I claim to be bart simpson, your character is bart simpson so you would know im lying, and if you get lynched that would be clear.
I am wiggum (cop), you claim to be lou (another cop), might seems suspicious to have 2 cops in the game so I could check you out at night.

This doesn't really "reconcile" the two posts saulres asked about. In 93 you suggest

pro-town

players will also fake-claim. But if town players are going to lie about this, why is catching liars helpful?

As for my vote on defender, he is a fence sitter on name claiming, im not pushing for one but Im saying I don't see how name claiming would hurt town.

So D3f3nd3r is "a fence sitter", while you ... don't have a strong opinion one way or the other? Is that what you're saying? Do you think we should have a mass name-claim? Yes or no.

[Plessiez]

qwints

-- what do you think about Ztife's vote for D3f3nd3r?

Especially given Ztife's most recent post, can you expand on how exactly you think Ztife's stance on name-claiming differs from D3f3nd3r's? Because I see both of them bring up the idea as a positive, something that they think we should "probably" do, then make no real effort to convince anybody of the plan, then back away from the idea. The only difference I see (except for Ztife's vote), is that one of them has been pressured for it and the other one really hasn't been.

Guille's vote on Rufflig is horrible. If Plessiez is being inconsistent in his treatment of Rufflig, why not pressuer Plessiez? If Plessiez's other behavior makes you see Plessiez as town, how could Plessiez's behavior make you see Rufflig as scummy?

Hmm. Going back to look at 103, I don't think this is why guille says he is voting Rufflig. At least, the only thing he

explicitly calls

"suspicious" is Rufflig's vote for saulres. Though I notice that he both complains about Rufflig's vote: "Noted vote for defender without explanation. I am not satisfied with his excuse later on about this." and then, later, suggests his vote for D3f3nd3r was actually okay, or at least not as suspicious as his later Saulres vote: "Ruffling's vote for Saulres seems like a stretch,

I liked his vote on Defender better

"

guille

-- can you please clarify why you voted for Rufflig? And what do you think of him now?

Also, please reconcile your claim to be "not satisifed with his excuse [for voting D3f3nd3r]" and your assessment of 77 as "ok". What did you like about 77 if not Rufflig's justifications for voting D3f3nd3r?

In fact I'm still not understanding why Saulres didn't get an entry of his own in 103. You mention Saulres's stance on me in that post, and you mention Rufflig's vote for Saulres in that post. In 143 you say that "If I missed someone it likely because I had nothing to say about that person". But you clearly

did

have stuff to comment on about Saulres, right?

Why did you then say, in answer to my (1), that you had no entry for saulres because you "found nothing suspicious"? Other than Rufflig and D3f3nd3r, who on your list of names from 103 did you find suspicious?

[Plessiez]

I've been trying new things because lately all my reads have been horrible.

So looking for evidence of a "scummy mindset" is a new approach for you? What made you think it was a good idea to try?

This doesn't really "reconcile" the two posts saulres asked about. In 93 you suggest pro-town players will also fake-claim. But if town players are going to lie about this, why is catching liars helpful?

^I want this answered.

I assume this means you're still refusing to answer my Ztife-related questions . I'd still really like to know why Ztife giving you a satisfactory answer to this question is so massively important to you, given that you first asked the questions in 96 and implicitly ruled out having any sort of scum-read on Ztife later, in 118 (when you were asked for reads and didn't mention Ztife at all). You can keep putting that off until Ztife answers, I guess. I'll be interested to hear what your reason for stalling on this is supposed to be.

However I (still) want this answered as soon as you can:

You could at least have a go at answering the question below. Notice that it has nothing at all to do with Ztife:

So, your "read" on D3f3nd3r was "has a lyncher wincon (but could be town or scum, I've no idea)"? Are you saying you didn't suspect D3f3nd3r before his "scumslip"? Please be more clear.

In 111 you were challenged for reads. You gave a town-read on DoubleJD and said that D3f3nd3r "clearly has a lyncher wincon". Was this or was this not supposed to suggest an anti-town read on D3f3nd3r?

[Plessiez]

Okay, now I can come clean.

This entire story is ridiculous and self-serving. I don't believe you had a secret scum-read on Ztife you didn't want to mention in your 118 – in fact, you clearly say you had no plans to set a trap at that point, and so no reason not to share a scum-read if you had one. I don't believe you voted for D3f3nd3r in order to set a trap for Ztife – especially because the thing you were trying to “trap” Ztife into doing is something Ztife had

already done

. I think you voted for D3f3nd3r beause he was a popular wagon and you were hoping to get him lynched.

… oh, yeah, and I don't believe you're town anymore, either, in case that was still ambiguous .

In fact, I'm going to VOTE: Saulres. Votes for any of {guille, saulres and Ztife} are good votes at this point.

Back at 96 I had suspicions of ztife as scum. His push for a name-claim seemed to me motivated by a desire to ferret out power roles.

Hilariously enough, this doesn't even get you out of answering my question in 161. What makes D3f3nd3r's push for a name-claim different from Ztife's? How is one scummy and the other not? All you've done is change your story about which one is suspicious – you're still pretending one is and the other isn't.

But I wasn't sure, and I wanted his response to my questions.

Why would you have to be “sure” before voicing your suspicions of somebody? How “sure” can anybody be of reads given in the middle of Day 1? And you in the habit of lying about your reads as town? Because in 118, you didn't say anything about having a scum-read on Ztife...

My scumread increased;

he was (to me) clearly avoiding answering my questions in order to buy yet more time to make up an answer

.

Oh. The. Irony.

When he finally posted, three real-life days later, he didn't respond. My scumread increased; he was (to me) clearly avoiding answering my questions in order to buy yet more time to make up an answer. So I set up a trap

I see. So you only decided to “set up a trap”

after

Ztife's 136. But you had a scum-read on Ztife since his 96. And you didn't mention your Ztife-scum read in 118 … why, exactly? Is lying about your reads something you do as town? (

Note that by your own words you had not decided to set a trap at this point

. You had no reason not to give any scum-reads you had. No reason if you were town, anyway.)

I was hoping Ztife would respond to my joining the D3f3nd3r wagon with something damning, given that I was voting D3f3nd3r for reasons which, as Plessiez pointed out, applied almost equally to ztife. I was hoping ztife would say something like "saulres sees it; more votes on D3f3nd3r plz" and then I'd have him.

Um. You do realise that Ztife is

already

voting for D3f3nd3r for reasons that apply equally well to Ztife, right? That's the whole reason Ztife looks bad. (It's not because he's pushing for a name-claim; it's because he's half-heartedly pushing for a name-claim

while voting for D3f3nd3r for doing exactly that

.)

So your “trap” was set to see if you could trick Ztife into doing something that

Ztife had already done

and

continues to do

. And you think Ztife

avoided

this trap? How on earth can you possibly think this? Did you read Ztife's reply at all?

I should probably also do a full reread at this point, but I'm not sure how useful it would be -- the lack of activity by half the game could mean that all the arguments have been town-on-town and it might be a waste of time.

Please don't even think of using the fact that some people are lurking as a reason not to give reads on anybody else. A full reread isn't pointless if it

gives you town-reads

on the people who are posting. If a reread convinced you that the active half of the game were all town, that would be a huge help! Simple PoE would give the scum, after all. But right here you're admitting that the only reason you'd possibly reread the thread is to actively look for scummy people.

Since you're not voting me, or indeed anyone, and since you don't mention me as a suspect after unvoting, I can only conclude that

you forgot to pretend you suspect me

you now have a town read on me. Please explain when you got this read and why. Also, now that you've lost your excuse for not answering questions, please answer my outstanding questions to you.

Let's start with:

I've been trying new things because lately all my reads have been horrible.

So looking for evidence of a "scummy mindset" is a new approach for you? What made you think it was a good idea to try?

My question about the supposed differences between Ztife and D3f3nd3r is also outstanding, of course.

[Plessiez]

5. So yes, although I favor a name claim, I do not feel strongly about the usefulness of it, and therefore im not pushing for one aggressively. Rather, im more interested in the other issues such as defender's fence sitting and saulres responses. Does this makes me the same as defender? No, because I did not suggest on name claiming, I merely commented that im slightly pro-name claim and that's it. Defender suggested it and then fence sitted. That's does not make us a fair comparison/argument.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

Both you and D3f3nd3r suggested early in your posts that you were in favour of a mass name-claim. Neither of you did anything to push it. None of you have offered any compelling arguments in favour of it (in fact, neither of you have really talked about it at all except when you were defending yourselves). Both of you have since downgraded how important you say you think it is. From where I'm sitting, you both have very similar stances. Similar enough that I find the reasons you give for your vote for D3f3nd3r baffling. You are both, in my view, clearly guilty of "fence-sitting".

6. @ Plessiez: You mentioned in an earlier post that you think name claiming is a null-read, so why are you asking me to define my stand about it?

See above. The fact that both you and D3f3nd3r have talked positively about name-claiming doesn't seem to be an alignment tell. It's something that I think is explained by your lack of experience with this sort of theme-game. But the fact you personally keep trying to establish a difference between how the pair of you have behaved where I don't see one, and the fact you say you are voting for D3f3nd3r because he is doing something I feel you are equally "guilty" of ... that is what I find noteworthy, and that is why I'm suspicious of you.

[Plessiez]

Do you think everyone has a power role?

This is rolefishing. Don't.

[Plessiez]

Question to anyone

...who first brought up the possibility of D3f being a lyncher?

Rufflig (in 97) suggested that one of the people pushing a mass name-claim had a lyncher win condition, but didn't explicitly name D3f3nd3r.

I like Ruffig's town rationale for guille and it does make me question my vote on guille.

But Rufflig's town-rationale for guille is awful. He takes 240-odd words to say "people who don't bother to check their facts are probably town". I don't agree with the tell, and I don't see why it took so long to say. And this completely ignores the actual content of guille's meta-argument and guille's subsequent bad follow-up posts (thinking of 103 in particular, which I still struggle to see coming from a pro-town player).

(To be clear, I think Rufflig is sincere. I just think he's very wrong.)

Also, Rufflig first gave his town-read on guile before you ever voted, and (other than using more words), he hasn't really said anything new about it since 77.

Not sure I'm interested in seeing a saulres lynch happen.

Do you believe saulres was "setting a trap" for Ztife when he voted for D3f3nd3r? Why do you think saulres didn't give Ztife as a scum read when he was asked to give reads?

Oh, also:

saulres

-- you haven't mentioned the guille wagon

at all

since claiming a throw-away conditional town-read on guille in 50 (a read you don't mention again in 118). This despite that wagon becoming the biggest in the game (L-2 at one point). Do you still not have anything to say about it?

[Plessiez]

No, looking for a scummy mindset isn't new to me, and I've done it often.

Links to games where you've been town and explicitly looked for evidence of other people "thinking how scum think" or "a scum mindset", please.

[Plessiez]

I've been focusing on one person at a time, and guille's been on V/LA the whole time so I can't see his reactions and responses.

What? Yes, Guille's been on V/LA, but you can still see his reactions and responses because he's actually still made some posts. (Hint: they are here and they are here. You're welcome!) This is a terrible excuse not to give a read on guille – “oh, he's not able to make

many

posts so I can't talk about

any

of them”? Come

on

.

In the case of ztife, yes, I got my read I wanted to test and didn't post it in thread in order to not give it away; I wanted him to think I'd be supportive

Sigh.

Let me repeat why this is clearly a lie

. The timeline just doesn't work. You say you came up with a plan to trap Ztife, and that's why you didn't mention a scum-read on him in 118 when asked for reads. But the post that you say inspired you to set this “trap” was made

after

118. So you're telling us that you decided to do something, but made the decision after you actually did it.

You either have access to a working time machine, or you're making this whole “trap” up to justify a bad vote and your earlier contradictory stances. Guess which I believe is true?

Look, I don't want to keep going on about this, because people don't actually read walls and this post is already too long. But I've spoilered the relevant quotes below.

Spoiler:

(1)

According to 178, your claimed scum-read is based on Ztife's 96.

Back at 96 I had suspicions of ztife as scum

(2)

Rufflig asked you for reads in 111.

(3)

You answered in 118. You did not mention any suspicions of Ztife. Your reads were only:

I lean town on DoubleJD for his stand on the name claim, D3f3nd3r clearly has a lyncher wincon because he can't seemingly talk about anything except trying to get people to name claim,

(4)

According to 178 again, you decided to set a trap after reading Ztife's 138.

When he finally posted, three real-life days later, he didn't respond. My scumread increased; he was (to me) clearly avoiding answering my questions in order to buy yet more time to make up an answer. So I set up a trap,

So let's look at what you've claimed.

You get a scum-read on Ztife after reading 96. You decided to set a trap after reading 138. In order to “not give away” your suspicions of Ztife, and so better lure him into your “trap”, you deliberately didn't mention your scum-read on Ztife when givng your current reads in 118.

In other words … in order to set a trap you'd come up with after reading a post made on

January 1st

, you decided to keep your scum read on Ztife secret when you made a post

two days earlier

, on

December 30th

.

Do people understand why I'm having trouble believing this?

And this isn't even getting into the fact that your supposed “trap” is nonsensical. Spoiler-tags again:

Spoiler:

Ztife was already guilty of the hypocrisy you're accusing him of. He was already voting D3f3nd3r for half-heartedly supporting a name-claim while at the same time continuing to half-heartedly support one himself. I repeat, he'd

already voted for D3f3nd3r

. Your “trap” was to vote for D3f3nd3r for the same reason and … hope Ztife decided to agree with

his own vote

?

I was hoping Ztife would respond to my joining the D3f3nd3r wagon with something damning, given that I was voting D3f3nd3r for reasons which, as Plessiez pointed out, applied almost equally to ztife. I was hoping ztife would say something like "saulres sees it; more votes on D3f3nd3r plz" and then I'd have him.

But, to repeat myself,

Ztife was already “voting for D3f3nd3r for reasons which apply equally to Ztife"

:

Personally, im in favour of a name-claim. This information could be useful in the later stages of the game where we have to determine the roles of people and used against the liars. It could be useless as well, in which I won't see why it would hurt to name claim. However I feel that defender has been sitting in the fence too much with his name-claiming plan and not been explaining his points clearly.

Vote: Defender

In this very post, Ztife fence sits on name-claiming (it “could be useful” but “it could be useless as well”) and then votes for D3f3nd3r

for fence-sitting on name-claiming

. What was the point of “trapping” Ztife into agreeing with a vote which

he'd already made

?

Links to games where you've been town and explicitly looked for evidence of other people "thinking how scum think" or "a scum mindset", please.

That's going to take some time, my memory isn't all that great so I'm going to have to search for somewhere I explicitly said it. I know I've said things like "scum would have wanted to <xxx>", does that qualify as what you're looking for?

No? I want links to games where you've been town, and where you've accused somebody else based on the fact you claim they are thinking like scum (or because they have a scum attitude, or aren't thinking like town, or whatever way you want to put it). You know, the way you justified you first two votes in this game. I don't care about generic statements about how hypothetical scum might act or what scum generally want to do. I want to see a case of you, as town, attacking somebody for showing a “scum mindset” or words to that effect.

[Plessiez]

It's not really "prod

dodging

" if you only do it

after

you've been prodded...

For someone who's got that size a wagon, Saulres doesn't seem all that scummy.

Same questions to you as to everyone else who isn't seeing how bad saulres looks: Do you believe saulres was "setting a trap" for Ztife when he voted for you? Why do you think saulres didn't give Ztife as a scum read when he was asked to give reads?

(Hint: the correct answers are "no, the idea he was setting a trap is ridiculous" and "because he didn't have any idea he was going to later pretend to have had a scum-read on Ztife when he gave his reads in 118".)

[Plessiez]

He made seven posts. Comments and questions were made after those. It's those comments and questions that I'm waiting to see his responses on.

As I said previously, you haven't had anything to say about guille since 50. He has made more than one post since then. I linked you to two of them. Stop finding excuses not to comment on them.

You seem to think that I should say everything I'm thinking. I've found myself regretting doing so more often than not.

Why are you hiding behind exaggerations like this? I'm not asking you to share all your thoughts or to say everything you're thinking. Obviously there are some things you shouldn't say.

But I do expect that, if somebody asks you for reads, you won't simultaneously

complain about not having many reads

and

forget to mention a scum-read for no reason

. I also expect that you'll have something to say about the biggest wagon of the day, especially when the person getting votes is making lengthy posts to defend themselves and one of the people pushing the wagon is one of your scum-reads.

This game would be going a

lot

differently for me if everyone were here and talking as much and as frequently as you and I are.

Yes, if more people were here and reading your posts you'd have more votes .

[Plessiez]

Between the soft-claiming, the appeals to emotion, the ever-changing story behind his supposed "trap", and the fact he keeps addressing me as town despite claiming a scum-read on me, I can't say I'm very interested in replying to anything saulres has to say at the moment.

Just to follow-up on one point: my decision to ask him to link to town games where he attacked people for showing a "scum mindest" or for "thinking like scum" wasn't spurious. I had already done some checking into this (really, with the site search function it's not as hard as saulres suggests it is). It's something he's done as scum before, more than once, and -- as far as I can tell, without any follow-up from him -- it's something he's never done as town.

In Micro 14, as scum, he made the following claim: "“I look for scum thinking when I'm town, why wouldn't I? That helps catch them.”. But, again, he's never said anything about looking for "scum thinking" in any of his town-games.

Later on day 1 of Micro 14 he claimed to see signs of “a scum mindset” to justify an early scum-read on Siveure: “I can see the request coming from a scum mindset. I can't see it coming from a town mindset”and “I'm seeing you coming from a scum mindset and not a town one”. Obviously enough, Siv was town.

Other than this game, that's the only time he's used the phrase "scum mindset".

The phrase "scum thinking" appears in two games of his as well.

One of them is the above-mentioned Micro 14. The other is Worst Role Mafia where, again, he was scum. Early on day 2, he claim to suspect BBmolla because “I'm seeing scum thinking behind your posting”. BBmolla was town. (It's true that this was a multiball game, but -- as saulres admitted earlier in this game (in 124) -- he didn't know it at the time, so this was as pure a fabrication as his use of "scum mindset".)

Now, we're dealing with very small data samples here, so by itself none of this means much. But coupled with saulres's refusal to find town games where he's used this sort of language -- and I've looked for this myself for a while, using all sorts of different wording in the search-- I find it suggestive. If he's town, this will apparently be the first time he's genuinely claimed to suspect people for showing a "scum mindset" or "thinking like scum". But if he's scum, it will be just another example of him using this sort of language to fake reads. Combined with everything else he's done, I'll be disappointed if I have to change my vote today.

That said, as I said at the start, I've talked to/about saulres enough, I think. Other people should be talking and being talked about. (Didn't Klick promise a post a couple of days ago?)

[Plessiez]

Nope. Let me break it down for you.

This breakdown isn't quite right, I think ... in 194 havingfitz pretty much recants his guille scum-read, for instance, and according to 219 Ztife doesn't think saulres is scum (though the post

is

rather conflicted, isn't it?). Hmm.

Ztife

-- why do you ask saulres questions like

If you wanted to me to explain my favour in a name claim why wouldn't you comment about it? About my "nonsensicalness and contradictions" When your have baited me out to comment in your trap why have you instead become defensive about your vote and your "trap" instead of commenting how it made me look scum?

if you don't think he's scum? I mean, what are you trying to learn from his answers? (For that matter: why do you not have a scum-read on him?)

But the main thing that stands out to me is that lots of people have promised posts or promised to reread and are yet to deliver. Not much we can do while we wait, really.

@MOD: if somebody is replaced before the end of day 1, will there be an extension to give them time to catch up?

[Plessiez]

No, but I will slow your wagon down.

Yes, slowing things down ... that's exactly what this game needs .

Just for my own convenience:

sword_of_omens

-- hasn't posted since Friday, but still hasn't been prodded. Hasn't actually promised to say anything about saulres, but should do so as soon as possible.

guille2015

-- promised a recap post in 235 after a long period of V/LA.

Lord Mhork

-- promised a reread of saulres in 217 and said he hoped to catch-up "tomorrrow" in 246.

d3f3nd3r

-- claimed there was "better stuff" to be talking about in 212. Yet to respond to Rufflig's (repeated) requests to explain what this "better stuff" is.

Klick

-- said he'd try reading and would then make a post in 180. No sign of one yet (other than posts telling people to fuck off for daring to ask for one, I guess ...).

Anybody who's promised a post!

You really should be voting for saulres. Read my posts, read his. His claimed "trap" makes no sense. He has repeatedly changed his story about what it was supposed to achieve. The only thing this "trap" did was provide him with an excuse to drop his unpopular D3f3nd3r vote.

Read this.

I probably should have worded it as "my suspicions turned into a strong scumread". But I didn't, and

so now you think I'm scum

.

Do you think this is how you address somebody you have a scum-read on? Note that saulres doesn't say I simply "accuse" him of being scum, or that some people

might

think he's scum. He address me directly and he acknowledges that

I

really do

think

he's scum. But he denies having a town-read on me. Hmm.

(I mean, yeah, Ztife looks terrible too. But there's no reason they can't both be scum, and saulres is the better bet, I think.)

[Plessiez]

I have absolutely no interest in joining the Ztife wagon, given that guille and saulres are two of the people pushing it. They remain my strongest two suspects, and the Ztife-wagon is starting to feel like a scum-driven counter-wagon. Could Ztife be scum? Sure - some of his responses look pretty bad. But I don't think the reasons people are throwing out to justify their votes make much sense. Still much happier with a saulres lynch today.

(The continued "writing as you read" style makes guille's post 252 difficult to follow, too. I mean, why say in the same post that you "totally agree with" my argument on saulres, that you are "not comfortable with" lynching saulres, and then conclude that "one of saulres or Ztife are likely scum"? What are we meant to take away from that? Is this something you do regularly, guile?)

More detailed responses later.

[Plessiez]

I thought I answered everything. Since It was on an iPad I might have missed something. Tell me what you want to know.

??? Where'd your 143 come from?

You're now claiming not to have read (or even noticed) 143? Hmm.

I called you out in 202 for not responding to guille's posts. And in this post I linked to guille's more recent posts, including 143, and asked you to comment on them. Here:

I've been focusing on one person at a time, and guille's been on V/LA the whole time so I can't see his reactions and responses.

What? Yes, Guille's been on V/LA, but you can still see his reactions and responses because he's actually still made some posts. (Hint: they are here and they are here. You're welcome!) This is a terrible excuse not to give a read on guille – “oh, he's not able to make

many

posts so I can't talk about

any

of them”?

You responded to this post, so I know you read it. Here's what you said in reply:

What? Yes, Guille's been on V/LA, but you can still see his reactions and responses because he's actually still made some posts. (Hint: they are here and they are here. You're welcome!) This is a terrible excuse not to give a read on guille – “oh, he's not able to make many posts so I can't talk about any of them”? Come on.

Oh and this?

He made seven posts. Comments and questions were made after those. It's those comments and questions that I'm waiting to see his responses on.

Guille's seventh post

is

143. So you knew how many posts guille had made, but you didn't feel any particular need to read them. Even to the extent of ignoring links provided to you.
.
Please explain the "town motivation" for not checking the links I gave. Please explain the "town motivation" for knowing that guille had made seven posts, but not having actually

read

his seventh post. Please explain what "town motivation" led you to insist that you were "waiting to see his responses" when I challenged you, when it's evident that you weren't bothering to look

for

those responses.

[Plessiez]

I'm quoting this post more or less in full, since I'd like people to notice what it

doesn't

say as much as what it does say.

Here is my thought process as I was reading the Pless/Saulres/Ztife thing.

I agree with Pless on his attack and suspicion on Saulres. When Saulres did his plot twist, I read it trying to gather any "plot holes" if you will. I didn't find that many and it makes sense especially when I remembered that Saulres was annoyed that Pless was questioning him about Ztife. It makes sense, and retconning something like that is impressive. I read Pless's first post rebutting it, and I disagreed with it. Mostly because Pless only point out how Saulres complained about Ztife avoiding his questions when he avoided Pless's. Reading Pless's Second Post rebuting the time frame was much better. And with that I understood where Pless was coming from. There and after reading through the later posts I noticed a few things. First, that Saulres did not dispute that the time frame was as Pless specified, Second, the post that I remembered Saulres saying he was annoyed at Pless questioning for Ztife came after Saulres devised the trap, and lastly, appeal to emotion and the possibility that this could still be an elaborate retcon. Those three points make me suspicious enough not to trust 100% of what Saulres is saying. I am not confortable with his lynch because that makes me uneasy. Given that i find that Ztife vs Saulres is unlikely to come from a Scum vs Scum position,

I am going with the prospect that at least one of them is scum

. And since I wont vote for Saulres (with the current information), Ztife is my vote.

Right, see ... what's missing here is

why

you think Ztife is scum. Can you explain that? (And should the bolded read "at most"? Pretty sure that's what you meant to say, anyway, and I'm replying as if you did.)

This post seems to only make sense if the reader assumes one of Ztife and Saulres

has

to be scum. You say that you're inclined to trust saulres's claimed "trap". You say you're not "100%" sold, but wouldn't be "comfortable" with his lynch. And you say that Ztife vs Saulres is unlikely to be "scum vs scum".

But none of that explains your Ztife vote. Your logic is:

* I don't think A is scum.
* I don't think A and B are both scum.
* Ergo, B is scum.

But this is not a correct inference. Why do you rule out the possibility that A and B -- that is, saulres and Ztife -- are both town? What makes that impossible, in your eyes? And if it's not impossible, what is your actual reason for suspecting Ztife? And why didn't you include it in this post?

[Plessiez]

At the time it showed guille on V/LA and 7 (or whatever) posts. I felt no need to look at the posts themselves because I didn't think he made any because his V/LA wasn't even close to being over.

In the post I just quoted, I

explicitly

pointed out to you that guille was still posting even though he was V/LA. I said: "Guille's been on V/LA, but you can still see his reactions and responses because

he's actually still made some posts

". And if you'd been reading guille's posts, you'd have seen him say (in 104): "I will try to be up to date throughout my vacation as

I will be able to check the internet

". There was no reason to assume "V/LA" meant "definitely won't be making any posts, so don't bother to check". For crying out loud, I

linked you to the post in question

. To repeat myself, what is the town motivation in not checking those links?

I have no idea how people are reading you as town.

(Your "case" in 258 is terrible. But I think we both know that, don't we? Anyway, I'll deal with it as part of a longer post I'm working on.)

[Plessiez]

I think I'm perfectly justified in ignoring you until you can ascribe scum motivations to my actions.

I have provided plenty of "scum motivation" for your actions. You're (rather blatantly) lying about having planned to "set a trap" for Ztife. This claimed trap (the details of which you have not been consistent on) doesn't make sense and couldn't have worked and isn't consistent with your other actions or statements. It was simply an excuse to unvote D3f3nd3r, after your case on him backfired and turned you into a suspect. Only scum has any motivation to recant a case and pretend to have been "setting a trap" to avoid being lynched.

In response to Plessiez asking why he didn't list me in 103, he said "I found nothing suspicious at the time." (This is the answer I was waiting on before looking into guille BTW, for anyone who cares.) In reading through 103 I find this reason consistent with what he did post.

But it clearly is

not

consistent. Guille doesn't give any indication he suspects the majority of people he lists. In fact, he explicitly gives town-reads on some of them. And if people are listed for reasons other than being suspected, "not suspecting" somebody is clearly not a reason to not list them.

Additionally, post 210 sounds like an appeal to emotion.

Nope, it's an honest question. One which Plessiez seems to have ignored.

The hell it's an honest question. I am proud to continue ignoring it.

("Oh, Pless, aren't you going to feel foolish when I'm confirmed as town?", which is what 210 amounts to, is as blatant an appeal to emotion as one can get.)

[Plessiez]

I don't think you're town.

That was directed to Plessiez.

... it was obviously directed at D3f3nd3r, actually. You know, the person she was voting for at the time?

You really do have a bad habit of quoting sentences of posts out of context.

[Plessiez]

Hmm. Reading it again, the last line of my 285 is a bit pointlessly rude, isn't it? Sorry for that, saulres.

(I've spent a large chunk of the evening trying to draft a long post to explain why I think you're scum; I think my subconscious is starting to suspect that this is a role you drew on purpose to annoy me .)

Anyway, I'm

still

working on said long post, but ...

Saulres is right that we don't have much time left until deadline. I think it's very important we lynch somebody today, and that there are decent reasons to suspect all three of {saulres, guille, Ztife}. I'd prefer us to lynch saulres (obviously) or guille, but a Ztife-lynch is much better than no lynch at all.

Given the general lack of activity in the game today, it's not smart to wait until the last minute to try to secure a lynch. So it would be helpful if people could say now which of the above three they definitely

will not

be voting for today (if anyone). If there's somebody we definitely can't get lynched, then obviously there's not much point wasting the last few RL days of Day 1 talking about them.

[Plessiez]

(This post is too long! I know it, you know it. No need to point it out. If walls offend you, er, don't read it, I guess?

I won't mind as long as you vote for saulres anyway .)

And before any of y'all come guns blazing at me for not voting Saulres, what does the case really amount to?

The heart of the case on saulres is that he is lying (I think, in fact, obviously lying) about having “set a trap” for Ztife. And if he is lying about this, he must surely be scum. Town just has no reason to drop a case on somebody and to pretend it was part of some elaborate “trap”, simply to avoid being pressured.

Why do I think saulres is lying? In brief, because town has no reason to set such a trap, because he said nothing about having Ztife as a scum-read when asked for reads (and this was

before

he says he decided to set a trap), because he claims other people “spoiled” the trap by pointing out something he himself had already pointed out, because his behaviour shortly prior to “revealing” the trap is not consistent with somebody planning to reveal such a trap, and because he has not been consistent after the “reveal” about what his trap was meant to achieve and about whether or not his trap actually worked.

Why don't I believe in the claimed “trap”?

(Some of these reasons are new, I think, but some I've said before. A little repetition won't hurt. But I'll try to spoiler-tag as much as possible; may as well

try

to make this thing readable, right?)

First, the facts. What has saulres actually claimed?

Spoiler:

Saulres unvoted D3f3nd3r, announcing that his vote had merely been part of a “trap” for Ztife, in 178.

(1)

He told us that he had had suspicions of Ztife since Ztife's 96.

(2)

He told us that he did not have and had never had a scum-read on D3f3nd3r.

(3)

He told us that he had deliberately voted for D3f3nd3r for “reasons which applied almost equally to Ztife”. He said he had hoped that “ztife would say something like 'saulres sees it; more votes on D3f3nd3r plz'”.

(4)

He said that his trap was “spoiled”, because Ztife didn't respond quickly to his vote and in the mean time he got pressured for it. He said (in 162) that by pointing out the similarities between Ztife and D3f3nd3r I was “already causing problems”.

Later, in 218, he seems to change the thinking behind his trap.

(5)

He now says that he was attempting to “buddy” Ztife by voting for the person Ztife was voting for. Why?

(6)

He says “I thought by doing this, ztife might trust that I was on his side and say something that would be obviously buddying me in return. I'd then try to "work" him into revealing stuff which he otherwise wouldn't necessarily reveal.”. Later still, in 254, he gives Ztife another reason (or, being more charitable, a different spin on the previous one):

(7)

“I was trying to get you to do exactly what you eventually did: buddy up to me and reveal your scumminess. You finally did that in 219 as I pointed out in 237 ”

Well, then. Let's go through these claims one by one.

Claim (1):

Spoiler:

I've already said why I don't believe saulres had suspicions of Ztife after 96

. He was challenged to give reads by Rufflig. He replied in 118 and did not mention any suspicions of Ztife. But, according to saulres, the plan to “trap” Ztife hadn't been decided on yet. As town, I see no reason for him not to share suspicions of Ztife when asked to give reads. Hence, I do not believe he had any.

(Saulres has attempted to justify this, in his 218, by suggesting he merely “suspected” Ztife, but didn't have a “scumread” on him. Not only does this not actually fit the words he used, it feels like a pedantic, hair-splitting argument. If you suspect somebody more than anybody else, you say so when asked for reads. You at least need a reason

not

to do this, and saulres doesn't have one.)

Claim (2):

Spoiler:

Staying with 118,

I don't believe Saulres's claim to have only ever pretended to suspect D3f3nd3r as part of a trap

. In 118, he says that D3f3nd3r “clearly has a lyncher wincon”. But we're now supposed to believe that Saulres mentioned this, even though he thinks it has nothing to do with D3f3nd3r's actual alignment? Really now. Actual suspicions on Ztife were too trifling to mention, but he felt like throwing this out

without

intending it to suggest D3f3nd3r had an anti-town win condition? I think this “read” was intended to pave the way toward saulres eventually voting for D3f3nd3r. I think he saw the wagon and decided he wanted to join it.

Claim (3):

Spoiler:

On rereading,

I don't understand why Saulres now claims to have been voting D3f3nd3r for reasons that could apply to Ztife

. On the contrary, when pressed on why he was voting for D3f3nd3r, Saulres was adamant that it was

not

because of D3f3nd3r's push for a mass-claim. D3f3nd3r's push for a mass-claim was a sign he had a lyncher win-condition, according to saulres, and:

I'm not voting him for being a lyncher.

Instead, he was voting for D3f3nd3r because of D3f3nd3r's alleged “scumslip” and (perhaps) because he only gave town-reads when pushed to give reads. How does any of that apply to Ztife?

It's certainly true that

Ztife

was voting for D3f3nd3r for reasons that equally applied to Ztife. And this is obviously suspicious (or at least odd). But Saulres went out of his way to say he

wasn't

voting for these reasons. If Ztife had turned around and said “oh, that's a good catch on D3f3nd3r!” as saulres says he had hoped, then … well, I don't see the problem. Ztife hadn't done the things that Saulres said he was voting for D3f3nd3r for – only the things that saulres insists are not alignment-tells.

(And, of course, the elephant in the room is that

Ztife was already voting for D3f3nd3r

. How do you “trap” somebody into agreeing with you by casting a vote for a wagon

they are already on

? You already

know

they “agree” with you because

you

are the one copying

their

vote!)

Claim (4):

Spoiler:

I don't believe that the “trap” was spoiled because Ztife took too long to reply

. Even if I did believe it, I'd wonder why saulres – who suspected Ztife, he says,

because Ztife was stalling

and not replying to posts quickly – would decide to try a plan that could fail if Ztife didn't reply quickly.

But why don't I believe this? Simple enough. Saulres (in 162) suggests I have been “causing problems” by asking him to explain the difference between Ztife and D3f3nd3r. If he was concerned about the trap, this must mean he didn't want me, or anyone else, drawing Ztife's attention to the (supposed) hypocrisy. If he was concerned about the trap, he must have been annoyed that I kept pointing out the similarity between Ztife and D3f3nd3r.

But

Saulres had already pointed this similarity out!

He actually did so in one of the very questions he was complaining Ztife hadn't answered:

Wouldn't you describe your own play as fitting the criteria you voted D3f3nd3r for?

and he

kept drawing Ztife's attention to this question!

.

So his “trap” (if he actually had one, which I don't think he did) was “spoiled” by … himself. Either that or, in fact, I wasn't causing him any problems when I pointed out the similarity between Ztife and D3f3nd3r. One of those claims has to be wrong.

Claim (5):

Spoiler:

I don't believe Saulres was attempting to “buddy” Ztife

. I mean, how would that even work? Surely, an attempt to “buddy” Ztife would involve something more than just voting for the same person Ztife is voting for? If Saulres was attempting to win Ztife over and make him trust him, why did he keep insisting that Ztife answer his questions?

This is something saulres kept doing right up until “revealing” his trap – demanding that Ztife answer his questions from 96. Would you pursue this aggressive line of questioning with somebody you were trying to convince to trust you? I hardly think so. And, of course, Saulres said nothing about any “buddying” when he first claimed to have set a trap. He said that he simply wanted Ztife to agree with the vote, and then “I'd have him”. That makes it seem like the trap would have been sprung instantly, and he would have immediately voted for Ztife. The new explanation makes it sound much more like a gradual process.

Claim (6):

Spoiler:

I don't understand how “buddying” somebody as town is meant to work

. Scum buddy townies to get those town players to trust them. If player X is defending you or saying positive things about your posts, the theory goes, then you are more likely to trust X and assume they are town. But scum

know

who town is. Buddying scum when you yourself are town might convince the scum to leave you alive for longer (as a more gullible, more easily-led player), but it won't convince them you're on their side. They know you aren't.

Claim (7):

Spoiler:

As for saulres latest reason for voting Ztife … it seems pretty thin to me.

Here's the quote he wants you to read.

214
This post is dodgey as hell, doesn't anyone else see it? Scum attempting to buddy up to score town points after saulres is lynched as town. Votes on D3f3nd3r please.

He suggests this is comparable (but worse than) “talking to a scumread as town”. He suggests that Ztife is “placing his vote” based on the “fact” that saulres is town.

But if you actually read 219, you'll note that Ztife makes no secret of thinking saulres is town. And obviously Ztife voted for D3f3nd3r a long time ago – the post he links to is just another argument he's trying to come up with to convince us D3f3nd3r is scum. So Ztife's clearly not “placing a vote based on the fact saulres is town”. Justifying a vote on the assumption that saulres is town, sure. But saulres of all people is hardly in a position to criticise suspicions based on “buddying” another player. That's how he justified his vote on me.

Not to mention... saulres has repeatedly claimed now that he was deliberately trying to buddy Ztife. (I mean, I don't see how he was, but he says it, so let's assume it's true for the sake of the argument.) As a result of being “buddied” by saulres, Ztife has now decided saulres is town. How on

Earth

can this be a scum-tell? The whole point of buddying somebody is to convince them that you are on their side!

Saulres is essentially saying here: “I tried to convince Ztife I was town, and he decided that I was! He must be scum!” What sort of sense does that make?

If anything, the fact saulres has been “buddying” Ztife makes Ztife's odd insistence that Saulres is town

less

suspicious, not more. (It's still pretty weird, to be honest, but that's a subject for another post.)

But then, I don't actually think saulres has been doing any such thing...

… yes, this post was too long. I'm afraid I don't have time to edit it down much. But sod it, if we fail to lynch Saulres today, at least I'll have tried to make more people see what I'm seeing .

[Plessiez]

I've read quickly through the case, and there are some misreps (or at least misreads). But I'm not going to go into them now

That's a convenient defence, isn't it? "The case against me is based on misreps, but I can't say what bits are wrong or how, because Reasons".

Tell you what: let's focus on

Claim 3

, shall we? How did you justify voting for D3f3nd3r?

Before revealing the trap you said:

I'm not voting him for being a lyncher.

Indeed, before you announced your "trap", you were adamant that you were not voting for D3f3nd3r because of his mass-claim advocacy. You thought the lyncher stuff was irrelevant to his alignment. You were voting him because of his supposed "scum-slip" and because, having seen Rufflig say that giving town-reads was a town-tell, he only gave town-reads when he finally gave some reads.

But then I pushed you to explain why you thought D3f3nd3r had a lyncher wincon but hadn't said anything like that about Ztife. Your response was to stall for time and eventually refuse to answer questions, before announcing your "trap".

When you announced this trap, you said:

I was hoping Ztife would respond to my joining the D3f3nd3r wagon with something damning, given that

I was voting D3f3nd3r for reasons which, as Plessiez pointed out, applied almost equally to ztife

But ... this is flat out wrong. I

didn't

say you were voting for D3f3nd3r for reasons that applied to Ztife. I said your case on D3f3nd3r

being a lyncher

applied equally to Ztife. But you told us that wasn't why you were voting for D3f3nd3r.

So ... a key part of your "trap" turns out to be based on a lie. Rather than voting for D3f3nd3r with a case that "applied almost equally to Ztife", you went out of your way to tell people that you

were not

doing this. But for some reason it would have been suspicious, or hypocritical, if Ztife had seen your case against D3f3nd3r -- a case based on "scumslips" that Ztife had obviously not made -- and agreed with it? Come off it.

If you were trying to "trap" Ztife into agreeing with a case on D3f3nd3r that also applied to Ztife, you would not have gone out of your way to insist that you were not voting for D3f3nd3r for being a lyncher.

Also, too:

And I'll say this right now, in case stuff happens while I'm sleeping -- if I'm hammered before I can claim, or even after I claim (if I need to), the hammerer is declaring themselves scum by doing so and should be tomorrow's lynch.

More softclaiming and appeals to emotion . Seriously, cut this out. It's dishonest and disingenuous. Obviously nobody should be hammered without having a chance to claim, but the rest of this is just an undisguised appeal to fear.

[Plessiez]

I didn't say "Plessiez pointed out that I'm voting for D3f3nd3r using reasons which applied almost equally to ztife." I said "

I'm voting d3f3nd3r for reasons which applied almost equally to ztife

. Plessiez pointed out that these reasons applied to both."

Yes, and if anybody bothers to read my 300, they'll see I address the bolded claim as well. This claim is also not true. You

weren't

voting for D3f3nd3r for reasons that applied to Ztife. When DoubleJD pressed you on your D3f3nd3r vote, you insisted that you weren't voting for him because he was a lyncher. You said that wasn't an alignment-tell. You said you were voting him for his scumslip (his use of the word "others"). How the fuck does his scumslip apply "almost equally" to Ztife?

Can anybody town-reading saulres have a go at explaining this?

(And

Klick

- you've had ten days to make an actual post. It's obviously not happening. You don't care about this game and you don't want to read it. Get replaced, please.)

[Plessiez]

@Plessie : have you played with Saulres before?

Other than A Dance With Dragons, this is the only game I've played on MS since (a long time before) saulres's join date. (I'm not an alt.)

Why do you ask?

[Plessiez]

(And

Klick

- you've had ten days to make an actual post. It's obviously not happening. You don't care about this game and you don't want to read it. Get replaced, please.)

Hmm, this was a nice thing to run into while getting ready to make a post. It's tempting, really.

... what a surprise. Somebody complains about your rampant lurking, and you pop up to whine "I was

about

to post, but then people were

mean

". I look forward to you using this as an excuse to put off contributing for another day or two.

(If you like SAD, as you claim, why are you deliberately helping to make his game slow and inactive? Do you think he

appreciates

this?)

So as I said, when I first laid the trap

I heavily implied I was voting for D3f3nd3r party because of his play around the name claims

, this is true. I was hoping ztife would buy into that. But when he didn't respond quickly and I started getting pressured, I forgot about the details of the trap and was going with what my "real" reasoning would be, because suddenly I found myself on the defensive and I panicked.

Show me where you "heavily implied" this.

You voted for D3f3nd3r in 139. You were insisting it wasn't because he was a lurker as early as 153. You hadn't been pressured much, at this point, and it seems bizarre you'd "panic" and forget your own planned trap so early. I don't think you had any such trap planned when you posted 139.

All right, Plessiez, I'll have a go, but not on the point you are making.

Given saulres' earlier posts, does this seem honest to you?

I'm not answering anything else until Ztife posts and answers my questions. You're already causing problems with what I was trying to do.

If yes, then saulres was definitely trying to accomplish something. If no, then do you think the point of this post was a setup for saulres' trap story? Keep in mind the timeline here.

At the time, it felt that saulres just wanted an excuse for not answering my questions, and that this was simply because he didn't like the pressure. Still feels that way, really. I certainly don't think his complaint about me "causing problems" is consistent with what he claims the trap was. (See my 293, Claim 4. I wasn't "spoiling" the trap, as saulres claims, because I was only pointing out something saulres himself had already pointed out in his question to Ztife.)

So no, I don't believe this.

[Plessiez]

I really should learn to edit before clicking "submit".

You were insisting it wasn't because he was a

lurker

as early as 153.

Obviously I meant "lyncher", not "lurker".

[Plessiez]

I'm a friendly neighbor. Tonight I will pick someone and the mod will confirm me as town to them. If that person is alive tomorrow they'll confirm me.

I don't believe you.

It's also my reason for trying new things, and not being as careful as I usually am (Arkham excepted); I feel that if the mod confirms me as town then my motives can't be suspect. My mistake was in not waiting until after the confirmation.

That's ridiculous. The "new things" you were trying include

making up "traps" that never existed

.

I hinted at this role here, here, and I think elsewhere.

You had some generic softclaims about being able to confirm yourself as town, yes. (I don't think 244 was one of them, but certainly they existed.) But these at best tell me you had the idea of claiming something like this role before you did, and ...

These are all way after you got suspicion, and your failed trap though :/

... exactly right.

Softclaiming a role like this, well after people talk about lynching you, is just not proof of anything much. (Especially since the softclaiming was vague enough that there were lots of roles you could have claimed after it.)

As for your lack of name-claim ... meh. I think the talk of lynchers is a bit silly, really. Don't see much to suggest anybody has that as a secondary wincon. (Actually, I don't think the "secondary wincon" stuff is as big a deal of the bastard-element of this game as some people suggest. I don't have a secondary win condition, myself, and looking at the queue post, I see SAD says the setup is only "partly" based on such things.) But it's excuse enough not to name-claim, I guess.

Oh yes, it should be obvious to everyone that a saulres lynch is now impossible today.

Sadly, this is true.

But I hope people don't give saulres room to wiggle out of this tomorrow. Unless somebody claims to have been told saulres is town by the mod, saulres should be the D2 lynch. He shouldn't be able to give excuses for not having used his ability on a living player. No "oh, I sent it to Plessiez, who'd have thought he would be the night-kill?", no "I definitely tried to send it, but I must have been blocked!", no "oh, that claim was just a clever trap I was setting, my

real

role is ...". No excuses.

Personally, I'd be happy to lynch saulres today anyway, and -- given that it's a bastard game -- I wouldn't necessarily assume he was town tomorrow even if SAD told me he was. But it's not happening, so ... meh.

Guille is still a better option than Ztife, but I'm worried we don't have time to lynch guille today (especially because we'd have to wait for him to claim as well). So it might be Ztife by default .

[Plessiez]

Im stuck on ztife. Ive been convinced of saul scum for so long that i really dont want to lynch a guy hes been suspecting for half the game. Fuck, ima come back in a few hours and reread.

For what it's worth, I can definitely see saulres and Ztife being partners. I don't understand why some people have rushed to rule this idea out.

Consider:

1.

Saulres was originally pressured, in part, because he had accused D3f3nd3r of having a lyncher wincon but

hadn't

said the same thing about Ztife.

2.

When saulres first revealed the "trap", he didn't vote for Ztife. He was vague in 178 about how much he still suspected him "I've read his points 1-6 multiple times and I'm still not sure if they're consistent or not, of if they're an alignment-tell or not", and talked about doing a full reread.

3.

Saulres only voted for Ztife in 198, after people had questioned the claimed "trap" and continued to call for votes on saulres.

4.

Ztife, meanwhile, pretty much ignored the "trap" until after Saulres voted for him. (Ztife posts in 192, between the trap and the vote, but doesn't reply to saulres at all.)

5.

Even after being voted for by saulres, Ztife continued to read him as town (in 219, even though he was attacking the "trap"). He only voted reluctantly, too (in 251).

So ... yeah, despite saulres's boast having "found scum" in Ztife, the fact is he only voted for Ztife at all as a result of being pressured to do so. Could easily see that as bussing - they were both suspected, at this point, so why not vote for each other?

Definitely don't think there can only be one scum in {saulres, Ztife}. If I did, I wouldn't be willing to vote for Ztife. (He's at L-2, right?)

[Plessiez]

Was reminded of this exchange while rereading.

Do you think everyone has a power role?

This is rolefishing. Don't.

Is not. I ask this for a reason.

Will be interested in knowing the reason (later, I guess, not today). Because this

still

reads like rolefishing to me.

Anyway,

unofficial vote count

:

• Ztife (5) -
  havingfitz, saulres, guille2015, The Rufflig, Klick
  
• guille2015 (3) -
  sword_of_omens, Lord Mhork, qwints
  
• saulres (2) -
  Plessiez, Ztife
  
• DoubleJD (0) -
  
  
• The Rufflig (0) -
  
  
• D3f3nd3r (0) -
  
  
• Lord Mhork (0) -
  
  
• Plessiez (0) -
  
  
• havingfitz (0) -
  
  
• Baby Spice (0) -
  
  
• Klick (0) -
  
  
• qwints (0) -
  
  
• sword_of_omens (0) -
  
  
  
  
• Not Voting (3) – D3f3nd3r, DoubleJD, Baby Spice

So, yeah, Ztife's at L-2.

[Plessiez]

Just can't see enough support for a guille lynch, especially not in the time we have left.

VOTE: Ztife

Claim, please.

(This is L-1. I've made this obvious. Nobody gets to "accidentally" hammer.)

[Plessiez]

I'm a friendly neighbor. Tonight I will pick someone and the mod will confirm me as town to them. If that person is alive tomorrow they'll confirm me.

This is a provable power. You should pick correctly Saulres.

This sounds so

incredibly

fake . Feels like you felt you had to comment on the claim, but didn't have anything to actually say.

[Plessiez]

You seemed to have missed my following post.

No?

[Plessiez]

Then your premise that I didn't have anything to say about it is false.

I think you didn't have anything to say about saulres's claim

when you made your first post

. The one I singled out as sounding fake. The one in which you essentially say nothing.

The fact you came up with something (sort of) to say about it

after that post

doesn't change that at all. 353 still sounds fake.

[Plessiez]

EBWOP: Sigh. I meant 352, of course.

[Plessiez]

Im a cop. Rainier Wolfcastle.

Funnily enough, I don't believe this claim either. Any breadcrumbs? Any flavour you can paraphrase?

Fine with a hammer, at this point. Though, if sword (or somebody else who can hammer) is going to be around nearer the deadline anyway, I'd like to see everybody's reactions to both the claims before we end the day. Not a big deal if not though.

(Saulres isn't getting lynched today, Ztife. Sadly. It's you or guille, and I'm pretty sure it's you.)

[Plessiez]

Are you guys retarded?

Are you going to keep switching wagons until somebody

doesn't

go "guys, I have a cool role, promise!"

What happened to you being convinced that exactly one of {saulres, Ztife} was scum?

[Plessiez]

Bleh. This morning I'd have been happier with a guille lynch than a Ztife lynch; between Ztife's bad claim and guille's 378, however, that's no longer true at all. But (because of the same 378), it's probably the only lynch we're going to have consensus on.

One

has

a confirmable role, and the other's a

claimed

Cop.

Interesting way of putting it. Why say that saulres "has" the role, and not merely that he "claimed" it?

(Not to mention, the role saulres is claiming isn't really confirmable at all because bastardy and stuff, but whatever.)

Idk who to vote atm.

Guille is the obvious choice, no? I only gave up on that because I thought people like you and Klick wouldn't go for it over Ztife. And knowing guille's alignment

would

affect my read on saulres. But...

That will mean that I am up for lynching. That is fine, the information we can get is worth the sacrifice. Just start thinking what other information there is for when I flip town.

This is not all a post I'd expect scum to make in this situation,

unless

, maybe, one of the other candidates for lynching is also scum. Otherwise it's just suicidal for no good reason.

But, that said, a guille lynch is better than nothing. Still waiting for a few people to check in, I guess.

Trying to figure out if I am buying that claim or not. A cop is >> greater than my role. But the way he claimed is iffy.

I find the character Odd, It doesn't fit the cop much, just a little I guess. Wiggum is a better fit, although incompetent in the series.

I suggest nobody discusses this issue much until Ztife returns with flavour details (though with all the immediate unvotes, we're hardly pushing him to do that ).

[Plessiez]

The last few posts are just confusing me. It's annoying. Can't we just lynch saulres so I don't have to read any more today? I will buy everyone ice cream if we do*.

Zitfe's claim: Set-up could definitely have two cops.

Er. What? Nobody else is claiming Cop (unless this was a really weirdly written counter claim). Why are you talking about the possibility of two cops?

I made that breadcrumb very similar to a breadcrumb in my last game.

So, most likely qwints or Plessiez may have tipped him off

.

I don't understand how you get to the bolded. (I wouldn't have thought either of the things you link to are breadcrumbs if you hadn't suggested it -- can you link to your earlier similar use?). But if you want to lynch Ztife, I'm (still) fine with that. Not moving my vote to guille just yet.

I keep thinking of a paraphrase that could aply to Rainerr Wolfcastle. "I'm not a cop I just play one in the movies"

... why say this? We still haven't had any flavour claim from Ztife. There's no reason to discuss or speculate about the flavour until that happens.

* No I won't.

[Plessiez]

I think the name-claim all but confirms Rufflig as town, so that's something.

Yeah, it wasn't really called for and doesn't really impact my read on Ztife. But theres no reason for scum to name-claim at this point and in this way, is there? On the other hand, I can definitely see town doing it. (Rufflig's argument isn't good, but meh. I believe he believes it?)

@Plez: I really, really want to lynch saul. But I have a lot of trouble thinking the mod would give that power to scum though, even if it is a bastard game. Its best to let him live till tomorrow and see if someone confirms him.

Yeah, I guess. Thoughts on guille/Ztiffe?

Ruffing, let me make sure I follow you. You're suggesting that the scumteam has daytalk and is comprised of ztife, Plessiez, and qwints?

... no he isn't? He's suggesting the scum has daytalk and is comrised of ztife and

one of

me and qwints. Again, this is obvious. The clue would be the word 'or' in "qwints or Plessiez". He's saying that one of us "tipped Ztife off". This theory obviously doesn't imply we're both scum.

knowing guille's alignment would affect my read on saulres

Really? You, who are suffering from Confirmation Bias so much that when the mod confirms me you won't believe it, are saying that there's a possibility that guille's flip would change your read of me? How exactly would that work?

Oh for fuck's sake.

(I'll clarify this if anybody else asks. But I think it's pretty clear which way my read would be affected by a guille flip, to anybody who's actually bothered to read my posts. And it's also clear that suspecting some element of bastardy in a bastard mod game is ... not a sign of "haha, confirmation bias"? Whereas, as I've pointed out repeatedly, your "trap" is clearly an after-the-fact invention. Shouting "confirmation bias!" doesn't change that.)

[Plessiez]

It is (very) annoying that neither Ztife nor D3f3nd3r have provided any follow-up on their last posts. Why do people sign up for games if they aren't actually going to play them? Honestly don't see the point.

Zifte's posts otherwise (aside from my initial nameclaim dislike) don't feel scummy to me.

Given how long you had your vote on Ztife (from 195 until 375), you are renouncing your suspicions awfully quickly.

And ... we have one RL day left. You obviously aren't going to get Baby Spice lynched. Find a serious use for your vote, or admit you'd be happy with not lynching.

[Plessiez]

I am wiggum (cop)

Take a look at this post and make up your mind on whether this is a breadcrumb or not. I think it is. Writing 'I am <name> (cop)' when you are going to claim cop is too much of a coincidence for me to believe otherwise.

I don't think it's a breadcrumb. In fact, I don't think Ztife was actually planning to claim cop when he made this post at all.

The lack of any flavour details, the lack of follow-up, and the fact he's been content to leave his vote uselessly on saulres (even talking about a saulres lynch, which was obviously not an option) ... to me, this all suggests that Ztife's Cop-claim is a token gesture by a scum player who is essentially giving up. If the claim had been planned in advance (whatever his alignment), I think he would have had more details than just a name and a role. If he were really a Cop, I think he'd be fighting harder against the votes on him.

That said, I'll be around close to the deadline and willing to switch my vote to guille if that's what needs to happen to get a lynch.

[Plessiez]

@Pless...given that Zifte just claimed yesterday and I am looking at his recent claim in the context of his other post....how would you have me change my read on him less quickly? Perhaps slowly despite the deadline being close at hand? Seriously. "Awfully quickly?"

Meh. A simple role claim shouldn't make your scum read on him completely disappear. I can understand deciding to wait until D2 because of the claim, sure. I can understand voting somebody else. But you seem to decide he isn't scummy

at all

just because he happens to have claimed Cop. That's odd.

I mean ... you were the first vote on him (you voted for Ztife in the window between Saulres's "trap" and Saulres deciding to vote for Ztife). You kept your vote on him as he built up into first a big counter-wagon to saulres, and then as he got to L-1. You were, apparently, quite happy with him being hammered. Now you tell us his posts basically aren't scummy. Yes, I do think your read changes too quickly.

Why so pessimistic? We have 24 hours....that is enough time considering 40% of the voters are on a claimed cop and another 40% are on guille (who without looking I think some might just be compromising on his wagon following the saul and Zifte claims).

As saulres said:

We have less than 2 days until deadline and players who only post something like once every two days.

This game is not active enough to trust we can get somebody lynched from scratch with no real case made against them in less than 24 hours. I am pretty sure that if we could get somebody lynched that way, that person would be town. And what would we learn? Since that person wouldn't have been talked about much during the day, and wouldn't have been pressured or had their posts analysed by different people during the day in any meaningful way ... not much.

Last minute "hey, what about this guy?" style lynches are a bad idea.

What are your thoughts on Baby Spice? I suppose I would support a guille lynch over a No Lynch but he obviously is currently not my preference.

Baby Spice isn't really on my radar at all. I don't get the town-vibe from her that I see other people talking about, but she's fairly low on the list of people I'd want to lynch based on their posts today. I can sort of see what you mean about her being "aloof" and only offering the occasional one-line comment, but ... meh. From my perspective, that applies to everyone apart from me, saulres and The Rufflig. I wouldn't vote for her over guille, even though guille's "go ahead and lynch me instead of Ztife" post did seem genuine. We'd learn more from a guille lynch, and I have more reason to think he's scum.

[Plessiez]

I assumed you were claiming you were a cop....but if you are in fact claiming that character..was it just a name claim?

It was obviously just a name-claim. Read better, please.

Ztife's latest about-face on Saulres is hilarious. Not moving my vote.

[Plessiez]

I used wiggum because it was the first name to come up on google("simpsons police"), and

lou is the first name on wiggum's page

.

Hmm.

These are the opening paragraphs of wikipedia's Chief Wiggum entry:

Chief Clancy Wiggum is a fictional character from the animated television series The Simpsons, voiced by Hank Azaria. He is the chief of police in the show's setting of Springfield. He is the father of Ralph Wiggum and the husband of Sarah Wiggum.

The character's comedic value relies heavily on his incompetence and irresponsibility as a police officer, and his laziness and gluttony. Chief Wiggum's more responsible fellow officers Eddie and Lou play the straight men to his shenanigans.

How is Lou "the first name" on this page?

[Plessiez]

Hmm. Going to UNVOTE: for a minute or two while I read things over again.

I ... really don't like havingfitz's reaction to my 416. Note that I never claimed that what I pointed out was actually suspicious (my vote on Ztife was for other reasons). I'm not sure what to make of it, really. It's certainly not enough to go from "his posts aren't really that scummy" to "let's lynch him even though he claimed cop". But ... meh. Not sure there's time to look into this. Don't like how havingfitz's read of Ztife keeps switching like this though.

Probably going to put my vote back on Ztife in an hour or two, though, because I still do think he's suspicious. I want time to reread first though, and I don't want Ztife hammered before then. (If not Ztife, I strongly believe guille is the only sensible choice for lynching today. Not interested in pushing more people into claiming.)

Why would scum bother to lie like that though?

That's the question. (I'm pretty sure it

is

a lie, since you get the wikipedia pages as the first google results, but. Yeah.)

[Plessiez]

Also...on further review...Zifte said he googled "simpsons police"....that doesn't bring up the page you {Pless} linked us to. WTF?

Oh. Stupid google.co.uk. (I searched for "simpsons police" and got https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=simps ... =firefox-a ... obviously the wikipedia pages are the first results. Didn't think to check if it was different on google.com.) So much for that, then.

Try to read things better Pless.

Effort at sarcasm duly noted. Well done, you.

But this still makes your immediate vote ... odd. You were voting for Ztife for a large part of the day. Ztife claims cop and not only do you decide not to lynch Ztife, you decide Ztife wasn't that scummy at all. Then I link to the wikipedia page, suggesting Ztife might have told a (pointless) lie, and you immediately vote for Ztife, despite your earlier claimed read. And only

after

voting do you think to actually check my claim.

(And obviously you can find things suspicious on your own, but ... you didn't ever actually say why this was suspicious.)

Anyway. Rereading you was a bit pointless. I remembered I had a slight town-read on you at the end of last year, and your irritation with Klick struck me as genuine too. But (like most people in the game), there's just not much content there to analyse yet. May as well VOTE: Ztife again. Will be around tomorrow to switch to guille if we go that way.

[Plessiez]

... actually, I think I'm going to be unvoting Ztife again . Yeah, decisiveness is not my strong point this week. Realised I probably won't be around tomorrow after all, so this will presumably be my last post before deadline.

It's annoying that we're not lynching saulres. Have I mentioned that I think he's scum? Because if you missed it:

guys! I think saulres is scum

. Whatever. He'll still be scum tomorrow. (Or not, I guess? But the whole trap thing is just ... I mean, that just doesn't make sense to me at all, if he's town. Seems almost impossible that things happened as he claims. The whole story is just so self-serving and riddled with holes and inconsistencies. Anyway, that's the mandatory "I guess maybe I could be wrong" disclaimer out of the way. I'm not though? I hope.)

Ztife's claim is bad, but. Meh. A lot of the stuff I don't like about Ztife is ... quite possibly not indicative of alignment? It's difficult for me to decide if Ztife really believes his "my fence-sitting on name-claims is

totally different

from the way D3f3nd3r is fence-sitting on name-claims!" arguments. I mean, on the face of it they seem bizarre, but ... gah. A part of me says, well, surely Ztife must think there is some real distinction to be made, or why would he have pretended there was at all? I won't shed any tears if he's today's lynch (he's a far better choice than the more or less random wagons on Baby Spice and D3f3nd3r, in my view), but I'm going to UNVOTE: again.

Think we only really learn anything from lynching one of the day's three major wagons, and it seems a bit silly to let one post (admittedly a town-sounding-as-fuck post) change my entire read on somebody. So, yeah, whatever. VOTE: guille. Basically, I'm a coward and I don't want to risk SAD laughing at me for lynching a Cop on day 1.

Oh, and while I'm posting ... Baby Spice, what changed your thinking between posts 248 and 250 (where you said you thought Ztife "seems to look terrible regardless of his actual role" and downplayed the chances of him being "actual scum") and your vote for Ztife in 397? Is there any particular reason you don't believe the claim? I mean, if you'd been pushing Ztife as probable scum before his claim the vote would seem to make more sense. But as it is, your position seems to change really suddenly and without any apparent explanation.

(Is it obvious that I still don't have any solid town reads beyond Rufflig and DoubleJD? Because it's really irritating.)

[Plessiez]

Meh. I started writing a "why did you waste a lynch on Baby Spice?" post, but .... whatever. Not really feeling like I care too too much about this game right now, to be honest. We should have lynched saulres yesterday.

Speaking of which ... obviously I'm tempted to just vote saulres straight away now. Between the "trap" yesterday and the lack of any promised confirmation today, I still think he's most likely scum. But I'll admit I'm a bit shocked to see both Ztife and guille flip town. Would have figured at least one was scum (and guille flipping town does make saulres scum a

little

less likely, I guess? Sigh.) Worth puzzling things out a bit first, anyway.

Does anybody want to claim having RBed saulres last night? May as well get that out of the way. (I didn't.)

Also,

saulres

-- why did you pick havingfitz?

Let me read up on the the whole NAR thing. Not convinced it works quite as people are saying.

[Plessiez]

It also reveals his thought process and involves reads on individual players, which is a huge towntell, and I'd be impressed if that was planned out.

Completely disagree. His "thoughts" give no reads at all, except for repeating an earlier claimed town-read on DoubleJD. Everything else is just "might die if town" or "maybe!" or "haha, doesn't post much", or something equally superficial. There's nothing like "I won't pass to him because I think he's scum". He doesn't even mention a scum-read on Ztife as a reason for not picking him, even though Ztife hadn't flipped yet and Saulres had earlier insisted that he'd "caught scum" in accusing Ztife. Crude quick impressions like this are certainly not a town-tell of any sort.

And the main point against saulres remains his claimed "trap". At the risk of repeating myself, I'm pretty convinced that

saulres never tried to set any sort of "trap"

. I'd encourage people to reread my posts on this, particularly 202, 293 and 300. I think these three posts cover things pretty well. There's no evidence that saulres planned a "trap", and plenty of evidence that he didn't. So, yeah, he should be the "default lynch" today, but focusing only on the claim or the lack of the promised confirmation ... kind of misses the point.

I don't think whoever killed Guille2015 needed to be protected. Guille was a 1-shot

activated

PGO. As one of the leading wagons yesterday, I suspect that Guille didn't feel the need to activate his PGO last night. This is what I feel is most likely.

Yeah, I noticed the "activated" modifier in the flip too. Looks to me like "1-shot activated" means simply that he was only a PGO on one night (of his own choosing). If so, it seems very possible guille didn't activate his power last night; I wouldn't have done, myself, in his shoes (assuming we're right about what "activated" means.)

But that means .. what? Somebody killed Ztife and somebody else killed guille? So ... a vig or a SK in the mix, either way. (Obviously one of these players makes rather more sense as a vig-kill than the other, but let's not get into that until somebody claims vig. And obviously, nobody should claim vig yet.)

He's not Flanders, I am.

Why on earth did you do this?

I mean, saulres hasn't even hinted at being Flanders. All your name-claim does is make sure that, if he's lying scum, he won't ever claim Flanders. Why do this?

@Klick: It doesn't really explain what I'm asking, I'll try again. Please explain to me how scum would claim what I did, and then not have anyone back it up, and expect WIFOM to save him from being lynched.

This is a boring question.

I mean, I know people have said your claim would be "suicidal" as scum, and all that ... except, you were at L-1 yesterday and

going to be lynched

. You were only saved at all because you claimed a "confirmable" role. Had you claimed something else, we'd have lynched you. Even a bad claim, one that you couldn't back up at all the next day, would have been a better option for you than just being lynched.

If you want to talk yourself out of a lynch, don't waste time with this "I wouldn't have claimed this role as scum!" nonsense. Go back and address my outstanding points against you. (You know, the ones you said you didn't have time to address on Day 1 .)

[Plessiez]

Oh, for fuck's sake.

VOTE: saulres

Yesterday you repeatedly justified not trying to explain all of the holes in your "trap" story because it was "going to take time" and it was "too close to deadline". Today you're outright refusing because you don't want to "waste today going over that again". But the problem is you've

never

actually provided a satisfactory defence to most of my case. You've jumped straight from "I don't have time to explain why your case is wrong" to "I don't want to waste time by repeating my defence" without ever

actually offering a serious defence

or giving any explanation for the numerous problems with your account.

I'm not asking you to repeat a defence you've already offered; I'm asking you to give a defence you've never actually come up with. But in fact, I don't think you have any way of defending yourself. I still think you're scum.

PEdit: What the fuck?

[Plessiez]

Heh. qwints's breadcrumb is kind of obvious, in hindsight. (Though, qwints, you messed it up a bit with 73, you realise?)

Can't really see why qwints would lie here. From his breadcrumb, he was clearly planning to claim Doc from the start of the game. And claiming to have healed somebody who died the night they died doesn't sound like a smart thing to do as scum.

So ... what's going on?

It's possible that qwints is insane (and kills people rather than healing them). It's also possible qwints is just naive, and his protection was ineffective. Outside chance that Ztife was really a Macho Cop, but I'd have guessed that would be revealed on the flip (mod says not everything is revealed, but you'd figure that would be). And I guess it's possible that Ztife's killer had/has a strongman kill (so no protection was possible).

Not sure there's anything we can do to rule out any of these options yet. But as I say above, I think qwints is probably town.

(Is there a reason you haven't name-claimed, though?)

[Plessiez]

How do last night's events make you lean towards me being truthful?

I don't understand this either, obviously .

In 303 you (qwints) agreed with my case on saulres. What changed your mind? Is it just the idea that saulres as scum wouldn't have claimed that role without being able to do something to apparently "confirm" it? Because I really don't agree with that logic at all .

[Plessiez]

Actually writing out the scenario, however, is problematic since the PGO's 1 shot would hit his killer rather than his investigator.

As I said before (copying Rufflig, I guess), I don't think this is what "1-shot activated PGO" means. I think "1-shot" modifies "activated", meaning that guille could activate his powers on one night of the game only. The idea of a PGO that only kills one person (and that one person being determined by a careful yet silly reading of the NAR ordering) seems ... inelegant? Lazy? Whatever dismissive word you want.

I would guess -- admittedly on no evidence other than a vague idea of what sort of game SAD would want to mod -- that if guille had chosen to activate his powers last night everybody who targeted him would have died. I don't believe, therefore, that guille did activate his PGO-power last night.

[Plessiez]

To clarify? You're just making things more confused.

Let me try again. [...] Why were you talking about the possibility of two cops?

Sanities.

Two insane or other negative sanity cops are probably okay to have together.

This still doesn't make sense.

How do you go from Ztife claiming cop and

nobody counter-claiming

to "hey, maybe there are two cops and they are insane!"? What made you doubt Ztife's sanity?

[Plessiez]

While that's an interesting question (and I believe I know the answer), there's always the possibility that I wasn't blocked, and fitz is scum.

Do you have any sort of actual

read

on fitz? Do you think it likely he is scum? Has your opinion of him changed at all since D1?

Why

did you think he "might be a good choice" to use your power on last night? (It's annoying that I have to ask this, again, but the quoted is literally all you say about havingfitz in 472, even though you were supposedly answering the question "why did you pick fitz?".)

(Funny but probably random fact I noticed while rereading:

every single person

havingfitz voted for on D1 has since died and flipped town. Including the RVS, he voted only for Baby Spice, guille and Ztife.)

[Plessiez]

Rufflig

-- Following the reasoning in this post:

I am a 'seeking masonizer'. There is one and only one player in the game that can become my mason partner. If I find that player we both become masons. Much like Saulres' "friendly neighbor" this is a role that can confirm itself. You now have 3 role claims and each claims the ability to confirm townies. What do you think the odds are that there is a cop in this mix, now?

and having seen that Ztife really was a cop, what do you currently think of saulres's claimed role? Do you think you are both telling the truth about your roles?

(I know you've speculated that if qwints was blocked than saulres might be scum, but is that all you have to say?)

[Plessiez]

Sword of Omens leans town.

Why?

Klick is likely scum

Why did you unvote him, then?

[Plessiez]

Hmm. I forget how Doctors work on mafiascum exactly .

According to the wiki page, if multiple people try to kill somebody, then that person dies even if a Doctor tries to protect them. Just how common is this interpretation of the Doctor role? (The same page does say that "some moderators" have a Doctor protection protect against

multiple

kill attempts, but just how many moderators is "some" in this context?) We might be jumping the gun in assuming that qwints (if town, as I think he is)

has

to have been RBed or be insane/naive.

Also, while I'm engaging in setup speculation, can anybody tell me if "activating" a power is generally considered to involve "targeting" yourself? (I'm hoping the answer is "no", mainly to stop myself wasting time with a particularly idiotic idea I've just had...)

@MOD

-- can you edit a link to the start of Day 2 into the opening post? Lazy people like me would appreciate it!

[Plessiez]

Rufflig

, given your earlier suspicions of saulres on D1, I have to say I'm really surprised that you're so reluctant to lynch him now.

You're one of my stronger town reads and I'm not interested in questioning your motives: I think you are sincere. But I simply don't understand

how

you can have a town-read on saulres. I mean, in 215 you describe saulres's "trap" claim as "a self-serving story designed to try and dig [saulres] out of a hole". Which it so clearly

is

, that ... yeah, I definitely struggle to see why you changed your mind. Do you think I'm irrationally tunneling on saulres, as saulres claims to think?

Looking at your iso, the only things that make you doubt your saulres scum-read were:

• (243) second-guessing based on the idea Ztife was scum -- obviously that's irrelevant now, since Ztife was town;
  
• (296) more second-guessing, based on deciding that your initial reason for suspecting saulres was "fairly weak" - I think that's true, honestly, and your early vote was a bit OMGUSy, but that doesn't hurt
  my
  case on him. The fact your initial vote on him was a bit weak doesn't make his "trap" look any more plausible.
  
• (340 and onwards) saulres's claimed role, which ... isn't at all confirmed?

Is there something I'm missing here? Is there any reason beyond second-guessing and setup speculaton you're not interested in lynching saulres?

If you don't want to lynch saulres, do you really now think he's telling the truth about his "trap" story? What about the holes (which I point out in 293, among other places)? How do you explain these?

[Plessiez]

And while I'm rereading people ...

sword of omens

:

@Plessie : have you played with Saulres before?

I don't think you ever said why you asked this.

If you like, I can do a whole drawn out post touching on each of the claim points

, although it would take a bunch of time for me to do, especially this late in the day..but bottom line is I think his trap was poorly timed and not fully thought through.I prefer Guille or Ztife.

I would like this, actually. Just a sentence or two on each claim would be (more than) enough to be getting on with.

[Plessiez]

And

Klick

:

qwints is most likely town for a reason that I'm not willing to give yet.

In hindsight, I'm reading this as you having spotted qwints's "DOCTOR" breadcrumb. Is that right?

(If it's not right, and you spotted some other town-tell you'd rather keep secret for now, just say "no", I guess.)

[Plessiez]

Mhork

-- In 297 you said you'd think about my saulres case. Have you?

Also: why are you voting D3f3nd3r, exactly? His unprompted Flanders claim is odd, sure, but why do you think it points to him being scum? Spell it out for me, if you can.

I explicitly only protect against one kill.

Ah. Thanks.

The problem is that the 2nd shot on ztife can't be the PGO b/c of NAR.

People were saying this before, I think. I didn't really understand the logic then and I still don't, despite having read the wiki page. Can you expand on this?

(Also, what do you think about the Rufflig's take on what "1-shot activated PGO" means? Does that affect your reasoing above at all?)

[Plessiez]

Ztife died and killing comes before investigation.

Oh. You mean PGOs can never kill Cops? I think you're just wrong about how NAR works, then.

Firstly, because there's more to Natural Action Resolution than just "this is the order that actions are resolved in"; in fact, according to the wiki page I linked to, that list of actions is only used at all as a last resort tie-breaker (the "golden rule" of "resolve actions that cannot possibly be modified by other actions first" takes precedence). NAR doesn't at all mean blindly resolving any and all kills before any and all investigations -- what would be "natural" about that?

Second because the idea that PGOs can

never

kill Cops is against the whole spirit of the PGO role, and is also contradicted by the wiki page on PGOs:

The Paranoid Gun Owner is a very swingy role, as in addition to killing the Mafia if they target him, it will indiscriminately kill Cops, Doctors, etc

And thirdly because, again from the wiki NAR page, "triggered" actions like the PGO

explicitly

don't follow that order of actions.

Some roles might take actions that are triggered by other actions. For example, a Paranoid Gun Owner will kill if targeted by an action. Resolve triggered actions along with the regular actions, using the golden rule as normal. Any action which triggers when a player is targeted should "go off" between steps 1 and 2, before resolving the action that triggers it.

Any triggered action happens

before

the action that resolves it. This must surely take precedence over the list

--

Now, as I've said, I don't

think

Ztife was killed by guille's PGO power, simply because I guess that power had to be "activated", that it could only be activated on one night, and because I'd (therefore) assume guille wouldn't have activated it on night 1. There's also the question of guille's death -- unless the role is much more bastardly than I'd like to think,

somebody

must have killed guille, and if it was scum then we're

still

missing a kill-attempt on Ztife.

So there's a real chance this discussion might be a waste of time. Only been pushing this at all because of the possibility it isn't, and will be useful down the line.

[Plessiez]

<---Law student, i dont have time for that. Paraphrase plz?

He means because of saulres's "analysis" in 457; and his suggestion (in 463) that Klick "was trying to push through any mislynch and/or get as many claims as he could.". Which ... isn't very convincing at all (superficial "analysis" of the D1 wagons with no scum flipped rarely is). Klick votes near the end of two wagons, yes. That's easily explained though, by the fact he took so long to actually get into the game and vote for

anyone

. By the time of Klick's long-promised post, 325, saulres had 5 votes and Ztife had 4. The fact that when Klick joined those wagons he was nearly the last vote ... isn't suspicious?

I really don't see how somebody can honestly read through day 1 and conclude that Klick "was trying to push through any mislynch and/or get as many claims as he could." Just doesn't fit with his actual posts, at all.

Anyway, qwints, you should go back to sheeping me and vote for saulres. Do you really think a "suicidal" claim

from somebody who was going to be lynched without such a claim

means saulres is suddenly beyond suspicion? How does that make sense, exactly?

[Plessiez]

Please explain to me how scum would claim what I did, and then not have anyone back it up, and expect WIFOM to save him from being lynched.

Please explain to

me

what you would have claimed, at L-1 and with lots of suspicion on you, which (1) you wouldn't have had to prove or confirm later and (2) would have got people to actually unvote you.

The fact you claimed a fancy confirmable role,

when you were at L-1 and otherwise about to be lynched

, isn't in any sense an argument that you can't be scum. If you hadn't claimed such a role, you would have been lynched

yesterday

. A claim that only puts off your lynch for a day is still better for you than a claim that doesn't even manage that.

[Plessiez]

Ples - whoever killed guile would have triggered him before ztife did.

Wouldn't they

both

trigger him? (I mean, that still leaves the question of "why didn't guille's killer die?" but meh.)

Actually, reading up on this led me to this entertaining rant, and (given the mod's 464) prompts me to ask the following question:

@MOD: are you using NAR

as described on the wiki page

or are you just resolving actions in the order you listed in your 464?

Because these really aren't the same thing.

Anyway, that's probably enough of that. People should stop prod-dodging and answer my questions.

No one asked, but my reason behind wanting to look at sword_of_omens and Klick is based on the final vote count. While it is possible that all the scum ended up on Baby Spice especially as it was a deadline lynch, it is also possible that they did not.

DoubleJD will sort himself out after we count the number of deaths tonight

.

... what does the bolded mean? I don't understand.

Otherwise ... well, I don't really think there's all that much merit in the (admittedly fairly popular) idea that scum deliberately try to be on more than one wagon (which seems to be what you're suggesting here). It's certainly

possible

that there are scum off the Baby Spice wagon, but I don't think being off the wagon is any sort of tell or any reason to look closer at somebody. I mean, I've never been scum and thought "I'd love to vote for X, but my partner is on that wagon already so I can't ". Simple probability means that scum votes will often split this way, but so would any randomly-picked group of players' votes.

That said, I wasn't too surprised you wanted to look at sword and Klick, because they are two players I'm really struggling to get any sort of read on myself. Looking at them makes sense, even if not for the reasons you give. (Mhork is worth a closer look, too, actually.)

[Plessiez]

Hey

saulres

:

So here are the most likely possibilities of what happened last night from my POV.

Explain to me why any of these scenarios meant you had to unvote Klick? Remember, you said he was "likely scum" in 522. I asked you why you'd unvoted him, given that read, and you said:

Because at that moment I started getting a setup speculation theory of the scumteam which may not include him, and I have to work through the scenarios. I'm gathering data to do so. Besides, no one made any comment about it at all except fitz who then disappeared.

How do any of your "scenarios" having any bearing on Klick being scum or not? Were you working on a theory that ruled out Klick that you ended up discarding before posting? If so, what was it? Do you currently think Klick is scum or not?

[Plessiez]

I didn't

have

to unvote Klick. I chose to. The scenarios at the time were shaping up to point to other people, and no one was supporting my argument against him at the time, so I removed the vote so I could focus on solidifying the scenarios. Is he scum now? Probably. When he starts playing the game or gets replaced, I'll revisit.

... this is ridiculous. If you think Klick is "probably" scum, you should be voting for him. Why wait for a scum-read to be replaced by a possibly more active, dangerous player? Being replaced won't change his alignment.

Now you answer my question in 571. And since you're so interested in who I think is scum, other than me who do

you

think is scum?

You don't seem to get how this works. You're answering my questions so I can try to work out who your partners are. We're not exchanging questions for questions. Your question in 571 is silly, so I won't answer it. It's possible fitz could be your partner and it's also possible he could be town -- I'm not playing your WIFOM game. Sorry.

I don't

have

any solid scum-reads other than you. (That's exactly why I want to

lynch

you: when I think somebody is scum, I vote for them and I urge others to vote for them. I don't wait for them to be replaced by a better player .)

Pretty confident that Rufflig, qwints and DoubleJD are town. Much weaker town-read on D3f3nd3r -- his play looks a lot like the earlier town-games of his I skimmed, questioning Rufflig on D1 about not sharing reasons for reads seemed genuine, and I don't see why he claims Flanders when he does as scum. Any of {sword, Klick, havingfitz, Mhork} could be scum-partners with you, based on what I've seen from them (and you) so far. We can work out which after we lynch you. (havingfitz would be a weakish town-read too if it wasn't for the possible connection to you, I guess. Not really interested in examining fantasy hypotheticals though)

My first impression of that post was that Double JD was saying that qwints (unintentionally) killed ztife instead of the scum. If there are two kills tonight then I'm mistaken. If there is only 1 kill tonight, then I need to take a hard look at Double JD.

Why would DoubleJD speculating that qwints was an insane Doc and being wrong make him look like scum?

Qwints, stop being sketch and explain when you vote. Just sheeping? Caught a slip? Agreeing with a case? These things aren't hard to point out and do wonders for reads. >.<

Meh. If you read qwints in iso (or just read his last post before the vote) he vote doesn't seem that surprising. It's not like he hasn't talked about saulres as a suspect before.

[Plessiez]

I see the mod has pointed out I'm at L-1, which fitz failed to do.

Hey, maybe now you're at L-1 you'll have the time or inclination to defend yourself against the case I made that you insisted was full of misreads and misreps? Or, no, let me guess, your alleged attempt to get a read on me is more important than defending yourself (hint: as multiple people have noted, I'm obviously town at this point).

Or maybe you'll just keep playing the same silly "appeal to emotion/fear" card you were relying on when pressured yesterday?

Good luck to you tomorrow, fitz, if you're town, because after my mislynch they're going to be coming after you.

... yeah, that's the one. Seriously, what is the point of saying things like this if you're town? Do you have a better argument as to why you shouldn't be hammered than "if the people who lynch me are wrong, everyone will suspect them!!"?

Which of your "scenarios" do you think is most likely? Who of {fitz, qwints, Klick} do you most suspect?

[Plessiez]

Because nobody has brought a case against me explaining why I'm scum.

I'm being voted for being confused about my trap, for scum interfering with my ability, and... umm.. what exactly again?

Blatantly bullshit. I am genuinely annoyed you think you can get away with this.

I have posted repeatedly why you are scum. It's not because you were "confused" about your trap, and you know damn well it isn't. It's because I think (and I believe the evidence you refuse to respond to clearly shows) that you were

lying about ever having set a trap

. There's just no evidence to think you were "setting a trap" when you voted for D3f3nd3r, you haven't given a consistent explanation of what the trap even

was

or what it was meant to accomplish, and the account you give is contradicted by your own actions and posts before and after the "trap" was supposedly set.

See 202. See 280 See 293. See 300.

The entire story about having "set a trap" was and is a transparent excuse to back off a bad vote that was getting you a lot of negative attention. This is a sign that you are scum. The only reason you were not lynched on day 1 was because you claimed a confirmable role -- a role that you had only ever hinted at or breadcrumbed

well after

you began to be pressured for your "trap". Now you are being voted for because the promised confirmation hasn't arrived. But the case against you remains the same fucking case I repeatedly posted on day 1 and which you have repeatedly refused to respond properly to.

"Nobody has a case?" For fuck's sake .

(Also, come on, your vote on qwints is awful. The guy breadcrumbed "DOCTOR" from page 1 onwards; he's either telling the truth or he wasted a perfectly good fake-claim he'd set up RL weeks in advance, just to give an extra,

completely unnecessary

reason to get you lynched. Why would scum possibly do that? Where's the "scum motivation" you so love to talk about?)

[Plessiez]

as multiple people have noted, I'm obviously town at this point

I replaced into a game during 3-person LyLo once where I was the deciding vote. Everyone in the thread, throughout the game, called PersonA obvscum. Which would make PersonB the obvious lynch, right? Except no, I looked and formed my own opinions, and lynched PersonA, winning the game for town.

This is a lovely heartwarming story. Yay for you!

Except, when you were going all AtE in 592, you wanted me to think that my "tunnelling" on you apparently meant that I was "making it just as difficult for other townies to get a read on [me] as the lurkers are." And that's obviously not the case at all. I'm far from "unreadable". You're free to have whatever read on me you want (oh, right, you refuse to give one!), but to suggest that by repeatedly explaining why I think you're scum I'm somehow making myself hard to read for the town is just ridiculous.

[Plessiez]

Plessy, why did scum-Saulres' buddy not back him up with his neighborizor thing?

As DoubleJD says, this sort of stuff runs into WIFOM pretty quickly. And I think that's a waste of time, really, and plays into the scum's hands. But briefly:

If saulres is scum (and if he doesn't have any sort of bastard role that would "confirm" him), then he and his partners have a choice. Either saulres has a partner claim to have got town-confirmation from saulres, or saulres finds some reason for his power not to have worked (either by claiming to have sent his confirmation to guille or Ztie, or by claiming to have sent it to somebody who denies getting it and to suggest he was RBed).

It's true that saulres is more likely to be lynched today following the second plan. But the first plan isn't without risks either. Arguably, it's

more

risky for the scum team as a whole (especially if saulres's partners aren't under much suspicion).

What if saulres claims to have sent a message, his partner says "oh, yeah, I got it" ... and then somebody claims to ave RBed saulres?

What if saulres claims to have sent a message, his partner says "oh, yeah, I got it", but later saulres dies anyway (killed by a "tunneling" vigilante or by a SK) and flips scum?

What if people get suspicious on day 3 or day 4 when saulres doesn't die, and end up lynching him anyway?

In all these cases, saulres's partner is in a much worse position than if saulres just sits back and plays the WIFOM card. This way, it's much harder for us to locate saulres's partners (and honestly, half of his posts read like he's gloating about this very fact). But the thing is, if saulres is scum -- and again, if he's not, why the pretend "trap"? -- we don't have to work out who he's partners are today. Lots of people

could

be his partners. We don't need to solve the game before we lynch a single scum though.

^ you're crazy. Regardless of what saulres eventually flips...it has no bearing on my alignment.

"No bearing"? Really? Mafia is all about looking at how people interact with each other. Of course saulres' flip will have some bearing on your alignment. It's not the only factor we should consider by any means, but it is

a

factor.

For what it's worth, my thinking is that you're actually

more

likely to be scum if saulres is. So basically the opposite of Rufflig and DoubleJD . It's not a huge difference -- "weakish town" if saulres is town, and maybe the scummier side of null if saulres is scum -- but it's a real one.

(But this sort of argument is kind of pointless until we have a saulres flip. There are things we can do during the day if people insist on dragging out the saulres lynch, but looking for links people might have to saulres=scum are not it, in my view.)

I don't need you to push your other scum reads, but I would like to hear them.

Short answer is Mhork and Defender.

Hmm. I think D3f3nd3r's unprompted Flanders claim is a bit townish, really. Actually fits quite well with his earlier stance on name-claiming, and points to inexperienced-to-theme-games town. I can sort of see somebody who thinks knowing names might be useful to town blurting out his own name when he sees somebody speculating another person has it. I mean ... I can imagine D3f3nd3r as town thinking it was important we know who Flanders was, and not thinking through things like "maybe it's better for saulres to name-claim first so I can counter?".

If D3f3nd3r's scum, I don't see why he name-claims. I'm not sure I agree with Mhork's take on this (that D3f3nd3r would be anxious about protecting a fake name-claim, I mean.). I think, given his claim, D3f3nd3r either really is Flanders (still possibly scum, of course), or was given Flanders as a safe name-claim by the mod.

[Plessiez]

@Ples 619: Your entire reasoning in response to Mhork is exactly why my claim makes no sense as a scum one.

Well, no. That's not true at all. But giving you the chance to play these pointless WIFOM games is why I didn't want to answer this question in the first place, so ... well done to you, I guess. If you think we shouldn't lynch you purely because of your (unproven) claim, then you must logically accept it would be a good claim for scum to make. That seems pretty obvious?

And really, given that your entire defence seems to be "haha, I'm just a bad player so I did some stuff that makes no sense as town", I don't feel any real obligation to assume your play as scum would be flawless. Your claim wasn't the best claim scum in your position could have made, but it's certainly not a role scum would never claim.

If people are willing to say if they are or aren't Hibbert I'll put out the theory.

I think I see what theory you're hinting at, but I don't see why you need to know if there is a Hibbert or not before suggesting it. Particularly given your semi-obsession with "lyncher wincons" on Day 1.

(I'm also not pleased you're spending so much time throwing out theories without coming to any conclusions, or why you haven't explained qwints' motivation to play the way he has played if he's scum.)

Can you explain why you'd rather not give the theory if there isn't a Doctor Hibbert? If having no Hibbert makes your theory wrong, then surely there's no harm in airing it?

[Plessiez]

If I explain it then it gives the scum an advantage.

But you were offering to explain it, once Hibbert claimed? Are you saying that explaining your theory only gives scum an advantage if it's wrong?

[Plessiez]

he had absolutely no reason to make a fakeclaim if he was scum.

Not true.

*pulls more teeth*

Why?

And how come we have to keep asking you to explain everything?

(I am hilarious, aren't I? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.)

Stop hiding behind "oh, other people are lurking, I can't explain my reads on them until they post more" please. Want people to think you're town? Then explain your reads and make a proper effort to push your ideas. Don't just snipe, AtE, toss out "possible scenarios" you don't seem to care about and whine about other people's inactivity or my "tunnel vision".

[Plessiez]

Stop hiding behind "oh, other people are lurking, I can't explain my reads on them until they post more" please.

This is the kind of thinking that got my trap screwed up on D1. If I put out everything I'm thinking before other people respond it only helps the scum, not the town.

If you're really town (a big "if") then this is exactly the wrong lesson to draw from your failed "trap". Hiding things and trying to be cute to trap people is what hurts the town, not people honestly discussing their reads. Your "trap" only got people to suspect you because you (now claim you) had reads you

weren't

sharing with us.

I mean, your vote on qwints by itself is no pressure at all. You aren't going to persuade him to explain himself to your satisfaction if you can't get other people to think about voting for him. And you won't do that unless you explain how and why you believe his actions are scummy.

@MOD: Is that vote count correct? Does Klick's vote stay on saulres until a replacement unvotes?

[Plessiez]

I'm really starting to get the feeling you're playing in some sort of "old school" way and that's not how I've learned how to play since joining here. That's kind of backed up by your question of the mod; I've never seen a mod remove a vote from someone who's replacing out.

I don't think I've ever seen it on this site either, but I know SAD (from another site) and I know he has (or had, perhaps?) some odd ideas about what should happen to the vote count if a player gets replaced.

And I asked because I'm tempted to think somebody should unvote you just to make sure you're not hammered before Klick's replacement has a chance to catch up. But it won't be me unvoting if you don't start to actually respond to questions and make a proper effort to defend yourself. Apologies in advance if that's too "old school" for you, saulres .

[Plessiez]

Saulres wagon is pretty bad.

(1) Because?

(2) Who is better?

[Plessiez]

I'm disgusted by all the apathy.

I can understand scum doing all this proddodging and delaying so we continue to get mislynches through. But I don't understand it from the townies. And there are enough people doing it that there have to be townies among them

The apathy definitely is annoying (and self-perpetuating). I almost wish I didn't think saulres was probable-scum, honestly, since if (when?) he's lynched things are probably going to get a lot worse in terms of activity .

(We should lynch him anyway, obviously, but ... yeah.)

@Plessie, do you have a scum game you can link me to?

Pretty much not, actually.

I'm fairly sure that this is the only post I've ever made as scum on this site. (Somebody told me the game needed a replacement, I stupidly agreed to replace in before reading the thread, realised I couldn't catch up, replaced out again. I'm fairly sure this wasn't alignment related, but ... meh. Kind of embarrassing anyway.)

I've been scum before on different sites, but I don't think those games survive to be linked to. Sorry.

[Plessiez]

If I were a Jester I would have self-voted when I was at L-1.

Duh. That was an odd thing to say on Mhork's part.

Mhork

, what made you suggest saulres was a Jester?

(It's also mod-confirmed that this game has no Jester, by the way.)

So then you're prolly town. Point is that I don't understand why scum would behave like this and Plessy isn't really convincing him.

Behave like what? Have you read any of saulres's scum games?

Here's what saulres has "behaved like" this game:

• On day 1, saulres votes for D3f3nd3r for a bad reason.
  
• This vote is greeted with suspicion from several people.
  
• After a period of refusing to respond to questions, saulres comes up with a claim that his vote was deliberately bad, because it was intended to somehow "trap" another player.
  
• Numerous people (certainly not just me) attack this claimed "trap" as implausible and self-serving. Various holes in saulres's account are pointed out.
  
• Saulres starts hinting that he has a role that will confirm him as town.
  
• Saulres reaches L-1 and claims a cool role that would (presumably?) confirm him as town.
  
• On day 2, this proof does not appear.

I fail to see why any of this makes saulres more likely town than scum. Obviously enough, I think it suggests quite the opposite: saulres is probably scum.

Is my account misleading in some way, or do you agree with this summary but think it means saulres is probably town? What part of my earlier case, specifically, do you think is wrong? Do you believe saulres's account of having "set a trap"?

Plessy, is it possible that this is more tunneling on your part?

"More tunneling"? When did I tunnel before? (Saulres keeps saying that I'm tunneling, but that doesn't mean I am; I've had other suspects and in fact I seem to remember having a weak town-read on saulres before his D3f3nd3r vote.)

Is it possible I'm wrong and saulres is really town? I guess so. Lots of things are possible. I don't think saulres is town, but I don't have any sort of mod-confirmation that saulres is scum, if that's what you're really asking.

[Plessiez]

The odd thing about the night actions, to me, is that scum have to be pretty confident to not RB Ztife (a claimed Cop) and risk him being protected by a Doctor. Ztife surviving and maybe getting a guilty on scum seems much more dangerous to the scum than saulres confirming himself as town (in the hypothetical situation that saulres is not scum, that is). The safe thing to do seems to be to RB Ztife

and

shoot him, or even just RB Ztife and shoot saulres (again, assuming saulres isn't scum).

Maybe they couldn't do that because the scum have a Jailkeeper and not a straight RBer, maybe there's not a scum RBer at all (this is possible if qwints is naive and saulres is scum, for instance). There's just too many possibilities for me to be happy reducing things to even two or three options, let alone a single option.

(I'm sad that qwints didn't mention my case as any part of his logic for voting saulres today, too.)

But I'm willing to entertain other possibilities. Which is why I want to know if there's a Hibbert in the game.

Meh. We can do this while we wait for people to deliver on promised reads, I guess. Anything to get some activity into the game. No problem with popcorning a straight "Hibbert / not-Hibbert" claim. Probably Rufflig should pick who goes first (since he's a strong town-read for most people who've bothered to give reads, and has already name-claimed).

[Plessiez]

ok, I think I might like to see a Mhork flip…

This is certainly a better wagon than the one saulres is trying to start on qwints. Definitely possible Mhork is scum.

I'd still like Mhork to explain how he decided that saulres might have been a Jester, and why he otherwise has a town-read on saulres. (Since "saulres is acting so suspicious he must be

trying

to get lynched!" doesn't play well with "saulres isn't acting like scum at all and people shouldn't vote for him", I struggle to see how you wind up with those two as your main possibilities.) saulres is still a much better option though, obviously.

Oh that's right, D3f3nd3r already name claimed. Eh, let's shoot the question to Phillammon then and see what he has to say.

Well, yeah, of course he already name-claimed. Honestly assumed this had to be a gambit of some kind on your part. Ah well. (Problem with choosing Phillammon is that it almost completely negates the "let's do this while we wait for people to give reads" aspect, but what's done is done. Suspect it's a waste of time anyway.)

When I read the game, I don't see much that strikes me as "scummy."

This attitude doesn't help though? Who do you think scummier, saulres or Mhork?

Omg why arent we just lynching saul!

No idea. Maybe lots of people have "don't let saulres be lynched no matter how obvious it is he's scum" as their secondary winning condition? (That's a joke. I hope.)

Because no one just outs out of the blue to say "Im a 1 shot doc, and i protected ztife" when ztife DIES.

Yeah, this.

It really stretches the imagination to assume that a putative scum!qwints, having chosen to crumb Doctor from his first post onwards (look at his first few posts in iso, paying special attention to the first letter...), chooses to fake-claim under no real pressure at the beginning of day 1 (claims to heal somebody who actually died!), simply to find an excuse to "mislynch" saulres. Mainly because it was already clear that

saulres was probably going to be lynched anyway

. How would today have been any different if qwints hadn't claimed at all, exactly? Saulres only escaped being lynched yesterday by claiming. DoubleJD, Klick and myself would still have voted for him, and it would be easy for scum!qwints to just say "I still think the case on saulres from day 1 is valid" and join the wagon. He doesn't need to claim possibly-RBed 1-shot Doctor to justify such a vote. Nor is qwints's Doctor claim the reason people should be voting saulres. That would be the "trap" that he didn't actually set and that doesn't make any sense for town to claim to have set.

The idea that qwints claiming like this as scum is plausible, let alone likely, while saulres claiming a role he can't really confirm just to avoid a lynch and play WIFOM the next day is unlikey ... I just don't understand that reasoning at all.

[Plessiez]

Before reading this, bear in mind that I interpret high signal to noise ratio + high activity as a towntell- this is because if they were going to slip up, they would've, in a high activity slot- so if they haven't slipped, they're unlikely to be scum.

High activity isn't a town-tell for saulres. This is pretty clear if you look at the scum games he linked to earlier.

He's the second highest poster in two of them, Micro 14 and Micro 39, and he was the highest poster in Worst Role Mafia (a game which, looking at it, I see you were in yourself...). Not to mention, saulres actually did slip, with his preposterous "trap" claim, it's just that nobody but me seems to care about what he's actually done, just how many posts he's made or whether he has a "scummy vibe" .

Saulres is town, and I'm honestly very surprised that he made it to L-1 TWICE. Day 1, he was one of few who were vocally outspoken against the AWFUL mass nameclaim, and was actively setting traps and scumhunting, something that essentially no-one else was actually doing.

This is ... pretty wrong/superficial. Most people were against the mass name-claim. It was clearly never going to happen (only Ztife, D3f3nd3r and Mhork spoke in favour of it at all, and all three were pretty lukewarm). Saulres was only more "vocal" in his opposition because he had more posts, but -- as I say above -- high activity is not a town-tell for saulres.

And the issue isn't that his trap "caught" town at all. The issue is that

the evidence suggests saulres only claimed to have 'set a trap' after people reacted badly to his vote

. But this claim isn't consistent with the evidence of his other posts. He wasn't trying to "trap" anyone. He was trying to wiggle out of a bad, unpopular vote. Making up traps after the fact in order to disavow bad cases doesn't help the town.

The wagon today is pretty weak too, and in a bastard game, role shenanigans are pretty much a given, so I'm willing to believe the claim in spite of the night stuff. Plus, he remains high activity.

The wagon today is clearly the best wagon we've got, and it's still pretty good? The fake "trap" doesn't become less suspicious today just because it happened a while ago. And, again,

high activity is not a saulres town-tell

.

(Will reply to the rest of your reads in a different post, since people don't read walls, apparently.)

[Plessiez]

I've certainly bread crumbed PRs as scum before. See Mini 1386 as an example.

Yeah, the existence of the breadcrumb per se is a bit null (that's partly why I wanted Klick to explain if it was why he town-read you on day 1 -- annoyingly, it looks like he replaced out withour replying to that). But the breadcrumb combined with the timing and manner of your actual claim ... that seems to pretty strongly point to you being town, I think.

Saulres is townier than Mhork.

Mhork is still pretty null though.

... any plans to start playing mafia at some point, or is this the level of contribution we can expect for the rest of the game?

If you're town you should replace out mhork

This is kind of rude, I think.

(It's definitely true though.)

[Plessiez]

Approximately half of Sword's posts are prod dodges or promises to catch up, and it's not a long ISO. This doesn't bode well, but I can believe the reasoning (I'm aware of the hypocrisy). Additionally, having acknowledged the friendly neighbour claim, he then went on to accuse saulres of being scum (albeit in subtext) based on neighbourizer, an unrelated role (466). Lack of attention combined with claiming to have caught up between each post makes me think that either sword is genuinely in one hell of a hurry, or he's using it as an excuse to start/perpetuate wagons with "misunderstandings". Either way, I don't like the slot.

I don't like sword's activity levels, but I quite like his Mhork vote. Going to give him a provisional town-read, actually.

I don't see why you say he's been trying to "perpetuate" the saulres wagon -- to my mind, he's been consistently

against

it (didn't want to vote saulres on Day 1 even before saulres's claim, has been reluctant to vote for him today). If sword wanted saulres lynched, it would have happened by now, I think (he posted while saulres was L-1 at least once).

Fitz is one of the towniest towns that ever towned.

Meh. You have low standards for "towniest town". Weakish town-read at best, I'd say, and quite possible as a saulres partner. (He's a stronger town-read if saulres happens to be town, I suppose. But I don't think that's very likely, so ... yeah.)

Mhork is less townie, but still town. Good activity (albeit with more noise than I'd ideally like...)

I think Mhork is blatantly coasting. His "activity" is mostly prod-dodging and filler. Still waiting for him to explain his "saulres is either town or Jester" idea, too.

qwints has had maybe 3 good posts this entire game, and the guy he claimed to have protected died. This is not a good start.

If scum are going to lie about being a Doctor, do you think they're more likely to claim to have protected somebody still alive or somebody who died anyway? Why?

127 is D3f3nd3r's only good post, and BARELY at that.

What do you like about 127, specifically?

The Rufflig is active, hunting, answering questions, and in general doing townish things. Unfortunately, there is that issue (as fitz said) with the false dichotomy on saul/fitz and saul/ztife, which I don't like. In spite of that, I reckon misguided town rather than malicious scum there.

I take it back. Plessiez is the towniest town that ever towned. INCREDIBLY active, GREAT hunting, and nothing noticably objectionable in the ISO. In general, definite, solid town.

Why do you call Rufflig "misguided town" and me "solid town", exactly? I mean, most of my posts today have been about why I think saulres should be lynched, and you claim to think saulres is (or should be) obviously town. And yet you praise my "GREAT hunting". Doesn't my case on saulres make me "misguided" too?

(Can you please comment directly on my 202 and 293? Tell me where you think I'm misreading saulres. Or tell me how what I'm saying can be true if saulres is town.)

JD doesn't look good to me. The posts have been good, but there's something about the mindset behind them that worries me- ie referring to the qwints mess as a "play", right up until he points out it "can't have been a play".

Plus the day 1 klick fiasco, and the nameclaim

... tentatively, I declare you scum. Mostly through POI, I admit, but JD definitely needs to change style, regardless of actual alignment.

As you might have spotted reading my posts, I don't really like attacks based on nebulous "mindset" reads. I'm personally fairly confident DoubleJD is town. (It helps that he seems to share my suspicion of saulres, sure, but I've had him as a town-read longer than that.)

But I'm baffled about the bolded. What is the "day 1 klick fiasco" that involves DoubleJD? What "nameclaim"? (DoubleJD hasn't nameclaimed, unless I've missed something important, and he was firmly against the day 1 mass name-claim idea.) Links to relevant posts, please?

[Plessiez]

VOTE: saulres

Don't see why you voted saulres now? We've got a couple of days left, we're in the middle of the Hibbert name-claiming, and until fairly recently you didn't seem to have much of a scum-read on him anyway (so I can understand him as a compromise, but it's a bit early for that).

In fact, UNVOTE: , just so nobody hammers yet. My vote isn't going anywhere else; I think he should and will be the lynch, but I want the Hibbert name-claiming thing out of the way before the day ends if at all possible. On the off-chance he's town after all, I think saulres deserves a chance to explain his theory before we lynch him. I'm still trying to work out what I think about Phill, so I'd like more from him before day ends too. Want more from Mhork, too.

[Plessiez]

Mentioned that Saulres wagon isn't good.

Saying that the overwhelmingly popular wagon of the day "isn''t good", without doing anything to push a different wagon or present evidence that the person being wagonned is actually town, is

not helpful

.

If you're scum, and saulres isn't, it lets you go "ah, well, I told you so!" after saulres is mislynched. But if you're town, and saulres is town, you're doing nothing to stop his lynch. Who should we be lynching if not saulres?

[Plessiez]

Jester was snarky 'there's no way in hell I believe he's scum so what else could he be' post.

Firstly .. this doesn't make much sense? A Jester

wants to be lynched

. If you suggest somebody looks like a Jester, you are suggesting they look like they are

trying to be lynched

. You are suggesting they

look suspicious

. You don't suggest somebody is a Jester if you think they look incredibly townie. That doesn't make sense.

Secondly (and more seriously), how and why did you come to the conclusion that "there's no way in hell" saulres is scum? That just isn't consistent with any of your earlier posts about saulres today. You've doubted my case, sure, but you've always sounded willing to consider the idea saulres might be scum. In a couple of posts, you've actually accused saulres of doing scummy things yourself.

People should take a look at this. Some relevant quotes from Mhork's iso today:

So I say if we get a scumflip which shows an obvious connection, that's a sign that the scum have more solid matches than the townies, and you should be looked at

at that time

as scum for your take on my role name.

Dude, that's ridiculous.

I don't like what you're doing here. It's like scum setting up rationales to push policy lynches through

. Why are you doing this?

Here you accuse saulres of acting "like scum" and say you don't like his "ridiculous" accusation. You don't give any sign of acting like there's "no way in hell" he can be scum.

Mhork

-- In 297 you said you'd think about my saulres case. Have you?

As a matter of fact, yes I have.

It's all super sketch and his actions really make no sense from a townie point of view

. The issue I have is that no one backed up his confirmation. He claims to have told havingfitz who then denied it. How does this correlate? The only issue viable situation I can think of is that scum saulres told scum havingfitz that he was gonna use his to confirm and then they got into a fight over whether or not the lie would be worth it if a cop were to get a guilty on saulres. This seems too convoluted, though, so

I'm having trouble with the Saulres-scum likelihood

. What do you think?

Here you say saulres's case makes him look "super sketch" and that "his actions really make no sense from a townie point of view". You do suggest that the failed night action might point to him being town, but you say you're "having trouble". You haven't come to an opinion. You certainly don't say it's impossible saulres can be scum.

Saulres, that's stupid. What scum wouldn't worry about a doc protect?

I'm trying to figure if this density is a town tell or a scum tell

though. Eh... >.<

Here you suggest you're still trying to figure out saulres's alignment. You certainly don't say there's "no way in hell" that saulres is scum.

Erg...

I'm not completely comfortable with the Saulres lynch

...

Plessy, why did scum-Saulres' buddy not back him up with his neighborizor thing?

Now you're "not completely comfortable", but still willing to entertain the idea. That's very different from saying there's "no way" saulres can be scum.

Ergh... I will respond to Plessy's thing. It's interesting, but

I still don't know about Saulres

. Blech.

And here you "don't know" what to think of saulres. This is obviously very different from saying that there's "no way in hell" saulres is scum. But your Jester comment comes in your very next post.

When and how did you go from "I don't know about saulres" to "there's no way in hell saulres can be scum"? Because this switch just seems far too dramatic to be real. You fence-sit, you make several "hmm, I'm not sure" type posts and you act as if you're willing to be persauded that saulres is scum ... but then the next thing you've decided that it's impossible saulres can be scum? This doesn't feel genuine at all.

[Plessiez]

Pless...you're online... feel free to pick the next person if there is one.

I'm not Doctor Hibbert

. And I think that's everyone, actually? (Well, saulres strongly implies he's not Hibbert, but I guess technically he hasn't said either way.)

So either there's no Hibbert, or there is a Hibbert and they lied about their name. What does that mean for your theory, saulres? (And what do you think of Mhork?)

[Plessiez]

I think what SAD did was take characters that he could build obvious roles around, set those roles, then randomize the roles against the names.

This is pretty much what I thought you were going to suggest, yeah. Do you think that's the only bastard element to the game?

I hadn't guessed the Dr. Nick claim, although, much like qwints's "DOCTOR" breadcrumb, your breadcrumb is painfully obvious in hindsight. (And I'm assuming your name-claim is genuine. Obviously life would be easier for me and my case on you if somebody counter-claimed, but I'm not expecting anybody to do so.)

Wish I'd thought about this more after you hinted at it, because it's actually quite plausible . And it seems to be a point against saulres=scum, too. Pretty sure it doesn't rule it out completely (because it is a bastard game, after all) but it certainly does weaken it.

Ugh. I'm not sure I'll ever forgive myself if saulres is scum and talks me out of voting for him today . And the whole "trap" thing still seems so very fake. But ... maybe Mhork is the safer lynch today?

If

the theory is correct, then either D3f3nd3r was lying about being Flanders or it seems like there should be a Neighbour-type role (or some other Flanders-inspired role, but that's certainly the obvious one). And while it's not completely impossible, to my mind, that saulres could be scum with the ability to "confirm" himself as town ... it's not really that likely, is it? I mean, there's "bastard" and then there's "vindictive, town-hating bastard", and that seems closer to the latter. A bit of luck on saulres's part also isn't

impossible

, but ... ugh.

Trying to get some work done this evening, but as we're rapidly nearing deadline I'll try to find the time to reread and work out what the best plan is.

[Plessiez]

D3f3nd3r's iso screams scum preparing a big "I told you so" after the lynch they disagree with but aren't really trying to stop flips town. For someone who's convinced of saulres being a bad lynch, he's done nothing to prevent it.

What do you think of Mhork?

[Plessiez]

Pless, why isn't your vote on Mhork?

Because of this?

I'm not sure I'll ever forgive myself if saulres is scum and talks me out of voting for him today .

Still trying to work out if I'm really ready to give up on the idea saulres is scum. Still don't feel like the "trap" stuff makes sense coming from town. Sigh. I hate this game sometimes.

[Plessiez]

Here, since fitz is having so much trouble coming up with alternate scenarios when I'm town, even going so far as to deny any possibility other than I was blocked, let me present him with one.

"saulres is town and I'm lying scum about not receiving his notification. But if I don't push that he was blocked, I won't have a defense after he's mislynched."

VOTE: fitz

I really don't understand this vote at all. (But then, if you're town I don't understand lots of your reasoning this game, so ... meh.)

Has

anyone

seriously considered any scenarios other than "saulres is scum", "saulres was RBed" or "fitz is lying"? I don't see that they have.

And if fitz is town, obviously he won't waste time considering the last option. Why should fitz go out of his way to come up a scenario where you and he are both town and you weren't RBed? Nobody else has. Do you think such a scenario is at all likely? Are you really saying you suspect fitz because he

doesn't consider the possibility that he, himself, is lying scum

? This makes no sense to me.

[Plessiez]

Need to sleep. Gah.

Still confused, so no vote yet. Will be voting for saulres or Mhork tomorrow though (that is, on Tuesday). Think one of those two is by far the best option (D3f3nd3r as an outside bet, maybe, but that's mostly just irritation as his lack of contribution). Think Mhork makes sense as scum whatever saulres's alignment (if saulres is scum, then hypothetical scum!Mhork is doing his job as partner of playing up the WIFOM 'but surely if saulres was scum his partner would have confirmed him?' angle -- he's been reluctant to go all out and town-read saulres until now but he's been more or less subtly pushing against the wagon for most of the day; if, on the other hand, saulres is town, scum!Mhork is just waiting on the sidelines ready to go "I told you so!" when saulres flips).

Don't really like Mhork's slight obsession with who I thought saulres's partners could be, come to think of it. (That was at the end of day 1, wasn't it? Will check tomorrow.)

... tried to write more, but I just can't focus. Tomorrow. Would be nice (but surprising, sadly) if activity picked up some as we head into the last day or so of Day 2.

[Plessiez]

DoubleJD

-- if you get time before day ends, tell us what you think of Mhork, please.

TheRufflig

-- if the mod has lied to us about our roles and is lying about the flips, then the game is a farce. Literally no interest in playing it if that's the case.

Why do I have to come up with an alternate scenario to that which causes me to suspect you as scum? (answer: I don't)

Because I'm likely to be today's lynch (or at least I was for almost the entire day, so forgive me if I expect it to happen anyway). And then you're going to have to deal with the situation tomorrow. And if scum start flipping without a roleblocker, you're in trouble if you're town.

How the fuck is this a reason to vote fitz?

You yourself have said you think you were RBed or that fitz is lying. It's natural for fitz, if he's town, to come to the symmetrical conclusion: either you were RBed, or

you

are lying. How can you even think this makes sense as a reason to vote for him? There is no need for him to dream up scenarios in which you can be town and not RBed. This is not something anybody else is doing, and it's not something I'd except town to do in his position.

The theories you've been throwing out recently don't have any impact on why your role didn't work. They're just explanations for why guille died, or how qwints might be the Doctor but not been RBed. Tell me a theory in which you are town, you weren't RBed and fitz isn't lying, and then I'll think about taking you seriously when you say it's suspicious that fitz hasn't considered this.

(The thing is, I could in theory understand you voting for fitz, but the reasons you give for doing so look contrived and awful, especially in light of the fact you claimed a day 1 town read on him as a reason for "confirming" yourself to him originally.)

Why aren't you voting for Mhork?

[Plessiez]

Really have too much to do today .

I'm just going to bullet-point what I believe, and see if I can come to a conclusion (or at least vote for somebody). Let's see:

• Everyone claiming a name probably either has it as their real name, or was given it by the mod as a fake-name.
  
• Saulres's theory is very plausible: it fits with the flips, the claims and my own name/role very well.
  
• Saulres's day 1 "trap" still looks very bad - I've reread him, and I still can't see this as a genuine attempt to trap scum. It reads like an excuse, not real motivation.
  
• If Flanders really is a name, then the theory points to
  somebody
  having a neighbour-type role. Only saulres has claimed such a role (Rufflig's "seeking masonizer" doesn't really fit?)
  
• The way Klick replaced out suggests he is town or saulres is scum [or both, for people who don't know how logic works]. I can't see scum being that frustrated by the game if town was being mislynched, but I can see Klick as frustrated/bored town, who just got fed up of being shouted at for not contributing.)
  
• Both D3f3nd3r and Mhork have contributed very little today, and their opposition to the saulres lynch doesn't sit well with their failure to push anybody else (Mhork's voting D3f3nd3r now, but it's a bit late to convince me).
  
• D3f3nd3r as scum has no real need to fake-claim Flanders when he did (town has no need to either, I guess, but it feels ... more plausible, as town?). So this is weird. [Might be possible D3f3nd3r is scum with saulres and claimed Flanders just to set up saulres's theory, but that seems very unlikely?]
  
• Mhork can be scum whether or not saulres is scum.
  
• Saulres's theory can be correct even if saulres is scum, but only if roles and alignments are completly distinct (to the point where scum can get the power to "confirm" themselves as town to somebody else), or if saulres's "neighbour" type power is different from what he claims (but then why lie? can't see a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one).
  
• clearing people based on set-up speculation or role-claims in a bastard game seems like a bad idea; on the other hand, lynching an active player in a game full of lurkers and coasters isn't brilliantly smart either.

Bleh. I'm just talking myself in circles.

Sod it, then. I'll VOTE: Mhork. Not sure we have enough votes for him (or for anyone?) and I'd get back onto a saulres wagon if I thought that was viable and Mhork wasn't, but this will have to do for now.

[Plessiez]

@Pless...why are you lamenting the lack of support for a saulres wagon when if you were to revote it he'd be at L-2?

I wasn't really doing this, though?

In my previous post I "lament" the (possible) lack of support for a

Mhork

wagon. I have no real idea if we have enough support for this wagon or not. I explicitly say I'll move back to saulres if it becomes clear Mhork isn't viable. But we have over a day to get 4 more votes on Mhork. You yourself said, at the end of day 1, that you've seen wagons start and build in less time than this.

That said, with six needed for a lynch, a saulres wagon isn't viable today, however I vote, unless one of {sword, Mhork, D3f3nd3r} switches to him. Which of them do you think is going to switch?

[Plessiez]

EBWOP: Oh, and Mhork? I'm not seeing it. His explanations sound solid.

Hmm.

During the Day, Mhork has made repeated noises about how he thinks you're "sketch" and you've done things that look scummy or could be scum-tells. He now claims there is "no way in hell" you're scum. And when pressed, he says that:

your day actions imply sketchiness

but that the night actions mean you're definitely town. That is, the night actions that occured before all the posts of his I previously quoted. The ones in which he suspects you're scum.

That "sounds solid" to you? Really?

Also, compare this take on your "day actions" with his earlier post:

I keep thinking and looking for any reason why today's Saulres behaviour could possibly have even the slightest motivation from a scummy perspective and I can't. I simply cannot. This is why there is no way in hell he is scum, because I only see town confusion and town behaviour and townie town town town motivation.

So he only sees "town behaviour" and "town motivation" in your behaviour today.

And

"your day actions imply sketchiness". How can a person believe both these things to be true?

I do not think Mhork is making a genuine effort to learn your alignment.

If you want to lynch a lurker, I recommend DoubleJD or D3f3nd3r.

My vote certainly isn't on Mhork because I "want to lynch a lurker". I want to lynch scum and Mhork is scummy. Your "if" is irrelevant.

[Plessiez]

What I think Mhork is saying is that even though my individual actions look scummy, he can't see a scumteam motivation behind them, only a town one.

... who made you Mhork's official translator ? (And this is clearly not what he

actually said

, which is what I

actually quoted

. This is not difficult.) Why have you taken on the job of defending Mhork?

The way Klick replaced out suggests he is town or saulres is scum [or both, for people who don't know how logic works]. I can't see scum being that frustrated by the game if town was being mislynched, but I can see Klick as frustrated/bored town, who just got fed up of being shouted at for not contributing.)

Are you not familiar with Kondi (Klick's previous name)? Kondi flaked out a lot in the past from games, regardless of alignment. His replacing out of this one is not an alignment tell.

I've seen Klick's previous games, yes (some of them, anyway, while looking for meta). I'm well aware Klick/kondi often replaces out. That's why I said "the way" he replaced out, not just the fact. That wasn't an "I'm bored" replace-out, or any sort of site-wide flake, it was an "I hate the way this game is going" replace-out.

Less than 24 hours. The lack of participation from the majority of the game, especially at this point, is disgusting.

Of the three wagons (me, Mhork, D3f3nd3r) I'd rather see D3f3nd3r going than either of the other two. Especially because the way he's playing this game he's likely to be lurking scum, and I'm tired of asking SAD for prods. He only provided one scum game when asked for links, and if that's all he has, he could easily be inexperienced scum trying to coast through.

VOTE: D3f3nd3r

This is a horrible vote. You're voting for D3f3nd3r primarily because he's lurking, and only incidentally because he's "likely" to be scum. Did you bother to read the town-links he provided? He prod-dodges and fails to come up with strong-reads as both alignments.

I really don't like the fact that both Mhork and Phill have gone from defending saulres to voting the same person saulres is voting for. I don't like the fact saulres is, in turn, defending Mhork. As such, I'm not interested in voting D3f3nd3r today (unless no other lynch is possible, of course).

Still want to see if we have enough support for a Mhork wagon. Sword -- if there's not enough support for Mhork, are you switching to D3f3nd3r or to saulres? (If the former, I suspect a saulres lynch is impossible.)

[Plessiez]

The reason I would vote for Mhork would be because his flip would be more informative than D3f3nd3r's, not because I think he's scum. Do you think it's better to vote for someone I don't think is scum for information, or to not lynch today?

I think I would like you to explain why you don't think Mhork is scum?

Especially since you thought the case on him was "interesting" in 716, you implicitly agreed in 721 that it was odd Mhork suddenly decided there was "no way in hell" you were scum, and you pointed out yourself in 736 that Mhork's 732 contradicted most of his earlier posts about you from today. Yet suddenly you "don't think [he's] scum".

pedit: I am totally hating this last-minute wagon-deciding for the second day in a row. Hating it.

Er. If it wasn't for deciding the day with last minute wagons, you'd probably already have been lynched today. Why do you hate them?

[Plessiez]

@Plessiez: He answered the questions I posed to him about the contradictions, and I accepted those answers.

As I said already (in 754), those answers ... don't really work? I don't understand why you accepted them.

It feels like you're doing what I accused Mhork of doing earlier -- at first, you each made "hmm, I wonder" posts in regards to the cases on the other. But when push came to shove, you both suddenly "realised" you were actually reading the other as town. This is not exactly making me glad I unvoted you.

At to last-minute wagons, look at Baby Spice's lynch wagon and tell me what you learned about alignments from it. If I were lynched earlier in the day you would've been able to do some wagon analysis.

You misunderstand me, perhaps.

I know last minute lynches are (in general) a bad idea. I believe I argued against trying to get a last minute lynch on Baby Spice precisely for these reasons (I said such a lynch would probably only go through if she were town, and that if she was town we would learn nothing from her lynch, if I remember rightly). So that's not my point.

I questioned your stance on last-minute wagons, because it seems disingenuous, on your part, that you actively encouraged people to keep the day going as long as possible, that you have now started to push a last minute lynch on D3f3nd3r -- and that you nonetheless chime in with "oh, wow, I hate last minute lynches". As I've said of your posts before, it reads like posturing. You are pushing a last minute lynch yourself. Telling us you "hate" them does not seem genuine. Why did it take you so long to decide D3f3nd3r was scummy?

[Plessiez]

Either way Saulres and D3f will both have to prove themselves sooner rather than later...
i know that D3f usually sits on the sidelines either way, whereas Saul has the capabilities to prove is town (if he is)

This sounds a lot like saying you'd rather keep saulres around because he's a better player than D3f3nd3r .

(How exactly are you hoping saulres will "prove" himself as town? If you look at his scum games, it's clear he's capable of sounding very townish as scum.)

So bottom line pref-wise:

Mhork
D3f
Saul

This essentially makes a saulres lynch impossible today . People who'd prefer a Mhork lynch should switch off saulres now.

fails to come up with strong-reads as both alignments.

Had some time, and I'm not seeing that.

[spoiler="Links to some scumreads D3f3nd3r's made in other games]Town Game 1:
"Nocmen, in the last few pages feels scummy."

"I'm really thinking N is scum, but based on his join date (three weeks ago) he MIGHT (no guarantees) just be VI."

Town Game 2:

Reads including scumreads

Town Game 3:

"I'm gonna make it clear that Espeonage self-quarantining page 3 or 4 or something is a pretty bad scumslip."

"I feel that the scummiest people currently are Phillammon and Drmyshotgun."

Town Game 4:

Reads including scumreads

Scum Game:

I'm thinking that Psyche and you are scumbuddies.[/spoiler]

In this game? Everyone's town for him except Mhork who's leaning a little less than town, maybe.

Heh. Do you realise what you did here? You forgot to argue for your point ("D3f3nd3r's lack of scum-reads is suspicious") and argued against the literal text of what I said ("D3f3nd3r fails to come with reads as both alignments"). But if you can find as many scum-reads in his scum game as you can in most of his town games, what possibly makes you think that this an alignment tell?

(But also, seriously? One example, perhaps two, of reading people as scum

all game

is not suggestive of an active scum-hunting style.)

I see what you're saying here, and I'd like to defend by saying that I don't believe I have ever gone out of my way to defend a scumbuddy when it looks like he's going down. You can check in the scum games I linked you to if you'd like. I haven't said that Mhork is town, I said that I'd rather lynch D3f3nd3r than Mhork.

You said you "don't think" he's scum. Let's not split hairs. (Also, "I don't defend my scumbuddies as scum! check my meta!" is probably not a card you should play as the same time as "I'm not defending Mhork!").

Mhork's extreme buddying of me in posts like 780 is going to look bad for me if he flips scum, but

there are so many people thinking I'm scum already that I expect to be mislynched tomorrow if I'm not today

, so I'm not sure it matters.

I honestly don't understand why you'd say the bolded as town. It's clear you're not going to be lynched today. Once again, you're playing the AtE card: "Oh, I'm so sad because I'm going to be mislynched, nothing I do really matters ". You had all of day 2 to find a better case. And you opted for a last-minute push on D3f3nd3r, for coasting and being useless. Duly noted.

Approx 10hrs remain till deadline.

Everyone in this game has failed horribly

. saulres isn't getting lynched today. Votes should go to Mhork or D3f3nd3r (better Mhork, but D3f3nd3r is a much better choice than no lynch at all.)

[Plessiez]

We have less than five hours left.

I hate you all.

(Going out for a bit, but I

will

be back before the deadline.)

[Plessiez]

I'm Moe. I'm a one shot bus driver.

Didn't you claim earlier that your role fit "fairly well" with your name? How does "Moe" fit "bus driver"?

(Also, the tone of this post sounds far more like frustrated scum than town.)

[Plessiez]

Yeah, thought I remembered this:

Mhork, is your role name as obvious as you thought my was for the role you have?

(That is: s it as obvious as "Flanders = Friendly Neighbour"?)

Honestly mine actually matches up fairly well.

How does "Moe" fit "bus driver"? At all?

[Plessiez]

Mhork

, did you use your power last night? (If so, on who?)

[Plessiez]

Because I can pull the old switcheroo to trick the bad guys. I crumbed in my first post. Flaming referring to flaming moes (the drink) and I mention a bus.

The breadcrumbs are there, yeah. But since the current set-up speculation points to a scum bus driver, that's not so great for you.

I still don't understand why you insisted your role matched your name "fairly well" if it didn't. Explain that again?

(You seem genuinely annoyed that D3f3nd3r isn't being lynched despite his awful contributions, but ... the game isn't about lynching the people who contribute or post the least? I think you're more likely to be scum than D3f3nd3r is. Why is D3f3nd3r claiming Flanders actually scummy, for instance?)

[Plessiez]

EBWOP: How come you're around, anyway? In 785 you said you'd miss the deadline "because of school". But you showed up within ten minutes of fitz claiming an intention to hammer .

Was 785 just an excuse to lurk for the rest of the day, are you missing school, or what?

[Plessiez]

saulres

-- where exactly did your idea of a scum bus driver come from, anyway? You first suggested it in 716. Looking back, I don't at all understand the thought process that led you to this conclusion.

And now it turns out there

is

a bus driver, so ... was that just a lucky guess, or is there something I'm missing? Please explain.

[Plessiez]

@D3f3nd3r

: If you're town, please don't ever do this again. If you want to watch to see what happens, ask for access to the dead thread. Only sign up to play the game if you're actually going to, y'know, play the game.

Seconded. (Don't do it again even if you're scum this game, frankly. It's irritating, whatever your alignment might be.)

As I saw my theory of the name/power swaps seeming to take hold, I started Googling for who might have been the PGO, somehow stumbled on Otto, and thought "Oh! That would explain everything neatly!" (I'm now thinking the PGO is Moe, BTW. I think that makes sense.)

I think ... lots of people could be the PGO, really. Moe is certainly more likely than Otto, though . I'm not sure there's any merit in speculating at this point.

What does Mhork's claim mean to you? (If he's town, and telling the truth, guille dying can't be explained by a scum bus driver ... unless there's a different character who makes sense as a bus driver, but meh.) Do you still think Mhork is "not scum"?

[Plessiez]

Clearing up the "not scum" thing first: My

exact

quote was "The reason I would vote for Mhork would be because his flip would be more informative than D3f3nd3r's, not because I think he's scum." What's meant by that is, as compared to when I place votes because I believe someone's scum, if I had voted for him it would have been for his flip information, and not for a scumread. I don't know what Mhork's alignment is, and I look forward to finding out.

Except you followed up that quote, in the same post, with "Do you think it's better to vote for

someone I don't think is scum

for information..."

You pretty clearly gave a town-read on him, I think. Meh. Waiting for flips is awful .

[Plessiez]

... that is not the kill I was expecting .

Oh well. At least I didn't start writing up my triumphant "aha, look, saulres and Mhork were obviously partners!" post in advance . Going to have to reread, I guess.

sword of omens is obviously

obviously

town at this point, though. Think that's pretty certain. Can't see any reason for him to push a wagon on Mhork when he did if he's scum. So that means scum is in {D3f3nd3r, havingfitz} or at least one of my town-reads is badly wrong...

[Plessiez]

Pless...why do you include me with D3f3nd3r in your scum grouping?

Because I have everyone else as a semi-strong to strong town-read?

I've had strong-ish town reads on Rufflig and DoubleJD since day 1. I think qwints is town because of the way in which he claimed (and because it fits in with the setup speculation). As I said before (though I remember saulres disagreed), Klick/Phill don't seem to make sense as scum if saulres was town. (Klick seemed genuinely annoyed by the game when he replaced out, and I don't think you were annoying him enough to explain that if he was part of a scum-team that didn't include saulres). And as I say above, sword had no reason to even think of voting Mhork when he did if he's really scum.

So PoE seems to point to you or D3f3nd3r as scum.

Though, yeah, it's an even weirder kill if you're scum, really, since it seems to be an invitation for people to wonder if you were really lying about being blocked. No idea how much D3f3nd3r is even reading the game at this point, so I wouldn't put anything past him as scum.

But meh. Probably I am wrongly town-reading at least one person. Going to have to go and reread everyone, I suppose.

DoubleJD is, from memory, the only person I was mostly town-reading on gut alone., so I'll start with him...

[Plessiez]

however, i'm gonna say that Fitz probably is town seeing as he hammered at deadline, when he could have easily stated that he couldn't have gotten on-line in time or some other excuse.

I don't think this is enough to clear fitz at all.

Saulres was around at deadline, and could easily have hammered if fitz had refused (or simply failed) to do so. And if fitz had given a (weak) excuse for not voting Mhork he would have looked pretty suspicious when Mhork ultimately flipped scum. So fitz is certainly still a suspect, I think.

But D3f3nd3r is definitely the more suspicious of the pair. Might explain Mhork's "this isn't fair, why me and not D3f3nd3r!" post near the end, too. Gah. I dunno.

[Plessiez]

Had a quick reread of DoubleJD in iso.

Didn't really help much - there's not anything in there that means he

has

to be town, and he certainly was something of a non-presence on day 2, but ... I still like his posts, agree with his reasoning and think he feels townish? Meh.

Reread Mhork, too, and couldn't see any obvious links to anybody else. But he coasted so much, it would be optimistic to hope for any.

I'm going to go back and look at how the Mhork wagon developed, and see if that's more informative.

@MOD: Can you update the first post with links to all the vote-counts, please?

VOTE: Phillammon

Because?

Havingfitz, do you still think that, as you got no message and saulres was town, saulres must have been RBed?

[Plessiez]

He makes D3f3nd3r the leading wagon. He hedges on the townie and defends scum.

What's your read on D3f3nd3r?

[Plessiez]

Slightly annoyed by the fact D3f3nd3r has made several posts on-site today, but hasn't bothered to check into this game. I mean, he's either lurking scum or apathetic town, but it's not really going to be fun trying to figure out which.

y own power continues to be predictably useless.

I don't think I've asked before - do you know the name of the player you are trying to mazonize? Do you know if they know you are seeking them?

Also, note that Mhork flipped both Godfather

and

bus driver. "Bus driver" makes sense if we believe saulres's theory about names and roles being shuffled. But "Godfather" seems pretty clearly linked to Fat Tony.

I wouldn't normally suggest this so early, but might a mass name-claim make sense at this point? If saulres's theory is correct, then every real name corresponds to a role somebody else in the game actually has, so a name-claim would be somewhat more informative than usual. If player A claims a name that matches up very well to player B's role, then B can be fairly sure A is telling the truth. Given Mhork's flip and fake-claim, it's possible the scum don't have good names to claim that would match up to any real role.

(Also, believing in saulres's theory is apparently the only thing I've done right this game, so it's tempting to see if it can be of any further use.)

On the other hand, we've still (apparently?) not seen any sign of these secondary win conditions the mod threatened. So maybe saulres was also right about there being a lyncher in this game . Thoughts?

[Plessiez]

Hey there..
Am here now.. So 34 pages are too long to catch up...but Is there any quick review or post or something else that can help to get some understanding on whats going around. Please...

Why did you replace into a game which you thought would be impossible to catch up on?

34 pages really isn't much, honestly, and -- especially now that saulres is dead -- the activity of the thread is not high, so you should be able to catch up fairly easily if you try. (You can skip all my long posts explaining why saulres is scum, if you must, because they were wrong and he isn't. That'll trim a few pages off, probably.)

Rufflig's summary in 845 is all right as far a summary goes, but you obviously aren't going to get any new insights or ideas if you just rely on somebody else's account.

Prod dodge.

I feel lost. I have no clue who to go for now.

This isn't helping anybody.

If you think everyone is town, perhaps you can try to explain why (one sentence for each). At the very least that will give the rest of us some insight into your thought processes this game (and if you're town, it might help you reassess your reads).

[Plessiez]

Between the two, only Rufflig and Havingfitz were on both lynches.

Why is "being on both lynches" scummy? Is this something you've got a reason to expect scum to be doing? (Is it relevant that one was a scum-lynch and the other was a mislynch?)

Also:

qwints was also on both wagons, why ignore him?

Yeah .

What do you think about the fact that Klick/Phill was on neither wagon?

Don't have time for reads right now, but I should be able to tonight.

I look forward to your reads.

(I'd also like more reads from other people, and more people to chime in on the name-claim idea -- I know Rufflig doesn't think it's a good idea, but what do other people think?)

[Plessiez]

Haven't really been giving this game the attention it deserves recently. Sorry everyone. Not sure I'll have time to look at things seriously until the weekend, but I can manage a quick post or two before then.

D3f3nd3r is being incredibly unhelpful (promising reads and not delivering, not explaining why "being on both lynches" is scummy, repeatedly prod dodging, ...). Tempting to vote for him by default, really, but I'd rather wait until I've had the chance to properly reread.

I really don't think I want to vote for Rufflig today. Certainly not just because of VCA. The rest of his day 1 play (especially the unprompted claim) just seems so townish. Also not voting for qwints or sword today. Will reread everyone else before placing a vote.

[Plessiez]

Had time to look at a couple of people in some more depth.

Klick/Phillammon

Overview

:

Klick was never very active before replacing out - in fact, most of his day 1 posts are angry reponses to people complaining about his lack of activity. He had only one big post with reads and ideas: 325. I've said before I'd find his replacing out as scum pretty odd (and why be angry about being called out for being unhelpful if you're not really interestd in helping the town?), but I don't really know how 14 year olds think I guess?

Klick's replacement, Phill, gave a big reads post that basically ignored the big saulres case (he claimed to be baffled that saulres had got to L-1, but never seriously looked at the reasons people gave for suspecting him). He town-read Mhork, and voted for D3f3nd3r over him. Like basically everyone in the game, his activity has not been great today.

Votes

[Day 1] Klick (8), DoubleJD (32), saulres (325). Ztife (336), guille (367).
[Day 2] saulres (461), [replacement] D3f3nd3r (767)

Interactions with Mhork

:

Klick had very little to say about Mhork.

Didn't comment on guille's early case on him except to say it "didn't feel fake" (and made guille a town-read, though he ignored this later).

Post 323 is the only post of Mhork's Klick ever responded to directly. Judge its merits for yourself.

Klick had Mhork as a null read in 325.

Phill gave a (relatively weak) town-read on Mhork in his big replacing-in post 698. (I didnt like his reasons for town-reading Mhork then, and I don't like them now.) Maintained this read in 767.

(Mhork had one vote by 698, and I'd said he might be a good alternative to saulres. I'd gone as far as voting for him by 767 but nobody else had.)

On the other side of things ... Mhork voted for Klick in 17 "for the self-vote". (This was the reason guille didn't like him originally; guille pointed out Mhork had seen Klick self-vote before.) When pressed, he said the self-vote was really null.

Other than pressing Klick to be more active once, that's the only interaction Mhork had with Klick's slot.

Other

:

Yet to claim a name or a role.

Conclusions

Given the lack of interaction between them, and the fact they each read each other as null, I can definitely see Mhork and Klick as partners. It might also explain why Mhork voted for him early on (it was a meaningless early vote, the sort I think some people like to place on their partners early in the game). This is obviously also consitent with Phill town-reading Mhork and voting for D3f3nd3r rather than him.

Reminder to self

-- look for games in which Mhork was scum. Does he seem to fit this pattern (of ignoring scum-buddies for most of Day 1, perhaps after voting them in RVS)?

Would definitely be willing to vote for Phill. Won't compare to anybody else until I've looked at my other suspects.

Still to look at: {D3f3nd3r, havingfitz, DoubleJD/ArcAngel}

[Plessiez]

D3f3nd3r

Overview

Prod-dodge. Town-reads everyone. Prod-dodge. Very frustrating. He spent day 1 defending his early-game suggestion of a mass name-claim, and day 2 insisting that the saulres wagon was bad (although he never gave an alternative -- didn't even vote Mhork when pressed). Was on the BabySpice mislynch, but otherwise hasn't cast a serious vote all game.

Votes

[Day 1] DoubleKD (7), Baby Spice (445)
[Day 2] no votes!

Interactions with Mhork

In 127 he notes that Mhork, unlike D3f3nd3r himself and unlike Ztife, has got very little negative attention for his (weak) support of a mass name-claim.

In 651 he names Mhork as the least town-looking person, although he's only "pretty null". No scum-read, no vote. Nobody was voting for Mhork at the time, though Mhork was voting for D3f3nd3r.

In fact, Mhork had been pushing D3f3nd3r for a while. He talked about "liking [saulres's] D3f3nd3r case" in 265 (despite the fact saulres had claimed it was a fake case, meant as a trap).

Mhork voted for D3f3nd3r in 484 because of the "weird" name claim. He then say on that vote for the rest of the day. Could be scum trying to distance, sure, but ... I dunno. Not sure it feels like that, the way it all evolved.

Other

Claimed Flanders in 480 in response to Mhork's speculation about saulres's role-name being obvious.

Was (obviously) suspected by saulres, which could be a motive to kill him? (If a motive beyond "he might have been able to prove he was town" is needed, that is. Not sure that it is though.)

Conclusion

I'm not convinced D3f3nd3r makes sense as a partner to Mhork. Mhork actually had the chance to hammer saulres on day 2, but instead kept pushing the D3f3nd3r wagon. Since saulres was town, this seems a very odd thing to do if D3f3nd3r is actually scum. Not saying that scum definitely wouldn't distance like this, but meh. I'd think D3f3nd3r would be more enthusiastic about scum-reading Mhork if they were partners deliberately attacking each other as part of a strategy?

D3f3nd3r's only scum-game seems to be New York 152

He was a late game replacement, and didn't make many posts. But I don't think his play was all that similar to this game. He had scum-reads [on a townie and on the rival scum team], he voted people, and he didn't ever seem to give up and suggest people vote for him (as he has in this game).

Throw into that the fact that D3f3nd3r was the only serious counter-wagon to Mhork once the saulres wagon collapsed yesterday, and ... yeah, really don't think this works. The scum ignored the chance to hammer saulres, and didn't find a single townie to push as a mislynch?

(I still think the unprompted Flanders claim looks townie, too.)

I'm really starting to believe that D3f3nd3r is just lazy/unmotivated town. He could be scum, sure. But he's not my top suspect.

Reminder to self 2

-- while looking for Mhork's scum games, see if he's ever pushed a partner like this on day 2. As scum, is he more willing to agree with cases on his scum-buddies than is sensible?

Current scum-reads

, S->W: Phill, D3f3nd3r

Still to look at: {havingfitz, DoubleJD/ArcAngel}

[Plessiez]

Maybe time for one more post today; this is probably it until Saturday though.

havingfitz

Overview

Opposed the saulres lynch on day 1, but (after being the target of saulres's action), was an early voter for saulres. Spent a lot of time bickering with Klick about the latter's low activity. Ultimately ended up hammering Mhork. Generally quite snarky/touchy, but I'm not sure if that's an alignment-tell or not (probably just a personaility thing, really).

Votes

[Day 1] Baby Spice (23), Guille (90), Ztife (195), Baby Spice (398). Ztife (418), Baby Spice (423)
[Day 2] saulres (594), Mhork (806)

Interactions with Mhork

He hammered him, of course. Think it's probable saulres would have done so anyway if needed, but maybe not.

Otherwise...

Not much interaction on day 1. (I think fitz first address Mhork in 408, and they're just talking about the chance of getting a late-in-the-day lynch through). Doesn't comment on the merits of guille's case on him (though he did agree with me that guille was suspicious, early on).

Attacks Mhork's reasoning in 594, and tells him he should replace out if town in 695.

(This prompted a "screw you" from Mhork in 712 -- don't know how genuine that sounds. Otherwise Mhork really didn't interact with fitz much.)

Rereading, fitz never really explains

why

he'd be good with a Mhork lynch. Feels like this is a town-tell, too, though. Suspect scum bussing a partner would be eager to explain why they think their partner is suspicious, not just go "oh, this is better than nothing and I don't like the people in the other wagon".

Other

No role or name claimed.

Claims not to have received the town-confirmation that saulres sent him. Since saulres was town, this means some role interfered, or fitz is lying.

Gut feeling is that I don't think he is lying about this (which doesn't rule him out of being scum, of course). The denial came very quickly. Wouldn't expect scum to spontaneously lie about this. And while it might have been planned in advance ("if saulres says he sent the conirmation to me, I'll lie and get him lynched"), that doesn't seem all that likely, especially given havingfitz's earlier read on saulres and the fact Mhork as scum was still pushing the "saulres is obviously a mislynch" option.

Conclusions

sword_of_omens might be right that fitz could have gotten away with not hammering Mhork. If so, that strongly points against from them being buddies. The switch to BabySpice at the end of day 1 is also probably something scum would be less likely to do -- since guille was innocent, it would have been easier and attracted less attention to just stick with guille as the default day 1 lynch after Ztife claimed Cop.

He could be lying about not getting town-confirmation on saulres, sure, but I think some sort of scum RBer (or Mhork's bus driver power) is a more explanation for now.

The arguments with Mhork and Klick could be contrived, but the frustration with their lack of activity seems genuine (and, since saulres seemed to be heading for a lynch, scum had no real reason to be opposed to the inertia or want people to become more active).

Won't be voting for him today.

Current scum-reads

S->W: Phill, D3f3nd3r, havingfitz,

Still to look at: DoubleJD/ArcAngel

[Plessiez]

What have I done to deserve this?

That question captures my sentiments about this game pretty well, at this point.

i am Beloved Princess..if you kill me, Mafia wins.. so don't rush!

Why did you claim now, when you weren't in any real danger of being lynched?

What is the name of your character?

[Plessiez]

Final reread of the set.

DoubleJD/ArcAngel

Overview

I had DoubleJD as a town-read from at least the middle of day 1. He seemed active and engaged in the game, and he seemed to suspect the people I suspected too (that's mainly saulres). He became a bit of a non-entity on day 2, however, though he did have time to vote Mhork instead of D3f3nd3r. His replacement has just now claimed Beloved Princess - not sure why.

Votes

[Day 1] Mhork (20), Saulres (146), D3f3nd3r (421), guille (441)
[Day 2] saulres (536), Mhork (791)

Interactions with Mhork

Voted him twice. Once as a joke vote in RVS, then as the fifth vote (of six required to lynch) in 791. Could be bussing, but he had talked about Mhork as a scum-read before (and, having already claimed to be busy in RL, might have got away with just sticking on saulres, honestly).

He had Mhork as a suspect pretty consistently, from early on in the game. Could easily be an attempt at distancing, I suppose, but his reasons for suspecting Mhork (as given in 613) seem genuine and honestly thought out.

(I've gone back and forth on this a lot, really. A couple of points suggest distancing - his reasons for voting Mhork early on seem a bit confused, and he never really tried to get Mhork lynched himself until joining the wagon at the end of day 2. This included voting for guille at the very of Day 1, even though he didn't seem to suspect him and might have had time to bring up Mhork as an alternative to Baby Spice. On the other hand, the fact his reasoning matches my own so well as regards {saulres, Mhork, D3f3nd3r}, means it's very easy for me to read it as town-thinking.)

Mhork never really talked about DoubleJD at all, except to respond to questions DoubleJD asked (specifically, in 21, 177 and 420). Again, this could suggest a fairly inexperienced scum player who only remembered he shouldn't ignore his partner when his partner directly addressed him. But that's not how I'm reading it, myself.

Other

ArcAngel just claimed Beloved Princess, of course. That's the big issue, and it's obviously going to have an influence on how I read the slot.

Conclusion

Rereading his day 1 posts DoubleJD still feels like town to me. Difficult to put my finger on why: I think I just like the feel of his posts. He seemed to honestly be playing the game and trying to figure things out.

On day 2 he coasted a bit (and he could hide behind his claimed saulres scum-read as an excuse to not talk about or push his other suspects). But he still joined the Mhork wagon at a good time (and in circumstances such that he could possibly have gotten away with not bothering).

Not sure if my doubts about the slot are born of paranoia or just good sense. My town-read on him is much more based on gut feelings than I'd like. Logically, there's not really any reason at all to clear him that I can see.

Willing to let my gut sway me for now, but we'll see what I feel about his replacement.

Current scum-reads

S->W: Phillammon, D3f3nd3r, DoubleJD, havingfitz

[Plessiez]

Reminder to self -- look for games in which Mhork was scum. Does he seem to fit this pattern (of ignoring scum-buddies for most of Day 1, perhaps after voting them in RVS)?

Only scum game of Mhork's I've found is Open 458.

There was no real attempt to bus his partner in this game. They had a bit of a fake argument at the start of day 1

Mhork counter-claimed the Seer on day 2 and was lynched. At first, he defended his partner (or at least, attacked the real Seer's case on him). He only started talking about Empking as a suspect once it was clear he was going to be lynched himself.

All told, this behaviour seems to support the idea that Phill is scum with Mhork (as Mhork mostly ignored Klick on day 1), and weakened the idea that D3f3nd3r is scum (as Mhork certainly didn't bus in Open 458).

Waiting for ArcAngel to answer my questions about her claim before I vote (and I'd like more reads from D3f3nd3r and from Phill), but for now:

Won't be voting for

: sword_of_omens, qwints, TheRufflig, havingfitz

Willing to vote

: Phillammon, D3f3nd3r, ArcAngel

[Plessiez]

Just what do you expect to gleam from a name claim? Lord Mhork was able to claim a major character name. I'm willing to bet that the scum have fake claims.

Scum might have fake-claims. Not sure yet. (If Mhork knew in advance he was going to claim Moe when he needed to name-claim, why insist earlier in the game that his name fit his abilities "pretty well"?) Might go and check to see if SAD is in the habit of handing out fake-names as a mod, actually. (Moe isn't really a "major character" either, is he?)

The possibility of mod-given safe fake-names is a reason not to automatically trust somebody just because they claim a plausible character name. It isn't a reason to not give your character name when you claim at all. A name-claim is another bit of information to think about in evaluating a claim. Not decisive information, sure, but still useful all the same.

And since Arcangel is a replacement and has yet to really give reads on anybody (besides an as-yet-unfulfilled promise to look at Phill and D3f3nd3r), we need all the information we can get at this point.

[Plessiez]

I had good reason to claim, I was going away for the weekend and i didn't want to be killed in my absence, If i hadn't claimed I am sure one or other mafia members would have pushed for my lnych.

There was no chance at all you were going to be lynched over the weekend. Games do not progress at that speed, we're nowhere near deadline, and (as I said) your slot wasn't even that suspected.

Why does my role is so importatnt, if you think i am lying then you're wrong. Iam telling you the truth.

What is the name of your character? What exactly happens if you are lynched?

If you're town, you have a responsibility to answer questions like this and to

convince

people you are telling the truth. It's not enough to just say you are doing it.

[Plessiez]

Ahem.

What is the name of your character? What exactly happens if you are lynched?

[Plessiez]

How does it makes any difference?

If you don't think it makes a difference, you have no reason not to tell me .

It makes a difference to whether or not I believe your claim. People have character names for a reason. In the pages of the game you've apparently still not bothered to read, people spent some time speculating about how names and roles fit together in this game. This speculation is likely to be a key part of how we figure out the exact bastard nature of this game and may well help us catch scum. So I want to know what your character name is (or at least what you want me to believe it is).

Claim your name, or give me a reason for not doing so.

[Plessiez]

I think my character info is TMI, Your insist of getting my details seems fishy to me.

...

Have you ever played in or bothered to read any theme games ever?

[Plessiez]

Plessiez, what do you think about the implications of Mhork's fake claim for the current role spec?

Hmm. I'd rather not go into specifics on this until Arcangel has name-claimed. A name-claim after I've properly answered your question will be less interesting to me than one that comes before I do that. But I don't want to hold things up too long either, so I'll give her until her next post or a couple of hours, and then answer you in some more detail.

In brief, I think Mhork's fake name-claim, together with his actual flip, means that saulres's theory has to be tweaked a bit from how I originally understood it (how exactly I'll explain when I next address this), but otherwise it's still viable. More than viable, even: I think it's pretty convincing. (I can't understand why, otherwise, Wiggum wouldn't be the Cop or why Dr. Nick would be the Friendly Neighbor, and so on.).

[Plessiez]

But I don't want to hold things up too long either, so I'll give her until her next post or a couple of hours, and then answer you in some more detail.

Make that "some time after I wake up tomorrow", actually.

[Plessiez]

if she's NK'd we might (or might not) skip the following day phase, depending on the mod...

If Arc's town and she's

that

sort of Beloved Princess, she had even less reason to claim than I thought . (But, obviously, she shouldn't say if she is or isn't now - not something we'd want the scum to know.)

Slightly inclined to believe the claim too, despite the lack of name, simply because the random and unprompted claim is something I'd expect from her as town (I've seen her in a couple of games I've read, not played with her before). And I do still have a gut town-read on DJD (though I agree with fitz that, logically, DJD's posts make sense if he was Mhork's partner).

On the other hand, I've never seen ArcAngel as scum, and clearing somebody for bad play on the basis that you don't expect much from them in the first place is a bit dubious. And I'm not sure how "Beloved Princess" fits in with the setup-speculation I've been pondering, either ... of which, more next post.

[Plessiez]

Plessiez, what do you think about the implications of Mhork's fake claim for the current role spec?

Arc hasn't claimed a name yet, but I've put this off long enough. Apologies in advance for the wall.

Saulres' theory (as given in 718) was that the mod had picked out some characters with "obvious" roles (like Otto as a Bus Driver, Dr. Nick as an (insane?) Doctor, and so on), worked out the roles on this basis, but then randomly mixed roles and character names. Based on my own role/name and on the flips we had up to that point, this theory seemed quite promising. And when Mhork first claimed "Bus Driver" (and not-Otto) I was even more convinced. But Mhork's actual flip doesn't quite fit the theory.

The salient facts seem to be:

• Mhork was Godfather and his character name (Fat Tony) fit that exactly.
  
• As well as being Godfather, Mhork also had the "Bus Driver" role that the theory would predict had come from Otto.
  
• Earlier on day 1, in 489, Mhork had claimed that his name and role matched up "fairly well".

From this last I'm assuming that Mhork had some reason to think names and roles "should" match up fairly well. And indeed, his character name does match (part of) his role fairly well. It's probable that the other scums' roles do as well. That would explain why Mhork thought they should, after all.

But note the twin blows to saulres's theory: first, Mhork's character matches up with the "correct" role - Godfather wasn't randomly given to somebody else. Okay, this by itself isn't fatal - depending on how he randomised, there was obviously some chance a character would wind up with their correct role again, and he might have allowed that to happen. But the second problem is: Mhork had

two

powers. One came from a different character (Bus Driver) and one came from his own (Godfather). So it can't be as simple as "characters and their roles were randomly shuffled" -- Mhork ended up with more abilities than this theory allows.

I think we can solve both problems in the theory in a fairly simple way.

Now, it's my belief that Mhork was given "Moe" as a safe fake-name by the mod. I think this is most likely (he did crumb it early on, and nobody counter-claimed), but I certainly can't prove it. If scum don't have safe fake-names, then my modified version of saulres's theory doesn't work. Let's assume they do.

This is how I now think the mod set things up.

First of all, he picked 13 characters with obvious roles, just as saulres suggested: Wiggum for a Cop, Flanders for a Friendly Neighbor, Otto for a Bus Driver, and so on. But these 13 characters were all obvious

town

roles. (Not Fat Tony yet.)

Then he shuffled roles and characters, again just like saulres thought. The Cop role that came from Wiggum ends up going to Rainier Wolfcaslte. The Friendly Neighbor role ends up going to Dr. Nick. And the Bus Driver role ends up going to Moe.

It's only at this point that the mod introduced the scum into the set-up. Somehow he picked out a few of the new name/role pairings (including "Moe the Bus Driver"). These characters were replaced by scum characters (so Fat Tony replaced Moe). Each of the scum had their own powers, if applicable (some might just be Goons, I guess?), but also kept the (new) powers of the characters they replaced: that's why we ended up with Fat Tony, Godfather + Bus Driver. The scum would also keep the name of the character they replaced, as a (very plausible) fake-name.

Still trying to work out all the implications of this. Don't think it's possible to break the set-up as such. But if I'm right, it means every role should match up to

some

character. And I'm not sure who makes sense as Beloved Princess . As I said, that's one reason I'm a bit doubtful of the claim (and it's why I wanted Arc to claim a name before I gave details).

The theory also suggests the scum-team might be fairly high-powered (if they each have multiple powers), or that several town players might have ended up with unhelpful, negative utility roles (because roles like that are much easier to fit to most of the characters in the Simpsons and otherwise there's an element of role madness that might make the game too town-sided). And it means we can already predict a lot of character names that people have left to claim (whether as real names or as a mod-given fake claims), simply from the flips so far. It would be a mistake to trust anybody on the basis of a convincing name claim (and I'm starting to have some doubts about D3f3nd3r's motives in wanting people to know he was Flanders).

Actually, I suspect that -- like saulres -- I'm thinking about this more because it's fun to try to out-guess the mod than because it will lead directly to catching scum. I don't have any idea how secondary winning conditions play into this at all, and I'm starting to doubt I will know that until the game ends.

Bit busy today, but I'll be sure to reread and place a vote for somebody before I go to bed tonight.

[Plessiez]

This is a counterclaim.

Ooh. So much for my setup-spec, then (maybe?).

Is there any reason it doesn't make logical sense to lynch Phill first, and then -- should Phill flip as he claims - lynch ArcAngel next? (Since Arc is claiming Beloved Princess, that seems the safer play off the top of my head.)

[Plessiez]

I'm Monty Burns, one shot gunsmith, and Mhork didn't have a gun.

You're saying that Klick investigated Mhork on night 1? Is that why you had a town-read on Mhork when you replaced in?

That seems ... awfully convenient. But (unless you're one of those lynchers that saulres was worried about) I'm not sure why you'd do this as scum. Gah.

[Plessiez]

Now I

really

need to go and check to see if SAD usually hands out fake-name-claims to scum. Because if he normally does, something is very odd indeed.

[Plessiez]

Have to go now. Won't be around for a few hours at least. Won't vote for anybody until I get back, though obviously it'll be for one of {Phill, Arc}.

Preference is still definitely for Phill first. Mislynching a gunsmith with no shots remaining hurts the town less than mislynching a Beloved Princess. (Plus, Phill can almost only be telling the truth if the mod didn't hand out safe fake-names, which ... ugh. Surely that's not the case? It would be fun to mock SAD for bad modding after the game though )

And yes, Arc handled her claim terribly, but ... as I think fitz himself said earlier ... that's far more to do with her as a player than it is an alignment tell.

(Also, ignore what I said about being fine with a Self-Lynch. I just realized something, quickly checking the rules to see if I can say it)

This is ... pretty much exactly what I'd expect you to say if you were scum . Have you checked the rules? What can you say?

[Plessiez]

Not much time to read the game today. Around for a little bit right now though. Will get caught up properly and try to piece things together tomorrow (or, failing that, over the weekend).

At least we can conclusively clear ArcAngel9.

Probably, but not "conclusively", right? (She could be scum who withheld a kill tonight, couldn't she? I mean, I don't really think that's at all likely, but it's possible, isn't it?)

I see. Any thoughts on havingfitz being the last scum? He was the only player to back Phillammon's claim and vote for ArcAngel9.

I don't think havingfitz and Klick argue about Klick's lack of activity on thread the way they do if fitz and Klick are partners. That's the obvious sticking point, I think. (I mean, yes, that sort of thing can be staged or faked, but Klick seemed genuinely irritated and that seems to be a large part of why Klick replaced out, so ...).

POE seems to point pretty squarely at D3f3nd3r today, but ... I dunno, feels a bit too easy? (It also means that no scum were on the day 2 Mhork wagon, which seems intuitively wrong, too).

[Plessiez]

with Phil's flip as scum, D3f is most likely town...

Explain?

[Plessiez]

As far as I can see, a deliberate withhold of a kill could only benefit qwints. As qwints could then claim to have stopped the kill -- sure it confirms ArcAngel as town, but we weren't going to lynch her after yesterday anyhow. The extra lynch would be a small price for qwints to pay to confirm his town status.

Qwints being scum and withholding is more likely than ArcAngel being scum and withholding, yeah.

Really not sure what's going on with the roles and stuff now. Something seems out of place, given all the information we now have.

Let's see. We know for a fact that saulres was really a Friendly Neighbor (and therefore presumably told the truth about targeting fitz on night 1). We know for a fact that guille and Ztife both died on night 1. We know for a fact that the mafia had a Bus Driver.

qwints claimed he tried to heal Ztife on night 1. fitz says he got no town-confirmation message from saulres.

The Bus Driver + qwints being insane would explain the death of guille, maybe. But then the mafia must also have had some other way of dealing with saulres, or fitz was simply lying.

Conversely, the bus driver could perhaps explain town!fitz not getting a message about saulres. But then how to explain the death of guille?

Is it possible qwints and fitz are both telling the truth? I think that's the key question. If I decide they both are, then I'll be voting for D3f3nd3r, basically because nobody else really seems to make sense at this point. But I'll need to think about it a bit first. More this weekend.

(Oh,

qwints

: were you not at all worried about the possibility you were insane? Wasn't targeting Arc last night a bit of a risk, if you hadn't ruled that out? And if you didn't think there was any chance you were insane, why not?)

[Plessiez]

D3f3nd3r is LA starting Feb 16, till 24

Other than missing a couple of belated "prod-dodges", I honestly don't think we'd have noticed without this warning.

I was pretty convinced scum would shoot at the basically confirmed ArcAngel (why would scum counter-claim scum), so I figured it was a pretty safe action

Hmm. I don't at all agree that Arc was "basically confirmed" immediately after the lynch.

Both Arc and Phill were under a lot of suspicion, and one of them was very likely to be lynched soon. Seems a potentially decent gambit to have one of them "counter-claim" the other, to my eyes. And it gives Phill some actual motivation to counter-claim in the first place which, otherwise, I really can't see him having a reason to do. Just very odd play from him, it seems. Might make more sense later, I suppose.

(She is essentially confirmed now, of course. Amazingly useless, but almost certainly town.)

I guess I can just about see you believing this, though. And I'm not sure I believe that you'd have tried withholding your kill as a gambit like this if you're scum. Any "town cred" you get is surely more than offset by the increased suspicion you draw and the fact it costs you another lynch.

What do you think happened on night 1?

I agree that we should analyze the claimed night actions, but I have a really tough time seeing HF as scum. Why in the world would the scum team kill saulres if it implicated one of their own?

I don't believe fitz is scum either, as I've said. If it's not D3f3nd3r (which I think it probably is, really, since being an "easy target" doesn't actually make you town and I have reasons to clear literally every other player in the game) then I think it's more likely you than anybody else. But I'm not really feeling that.

I dont watch Simpsons, so who is Flanders? Is it a name suitable for Town or Mafia role? And how sure are we that he is telling us the truth?

... honestly have no idea why you signed up to play this game. You don't know the flavour, you're not interested in rereading the pages you missed, and you expect other people to spoon-feed you the most basic of things. How hard would it have been to look this up for yourself? Literally can't see what you think you're putting into this game or what you're getting out of it .

And what is the possibility of scum in them? could it be one or two?

If there's more than one scum left, we'd have started with 4 mafia in a 13 player game. Don't believe that that's

at all

likely.

[Plessiez]

Plessm, Whats your point? i still don't get it. so you call me scum

Um. No I don't. Look:

(She is essentially confirmed now, of course. Amazingly useless, but almost certainly town.)

Are you even reading my posts?

Give me one good reason why you're not scum?

Difficult to grasp though you seem to find the concept, it isn't actually my job to play the game for you. Try reading the thread.

@Plessiez: I know you have havingfitz as a town read because of his irritation with klick's lurking. May I point out that havingfitz had no problems with D3f3nd3r's lurking? havingfitz could easily have been telling his scum buddy to stop lurking because he was attracting attention to himself.

Don't think I see this. While it's certainly true that fitz complained most vocally about Klick, Klick was the only person to really properly lurk on day 1 (D3f3nd3r and Mhork were certainly both more active that day). It also seems a bit strange that fitz, if he's scum, would draw attention to the fact that

both

his partners were lurking in this sort of way (and really, I don't think scum!fitz would have minded if his partner Klick was lurking). Plus, if you read Klick's final few posts and his evident anger at fitz ... does that sound like they're partners to you?

I'm happy to vote D3f3nd3r or Rufflig today.

Why Rufflig?

I predict a mass prod in your immediate future.

Heh. This seems a pretty safe bet, yes.

I'm not really thrilled by the fact that, as of yet, I've still got no real idea what the bastard nature of this game is supposed to be. I think my modified take on saulres's theory is just about still possible, though I'm not sure if there's anything we can do with it (especially since Phill obviously didn't reveal the fake-claim the theory assumes he had). Will be a bit miffed if the game ends up being decided by weird secondary winning condition nonsense I'm not privy too, but I guess that'd be my fault for signing up in the first place.

Still think I'd need a good reason not to vote D3f3nd3r today, but as he's not even around to claim I guess there's no rush. Will try to think about set-up possibilities a bit more.

[Plessiez]

Prod received.

Won't have any time to post today, but I'll try to give this game some better attention soon.

Still not persuaded by the havingfitz wagon. He could be scum, sure, but I still feel the fact he argued with Klick in-thread (which apparently caused Klick to angrily replace out) is a point towards him being town.

Would still prefer to lynch D3f3nd3r (or at least for him to be forced to talk more and explain himself before the day ends).

.

I can't get a solid read on sword, Mhork, D3f, or fitz. It's likely that there's exactly one scum in here.


Overall, the scum is split into these groups for me:

Two scum in pairs; either saul/guille or Ztife/Plez
One scum in {sword, Mhork, D3f, fitz}

Somewhat amusing in retrospect.

Er. I'm probably being dim here, but ... what makes this post amusing?

[Plessiez]

Was pretty annoyed to see that people rushed to end day 4 so early (we had, what, a week to go?). Especially since I'd just said I wouldn't have time to post for a day or so, but had stuff I wanted to read up on. Didn't think there was really much argument for lynching fitz before D3f3nd3r, and D3f3nd3r showing up during V/LA just to hammer was ... odd.

That said, the fact fitz turned out to be unlynchable (whether because of his own role or, perhaps, some other role's action) is very odd. Odd enough to make fitz my top suspect today, maybe. (Simplest explanation is that he was lying about his role, or at least lying about part of it. And why would anybody else want to make fitz unlynchable?)

However,

I think it's definitely time to mass-claim

today. I want to try to understand the "bastard" set up as much as possible, I want to know if saulres's theory about the roles was correct, and I want to see if we can figure out what happened on night 1. Any objections to doing this?

Janitor on Ruff? not that it really matters, i guess...

Pretty sure it was a Janitor, yeah. (And a Janitor would correspond to Groundskeeper Willie if we assume saulres's theory is correct.)

I'll wait til people check in, but I don't see a good reason not to lynch HF again.

If we can't figure out what's going on with the failure to lynch, yeah, lynching fitz seems to be the way to go.

fitz

-- do you have any suspects other than D3f3nd3r? Do you have any guesses as to why your lynch failed?

[Plessiez]

Couple more thoughts.

A Janitor kill on TheRufflig seems like a pretty odd move. He'd already claimed both his name and his role. Why use the Janitor ability? What exactly were we not meant to know? Because as far as I can tell, all the killer managed to do was reveal (or at least strongly suggest) that somebody in the game has a Janitor role .

I briefly wondered if maybe the lynch failed yesterday because of

who

was voting. But all four of {Rufflig, qwints, ArcAngel, D3f3nd3r} had been on successful lynch wagons before, so that seems unlikely.

So I'm assuming that either havingfitz is unlynchable and is lying about it,

or

that somebody in the game has the ability to make other people unlynchable (a Governer?).

Still think a mass-claim is a very good idea. In fact, I'm tempted to say that I won't vote today without one.

[Plessiez]

I am in favor of a mass claim. Should I?

Better to wait to see what sword and qwints say about a mass claim first, I think.

Don't claim yet (but I do think you should probably be first to claim if we all decide a mass-claim should go ahead).

fitz

-- do you have any idea why scum would govern your lynch and not govern Mhork's lynch or Phill's lynch? That's the main sticking block for me at the moment. (That and some specific setup-spec based stuff which I'd rather not go into detail on until we've either had a mass claim or decided we're definitely not having one.)

[Plessiez]

Not sure why we didn't wait for sword to approve a mass-claim before starting one, but oh well.

Don't see any sense in discussing whether claims make sense or not until the mass-claim is over. Why give people hints about what to claim?

I am a x-shot doc.

Wait... X means.. you're also an ODD shot doctor? You get to pick an alternative days and save someone? Is that what you're telling me?
that means D3 is falke claiming?

Being a X-shot doctor just means he has a finite number of shots (he knows how many, but hasn't claimed the exact number on thread). He hasn't said anything about having to act on odd-nights.

And again, there's no point discussing things like this

during

the mass-claim.

ok, i am back....

post incoming...

I think you're due to claim, actually.

[Plessiez]

I am Apu Nahasapeemapetilon,

Macho VT

.

That means that I'm basically a vanilla townie, except that I'm immune to any attempted protection from night-kills. (Thanks for the fun role, mod! .)

I think qwints still needs to name-claim, right? I'd like him to do that next.

[Plessiez]

Scum would have no reason to govern a town lynch at all

I think this is wrong (though I agree with the rest of your post).

Because the lynch on havingfitz failed, we just lost a chance to lynch. Yesterday we had seven people alive and it looked like we'd be able to lynch three more suspects (assuming one scum left). Today there are only six alive and we only get to lynch twice before the game ends. So there is some reason the scum might have governed a town!fitz. They could guess we'd lynch him again today, I guess?

But the thing that bothers me is: if scum have a governer, why did they pass on the chance to protect Mhork or Phill? That would have been at least as good for them.

I also don't think I believe scum have both a governer

and

a jailer left. Not as two separate players. Four scum in thirteen feels very scum-sided, even with the roles we've seen. We know from Mhork's flip that the scum might have two roles at once (he was both godfather + bus driver). So I think it's more likely that there's one scum alive, and that scum is either both lynchproof + janitor (if the last scum is havingfitz) or a governer + janitor (if havingfitz is town).

Although I guess it's also technically possible that it was Rufflig's own role that made him flip the way he did, and he lied about how his role worked (or didn't claim it fully) for some reason . Can't immediately think of a reason why he'd do this though. (Some sort of secondary winning condition thing, maybe?)

[Plessiez]

All I know is that I'm a bodyguard.

Just to clarify, does this mean that if you protect somebody and they are targeted for a NK, you die in their place?

Also, did you breadcrumb your role anywhere?

And, I am having trouble believing Plessiez's claim. I think he claimed that to stop me from protecting him and to get my protection somewhere useful.

I'm definitely not lying about my role. (I don't quite understand why you're saying I would, anyway -- if I really had a better role, or if I were scum, I would

want

you to protect me).

[Plessiez]

As for saulres's theory. Hmm. A few roles and names obviously match up very easily:

• Dr. Nick matches up with (some sort of?) Doctor.
  
• Flanders matches up with Friendly Neighbour.
  
• Otto matches up with Bus Driver.
  
• Professor Frink matches up with Inventor.
  
• Wiggum matches up with Cop.

But I'm not seeing a perfect fit, or even a near-perfect fit, for about half the claimed names, given the roles flipped and claimed. Some are possible (Moe as PGO or Vig? Apu as Bulletproof, maybe?), but there's not the same "of course!" feeling to them as the ones I list above. I guess it doesn't help matters that Phill died without using his "real" (mod-given) fakeclaim (assuming he had one).

Note also that nobody claimed Janitor (which would fit well with Groundskeeper Willie). So either Rufflig flipped the way he did for some other reason or the player with the Janitor role is claiming a role that (assuming the theory) won't match up to any claimed character. I suppose it's possible that Rufflig was actually third party (perhaps even a lyncher? a Name Cop?) and lied about his role, and his non-flip on death is a consequence of his real role. I really thought he was town though .

Something's not making sense here.

[Plessiez]

@Pless - what do you make of the Rufflig kill?

The decision to Janitor him (if that's what happened) is very strange. Honestly makes me wonder if the remaining scum is somebody who's not been paying enough attention to the game, and who simply didn't realise or remember that Rufflig had already claimed both his name and his role.

One other option, as I say above, is that Rufflig's non-flip

wasn't

caused by whoever killed him, but was a result of his role, which might have been something other than what he claimed. I can''t really think why he'd lie about it if he was town, though. And since he was the only NK last night, it's difficult to believe he was a member of the main scum team (besides, that would only be possible with four scum, which I think is very unlikely). So he'd have to be third party, I guess. Third party without any sort of kill, apparently . Not sure that I believe that's very likely.

As for the kill itself ... well, other than fitz nobody seemed to suspect Rufflig much, and yet he wasn't as likely to be protected last night as somebody like ArcAngel. It's not a hugely surprising death, I guess (there's a bit of WIFOM around the question "would scum!fitz kill one of his top suspects?", but I don't want to waste time trying to guess the answer to that).

[Plessiez]

I'm thinking my role has to do with Zitfe's character (big buff guy with accent).

Hmm. I could actually see Rainier Wolfcastle as being a character who inspired the "Governor" role (assuming that this role exists, for the sake of argument). After all, Wolfcastle is just a parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Schwarzenegger

was

Governor of California...

Of course, if this is true, then somebody is lying about their (shuffled character) role, and instead presumably claiming a power that comes directly from being scum (in the same way that Mhork had the Godfather power, seemingly directly from his character) or just making something up.

The claimed powers that would make sense coming directly from scum characters, and that don't match up to a character claimed already, are: Compulsive Vig (sword's claimed role), Bulletproof (havingfitz's claimed role) and Bodyguard (D3f3nd3r's claimed role). Don't believe sword is scum. That leaves fitz or D3f3nd3r, which isn't very helpful .

But I'll think about this a bit more and see if it goes anywhere.

ok...
i do think that there are 2 scum left.
3 scum out of 13 (23%) especially with scum having what looks like all 1-shots does not seem right...

If this is true, we're already in MYLO, right? Ugh.

I don't think 3 scum out of 13 is so bad (especially because we don't know what the third scum's power was yet, the PGO's role and my role are clearly negative utility, and the scum had a Godfather to counter the Cop). If not simply 3 out of 13, I think 3 scum + 1 third party make more sense than a single scum-team of 4. I mean, if that's the set-up, we could end up lynching correctly half the time and still lose. Doesn't that seem scum-sided to you?

I'm also going to try to look more closely into the idea that Rufflig might have been third party and lying about his role. Would be nice to think of a plausible explanation of his death and non-flip that didn't assume a Janitor.

[Plessiez]

Oh, and I've thought of a possible answer to my own earlier question ("if there's a Governor, why didn't he save Mhork or Phill?").

Some moderators require the Governor to send in an action

before

the lynch is secured (rather than during twlight). Actually, come to think of it, that's essentially how the only Governor I've ever seen on-site in a real game worked.

So the hypothetical scum Governor might simply not have been around when Mhork and Phill were lynched (or at least, not around enough to realise they were going to be lynched).

And, for reference:

D3f3nd3r's last post on day 2 was 764. At this point Mhork had only two votes on him. Certainly possible that D3f3nd3r left the thread not realising Mhork was going to be the lynch.

D3f3nd3r's last post on day 3 was 927, well before Phill counter-claimed Arc's name (it was before she'd even name-claimed, I think). So also possible that D3f3nd3r left the thread not realising Phill was going to be the lynch.

And D3f3nd3r was the hammer vote on day 4, of course, so he definitely knew that havingfitz was going to be the lynch. Hmm.

PS. Rereading the end of day 2, I realised that qwints joined the Mhork wagon (and, just as importantly, left the D3d3nd3r wagon) at a very crucial time. Pretty sure he's not scum, actually. At least not unless D3f3nd3r is scum, too, which would mean a four-player scum-team (and I think that would be too strong).

[Plessiez]

That's looking plausible, qwints, but I'm not sure it's entirely right.

I guess Smithers

is

a good guess for Phillammon's "real" fake-claim, given the presence of Burns in the game. Not sure it's the only option though.

I also do like the idea of Wolfcastle as Governor (but, admittedly, mostly because I was pleased with myself for thinking of it). Do you think there's no Governor? And if so, do you think that means fitz must be guilty? I'm having trouble seeing how he could be innocent unless somebody else forced his lynch to fail.

That means that gunsmith fits one of the claimed names we have and that someone made up a role.

In this scenario we find which of PGO, Vig, Beloved Princess and Gunsmith doesn't match up to Comic Book Guy, Krusty and Moe.

Am I missing something? We know PGO was a real role, because the PGO died and flipped. (PGO fits Moe quite well, too. Moe is certainly paranoid, and Moe certainly owns a gun.)

(I agree Gunsmith is probably a role that matches up to a non-mafia character, but remember that Mhork flipped with two roles: Godfather

and

Bus Driver. The remaining scum may also have multiple roles, one "real" and one coming from their scum character.)

[Plessiez]

Governor could be the Springfield mayor (Quimby?), but I don't see how he fits into the setup thoughts we're having.

I'm fairly sure there are only four options.

A) There is a Governor, it's a "normal" (mixed-up) role and it corresponds to Wolfcastle.
B) There is a Governor, but it's a scum-role (like Mhork's Godfather ability). It matches up to the real character-name of the remaining scum.
C) There is no Governor (so fitz's lynch failed for some other reason).
D) Our set-up speculation is entirely wrong.

[Plessiez]

Well, two things happened yesterday that require explanation - a janitor ability and a governor ability. Since Groundskeeper Willie would seem to be an obvious janitor, I think we're choosing between 2+3.

Right, that sounds reasonable. Getting a bit paranoid that Rufflig's non-flip might have been caused by something other than a Janitor, but I agree it's the logical explanation and is worth sticking with for now.

Also, who killed guile?

Sword claims to have killed guille on night 1. Or am I misunderstanding the question?

[Plessiez]

In this scenario we find which of PGO, Vig, Beloved Princess and Gunsmith doesn't match up to Comic Book Guy, Krusty and Moe.

Hmm. Isn't there a problem here? Even if you ignore the possible characters, we know that a PGO and a Gunsmith existed, because the people who had those roles have died and flipped already.

So if your analysis is correct, the only roles people could be lying about are Vig and Beloved Princess. Very unlikely ArcAngel is lying about Beloved Princess, unless she withheld and guessed that somebody would come forward with a healer claim, right? (Less likely with four scum, I suppose, but meh.) Also would mean Phill basically got himself killed just to play the WIFOM game, which seems doubtful.

But that means straight away, without even bothering to match up roles and characters, your analysis points to sword as the player who is lying. Do you really think he is? Because I don't.

(I suspect there's a mistake in your analysis, actually, because "Gunsmith" doesn't seem to fit

any

of those characters.)

[Plessiez]

I screwed that up in the night action chart. The question is instead: why did ztife die when I protected him when arcangel didn't?

Ah, right.

Well, the obvious guess is that you're some sort of Insane Doctor, right? 50% chance of healing, 50% chance of killing? That would fit with the character your role seems to be based on. You then happened to randomly "kill" Ztife (at the same time as the mafia did - the important thing is that your protection failed), and randomly protect Arc (stopping the mafia's kill). That sort of role makes the game awfully swingy, but it

is

a bastard game, so it's possible?

If you are a regular Doctor though (which is something we can't know for sure until the game ends, of course), I think it

has

to point to fitz as the last scum. Because what roles do the scum have? Mhork was Godfather + Bus Driver. Phill was Gunsmith. The other scum seems to have a Janitor ability, and perhaps one other, unknown ability. This unknown ability might be Governor or it might be some sort of RBer, but it surely can't be

both

.

If your kill failed because Mhork used his Bus Driver ability to direct protection away from Ztife, then we're left needing to explain two things.

* Why did fitz claim to get no message from saulres?
* Why did the attempt to lynch fitz fail?

If scum have a RBer, we can answer the first question without assuming fitz is lying scum. But we can't answer the second, because the scum have no roles left to use.

Equally, if the scum have a Governor, we can answer the second question, but we can't answer the first except by supposing fitz lied.

However, we

could

answer both questions by assuming that the "missing ability" is actually some sort of (1-shot, presumably?) lynch immunity and that fitz is the final remaining scum.

That said, I'm not quite convinced by this, simply because it feels so right that Dr. Nick

should

be some sort of Insane Doctor.

(But still, would scum who had a Bus Driver ability really want to use it on a Friendly Neighbor and risk the Cop they were trying to kill being protected by a Doctor? Hmm. Seems very risky.)

[Plessiez]

I'm definitely not in favour of ending today earlier than we have to. Particularly because we've yet to nail the set-up speculation stuff down in any real way. Right now, it seems that there's plenty of set-up reason to suspect fitz, but the only proper guess we've made about the allocation of roles seems to point to

sword

as being scum (hard though that is to believe). Need to try to reconcile these things.

I'd like to be able to sit down and come up with an explanation of the roles and night actions that is logically consistent and points to fitz as scum before I vote for him. And we have time to work on this. If fitz is the last remaining scum, it's just as easy to lynch him in a week as it is to lynch him now. If he's not scum, though, or if there's another scum alive, then we really shouldn't be in a hurry to end today early when there's plenty of things to talk through. We still might discover evidence pointing towards somebody else (either a partner or, if fitz is town, the real scum).

Plessie, I’v gone back and forth on over and over…I really do not like his Macho VT claim

Er. Why don't you like it, and why is this the first time you've said so?

With this possibly being mylo, I’ll let Plessie and Qwintz weigh in one last time (in case I might be missing something) before I place Fitz at L-1.

Why the hurry to place

anybody

at L-1 if you think this is mylo?

[Plessiez]

Also, is it just me or does the game not really feel that bastard yet? What have we seen so far? The game seems to be a bit role-heavy, bordering on role madness. Some of the roles are negative utility, including dumb stuff like PGO and Beloved Princess (not to mention my own role). Character names don't match up properly, as we're discussing. But

bastard

? Meh. Not seeing it at the moment.

In fact, I keep coming back to this post:

Notes:

• The setup is partly based on different agendas. So a player might have a secret agenda in addition to their factional win condition.

saulres was worried this might mean we had a lyncher (or, I guess, a town-aligned player with a lyncher wincon as an extra agenda). Has anybody thought about how this ties into his role shuffling theory?

I've already said that I don't have a hidden agenda myself. In fact, nobody has admitted to having one yet. This is a bit worrying because it suggests, to my mind, that all the hidden agendas are basically anti-town (or the people who have them fear that they will be seen as such). Or "don't reveal your agenda" is part of the agenda, I suppose, but that would be kind of rubbish on the mod's part, I think. Posting restrictions are a sign of flawed game design.

Hmm. Any chance that this ties into Rufflig's non-flip? He claimed "seeking masonizer" -- maybe he actually had a secondary agenda to find a specific character, and he didn't flip when he was killed because he had failed to find them?

Does anybody have any idea why, if the scum have a Janitor, they didn't use it on saulres? Or ... well, on

anybody

but Rufflig? Just doesn't seem to make sense.

[Plessiez]

It's possible to match all characters to claims while leaving out bullet proof - it's got some rough matches, but everything will.

Have you spelled out how in the thread? If not, would you mind doing so? I haven't been able to make this work, myself.

Does anybody have any idea why, if the scum have a Janitor, they didn't use it on saulres? Or ... well, on anybody but Rufflig? Just doesn't seem to make sense.

Could be that scum have a JOAT, but had other priorities...

But in that case, we've been going wrong in the set-up spec in assuming Janitor->Groundskeeper Willie, right?

And as you say, the choice to kill Rufflig is very odd. Something else to think about more carefully.

2. In my 127, I mentioned that I read Plessiez as town. That read stands strong.

Are you saying that this why you targeted me on night 1, instead of either saulres or Ztife? Because of that early town-read?

[Plessiez]

*ebwop* from 1194
Klick admitted in thread that he caught

Qwintz'

crumb of doc.

Did he actually admit this? I know he made some remark about having a town-read on qwints for secret reasons at the end of day 1. And I know I asked him if this was because he'd caught the breadcrumb. But I don't remember him actually answering me. (I think this was around the time he stormed out of the thread, actually.)

[Plessiez]

I saw this as him referencing my breadcrumb.

qwints is most likely town for a reason that I'm not willing to give yet. (lol u c wut i did thar)

Yeah, that was my assumption too. But as far as I can tell, he never explicitly admitted as much

D3f3nd3r

- why have you been so reluctant to vote people this game? Do you have a secret second agenda that encourages you not to vote? If not, how do you explain yourself?

[Plessiez]

Slightly depressing that I made two of the last ten posts, yet I'm already in danger of a prod.

This is not the most active of games .

Fitz makes a good point - saving himself and blocking rufflig's flip is pretty hard to stomach from one role.

Doesn't the same problem (essentially the same, anyway) apply if somebody other than fitz is the last scum left? Still need to account for fitz's non-lynch and Rufflig's non-flip. Unless the one is an automatic consequence of the other, maybe? Meh. Don't think I believe that. But it seems pretty scum-sided for there to be two different scum left alive at this point...

Still think Rufflig's non-flip might have been caused by something other than the scum (since it's so clearly the wrong time to use a Janitor). Although as people have pointed out, Rufflig doesn't make much sense as a night-kill anyway.

Hmm.

[Plessiez]

Toying around with a slightly crazy idea that might explain Rufflig's death and non-flip, but I don't think I can make it work. Will think about it some more though. (It might be that the hidden agenda stuff explains the problems I have with it, but it's impossible to say since nobody is confessing to having any such agenda .)

D3f3nd3r

, did you breadcrumb "bodyguard" anywhere near the start of the game? Or hint at it in any way before claiming?

At the moment it feels like we're fine as long as the only scum left are in {fitz, D3f3nd3r} but pretty much doomed otherwise. Think I might be leaning towards lynching D3f3nd3r today though . Feels like the safer play, somehow. Of course, if the scum are (one or both of) {D3f3nd3r, fitz}, it doesn't really matter which we lynch first.

However, D3f3nd3r being lynched and flipping both scum + Governor (or some other role that would have made the fitz lynch fail) would make me feel a lot better about fitz (assuming it didn't end the game straight away). So if the surviving scum are D3f3nd3r + somebody else, we'd have a chance of catching that "somebody else" on the last day.

On the other hand, if we lynch fitz and the game doesn't end, then no matter how fitz flips I can't see us not lynching D3f3nd3r the next day. If the surviving scum are fitz + somebody else (not D3f3nd3r), I think we've pretty much lost already.

(Not sure that actually makes much sense written down .)

[Plessiez]

Actually, D3f, why aren't you fighting for your slot?

Even if D3f3nd3r had claimed VT he should still be fighting for his slot . I'm finding his attitude toward this game kind of bizarre. Mafia isn't a competition to be the "best townie", D3f3nd3r. The idea is to lynch scum. If you're town, there's a non-zero chance that by lynching you we lose the game

right now

. Why aren't you pushing for anybody else? Why aren't you at least voting for fitz?

I find it difficult to imagine you're normally this apathetic, in all honesty. And I would appreciate straight yes or no answers to the following:

1) Do you have a hidden winning agenda?
2) Is there some game-mechanic forcing you (or merely encouraging you) not to vote?
3) Did you breadcrumb or hint at your claimed role at any point during day 1?

[Plessiez]

And, that post by Plessiez really gives me the impression that he finds me to be town.

It's not so much that I

think

you're town, rather it's that I find it easy to believe you

could

be town. I really don't have much of a read on you at all, and I'm a bit reluctant to lynch somebody by PoE in what's potentially endgame. Especially when they could easily just be an incredibly disinterested townie.

Why did you not breadcrumb your role?

Wait..there is one scenario we can rule out...if there are two scum left...we know they aren't both sword and pless.

We can go further than that, I think? If there are two partnered scum left and D3f3nd3r is town, then the scum would win by mislynching him today. Given that neither sword nor I have hammered, I think it's clear neither sword nor I could be scum in this scenario. That is, one of the following must be true:

[1] D3f3nd3r is scum (either the last scum left or with a partner); or
[2] D3f3nd3r is town and there is only one scum left alive (or perhaps one scum and a SK?); or
[3] More than one of {qwints, arcangel, fitz} is scum.

In fact, if arc is scum then qwints is surely scum too (otherwise the scum must have withheld their kill on night 3 for no reason at all, right?). Which means we can break that third case down into two subcases:

[3a] qwintz and arcangel are scum; or
[3b] qwints and fitz are scum.

I think both these subcases are very unlikely. There's just no reason for qwints to jump off the D3f3nd3r wagon on day 2 and join the Mhork wagon, as he did, if he is scum with Mhork and both the other wagons (D3f3nd3r and saulres) are on town.

So I

think

we can maybe conclude that either D3f3nd3r is scum or the game isn't in mylo. Which certainly supports my belief that D3f3nd3r is the safe choice today.

But, ugh. I really don't want to make a decision just yet .

[Plessiez]

Just got back from the hospital, and I'm still a bit out of it. Still confused by D3f3nd3r, too. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe posts like this ...

Also, I'm pretty sure there is only one scum left; Day 2 would have been MyLo if so and that being in the setup doesn't seem right.

... are coming from scum. Scum!D3f3nd3r should, surely, be trying his best to make us think we can't risk lynching him because the game will end if we're wrong and he's not scum.

But on the other hand, posts like this....

Fine, lynch me. Better lynch someone useless than someone who people care about.

... really don't make sense to me as town

or

scum. So I think I might just be wasting time trying to get a handle on how D3f3nd3r is approaching the game. Leaves me with various reasons to think other people are town and no reason to think the same about D3f3nd3r. So I'm back to thinking he's the safe lynch today.

i'm willing to hammer D3f...

anybody else want to chime in before i do?

You may as well, honestly. (I will myself if I wake up tomorrow to find the day is still dragging on, but as I said above, I'm not quite with it at the moment.)

If D3f3nd3r doesn't flip governor (or some other role that could have stopped fitz's lynch)

and

the game is still going on tomorrow, fitz has to be the day 6 lynch. Can't even see any point dragging day 6 out to discuss it, really.

But if D3f3nd3r does flip governor and the game doesn't stop, then ... hmm. Will be worth thinking things through again, I suppose.

[Plessiez]

3 scum

and

a Judas? In 13 players?

Remind me to never ever take anything you say about balance seriously again, please.

[Plessiez]

To win this game without help from the scum (or from a lucky N1 vig-shot), it seems that town has to lynch three starting mafia and the Judas

twice

. How can that be balanced? Not to mention that Judas is a ridiculously awful role in its own right (worse than Jester, frankly, and only barely more tolerable than unannounced Cult). If winning conditions can change mid-game, there is almost literally no point in working out a read on people. Somebody you correctly read as town one day can be scum the next. What's the point?

(Also still bemused that saulres turned out to be town. Oh well.)

also..hope you're ok Plessie

Oh, I'm okay (although annoyed about this game, obviously ). My hospital appointment was part of an ongoing check-up/treatment thing, not any sort of emergency.

i always fuck it up at end game...
should have went with the safe bet like i stated...damnit...
sorry i didn't push for it harder, town....

Still think that D3f3nd3r was the correct "safe" lynch with the information we had. And I'd feel worse about having read havingfitz as town if my read on him being town wasn't, you know,

correct

. Havingfitz's day 1 and day 2 interactions with Klick pointed to him being town, and he was. On day 2 .

(But you were right about Mhork on day 2, and you're certainly not the reason town lost this game. If you hadn't hammered when you did, I would have in a few hours anyway.)

D3f....i got no words, man...
you really should put a little more effort into these games...voice your opinions more...even if you think you aren't being helpful...

This times a million?