Karma Mafia (Game Over!)

[Javert]

Bonjour!

The biggest challenge in this game will clearly be differentiating anti-town play from scummy play, because there has been an awful lot of anti-town play. I will try to cover what seem to be the biggest subject areas in this post.

1.)

RichardGHP is an interesting csae. I originally thought he was scummy, then I thought he probably newb-town and very unhelpful, and then I read his posts in isolation in Mafia 107, and I think he is scummy again.

In Mafia 107, as Town JoaT, he was somewhat proactive, and definitely aggressive. In this game, he is just letting and inviting people walk all over him, and I am not feeling a genuine interest to hunt for scum from his posts. His posts seem to be trying to match what he thinks a townsperson would do and say. Comparing his play of this game to Mafia 107 is really like reading two different players.

I believe his explanation here of the “gambit” was made up after the fact. I believe the post “vote me” was indeed borne of frustration. And I can see frustration existing for any alignment. But the quote that tips the balance for me is:

C'mon, you really can't empathise with being

panicked

and frustrated when 1 person votes you three times?

My answer: No. I tend to get panicked when I'm scum and somebody seems serious about their vote – it can be a scary experience. But when I'm town and somebody seems to be serious with their vote, I generally just get

annoyed

unless the vote is actually putting me in danger.

I think there is actually a pretty good chance of RichardGHP being scum.

Unvote: Sando, Vote: RichardGHP

.

2.)

bv310 I am not actually all that concerned with – I change my mind all the time while I read games, especially on Day Ones. I would be more concerned if he did not recognize the fact that he has been changing his opinion.

3.)

I am not feeling anything on the Anon / farside22 argument. I see both sides.

4.)

One player who doesn't seem to be getting any attention that has caught my eye:

vote Richard

Its only a policy lynch if he is expecting everyone to vote that way, he hasnt given any reasoning therefore I think he probably was still being random. Your automatic assumption that its a policy lynch on the basis of nothing is interesting though.

This sounds disingenuous. When somebody votes another player twice, saying “trust me, it will be easier this way,” it is quite appropriate to assume they are voting you on policy. Not only that, but CKD did not have to provide reasons because he instead asked for players to “trust him.” Besides, even if it is arguably not a “policy

lynch

” it was certainly a “policy

vote

.”

The rest of Porochaz's play seems largely to be theory-based discussion on the subject of why there shouldn't be so much theory-based discussion in games. His play is really feeling like a commentator outside the game moreso than somebody trying to hunt for scum inside the game.

Also, I can't

quite

put my finger on it, but there is something about Post 120 that strikes me as being off. I've tried to explain it about four times, but it never comes out right. The post isn't really an appeal to emotion, but it feels like something very similar to that vein.

–

Unrelated to who I think is scummy / townish:

If I were a vig, I'd vig Albert B. Rampage for being intentionally useless. You can at least ask questions or poke at people more. It's a good thing everybody doesn't take your attitude on Day One, or we would never get anywhere.

[Javert]

1.)

Porochaz, I am having a hard time understanding your opinion on the policy lynch subject. Here is what I see, from RichardGHP's point of view:

I have just finished playing Mafia 107 with curiouskarmadog. In that game, curiouskarmadog started the game by policy-voting CSL.

I was run up to a claim on Day One. After I claimed JoaT and the wagon started to go away, curiouskarmadog really started attacking me. For the rest of the game, he intermittently made comments about how bad and unbelievable my claim was, and how bad my play was.

Then we are both in this game, and curiouskarmadog's first two posts involve a “random” vote on me, followed by a “serious” vote on me, telling the town to “trust him, it will be easier that way.”

I cannot come to any conclusion from that position

other

than curiouskarmadog voting on policy reasons, regardless of what explanation curiouskarmadog gives for his vote after the fact. If curiouskarmadog had instead said his vote was completely random, I would not have believed him given that background.

2.)

boberz and farside22, a small request. I have a very difficult time reading posts like Post 456 and Post 458 because I don't remember posts simply by their number. Please either quote a small section of the post, or provide a link to the post (like I did right now). Even more preferably, group the posts attributable to a single player so I can get a better idea of what you think about who.

Pre-Post Edit: Looks like boberz just covered this, but the request still goes to farside22.

3.)

@bobz, farside

Why are you quoting me from 5 pages ago when I have more important posts that are more recent? Pom should go. If not then BV.

This is a ridiculous complaint. Reasons to vote somebody or to find somebody suspicious can come from any page of the game, not just what your most recent posts happen to say.

For example, if somebody is lurking all of Day One and then starts scumhunting on Day Two, the fact that they were lurking to start with does not go away, and is still a valid argument against them even if they are no longer lurking. Obviously, the time difference does not need to be as drastic as Day One vs. Day Two.

[Javert]

1.)

I cannot help but feel soured when I look at the make-up of this bandwagon:

RichardGHP (7) -- Porochaz, Faraday, bv310, NickF227, Pomegranate, Javert, boberz

Although I still do not think RichardGHP is playing anything like Mafia 107, I feel like I am associating myself with bad company.

2.)

Unvote: RichardGHP, Vote: Porochaz

. Porochaz, moreso than others, seems to be trying to ride this wagon out. I didn't really care for his original reason for voting RichardGHP, and he seems to just try to justify keeping his vote there in later posts.

Also, trying to shift my questions for him onto curiouskarmadog seems like an attempt to get me off of his back:

Javert, you are possibly correct however I don't view the explanation as something that would warrant a policy lynch, that just sounds like a difference of opinion within a game. Maybe ckd could shed some light on that subject?

My questions for whether an objective person would think curiouskarmadog was making a policy vote has nothing to do with what curiouskarmadog was thinking. What matters is more what somebody in RichardGHP's shoes would think, since you voted on RichardGHP's reaction that he thought he was being policy voted.

3.)

Papa Zito, next time you make one of those posts while saying you are suspicious of players with “less than 20” posts, you might want to consider the following factors:

->

a.)

Some players have been replaced precisely because they were not posting, resulting in a lower post count;
->

b.)

Not all players have a style which requires multiple separate posts, resulting in a lower post count. For example, I could have split this post into three separate posts since I am making three separate general points;
->

c.)

Some players have time commitments outside of games which result in a lower post count; and
->

d.)

The amount of fluff posts players have, resulting in a higher post count.

And before somebody says it: No. I did not post on the basis that somebody just made an "activity check." I posted because I had time to post, and things to say.

[Javert]

The one thing that I don't like about this is that you switch from on a wagon to critiquing a wagon in one post. Do you still find RichardGHP scummy or not? Are you getting off the wagon because you don't like the way that Poro is pushing it, or because you've changed your mind on Richard?

As I said, I am concerned about the make-up of the wagoners. The best way to describe it is: "I feel like something is wrong here." I don't know what says about RichardGHP. It might be the case that there are two scumteams and one of them is bandwagoning RichardGHP-scum. It might be the case that he is being bussed by scum-buddies. It might even be the case that I just happen to voting with townspeople I am not comfortable with. It could be a fair mixture of the above. Right now, I don't know.

So I haven't so much "changed my mind about Richard" as I have changed my mind on whether I am liking his wagon. Like I believe somebody else said before, I wouldn't at all mind him just being Vigged solely on the basis of his uselessness, but I would rather use my vote more aggressively.

Porochaz is simply my second suspect, which is why I am pushing on him. It just so happens that I don't like his RichardGHP vote.

Who else do you find scummy?

I don't magically get suspicious of people simply because somebody asks who I find scummy. Suffice it to say that I have a short list of about three people I think are Town. If I find somebody scummy enough to pursue, I will pursue them.

[Javert]

1.)

The boberz conversation was very confusing (I still don't quite understand his/her position), but in the end I don't get the feeling that boberz came off scummy from the exchange, although boberz does come off as a little irrational.

2.)

Why is bob so weird about a tie if he believe's bv is town?
Anyone?

Oh bob. Hey bob why are you freeking out being tied to bv if you think he is trying to soft claim town there?

I could have sworn this whole conversation in regards to bv was someone asking bv310 for meta as scum and him saying he doesn't have finished games as anything but VT or light PR's.

Anyone else miss that convo? Am I hearing voices?

→

a.)

All of these quotes seem to be written in a way so as to dismiss boberz out of hand as ridiculous and scummy. I fail to see what is inherently wrong or scummy about not wanting to be connected to somebody, even if you think that player is town.
→

b.)

farside22 twice appeals to others to take up the rally (Anyone? Anyone else miss that convo?). It kind of reminds me of talking about somebody and acting like they are not standing right there beside you. These posts look like they're written to instigate moreso than scumhunt, almost in the hopes of a meltdown.
→

c.)

I see absolutely no relevance in what “started the conversation,” and that moreso than the other two quotes seem very disingenuous. Most conversations spring from something very tiny. To point to the beginning of the conversation and imply “my, isn't it ridiculous where boberz has taken this?” is just ignoring the realities of playing mafia.

FoS: farside22

. I was fine with your pressure on RichardGHP, but I am not liking your attitude with boberz. It does not feel like you have a very pure motive.

3.)

bob's 640 looks like IIoA to me.

thanks for clarifying your alignment, scum.

I don't see any conclusion. I don't see any real content, either. You're just commenting on the posts.

I also feel like Seraphim is being a overly dismissive, but it does feel as ill-intentioned as farside22's dismissal.

I disagree that boberz's post is really an “Information without Analysis” post. You complain that there is no conclusion, but there was: the very fact that boberz was voting for RichardGHP before making that post tells you the conclusion is “RichardGHP is scummy.” Also, boberz organized the facts in such a way so as to make how he is coming to that conclusion fairly obvious, and interjected opinions throughout. Yes, the post was boring to read and difficult to follow (largely because of lack of quotes and links), but I do not think it was fluff.

The theory behind “Information without Analysis” being a scum-tell is that scum will try to make it look like they are contributing without actually saying anything. When I read boberz post, what he was trying to say (that RichardGHP is scummy, and that not one of his posts look town) is pretty clear. Instead of using labels to characterize posts, please make sure your label is actually applicable.

4.)

I originally thought bv310 was probably town, but the more he posts the more I am starting to change my opinion. He really only seems to pop into the thread to answer questions to him, and most of the time I have already forgotten what people have asked him so that his posts almost seem like non sequiturs. He does not look like he is scumhunting, or even trying to scumhunt, but rather to see if he can wait out the wagon on himself.

I particularly did not care for his “yes, because you've contributed so much more” post (Post 589). It seems like he is just sulking at this point because he is garnering votes while Albert B. Rampage is not.

FoS: bv310

.

[Javert]

1.)

If he believes the claim and believes bv310 will flip town why would he freek out being tied to someone he believes will flip town?
That was my whole point.

And my point is: even if you think somebody is town, would you want to be connected to them? If you think that is scummy, please explain why.

2.)

dybeck, do you think boberz' Post 640 was a “IIoA” Post?

3.)

I'm inherently suspicious of the <20 post crowd.

this is a lame post....can anyone explain why (hint: I can think of 3 reasons). Also it has nothing to do with his current vote.

Please fill in your own blanks.

4.)

Welcome to the game, Amished.

[Javert]

1.)

I don't think that particular post enlightens us about boberz's alignment or that of anyone else.

I don't think tagging it as "IIoA" or anything else is very useful either. Others more au fait with the term might find it useful to do so, but I prefer to read the words in it...

Given your Post 676, what do you think about Seraphim immediately labeling the post as "IIoA" in Post 642?

If you think the situation is different from from your Post 676, please differentiate them for me.

2.)

curiouskarmadog, I already commented on Papa Zito's activity check post in Post 565. Obviously, Papa Zito's number arbitrarily excluded persons at exactly 20 posts (Sando, Pomegranate), but that doesn't really concern me since any other number is just as arbitrary.

I do not think his statement was scummy; it just struck me as somewhat inconsiderate.

[Javert]

1.)

Seraphim, I agree that boberz's post was unhelpful and difficult to read. But it is clearly stating an opinion and giving commentary. When you labeled it as IIoA, you were basically calling it scummy, and that is made obvious since you quipped "thanks for confirming your alignment, scum."

My

point is that I do not find that particular post

scummy

, and I do not understand why you seem to think it is.

There is a difference between Town, Pro-Town, Anti-Town, and Scummy. Please try to differentiate between them -- if you aren't used to doing that, I ask that you humor me.

Succinctness if done correctly may be pro-town, but it does not make a player town. PBPAs if done incorrectly can be anti-town, but it does not make a player scum. Right now you seem to be lumping Anti-Town with Scummy, and Pro-Town with Town.

2.)

Amished, the most "significant" parts of the game are obviously the wagons on RichardGHP and bv310; much of the game spirals around those wagons, and they tend to divide opinions. I think boberz may be a third subject that is likely to draw lines between players, but that subject is only starting to bud.

[Javert]

Warning: Long Post.

1.)

@Javert:

1.)

Seraphim, I agree that boberz's post was unhelpful and difficult to read. But it is clearly stating an opinion and giving commentary. When you labeled it as IIoA, you were basically calling it scummy, and that is made obvious since you quipped "thanks for confirming your alignment, scum."

My

point is that I do not find that particular post

scummy

, and I do not understand why you seem to think it is.

There is a difference between Town, Pro-Town, Anti-Town, and Scummy. Please try to differentiate between them -- if you aren't used to doing that, I ask that you humor me.

Do you believe that he {Seraphim} was being intentionally vague in trying to push for a (mis-)lynch or that he was honestly confused as to the use of the terms?

This is exactly what I have been trying to figure out.

I think at this point, Seraphim has pigeon-holed himself into defending the position “all PBPA's are scummy,” which is blatantly untrue. boberz' made short work of that statement by pointing out that a non-scummy PBPA is one done by a townsperson, which happens quite a lot. I tend to think I see PBPA's written by town more often than scum. It is when a PBPA devolves into “IIoA” that it becomes scummy, and I do not think boberz' post was “IIoa.”

I completely disagree with pretty much everything Seraphim has to say about PBPA's, but I cannot tell if it is because we are just that different on the theory behind them, or if it is because Seraphim tried to get away with an unjustified attack and has now been forced to take an extreme position to defend that attack.

My problem is that Seraphim

must

understand the difference between anti-town and scummy precisely because he has recently been labeling RichardGHP as a “VI,” which is essentially “not helpful, but not necessarily scum.” The fact that he is willing to draw this distinction for RichardGHP but not boberz is really cutting at me. Hence, I think Seraphim is purposefully ignoring this distinction when it comes to boberz' post.

2.)

An inconsistency with Seraphim that I just noticed:

Anon's recap post is terrible.

Richard is not an 'easy target'

, Richard is a player with strange anti-town behavior that needs more consideration and more pressure. He's been backpedalling and doing all sorts of scummy stuff. Not to mention jumping on a wagon based on the RVS based on this craplogic is very bad. Very bad. I wouldn't doubt that if Andrew is scum, Anon is scum with him.

bv had also been attacking Richard a lot, a large wagon that has achieved a lot of popularity from the beginning of the game.

Easy to jump onto. Easy to get off of if the popularity declines.

However, he does not jump onto the wagon until I pressure him to. Sounds like coasting to me.

Please explain.

3.)

I am also a bit disturbed how one of Seraphim's criteria for being scum appears to be attacking the “popular” wagons, while at the same time Seraphim says in Post 538 that if he had three votes, he would vote for RichardGHP, bv310, and Espeonage – who were all the most popular wagons at that point in the game (with NickF227 being fourth).

4.)

I think a perfectly plausible scumteam would actually be RichardGHP and Seraphim – Seraphim seems to go out of his way to give RichardGHP small pushes in order to get the wagon off of himself, while at the same time constantly giving himself the option of switching his vote to RichardGHP.

Seraphim's posts on the surface attack both RichardGHP and bv310. However, on the whole, when Seraphim talks about RichardGHP it is to ask RichardGHP to post more content (just isolate his posts – you may be surprised). When he talks about bv310, it is more commonly to attack him.

As I said above, I also find it strange how Seraphim recognizes the difference between anti-town and scummy when he talks about RichardGHP, but he does not seem to recognize that same distinction when talking about boberz' PBPA post.

~

I have to admit, Seraphim was originally on my short list of people I thought were Town, but after reading his posts critically, he no longer has that status.

Unvote: Porochaz, Vote: Seraphim

.

[Javert]

But surely this case on Seraphim is largely reliant on Richard being scum, as richard has more support, has made more mistakes and is a better policy lynch. Surely it is better to go for him first?

I think the pairing is a

plausible

one, but not a necessary one. Seraphim is scummy independent of whether RichardGHP is scum.

[Javert]

1.)

After reading Pomegranate's posts in isolation, I think the case against her has merit. She is pretty much just questioning people, but she isn't really showing any interest in the answers (as Jahudo has pointed out, she never seems to follow up). That makes me feel more that she is trying to paint certain posts in certain ways, as opposed to trying to find out the intent of those posts.

2.)

I think bv310 is going to be lynched at this point, so I will just go on the record saying the following:

→

a.)

I do not think bv310's change of opinion on RichardGHP were scummy. Players change their minds fairly frequently, and especially on Day Ones. Just about every time he changed his opinion, he recognized in the same post or a post directly afterwards that he had changed his mind.
→

b.)

I do not think bv310 made a “scum slip” in Post 234. In my experience, “slips” are pretty much never actually valid, but they are more commonly just lingual mistakes made by players of all alignments from time to time.
→

c.)

The fact that bv310 changed his vote to RichardGHP after being pressured by Seraphim also does not seem very indicative of alignment to me. If he voted for RichardGHP, he would be attacked (as he was) for buckling under pressure. If he did not vote for RichardGHP, he would be attacked for not voting his claimed suspect. It strikes me as a Catch-22 situation.

What I

do

dislike about bv310 is (i) how he presented himself as a “lurker” before ever being accused of lurking, and more recently, (ii) how he tried to replace out directly before a deadline – that certainly gives me the feeling he is trying to duck out from being under pressure. But other than those two points, I'm really not seeing much meat on the bones of the case.

I'm sure there were other points made against bv310, but I don't recollect them offhand and I don't have the energy to search for them all.

Overall, even if bv310 turns out to be scum, I am critical of a good deal of the reasoning used to lynch him.

3.)

Seraphim, exactly why do you think RichardGHP was not an “easy target” by Post 180 of the game? I am trying to understand why you would think that. A player can be an easy vote regardless of whether or not there happens to be a "popular" wagon on them.

Additionally, could you please respond to this:

3.)

I am also a bit disturbed how one of Seraphim's criteria for being scum appears to be attacking the “popular” wagons, while at the same time Seraphim says in Post 538 that if he had three votes, he would vote for RichardGHP, bv310, and Espeonage – who were all the most popular wagons at that point in the game (with NickF227 being fourth).

“Attacking” should be “joining,” if there was any confusion. It feels like there is a double-standard here.

4.)

I will vote bv310 if it is necessary to avoid a No Lynch.

[Javert]

I don't like the way Javert's positioning himself.

Positioning myself for what?

[Javert]

1.)

Looks like a pre-emptive "I told you so" post.

Then look harder.

A player saying "I told you so" is something claimed when a game is over, not while a game is on-going.

What I said is that I do not like, and I have never liked, the

reasoning

that has been used to lynch bv310. And I don't like the reasoning regardless of whether or not bv310 is town, or if he in fact turns out to be scum.

2.)

Seraphim, I don't see a reason for you deferring answering my questions until tomorrow. Yes, if you die overnight, your answers might not be helpful. But the converse is that if I die overnight, I will not be able to assess or follow up on your answers.

[Javert]

1.)

Seraphim, I’m afraid I’m still going to have to ask that you answer those last questions from yesterday that you deferred on answering until today. I know I would kick myself later if I never followed up on this and it later turns out that I should have. For reference, those were questions under section 3 of Post 833.

2.)

For those of you still suspicious of RichardGHP, could you please assess how that is consistent with bv310 turning out to be scum? I read over the game against last night, and I simply do not feel that there were any noticeable connections between bv310 and RichardGHP to suggest a partnership.

If there are two scum groups, then obviously there doesn’t need to be a connection, but with one kill last night I am going to assume there is one scum group until we have evidence that there are two scum groups.

3.)

I still get a bad feeling from Porochaz. Unfortunately I cannot really think of more questions to ask him – I just have not been satisfied by his answers. I understand his posting issues due to moving into a flat, but I simply cannot agree with this reasoning:

Your suggestion here, about whether an objective person thought ckd was making a policy vote, I game my opinion on quite explicitly. But in the end your right, I couldn't give a crap about what happened in Mafia 107 between richard and ckd. Or whether in this game its a policy lynch or not. Because in the end, it doesnt matter. Richard overreacted either way and that was the initial basis of my vote.

First, I feel you were trying to shift the discussion away from you by deferring to curiouskarmadog, when the question you asked him (whether he was making a policy vote) really had nothing to do with whether or not it was reasonable for RichardGHP to believe he was being policy voted.

Second, I agree that RichardGHP overreacted at some point. But calling our curiouskarmadog’s vote as being a policy vote was

not

an overreaction. Your original vote on him in Post 102 did not mention anything about overreacting, but only the fact that he jumped to the conclusion of being policy voted.

This

post has largely been the crux from where my questions have stemmed.

So in the end, it does matter. Had your original vote been on RichardGHP for overreacting, then you would be correct, but that was instead reasoning you tacked on later.

Vote: Porochaz

.

[Javert]

Well, that was a fortuitous simul-post. Thank you for getting back to me on those questions, you did indeed answer them. I have just a couple follows ups:

1.)

1) In my experience, scum are less likely to commit their votes at the beginning of a wagon. As the wagon progresses, scum are more likely to jump onto a wagon. This reasoning might be completely wrong but this is how I feel.

I disagree here. Consider the following situation:

Scum are an early vote on a particular player, and that player then has a wagon on them. Do you think the scum are likely to unvote? Or are they more likely to move somewhere else?

I think scum are going to stay on the wagon, for three reasons:

->

a.)

They might be able to get a lynch out of it (assuming this is a good thing for that scum);
->

b.)

Even if it results in a mislynch, they have the wonderful defense of "

I

wasn't opportunistic, but look at X, Y, and Z"; and,
->

c.)

Even if the vote does not result in a lynch, it is a great way to avoid having to vote for somebody you do not want to vote for (i.e., a partner).

With this reasoning applied, this is why I am concerned with Porochaz's vote being on RichardGHP for practically all of Day One. And looking back on the vote counts, this reasoning applies almost equally well to Faraday (who actually had a more wagony vote), though I didn't notice that until just now. It feels to me that both of those votes were "ride it out" votes.

FoS: Faraday

.

2.)

2) There are a lot of players I would like to lynch right now, Richard among them.

I would ask that you read over the game again and decide if you think RichardGHP is

really

a partner of bv310. I have not liked RichardGHP's play this entire game, but I really am thinking he is not scum at this point.

[Javert]

Javert: I would like to lynch Richard, not because I think he is scum currently, but because I feel his play is detrimental to the town. I also think he's town and a VI but that doesn't mean I don't want him lynched. I certainly hope he's not around for LYOL.

Sigh.

FoS: Seraphim

.

It is

possible

we just have widely different theories when we approach games, but I simply cannot see how this position can be endorsed. I cannot vote for somebody I think is probably Town unless (i) I am doing so for the sole purpose of avoiding a No Lynch when I think No Lynching is improper, or (ii) doing so objectively increases the town's percentage of winning.

Simply because somebody is "not helpful" in the game, that does not mean their presence is not helpful. Playing mafia is ultimately a game of numbers --

every

townsperson counts. Every town necessarily has its members who are annoying or look scummy, but towns who win are those who manage to avoid lynching those exact players. Scum only have to get so many mislynches before they win, and Towns should not do anything to put them closer to that number if they can help it.

Now if you think RichardGHP is scum and want to lynch him, that is another matter entirely, but advocating lynching somebody you think is Town without a solid reason behind it (such as the two I mentioned above) is just wrong. The better path is to let nature take it's course with RichardGHP -- it is already unlikely he will survive until late in the game, and if he does, we may actually have found a way to clear him by that point if he is Town.

Finally, what do we really learn if we lynch RichardGHP on the reasoning that "he is probably Town, but he is not useful?" If he is Town, then it doesn't really help us catch other scum, because then everybody on the wagon can simply say "Well, we were right, at least he is dead now."

That said, I feel compelled to point out that calling for a Vigging on an unhelpful player is another matter entirely, precisely because (i) it is possible we don't have a Vig, and (ii) it is possible we

do

have a Vig who will allow us to "gain" a town-directed kill if they manage to kill twice during the course of the game, and (iii) we might be fortunate enough to have a Serial Killer or opposing scum-group who would like to rid us of such a player without us having to waste a lynch in the hopes of later looking town themselves.

Lynching is town's most powerful tool, and it ought not be squandered on players you think are town.

[/steps off of soapbox]

[Javert]

I'm not supporting his lynch. I don't think I would vote for him even if he was wagoned now.

I have a hard time believing this, given that you just said:

Javert:

I would like to lynch Richard

, not because I think he is scum currently, but because I feel his play is detrimental to the town. I also think he's town and a VI

but that doesn't mean I don't want him lynched.

I certainly hope he's not around for LYOL.

Both of these bolded sections make it clear to me that you do, in fact, want RichardGHP lynched.

You should have "nagging doubts" about everybody; that is not a reason to lynch them. As I said earlier, it might be possible that RichardGHP could be confirmed to be town at some point, or that he might die of natural causes at some point. Hell, he might even be replaced eventually.

So: No, I guess I do not understand what you are trying to say.

[Javert]

Mod: Could you please prod curiouskarmadog?

1.)

Javert, what are your opinions on the current things here, Pome, Espe, Nick?

->

a.)

I have already given a partial opinion on Pomegranate in Post 833, so I will not repeat those comments.

After reading her posts in isolation again right now, I have to admit that Post 346 is pretty jarring – reading it through, it seems like the post should logically end with a bv310 vote, and yet it instead ends with a RichardGHP vote. I can't say I care for that post.

I don't think the hammer at the end of Day One was scummy, though: if I were town in a similar position as Pomegranate (claimed lack of time with a small wagon on myself), I would probably hammer a fair-looking suspect in the hopes of participating more on Day Two. I really don't think anybody who hammers the inevitable lynch is truly thinking they are going to get “town points” for doing so.

On the whole, I think Pomegranate is a fair candidate for scum, but not on the top of my list. I have not yet really digested Post 947, though.

I would not be adverse a claim, given that the wagon has hit L-2.

->

b.)

As far as Espeonage goes, I don't like some of his posts (critique of Anon's readthrough post, his complaint about having his “lurking” comment flipped on him)... but the post that stops me every time is Post 222, or the “Papa Zito is vig” post. Scum just don't

say

that kind of thing in-thread, whether they believe it or not. Scum save it for night conversation. Almost solely because of that post, I actually lean town on Espeonage.

I understand that doesn't sound like the best reasoning (it sounds a bit silly typing it), but that's where my brain is. In any case, I don't like elaborating on people I feel are probably town for exactly this reason – but since I've mentioned it now, Espeonage was actually the second person I had a town read on when I first joined the game. The read is still current.

->

c.)

Finally, NickF227 is a player I just plain do not have a read on right now, but there are obviously a few things to be concerned about. Posts like Post 562 indicate that he is just reading enough of the thread to generally know what is going on, but isn't actually doing any critical reading. Also, like Ojanen has caught, he first claims that “players like ABR aren't scum, they're just annoying,” and then promptly turns around with saying Albert is scummy for “dicking around” and “making inane posts.”

The latest “tl;dr” post seems to have been purposefully unhelpful. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that this is NickF227's style of play across the board. I think I just need to see more posts from him to get a better read.

2.)

Turnaround is fair play. What do you think of Porochaz?

[Javert]

I am a hider. I have weak mode, which is normal hider, and strong mode, in which kills directed it me do not affect me. I hid with farside22 last night on strong mods, for fear of vig.

As others have pointed out, not only does the 'strong' version of this role already equate to what a normal hider does, but this claim is also vague on the details.

What exactly does the weak role do? Do you die if you hide behind scum? Could you be successfully targeted by nonkilling roles while under the weak or strong versions of the role?

I am pretty happy with this lynch. But curiouskarmadog, I don't think you were the hammer – Albert B. Rampage voted her twice.

[Javert]

I think it is worth testing Pomegranate's role further. Even if we decide to lynch her later, she can give us some good information in the meantime if she actually town. Also, as Jahudo has mentioned, there may be ways to help confirm her role.

If she is scum, it is highly doubtful that leaving her alive for a few days longer will threaten us in any way. If this were a mini game, I would probably just advocate that we lynch her. But seeing as this is a large game, I think we can afford to use some time with her.

I have looked over some of Patrick's other games, and he has in fact used a Hider before at least once (Pick Your Poison 3). So although I am inherently distrustful of Hider claims, I do not think a Hider role is outside the realm of possibility in this game.

[Javert]

3.)

I'm inherently suspicious of the <20 post crowd.

this is a lame post....can anyone explain why (hint: I can think of 3 reasons). Also it has nothing to do with his current vote.

Please fill in your own blanks.

I will, but you dont have any thoughts?

curiouskarmadog, would you mind getting back to this?

[Javert]

I have not forgotten this game -- I will try to read through the latest by Sunday evening.

[Javert]

1.)

I still think leaving Pomegranate alive is the strategically sound thing to do here. Although I have doubts about her claim, this is just like lynching a scummy claimed Cop on Day Two. Yes, she

might

be scum, but she also

might

be town. I cannot give as “straight” an answer as Seraphim is trying to force, because lynching a claimed power role this early in a game is a balancing act, not a strict dichotomy. Simply because things would be simpler if I could give a “black and white” answer, that does not mean I can honestly

give

a black and white answer.

The

best

argument for not lynching Pomegranate is that she might have a scum power role which could mess with the town (the most obvious example being a role-blocker). We already have one "mafia goon" dead, after all. But even if she is a Godfather, then that particular ability is unlikely to help her at this point.

As I said before, if this were a small game I might very well be pushing for her lynch, because small games can turn on very particular actions and orders. But seeing as this is a large game, we can afford to play a little wait-and-see. If she is scum, she is going to be going to be killed eventually anyways. If she is town, then we might be able to get information out of her, and additionally, she might just die because of the nature of her role so that we avoid her mislynch, which gives us another chance to lynch scum.

I am not particularly persuaded by the “lack of breadcrumb” argument. Many players do not breadcrumb, and players who do breadcrumb are also usually savvy enough to breadcrumb as scum just the same. Granted, I think Hiders should – moreso than other roles – breadcrumb before night, but for a player who claims to have never breadcrumbed before, I do not have that expectation.

2.)

Posts 1084 and 1085 (written by boberz and Albert B. Rampage) are ironically showing a lack of “reading the thread,” because Pomegranate was not attacking NickF227 for claiming “villager." That was dybeck was in 1078, although I am not sure it was really an “attack.” Pomegranate

was

attacking NickF227, though, for the old “but X is lurking, too!” defense.

3.)

I am actually starting to like Porochaz’s latest posts, but I want to see his case on RichardGHP before I consider moving my vote. I still do not like his Day One posting, and I still feel like he was trying to curtly answer my suspicions while deflecting me into a conversation with curiouskarmadog earlier.

[Javert]

Now that I’ve had a little bit more time, I am going to repeat a couple questions that have not been answered.

1.)

Anon:

2.)

Turnaround is fair play. What do you think of Porochaz?

2.)

curiouskarmadog, please get back to Post 1048. Since you have known your three reasons since Day One, it should not take very long to respond to this question.

[Javert]

... curiouskarmadog, please answer my question.

[Javert]

Argh.

I guess I need to reread this game.

[Javert]

Where's Javert and what does he have to say?

Javert is still in the process of rereading after seeing the latest flips, and I am sure he will have something to say when he is finished.

[Javert]

I have decided the problem with rereading games is that they get longer every time you do it...

Long post alert.

Vote: Sando

FoS: NickF227

FoS: Seraphim

I was originally going to vote NickF227 and FoS Seraphim with this post, but with all the hubbub about Sando I decided to read over his posts in isolation. I can see him as scum, and particularly as scum with bv310.

1.)

In my reread, I did not initially really remember anything from Sando when I was not expressly focusing on him. My suspicion is largely based on a single paragraph and its progeny, though:

Dybecks claim that the BV case is wishy-washy etc is

classic attempt at derailing.

No reasoning is provided, it's all generalisations and no content, and all seemingly aimed at simply throwing a spanner in the wagon. Followed by the wishy-washy responses to questioning and the desperate leap onto the Esp wagon. I'm not sure how Dybeck got away without that being raised really...

Sando was not voting for bv310. Sando was voting for RichardGHP. Yet reading this paragraph, I certainly get the impression that Sando thinks (i.e. knows) bv310 is scum and is taking this opportunity to connect dybeck to bv310. What is telling is that Sando does not actually take a stance on bv310's alignment, while at the same time he is saying the wagon is being derailed. This is scummy. The more I reread it, the more is looks like Sando is a scum-partner to bv310.

He later expands in Post 512, where he votes dybeck because he “cannot think of a town reason” for dybeck “trying to undermine wagons.” I have good vibes from dybeck's response, and I think that fairly sums up what I think about Sando's post. “Scare words” is a pretty accurate summation of what I see in Sando's comments about wagons being “derailed.”

The smoking gun for me is that at the end of Day One, Sando makes Post 788 where he now claims people are trying to "derail" the RichardGHP wagon.

Here's the curious thing about that post. According to Sando,

because

the RichardGHP wagon was being derailed, we should have lynched RichardGHP, since then the “game would be in the bag” because of the information we would get. But when Sando talked about the bv310 wagon being derailed, he just voted for dybeck, the main “derailer.” I smell a standard being adversely applied to RichardGHP (lynch him because he is being derailed), and not being applied to bv310. (vote for the derailer).

2.)

NickF227 was another player whose posts were easy to skate over. I still stand by my comments about NickF227 from Post 953 in that NickF227 is a difficult player for me to get a read on, but reading over the game I did catch a couple other things I did not like. I am now leaning towards NickF227 being scum.

First, there was the “since it is so SCUMMY to vote for Richard...” comment while unvoting RichardGHP and voting for bv310. I can definitely see that as scum sulking about feeling like they have to vote for their partner. I do understand that NickF227's vote, if you look at the vote counts and nothing else, was the vote that changed the "lead wagon," but I hink that if you read that portion of the game in context, the momentum was going back towards bv310 even without NickF227's vote. There was a good number of players who were increasingly of the opinion that the RichardGHP wagon was not the right place to be, and a number of players actively pushing the bv310 lynch.

Second, as Pomegranate pointed out, NickF227 basically used the “but X is lurking, too!” defense in Post 1075.. I am really starting to think this scumtell is getting more reliable (and I think bv310 was guilty of this exact same tell in Post 589). It strikes me as sulking.

Finally, NickF227 has made a couple self-WIFOM comments I am not caring for:

But, I did give bv's vote the lead and all, and he did turn out to be mafia...soo..... Yeah.....If I was mafia, wouldn't I have waited until people actually jumped off the Richard bandwagon and bv was close to being lynched?

Can I just tell you, one thing?

Wouldn't I have hammered or at least voted for Pom if I was scum? And thne just say 'Oops she was so scummy and everyone else was doing it?'

Nope, I didn't vote for her cuz I didn't think she was that scummy.

And I was right.

That's so scummy <3

I especially dislike this second quote since the last thing NickF227 had said about Pomegranate was Post 1159. NickF227 thought that Pomegranate was lying about her claim, but that Pomegranate might have been a Cop? I do not even understand this post. NickF227 also suggests there are “other people” who are more scummy than Pomegranate, but the only person she mentions Day Two (and Day Three, in fact) is Albert B. Rampage.

3.)

I am still not completely comfortable with Seraphim. Obviously, his shining moment is the fact that he pushed the bv310 wagon. But as I have mentioned before, I just cannot bring myself to agree with a good deal of his reasoning, and I have not been particularly pleased with many of his explanations to various questions.

I think the best way to express my feelings are just to analyze what I think of Seraphim's main cases throughout the game:

Seraphim on bv310

->

a.)

The fact that bv310 “changed his mind” about RichardGHP is not really a scumtell, in my opinion. Even now that I know bv310 was scum, I read his posts and I don't think his changes of opinion on RichardGHP were scummy. I really have to wonder if Seraphim's case was a symptom of Stoofer's “everything my partner does is scummy!” theorem;
->

b.)

How quickly players became bv310's partners is just a bit disconcerting (a good example being Post 734).

Seraphim on boberz

->

a.)

Wrongly characterizing boberz's 640 as IIoA while seemingly dismissing the post out of hand, followed by:
->

b.)

Compressing PBPA as being equivalent to IIoA, while taking the untenable position that all PBPA's are scummy, followed by:
->

c.)

Not considering the difference between scummy versus antitown in the context of PBPAs when he is clearly willing to consider the difference by his characterization of RichardGHP as a VI (i.e. not helping us, but not scummy). I will note that Seraphim has said he will try to be better with such distinctions in Post 749, so I suppose I will have to wait and see; also
->

d.)

I disagree that “boberz is because he tried to derail the bv310 wagon” (Post 749 again). When Seraphim made that post,

bv310 had not flipped

. And even with bv310 flipping scum, the chances of boberz-scum trying to make such a last-ditch defense like that at the end of Day One seems seems remote to me.

Overall, I do not think that Seraphim really

believed

his case on boberz, but was instead just making a case against boberz. I am not at all surprised that Seraphim has since backed off boberz.

Seraphim's latest on RichardGHP

->

a.)

I simply do not understand how Seraphim thinks RichardGHP is “probably town,” and yet he wants to lynch RichardGHP; and worse:
->

b.)

I think Seraphim flatly contradicted himself when he later said he “does not want to lynch RichardGHP” when in two separate posts before that statement, he expressly said he

wanted

to lynch RichardGHP.

Seraphim on Pomegranate

->

a.)

Ironically, I actually do not have problems with Seraphim's posting against Pomegranate. It feels like I should on principle, but I still think the case against Pomegranate was actually a fairly well thought-out case.

I think somebody else pointed this out, but it really just hit me on my read-through: I am really not liking the wording of “if we assume I'm town” of Post 490.

I do not think my points on Seraphim are merely evidence of a “difference of opinion” spurred by different theories on scumhunting. Seraphim has taken some positions that I just am not seeing the support for. I know very well how to be a devil's advocate and see things from other players point of view, but I am finding it challenging for (i) “all PBPA's are scummy,” (ii) “I want to lynch X but I don't want to lynch X,” and (iii) “X is not an easy target, but they are an easy wagon.”

Question

: Unrelated to the above, Seraphim, who is the Andrew you referenced in Post 197?

[Javert]

First ever prod I do apologise everyone.

Still need to go back and work out what I had on Dybeck. He has improved today however and is actually pressing for weak points in Sando for example.

As far as I recall, dybeck was pressing on Sando yesterday, too. What is different about him today?

[Javert]

1.)

Sando, I do not think you have adequately addressed my point against you, although you claim that you have. On Day One, you complained that

both

the RichardGHP wagon was being derailed and the bv310 wagon was being derailed. You said that we should lynch RichardGHP for the “information” we would get, yet you

did not

make that same push against bv310.

Rather than making a push against bv310, you voted for dybeck, the person you were accusing of “derailing” the bv310 wagon. But if you thought dybeck was trying to defend a partner, then you should have voted for bv310, not dybeck.

2.)

I am not really liking

either

side of the Amished v curiouskarmadog debate. curiouskarmadog is far too quick to take offense, and I cannot really tell if it is genuine or just false indignation. Amished is striking me as too demanding in trying to get a firm opinion. I think it is wiser to accept that players cannot always give an opinion one way or the other on certain players – you cannot just force somebody to have an opinion.

3.)

Ojanen and boberz, why aren't you voting for somebody?

[Javert]

1.)

I was just doing some laundry and thinking about this game when it occurred to me that if Papa Zito took a shot on Night One, he probably tried to kill Pomegranate but failed because Pomegranate was hiding. One of Papa Zito's last posts even says that Pomegranate is the scummiest person on mafiascum.

I thought I would share this forehead-slapping moment. It seems very obvious to me in retrospect, and I wish I had thought of it yesterday as a reason for not lynching Pomegranate.

2.)

I might have to reread Espeonage at some point. I have been thinking he is probably town (as I explained somewhere during Day Two), but these last few posts from him are very much “shake-my-head-and-groan” posts.

Espeonage, the fact that Sando was the first player to put bv310 at L-1 has been readily apparent since Day One. Claiming that

that

is your reason for having an “itch” to hammer is pretty weak when there are several players who have actually posted

cases

against Sando. You are merely tossing in a voting placement tell instead of actually saying what in your opinion makes Sando's posting scummy.

Would you mind detailing other reasons you have for suspecting Sando? Please use your own words instead of quoting others' posts.

[Javert]

* looks to the stars *

1.)

Regardless of Albert B. Rampage's alignment, what he has done is not smart play.

->

a.)

If Albert B. Rampage is scum with Sando, I can definitely see why he might counterlcaim Cop at the end of Day Three. It directs the Doctor towards him, and it gives him town credentials for “sealing the deal” on the Sando-wagon. It has also crossed my mind that if there is an actual Cop in the game, then they would also probably investigate Albert B. Rampage – so such a claim makes even more sense coming from a Godfather role.

What does

not

make sense is coming on the scene on Day Four – the very next day – only to say he is lying. I can see only two reasons for this. The first is if Albert B. Rampage feared being called out for lying during Day Four. The second is if he did not want to have the burden on him to be forced to clear innocents / claim false guilty results.

I have to say that it did actually cross my mind that Albert B. Rampage was lying precisely because of this language:

Night 1 I targeted Pom with my weak mode and was informed that I received no result. Night 2 I targeted Sando with my strong mode and I got a guilty. I am not informed about any differences between weak mode and strong mode in my role PM.

Claiming to get “no result” on Pomegranate and then pushing for her lynch when she claimed Hider would have been pretty sketchy. Claiming there is “no difference between weak and strong mode” is also not how I believe power roles work in this game whatsoever.

->

b.)

Due to the process above, Albert B. Rampage's actions also do not make sense as Town.

First and foremost, he could have been counter-claiming a real Cop. I am not terribly sympathetic by his latest “I had a solid guess and pulled the trigger.” If you have a solid guess, you can just say “I think he is lying” as opposed to counter-claiming with a role you do not have. I have seen towns who would otherwise be in fair positions completely screw themselves by somebody pretending to be a Cop so that they can lynch the people

they

want to lynch. Those are mistakes that should happen in newbie games, not large games.

Second, I do not even want to think of the ridiculous cluster we would have been in had there been yet another Cop claim to counterclaim Albert B. Rampage's fake-claim.

Third, as discussed above, his action probably unnecessarily changed what any power roles did last night from what they would have otherwise done, likely to their detriment.

~

All that said, my gut has been telling me this entire game that Albert B. Rampage is town, but this latest shenanigan is definitely going to force me to rethink that.

2.)

I do not think these latest flips change my latest reads.

Vote: NickF227

FoS: Seraphim

3.)

I am in finals week currently, so I do not have time to reread the thread until about the middle of next week. I will try to remain active with current discussions, though.

[Javert]

1.)

Albert B. Rampage, if you are aiming to get a "Best / Funniest Role Claim," please just stop now. I am not laughing.

2.)

I just remembered:

Espeonage, would you mind typing out your reasoning for suspecting Sando yesterday? I asked you put your reasoning in own words, and you never got back to me on that. Based on your posting, you seemed to have reasons to suspect him beyond the fact that he put a player at L-1.

I do not want to hear "the case on him looked pretty strong." I want to hear the case on him, according to you.

[Javert]

I skimmed Sando's posts to see if I might be able to find distancing or somebody who was probably town based on Sando's attitude towards that person.

1.)

Unvote: NickF227

just for now.

Yesterday, while Sando was being wagoned at 5 votes, NickF227 was just starting to gain some momentum from Seraphim and Espeonage and then Sando put a third vote on NickF227.

I don't have time to read Sando's posts carefully and in context right this instant. The NickF227 counterwagon

might

have been distancing, or it actually

might

have been a true attempt at getting a counterwagon to save himself. I will need to think on it. I plan to take a closer look this weekend, so hopefully I'll have a firmer opinion by Sunday or so.

2.)

Gut tells me from skimming that dybeck is not a partner of Sando / bv310.

If I had to put this gut into words, this is about the best I can do: I do not think Sando-scum would attack dybeck-scum for "derailing" the bv310-scum wagon, and then would not attack anybody in particular for "derailing" the Richard-town wagon.

3.)

I do not think Sando's vote on Espeonage on Day Two is very telling, because at that time Pomegranate was being wagoned and it was pretty unlikely that there would be a different player lynched. Scum in such a situation are pretty much free to distance, set up wagons for future days, or whatever. Of note, though, is the fact that Sando did not return his vote (or any attention) to Espeonage on Day Three, which somewhat supports a possible connection.

4.)

Espeonage, I do not think I am asking you to do something particularly difficult. I understand that you claim that Sando's L-1 vote was "the final straw" to you, so to speak. But I want to know what you think the

other

straws were.

Why

did

you

find Sando scummy?

[Javert]

curiouskarmadog, do you have an opinion on this possible explanation:

1.)

I was just doing some laundry and thinking about this game when it occurred to me that if Papa Zito took a shot on Night One, he probably tried to kill Pomegranate but failed because Pomegranate was hiding. One of Papa Zito's last posts even says that Pomegranate is the scummiest person on mafiascum.

I thought I would share this forehead-slapping moment. It seems very obvious to me in retrospect, and I wish I had thought of it yesterday as a reason for not lynching Pomegranate.

[Javert]

@ Javert: Do you think dybeck is scum on his own merits, not counting a connection to Sando? (the line of thought should be pretty clear here)

I have never really thought dybeck was particularly scummy. On top of that, I do not think dybeck is likely to be scum with Sando + bv310.

[Javert]

I really need to stop thinking about this game -- I should be studying for exams right now. But I think it is better to say this now than later:

FoS: Amished

This is a very delicate thought-process, so bear with me.

I have definitely been getting the feeling that Amished has been scumhunting this game, but I am suddenly thinking he might be scumhunting for one particular type of scum -- namely, a Serial Killer. (Or to be comprehensive, "scum who is not partnered with Amished"). This case is mostly off the top of my head, and I might change my mind when I have time to read the game over later, but here are the highlights that come to mind:

->

a.)

At the start of Day Three (after there had been two kills on Night Two), Amished only looked at the Porochaz kill. He did not analyze the Anon kill. When he analyzed the Porochaz kill, he voted for RichardGHP.

This

could

have been inadvertent selectivity from Amished: if Amished was responsible for the Anon kill, then he obviously would not have been particularly interested in analyzing the Anon kill.

Notably, Amished so far as I can tell has not analyzed any nightkills except for the Porochaz kill. This suggests he is not really interested in the other nightkills, but

was

interested in the Porochaz kill.

->

b.)

RichardGHP then died last night. This could have been an attempt to knock off Amished's best guess at a Serial Killer during the night.

->

c.)

I am now having a suddenly very different take on the Pomegranate lynch. Consider what a Mafia group sees when they see somebody claim Hider. The Mafia is probably thinking "this could be a Serial Killer, and she is probably unkillable at night."

I just double-checked Amished's posts, and he was very definitely anti-Pomegranate after seeing the claim. Granted, this applies to a fair number of people, and this is certainly not the strongest point against Amished.

->

d.)

Amished's last question towards me seem to indicate that he possibly thinks dybeck is a Serial Killer. He claims dybeck is scummy, but he does not seem to contest my thoughts that dybeck is not scum with bv310 / Sando.

~~~

2.)

So, I have to ask three questions:

->

i.

Amished, let's assume there is a Serial Killer and a Mafia group. If you had to choose which group you would rather try to lynch today, which would you choose and why?

->

ii.

Why is the Porochaz kill the only kill you have formally analyzed?

->

iii.

Do

you

think dybeck is scum with Sando and bv310?

[Javert]

For one of your points that I saw, Javert: I analyzed the Porochaz kill because Poro wasn't exactly topping my "pro-town" list. Also, with only one kill on N1 I figured that Porochaz was responsible for blocking one of the kills (since there were 2 on N2). Obviously a hider or other unknown night actions could be responsible but I try not to deal with "maybes". Especially with a Jailkeeper (which I tend to like as a role overall), my experience seeing them is that they breadcrumb or are otherwise very obvious with who they jailkept the night before. Richard seemed like an obvious mislynch just knowing his style and with all the hate against him on D1. I assumed that Richard was who our mafia group sent to kill (already dead weight, might as well not risk implicating anybody else with a potential tracker or watcher). That's the reason for that kill.

Ah. That actually makes sense.

When you analyzed the Porochaz kill, for some reason I thought you were trying to figure out who tried to kill Porochaz and concluded that it was RichardGHP. This made me wonder why you never analyzed the other kills. But now I can see that you were rather trying to figure out who Porochaz had jailkept on Night One (which now explains why you quoted Porochaz's first post of Day Two and not his later posts on Day Two).

I don't have any problems with your other answers, but I still think I might be onto something. I plan on getting back to you when I have time.

[Javert]

I have not gotten to reread the entire game, but I did reread Sando, and specifically his (lack of) interactions with NickF227.

Vote: NickF227

.

I was worried at first that Sando might have been trying to get a true counterwagon on NickF227 yesterday, but it occurred to me that if Sando

really

wanted to try for a counterwagon, he would have just claimed a guilty investigation on NickF227 when he fake-claimed Cop.

In fact, Sando's vote of NickF227 yesterday was the first time Sando ever even mentioned NickF227 the entire game. I can easily see that vote as a distancing vote.

[Javert]

1.)

I will say that yes Sando could have tried the ole X is scum therefore my vote but that rarely works. I fake claimed cop once and said I got town on someone I knew was town and everyone thought the player was my scum partner.
He was town.

All this example tells me is that curiouskarmadog might be more likely town because Sando claimed an innocent result on curiouskarmadog. I am not really seeing how NickF227 fits into this example.

As for “rarely works,” I just have to disagree. When a claimed Cop claims a guilty result on a player who a number of people find scummy, there is a pretty good chance the investigation target will be lynched.

2.)

Javert, do you only look for associative tells?

How is bv and Nick associated then?

I most frequently look for associative tells once a player flips scum. I already looked for associations for bv310 on Day Two – from that, I decided that RichardGHP and Albert B. Rampage were probably not scum with bv310, but I did not have much luck finding people I thought likely to be partners. (I don't know if I ever explicitly mentioned the Albert B. Rampage portion in-thread, but this is based largely on Post 589, which looks like bv310-scum sulking about an “unfair” situation). I did not have any conclusions for bv310 concerning NickF227.

But to answer your first question, no, I do not only look for associative tells. NickF227 is independently scummy, as I explained in Post 1309.

Also, to be clear, I do not think there is a strong association between Sando and NickF227. I merely looked at Sando again to see if I thought NickF227 was

town

based on Sando's actions and attitude towards NickF227. I have decided that Sando's posts do not suggest this (and they even hint at last-minute distancing when Sando was at five votes), so I returned to voting my top suspect.

3.)

That's right, shit, Nick was the counter wagon yesterday, I forgot.

I have not gotten to reread the entire game, but I did reread Sando, and specifically his (lack of) interactions with NickF227.

Vote: NickF227.

I was worried at first that Sando might have been trying to get a true counterwagon on NickF227 yesterday

, but it occurred to me that if Sando

really

wanted to try for a counterwagon, he would have just claimed a guilty investigation on NickF227 when he fake-claimed Cop.

In fact, Sando's vote of NickF227 yesterday was the first time Sando ever even mentioned NickF227 the entire game. I can easily see that vote as a distancing vote.

How could you “forget that NickF227 was the counter-wagon” when my post where I voted NickF227 (which you based your vote off)

explicitly discussed

the possibility of NickF227 being a true counterwagon?

FoS: Seraphim

[Javert]

Unvote: NickF227, Vote: Seraphim

.

Seraphim, you put Espeonage at L-2 literally two posts after Patrick posted a vote count. I have a hard time believing you "didn't realize he had so many votes."

[Javert]

1.)

I've read through Amished again, and I am going to retract my suspicion of him from earlier. My thinking that he was trying to scumhunt one particular group was largely spurred from my thinking that he was only trying to analyze the Porochaz kill and no others. Since the premise was wrong, I cannot really reach the conclusion.

Also, Amished, I did see your request, and I will try to get to it within the next few days.

2.)

I am really not persuaded by the latest posts calling Seraphim town. If you look at Seraphim's posts in isolation, literally well over half of his text this entire game was taken up by Day One. (To be fair, Days Two and Three were not as long as Day One, so maybe this is to be expected.) But Seraphim definitely has not had the same energy to his posts.

I am really not liking that Seraphim's go-to defense: when he actually starts getting a serious wagon on him today, he points to the fact that he pushed the bv310 wagon on Day One. This is far too reminiscent of a large game I played recently where a player's first defense against attacks was that there was an innocent result on him from a Sane Cop.

Just like I told that player (who turned out to be the Mafia Godfather), I have already given this defense its due deference.

The fact that Seraphim pushed the bv310 wagon does not make him town, just as an innocent investigation does not make a player town. I do not think Seraphim's play matches the play of a townsperson who led a successful lynch on Day One. Rather than being energized from a triumph like I would expect, he seems to have deflated.

Seraphim's play today in particular

does

match the play of somebody who is trying to ride through the game based on the fact that they led a scum-lynch. And I don't like it. I was willing to forgive one mistake today (when Seraphim “forgot” about NickF227 being a possible counterwagon), but it is stretching my goodwill to forgive a second mistake (when Seraphim “did not know” he had put Espeonage at L-2).

It feels like Seraphim is skating, and when you skate, you sometimes slip on the ice.

3.)

That aside, I will need to spend some time reading over these latest giant posts that have opinions on everybody. They are a lot to digest.

4.)

To those not voting: please explain why are not voting, or else vote for somebody.

[Javert]

Seraphim, why don't you “buy” Espeonage's claim?

[Javert]

Blatant defense of Espeonage:

1.)

Comment for both NickF227 and Seraphim in particular (who both claim not to “buy” Espeonage's claim):

I think Espeonage's claim makes him

more

likely to be town, precisely because of Post 1198, where he claimed one of his worst “tells” is that he is more active and interested in games where he is scum or has a power role. This is a fairly common theme with some players (i.e. people who see a townie role and just sigh), so I am surprised the reason you (Seraphim) don't “buy” Espeonage's claim is that you think

power roles

tend to play more “muted.”

Also, as others have pointed out, I am not thrilled with NickF227's reason for not “buying” the claim because it completely contradicts him supposedly using “villager” in a vague sense in Post 1075.

2.)

Also, and I've said this before: I really just don't think scum would post Post 222.

Certainly, there are some more “fearless” players who I could see such a post coming from. But Espeonage is not striking me as a “stick my neck out” player – I think this post is highly unlikely to come from Espeonage-scum. Such a comment would be saved for night conversation.

On top of that, given bv310's reaction to that post (“holy role-fishing!”), I doubt Espeonage would be scum with bv310 and Sando.

[Javert]

1.)

Getting back to Amished's request:

Ok, now moving on, dealing with 5 scum: We have 3 left. Dybeck has always been there (<3 farside); the Sando thing (like I said, I don't look for connections; Javert has more experience there than me so I'd like him to weigh in on that interaction as well) would make sense (we've lynched goons, that could've weighed in on Sando's mind; bussing a goon rather than some sort of power role).

I guess I am not quite understanding this request. Are you asking me to look for connections between dybeck and Sando?

If so, I think the interactions between them are probably not the interactions of partners. Most notable for me is that Sando attacked dybeck for "derailing" the bv310 wagon. Attacking Partner A for derailing a wagon on Partner B puts all three of you in a nasty triangle.

I get the feeling more that Sando was trying to set up an eventual lynch on dybeck moreso than the possibility that he was simply distancing from dybeck. Put another way, I feel like Sando was trying to paint dybeck as bv310's partner, in the event that bv310 was lynched.

If this was not what you were requesting, please re-word your request.

2.)

Javert: do you think I am a worthy alternative to the Espeonage lynch?

Yes. And just in case:

Javert: do you

really

think I am a worthy alternative to the Espeonage wagon?

Yes.

[Javert]

Note

: I am in the process of moving and I am about to be making a cross-country trip back home, so I expect to be V/LA for the next several days. I have given the Mod leave to replace me if it becomes a problem.

[Javert]

Posting to avoid a prod. I am still on the road (only about 500 miles from my final destination now), so I hope to be able to get myself back in the game on Monday or Tuesday.

[Javert]

Made it back home last night. I plan on starting my reread later today.

@Javert: You've only acknowledged Faraday once this entire game. Why?

Not sure. The best response I can give is that some players just fall below my radar, or their posts just don't strike me. I imagine Faraday is not the only player in the game who I have not really addressed directly.

Where do you stand on him?

Faraday is pretty much on my "I don't know" list right now. None of his posts that I recall have really come out and hit me as town or scum.

[Javert]

Getting through my reread more slowly than I anticipated.

1.)

This time around I made sure to pay special attention to Faraday's posts (and I've read him in isolation as well). The biggest twinges I've had are:

->

a.)

His compliments of me have made me wonder if he's trying to stay on my good side. According to Faraday, my entrance post was “quite impressive,” and my posts since then “have been really good” to the point where I'm “about as townie as farside”.

->

b.)

The fact that his vote seemed to be stuck on RichardGHP for Day One.

->

c.)

The fact that he seemed to post more when people started voting for him yesterday.

But even all of these combined are not doing much for me. Despite the compliments, I do not feel as if Faraday has been trying to buddy-buddy with me. Although I have not agreed with all of his suspicions or votes, I have to say whenever he makes a list of people he thinks are town, they are usually spot-on with what I'm thinking (starting as early as Post 803). I get the feeling that he is town, but just cannot commit the time he wants to the game.

2.)

I don't think anybody has ever really looked at the Pomegranate lynch with any seriousness. This strikes me as a mistake. I will have to look back on that wagon later.

3.)

I still think NickF227 is scum. I really do not like his posts, and he does not feel like he is town. I am getting the feeling more that farside22 is the “wet dream” that scum dream who is being kept around because she is defending scum is probably wrong in her suspicions to boot. I'm about halfway through the game, though, so this vote is subject to change.

Vote: NickF227

.

[Javert]

Prodded. Busy weekend.

1.)

A few questions about your claim, Shanba:

->

a.)

Can you “boost” yourself?
->

b.)

Do players receive PMs being told that they have been boosted?
->

c.)

What do you mean by “may help other roles function correctly”? Do roles

malfunction

? What would happen if

your

role malfunctioned?
->

d.)

Can you find any breadcrumbs from Faraday concerning his targets? Why did Faraday target who he targeted?

2.)

I will need to reread Faraday’s play to make sure the claim matches his behavior, but (pending answers to questions) for now I am fine with the claim. Although I understand the concern about ability not proving alignment, Boost Mafia apparently had a mafia group where all its members had powers, whereas in this game we have only seen Goons. In Boost Mafia, it looks like the Godfather could boost the other Mafiates in order let them use their powers – and that interaction does not really look like that would really come into play in this game.

Since we are halfway through the game, and since we now have a claim confirming my suspicions (at least I think it does, I may not be understanding the claim), I am going to postulate how power roles work:

Power roles start the game off with a certain amount of “positive karma.” The more a role uses its abilities, the more “negative karma” it gains – and using a strong ability is probably much more harmful than using a weak ability. At some point, roles get too much negative karma and stop working (or something). I imagine each role has a different “threshold” for negative karma (more powerful roles fizzle faster, etc.). This seems to square well with the whole “advised to not be too greedy” premise.

3.)

ABR - did you feel 'boosted' Night 3?

dybeck – is there a reason you did not ask this question of boberz concerning Night 1?

boberz, please answer whether you felt "boosted" on Night 1.

4.)

Espeonage, could you please explain your vote on Jahudo

in your own words

? We have already had this discussion before. If you have reasons for voting somebody, you should know those reasons, and hence you should be able to articulate them.

You don't have to post some gigantic case -- just a couple sentences explaining why you are voting for him.

5.)

Hey, you finally acknowledge my presence!

(If you have the time, ISO Espy and search for "Jahudo". You'd think for how much I talk about him he would have said a little about me before today that wasn't an indirect answer to a question I might have asked. Nope, this is the first time.)

Jahudo, what conclusions do you draw when a player does not really directly mention or comment on another player much in their posts?

I find these interactions can be telling once a player flips scum, but you have been pointing out this type of interaction between living, unconfirmed players. Why? You seem to be suggesting that not commenting on every player in the game is scummy for some reason, and I cannot say that I am fan of it.

[Javert]

1.)

Javert, where would you rank Shanba, Espy and I on your scum list right now? Are you still arguing that Nick should be today's lynch? Or has the focus shifted to where you are deciding among the other wagons?

Currently, my rank for lynching candidates between the three of you would be: Jahudo, Shanba, Espeonage. I have been thinking Espeonage is probably Town for quite a while now. I think Shanba is probably Town based on my read of Faraday, though I am waiting on Shanba’s responses. You are first on the list by default, because I do not really have a town lean on you.

Obviously I still think NickF227 is a good lynch seeing as I am voting for him. By this point, I am voting him largely because there are actually quite a few players I

will not

vote for (or more aptly, I will only vote for at a deadline). Hence, I have a very short list of players I am currently willing to vote for today, and NickF227 has been on my radar for quite a while now. I am not really persuaded by the “wet dream” argument because I imagine NickF227 is unhelpful both as town and scum, but I think NickF227 has crossed the boundary from simply being unhelpful to being scummy.

I find these interactions can be telling once a player flips scum, but you have been pointing out this type of interaction between living, unconfirmed players. Why? You seem to be suggesting that not commenting on every player in the game is scummy for some reason, and I cannot say that I am fan of it.

How do you get that conclusion?

It is a logical extension: if I do not comment on every single player in the game at some point, then it seems I have therefore “ignored” the players I do not comment on (or failed to “acknowledge” them, as you said earlier). Your posts give the impression that when somebody does not directly mention another player, it is scummy. Since you have not said that outright, though, I asked you what conclusions you

do

draw.

2.)

(I like to do my readthroughs without knowing the roles of the dead, it helps me get a more genuine thought process.)

If this is true, your first post of the game seems like it would necessitate that you have read the game twice over (once blind, once informed). But your opening post definitely gives the impression that you read through only once, and were starting to have Mushbrain Syndrome in the last 20 pages.

More pointedly: it seems like you read the game looking for connections to bv310 from the get-go. Indeed, your opening post says you that you “always” thought that Pomegranate was a counterwagon, which would suggest that you knew a different scum (either bv310 or Sando) was the good wagon.

[Javert]

1.)

Shanba, you claim you cannot "boost" yourself. Can you

target

yourself? Would your "boost" just be unsuccessful?

I suppose I do not see boost/motivator roles very often. I'll have to think about this some more. My first impression is that not being able to boost yourself makes sense -- why should a role be able to make itself more powerful? But then I think about it and seems like you

should

be able to target yourself, and that you would simply be "boosting" yourself back from the negative karma you gain (or positive karma you lose) by using your ability.

2.)

Shanba, what happens if your role "malfunctions" (I realize this is the word I was using, so it may not be strictly accurate)? Can you still use your role? Would you know when your role is malfunctioning?

This is the part of your claim that I'm having the most trouble with, so please be as detailed as possible. Please be clear on what the Mod has expressly told you, and what you are inferring, etc.

[Javert]

1.)

I am not in favor of a mass-claim. There may still be a protective role in the game, and I would rather keep that role concealed. Even if we do not have one, refusing to mass-claim forces the scum to second-guess their nightkill choices.

2.)

dybeck, since you claim you are afraid of being nightkilled, I do not see a reason for you to withhold any other information you have, as well as your night-choices, if you made them. The "efficacy" of your role will be zero if you die overnight. If you are telling the truth, it might help us better understand the game, and at the very least, be able to better judge Shanba's claim and whether it fits.

I would also like this clarified:

The fact is, though, that both Boberz and Espeonage are confirmed town.

I recently lost a game where Masons claimed their partner was confirmed by the Mod to be Town, and it turned out they were wrong. So please double-check that when you say "confirmed town," you really

mean

confirmed town. I am rather tired of losing games based on stupid mistakes.

[Javert]

1.)

Javert, I am not sure I understand why you have 3 lynch candidates, but you are not voting them..that doesn’t make since., is he a 4th candidate or not? I am confused.

If you are referring to section #1 of Post 1962, I was simply ranking the three players Jahudo asked me to rank.

2.)

dybeck, suppose you had investigated Sando. What would your result have been? "Mafia Goon"? "Mafia"? "Goon"?

How would this result be any different between your Strong and your Weak mode? Should your role could catch a Godfather, since you do not technically investigate for "guilt," but rather the role?

3.)

Request in general: Can anybody link to other games that involved Boosters / Motivators or Rolecops, or fake-claims of either of those roles?

[Javert]

Hi, dybeck.

I have problems with your claim. When I have problems with a claim, I ask questions. I am even more likely to ask questions when the player in question says they are "happy" to answer questions.

I personally think it is naive to withhold information from the Town if you are Town once you've claimed the bulk of your information. There is really nothing to gain by withholding information, especially if you die. But it is an excellent tactic for scum to dangle partial information.

I have partial-claimed as scum in a mini game fairly recently when I was under practically no pressure at all. I started off claiming to be a "Watcher or a Tracker" with a near-damning result. The next game Day, I claimed to be a "Tracker variant" -- and even then, I left my claim purposefully ambiguous so that one of my scum-partners could potentially claim a power role in a way that "fit" my role exceptionally well. My claim pretty much sealed the win for my mafia group.

The "efficacy" of your role will be zero if you die overnight.

I disagree. If I die overnight, Boberz and Espeonage are rock-solid confirmed.

Don't play with semantics -- obviously if you are telling the truth, confirming two players to be town is quite efficient. That is an asinine point. If you are telling the truth, then this is true regardless of whether or not you explain your role.

But the real question here is whether revealing the

rest

of your claim is "efficacious." If you die, obviously the "efficacy" of withholding the rest of your information is zero, which is the point I was making.

If you are going to partially claim a role, then in my opinion, you should just claim the whole damned role.

[Javert]

1.)

Don't think for a second that you can insult or scare me into revealing information that helps scum. Such tactics might work on newbies, but not on me.

Perhaps you have not noticed this, but I have a tendency of questioning claims. I questioned Pomegranate's claim, I questioned Shanba's claim, and I would have questioned Sando's claim if I had been able to post before he was hammered.

farside22 just asked pretty much the exact same questions I just asked -- how is your Weak and Strong mode different (i.e. do you get different results on the same roles?) and what nights did you get your information?

To judge your claim effectively at all, we need to know when you found out that boberz was Town, and when you found out that Espeonage was Town. Claiming your other two results (and more particularly, who you targeted) also lets us judge whether your actions at night make sense with the way you have played the game. For example, your posts imply that you have not investigated Shanba/Faraday or Albert B. Rampage (or that you do not have a useful result on them, at least). But it seems strange that you would investigate boberz (one of your top suspects from Day One) and not Faraday/Shanba (another one of your top suspects from Day One, who you have been consistently voting since Day Two).

So in addition to my questions (which Shanba has echoed) and farside22's questions, please answer boberz's question from Post 1989.

2.)

Question: Would a hider die if they hid with a third party role?

My guess is that it would depend on what kind of Third Party role you are talking about. I doubt a Hider would die behind a Jester or Lyncher, but it might die behind a Serial Killer or Cult Leader. I imagine the answer to this changes as the Mod changes, or as balance requires.

[Javert]

dybeck, if anything, it looks like you are trying to scare me off of questioning your claim.

Jahudo has asked you questions that you have not answered. farside22 has asked you questions that you have not answered. boberz has asked you questions that you have not answered. Shanba has echoed that you should explain your role.

Out of the nine players who are not you, five of us have questioned you about your claim. Portending “doom and gloom” if you are actually forced to explain yourself is not a persuasive reason to get me off of your case.

[Javert]

dybeck, I noticed you still have not explained your role. Please get to doing that.

[Javert]

dybeck, I noticed you still have not explained your role. Please get to doing that.

Not right now thanks. I'd prefer to get to lynching scum.

Your post is, however, a beautiful effort to lurk in plain sight and to try and distract from the clear main issue of the moment, vis a vis that your scumbuddy is at L-2 and rising.

Why don't you tell us what you think about that instead?

1.)

Asking you to explain your partial role-claim is the exact opposite of a "distraction" -- it is the very definition of scumhunting. Games do not have to focus on one issue at a time. I have problems with your claim, and I see zero reasons to simply let you slide by on a partial claim.

2.)

Your post boils down to "why aren't you giving an opinion on NickF227>" I currently think he is the most likely player to be scum, and that is self-evident seeing as I am voting for him and have been calling him the most likely player to be scum for most of the game Day.

Now please get to explaining your claim. Accusing me of lurking, being a distraction, fishing, or whatever else you want to throw at me is not going to make me leave you alone.

[Javert]

I've been thinking about this for the past few days:

Unvote: NickF227, Vote: dybeck

1.)

dybeck’s claim literally does not make sense, and he has refused to answer questions to explain his role multiple times. The main problem with his claim is exactly the theme of the game:

What is the difference between his Weak and Strong mode?

I do not think there

can

be one. Using his Weak mode, dybeck should get a "Villager" result on a Villager. Using his Strong mode, dybeck should

still

get a "Villager" result on a Villager. And the same goes for every other role in the game. The entire

premise

of the game is that Weak and Strong modes are different.

On top of this, boberz has also called dybeck out for getting supposedly getting "Vanilla Villager" as a result, when there is no such role as a Vanilla Villager.

2.)

dybeck may have seemingly claimed while he was "not under pressure," but I think he was simply preempting the pressure that he knew was going to be coming his way. Shanba had just claimed and the wagon on Shanba was crumbling. Suddenly, there had to be a new wagon – and everybody had kinda been talking about dybeck. So dybeck claims and then touts the fact that he claimed "while not under pressure" in order to gain town cred.

3.)

dybeck has had four nights to investigate, and he has apparently not even investigated the very players I would most expect him to investigate: namely Faraday/Shanba and Albert B. Rampage, also known as the two players he has been talking about for practically the entire game. Of his results, only one of them could possibly have been contradicted – although he claimed to know Espeonage’s role, Espeonage has already claimed. The only risk would have been boberz.

Even so, I can definitely believe that dybeck actually has the role he claims to have. But I am starting to think it is just a straight scum ability, and hence does not have a Weak / Strong ability at all.

4.)

dybeck's reaction to people asking him to explain his role has been ridiculous. He first says he is "happy to answer questions," but once people actually start asking them he suddenly refuses to answer the questions that actually let us judge his claim -- he has even refused to claim what nights he received his information.

Accusing me of "fishing" from somebody who has

already claimed their role

is as ridiculous as accusations come. Accusing me of "distracting" by asking him to explain his role because

he

wants the game to focus on Shanba is similarly ridiculous. Finally, accusing me of "active lurking" because I made a single pointed post directed at him when I have been verbal the entire game is mind-boggling.

I would like people to read back on the timing of dybeck's claim, and his reaction once people start asking him to explain what the difference between his Weak and Strong mode are, and how his role is actually supposed to work.

5.)

I am seriously thinking this Shanba wagon is nothing but a compromise wagon in the face of a deadline, and I don’t like it.

[Javert]

I am not going to speculate for a role that I think is a fake-claim. I do not think your role has a Strong Mode or a Weak Mode, and that is precisely why I am voting for you.

As for the "two nights you haven't told us about," that is your duty to explain, and not mine. But if you would like me to hazard a guess, perhaps you are responsible for the two nights we have had two kills. I have been having trouble seeing you as scum with Sando in particular, but being scum in your own right is certainly making a good deal of sense.

[Javert]

I am not going to speculate for a role that I think is a fake-claim. I do not think your role has a Strong Mode or a Weak Mode, and that is precisely why I am voting for you.

As for the "two nights you haven't told us about," that is your duty to explain, and not mine. But if you would like me to hazard a guess, perhaps you are responsible for the two nights we have had two kills. I have been having trouble seeing you as scum with Sando in particular, but being scum in your own right is certainly making a good deal of sense.

Wow, I really must have put the cat among the pigeons in team scum if you're resorting to desperate measures like this. It doesn't even make sense! Firstly my claim is entirely fake - then I'm some kind of scum-half-rolecop-half-extra-killer. Pure genius.

Your responses are just getting better and better. You are not even responding.

I think your claim is one of two things, as I said in the post where I voted for you:

a.)

Your claim is entirely fake; or

b.)

You actually do have some ability to learn role names, but that this ability is a scum ability because there cannot be a Strong/Weak version of your role.

In the second instance, you could easily have actually investigated twice and killed twice. Trying to make me look inconsistent with myself because there are two separate theories that support you being scum is not doing anything to make you look town.

[Javert]

Yes, I want you lynched.

I am not pleased with the make-up Shanba wagon in the slightest:

Shanba (4) -- Jahudo, Albert B. Rampage, dybeck, curiouskarmadog

There are three players I think are highly likely to be Town {farside22, Espeonage, boberz}, and not a single one of them is voting for Shanba.

When you take out the possibility of Shanba voting for himself, that leaves five players: {dybeck, curiouskarmadog, Albert B. Rampage, NickF227, Jahudo}, and I find it rather disturbing how all four players voting for Shanba come from that group of five players. The only thing that could make the wagon look worse would be if NickF227 slapped his vote on.

I think this is a mislynch, and not only that, it is a compromise lynch (i.e. "hey, this person has votes and a deadline is coming up, so I will vote for them, too!"). My usual policy is that I will vote somebody if it is

necessary

to avoid a No-Lynch, but it only takes four more votes to lynch you and I think I can get it done.

Now, is there a reason that not a single one of your posts actually responds to my posts? Instead you try to make little jabs to prolong the argument that started

when you first claimed your role

(read: well before the deadline), and now all of a sudden you are trying to use the deadline as a shield.

[Javert]

As I said before, my policy is to vote to get a Lynch if it is necessary to avoid a No Lynch unless there is some strategic reason for No Lynching (which is not present here). If push comes to shove, I will vote for Shanba to avoid a No Lynch, but I will not be happy about it.

I had also noticed that it is curious that the three confirmed town are not voting Shanba.

However, they don't have any information about who is scum and who is town. Such is the peril of being in the uninformed majority.

The inverse, however, is that the group that I think contains the informed minority is voting for Shanba. This is the same feeling I had with the RichardGHP wagon on Day One -- sometimes the players on the wagon tell the tale plainly enough. This feels like a rotten wagon.

I don't particularly care to "work with you," but I admit I would vastly prefer a NickF227 lynch to a Shanba lynch.

[Javert]

Just to make sure about deadline: I think if I am doing the conversion correctly, it is 2 hours and 40 minutes away. If this is wrong, somebody please let me know. I will be checking the thread every half hour or so, in case I need to change my vote to avoid a No Lynch.

Unvote: dybeck, Vote: NickF227

.

[Javert]

Looks like I did do it wrong (I used Standard and not Daylight) -- deadline is about 3 hours and 35 minutes away.

[Javert]

Are you actually relaying an opinion in that post, curiouskarmadog? If you are, please be more clear.

[Javert]

Unvote: NickF227, Vote: Shanba

.

[Javert]

Vote: dybeck

.

dybeck, is there a reason you voted four minutes after the deadline yesterday? Also, I'm not caring for the fact that you are trying to get somebody else to claim their role before you have finished explaining your own role claim.

I plan on looking at some of the bigger wagons of the game this weekend. I don't think I have it in me to reread the entire game, but I should be able to manage that much.

[Javert]

Busier weekend than I anticipated -- still have not gotten to looking over the wagons.

1.)

dybeck's logic is not making sense here. If NickF227 "blocked" dybeck, then NickF227 would not insinuate (or "feign ignorance") that he might be a Miller role because he would

know

there is not a real result on him.

2.)

dybeck, arguing that your vote four minutes after the deadline "did not make a difference" does not change the fact that you could not have known that your vote did not make a difference. I assume that even if you were watching Desperate Housewives, the show has commercial breaks.

Mafia is not a game of "no harm, no foul." The fact that your lateness did not turn out to be necessary for a No-Lynch does not change whether you had the intent, which is the proper question.

3.)

Now you claim that scum must be real nervous because your role exists, and boy would scum

love

to know how your role works. But then a few breaths later you claim that you were role-blocked last night. It sounds to me that if you are telling the truth, scum don't care how your role works, because they are apparently just going to role-block you. So I am

really

not seeing why are still being persistent in not explaining your role.

[Javert]

Note

: I am sending the mod a PM to notify him that I may have to be replaced. I simply have not been able to put the time I would like into this game lately, and I will also be unable to post from July 8 - 12. I apologize in advance if I require replacement.

[Javert]

I've read up on the latest, but I don't know if I will time to read back on earlier days any time soon.

For dybeck:

1.)

Claim what nights you targeted who, and whether you used your Strong or Weak mode.

2.)

Second, what is the difference between your Strong and Weak mode? As far as I can tell, you still have just claimed one thing.

3.)

I do not understand why your results are apparently "Vanilla" and "Not Vanilla" (instead of "Villager" and "Not Villager," which would be more in-line with this game). How would bv310 or Sando (Mafia Goons) have turned up? Would they have been "Vanilla Mafia"?

[Javert]

For dybeck:

a.)

Explain why you targeted the players you did. This also encompasses curiouskarmadog's question about why you did not target him.

b.)

Explain your Weak Mode. I first asked you to effectively explain your role on June 9, and it is now July 2. The fact that you have protracted your claim for this long is ridiculous.

For Shanba:

a.)

dybeck asked you a question about your role. Simply because the focus is currently on dybeck, that does not excuse you from answering questions posed to you. Please answer it.

[Javert]

Dybeck, do you have a reason to think Pome might actually be town here?

Honestly, no. Actually, I do take on board all the reasons she's been voted.

But I'm just thinking about risk versus reward. We've got a real potential tangible reward in keeping Pomtown alive, and nobody's really put a case that there's a real drawback in keeping Pomscum alive for a night - to see if a tracker or cop can confirm her one way or another tonight, and to get some further usable info from her night action tonight - usable info which will be confirmed fact if we decide to lynch her tomorrow.

Is the main problem that there's nobody else screaming scum?

dybeck, if you had a "Not Vanilla" result on Pomegranate and Pomegranate had claimed Hider by this point, why did you not at least drop a breadcrumb here when you were point-blank asked if you had

any

reason to think Pomegranate might be Town? Also, why suggest that a "Tracker or Cop can confirm her" when you now claiming to be an investigative result with your Strongest possible result on her already?

I find it further confusing that you would apparently leave an entire post dedicated to breadcrumbing your

role

, but not a single post actually breadcrumbing a single one of your

results

. That is the very definition of leaving yourself an "open" fake-claim where you can fill in your results later as you please, and as your situation requires.

[Javert]

1.)

... Jahudo has gone all quiet...

Jahudo is actually on V/LA until July 8.

2.)

dybeck, now you are claiming that your Weak Mode will somehow also be rendered useless if you are forced to claim it. I call bullshit. This was not even true for your claimed Strong mode.

Last I checked, most everybody in the game has role-claimed. Unless you think

everybody

who has claimed is telling the truth, then if you are Town your role still has theoretical uses. In fact, you

just

claimed that you investigated NickF227 last night to see if he might

not

be a Villager, like you thought he had claimed earlier. So if there are any scum who have claimed Villager, your Strong mode would still be able to catch them. Alternatively, if Mafia Goons get a "Vanilla" result (which is question you still have not answered), then a Mafia Goon who has claimed a power role would

also

be caught in a lie.

boberz also made a fine point: if you are Town and scum have to claim power roles in order to try and be consistent with your results, then we have an even

better

chance of catching them. Think about it: scum do not get caught tripping over Townie claims, but they sure

do

get caught tripping over power role claims.

On top of that, you just claimed to be role-blocked. If you are really being role-blocked by scum, then your Weak Mode won't catch scum because you won't get a result. Further, if your role is not functioning, then you also won't be able to get results.

You are either being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn, or you are lying scum. You might even just be stubborn scum with the ability you claim (but perhaps not with an actual Weak mode -- the rules technically only say that

Town

power roles have Strong and Weak modes). Right now, there is nothing in the way you have chosen to claim that leads me to believe you are Town. In fact, I think you are scum tripping over your own claim.

Your claim does not make sense with the flavor of the game (why get "Vanilla" results and not "Villager" results?), your results have largely been safe (again, the only claim that could have been contradicted was that boberz was "Vanilla"), you act like only you can focus the discussions in this game (trying to limit discussion to Shanba yesterday, and trying to skirt discussion away from you today), you have refused to answer the simple questions the entire Town has been asking you to answer (such as: (1) What is the difference between your Strong and Weak mode?; (2) Can a Goon be "Vanilla"?; (3) Why did you target who have targeted?), and now you are trying to sulk your way out of it.

If you are Town, please take a step back and realize the position we are in. Quit with the ego, and claim your role. If you are scum, please please please continue doing exactly what you are doing.

[Javert]

Javert, who are the two remaining scum?

For starters, I think there are two or three scum remaining. Based on the nightkills, it looks like we still have a Mafia and a Serial Killer, so the only question is how many members of the Mafia are left.

I think the Serial Killer is dybeck. I stand by read from early on in the game that I do not think Sando was partnered with dybeck. This has led me to believe that dybeck was probably Town for most of the game, but upon seeing dybeck's claim I've obviously changed my mind. His claim reads like an attempt to preempt pressure before it was going to be turned to him. And actually, his stubbornness makes sense as a Serial Killer. He does not want to look

so

Town that he is likely to be nightkilled; but at the same time, he wants to look Town enough (or at least to post forcefully enough) to avoid being lynched. So he picks and chooses the questions asked of him, and tries to keep his claim vague enough so that it seems he is being very informative whilst he ultimately claims very little.

Note: It also occurred to me that curiouskarmadog just asked today if

anybody

had

any

information that might help verify Shanba's claim. Yet dybeck remained silent. Now he claims that he had information as early as Day Five.

As for the Mafia, the first candidate is still NickF227. I have never bought into the “scum's wet dream” argument because sometimes scummy players are just that -- scum. Although Sando voted NickF227 on Day Three, he only did so when he was already going down in flames -- I think it was probably a distancing vote. There is pretty much nothing that makes me think NickF227 is Town. The fact that he switched his vote from RichardGHP to bv310 has never hit that big a chord for me because he did so while pouting about it. I am not sure he even realized he was tipping the bandwagons. His confusion about Villager / Townie rubs me wrong, and so do his WIFOM defenses from earlier in the game.

My second candidate would obviously hinge on whether I am right about NickF227 to begin with. If I am right, then the natural partner seems to be Albert B. Rampage. If I am wrong about NickF227, then I think Albert B. Rampage is probably Town and that would leave some combination of {curiouskarmadog, Jahudo, Shanba}. Right now, I do not have a solid feeling on this scenario.

[Javert]

Note: It also occurred to me that curiouskarmadog just asked today if anybody had any information that might help verify Shanba's claim. Yet dybeck remained silent. Now he claims that he had information as early as Day Five.

I think I missed this, what exactly are you talking about here?

Actually, retract this point. I was going off of memory, and of course whenever I do that I end up being flatly wrong. curiouskarmadog indeed asked in Post 2164, but dybeck actually claimed all his targets and results (including his Shanba result) just a couple posts later. That is the polar opposite of "remained silent."

How is being stubborn an sktell, particularly? The idea of threading the needle between scumminess and towniness sure, I can see that that would be an sktell, but how is stubbornness contributing to that?

In this case, being stubborn serves a number of purposes for dybeck: it lengthens the Day (which definitely helps scum, as evidenced by our No Lynch yesterday), it lets him get away with a partial claim so he can give more thought to how he will claim his full role, and it obviously makes him look scummy while he claims results "clearing" two players which gives him town cred, especially if the players he cleared are actually Town. Stubbornness is not a "sktell"

per se

, but right now it is serving all of the purposes a Serial Killer would want from dybeck's position. Really, it is Shanba's

overall

play that makes me feel like he is a Serial Killer, not any one particular tell. The biggest indicator in my mind is the early-game dybeck-Sando positioning, though.

Also, to address boberz, claiming two innocent results makes a good deal of sense (as any scum role) if you think about it. First, if dybeck claims a guilty result and ends up being wrong, he will be lynched or nightkilled -- so in that sense, he is restricted to innocent results, even more so if he is the only player of his faction as then he cannot afford to be lynched. (Note how his claim will never actually get a "guilty" result unless somebody contradicts his claims). Second, he makes it very likely that the players he claims innocent results on will not vote for him, because it feels lovely to be "vouched for" by a claimed investigative role -- and note this is true even if he claims an innocent result on a player who is actually scum. Third, it paints alternative night-kills for an opposing scum team (making it more likely he will survive the night). And fourth, scum are probably best off today trying to lynch the opposing scum-team, so scum have a large incentive to avoid a mislynch if they can, especially this late in the game. Claiming innocent results necessarily retracts the field of who can be lynched, which is to any scum's advantage if they can avoid the lynch themselves.

[Javert]

Javert did you suggest there were two scum teams?

Yes -- based on two nights with double-kills, I believe there are two scum teams.

[Javert]

boberz, I think this answers your question:

For starters, I think there are two or three scum remaining. Based on the nightkills, it looks like we still have a Mafia and a Serial Killer, so the only question is how many members of the Mafia are left.

"Team" might not be the best term to use, but the gist of my posting (such as the fact that I think dybeck is our Serial Killer) should make it clear that I think we're dealing with a Serial Killer and a Mafia.

[Javert]

As mentioned earlier, I will now be V/LA, and hopefully able to post again by July 13.

[Javert]

Back from V/LA.

From the looks of it, there was not much discussion to catch up on. For whoever asked, I do think Shanba (now Faraday) is Town. I still think my vote is in the right place.

[Javert]

I really dislike NickF227’s play, but I am changing my mind on him almost solely because of his reaction to dybeck’s claim yesterday (with his “maybe I’m a miller” posting). At first glance it seems like it should strike me as scummy (after all, he suggests he is a miller and votes dybeck in the process), but I am not getting a scummy feel from the posts. There just isn't really

panic

in his posting, and it doesn't quite feel like he is just trying to avoid the issue. I don't know how quite to explain it, but it seems like if scum were to make a post along the lines of "maybe I'm a miller," I should get a "wow, you are so scum" feeling immediately, and I simply did not get that feeling.

I still think Shanba/Faraday is Town. Albert B. Rampage I have thought was Town for most of the game, and at this point I think I am just going to trust my gut on that point.

So I am down to {curiouskarmadog, Jahudo}. I will try to read their posts by Monday and decide which I prefer.

[Javert]

Consider my vote to be on Faraday, but I don't see a point in voting immediately. I'm in a rush, I might have questions for Jahudo when I have more time to think and review the game.

[Javert]

javert, refresh my memory have you claimed yet?

No, but if my memory serves I think I am the only person who has not claimed, so I might as well complete the circle.

I'm a Doctor. My Strong mode is a normal Doctor, I can protect against a single nightkill per night. My Weak mode is pretty much a Martyr: if I protect correctly, I die instead. I have only used my Strong mode because I honestly never thought I would survive this long into the game, so I never thought that karma would be able to "catch up" with me.

N1: Albert B. Rampage
N2: farside22
N3: farside22
N4: Albert B. Rampage
N5: farside22
N6: boberz

As should be obvious, my N5 and N6 protections were apparently not successful (although the N5 kill could have been a double-kill). This is one of the reasons why I really latched onto dybeck when he claimed he got "no result" on Night 5; I thought that

I

had been role-blocked and that one purpose behind dybeck's "no result" claim was to decide if I was power role or not (in other words, expecting me to say "wait a minute,

I

was role-blocked"). In any case, if you read back on my posts it is hopefully clear that my teeth were pretty much completely sunk into him once he claimed to have been role-blocked, although I tried my damnedest to not give away that I was a power role.

also, javert given this new information that you seem to be eating up so quickly, after having jahudo in your possible scum group (along with me)..can you please revise your scum lists today versus tomorrow?

I haven't gotten to check back on Jahudo's posts yet to make sure his posts match his claim (although his breadcrumbs at first glance look legit), but if you are asking me to revise my list on the assumption that Faraday is Scum and Jahudo is Town, it should be clear that my list simply swaps from {Jahudo, curiouskarmadog} to {Faraday, curiouskarmadog}.

[Javert]

Oh, and I might as well explain this now:

The first thing I imagine people will notice is that I

did not

protect Albert B. Rampage on Night Three, which was the night after he claimed Cop, but I

did

protect him on Night Four after he had retracted his claim. I was pretty much trying to make an educated guess / gamble.

I think the scum groups (or at least one group) probably guessed/knew there was a Doctor in the game since there was only one kill on Night One, and hence would not want to make the most "obvious" kill on Night 3 (the claimed Cop), or perhaps they would assume the other group would kill the obvious target so that they didn't have to. So I instead deferred my protection to the

second

most likely kill target, farside22. I like to think that I made the right call since there was only one kill on Night Three (

and

Albert B. Rampage did not die), but I suppose I will find out when the game is over.

After Albert B. Rampage retracted his Cop claim on Day Four and people (including myself) still thought he was Town, I figured scum might then try to take a shot at him on Night Four because he would seem practically "unlynchable," so I switched my protection to Albert B. Rampage. [I was also stupidly and secretly hoping that he actually

was

still a Cop, but that he had just been role-blocked on Night Three and that he would return on Day Five with a result despite his retraction].

[Javert]

Ok, javert, having a problem here, you want us to believe that you believe jahudo’s claim….he says I didn’t do anything N4, when there were two kills. So you still think I am scum, but not submitting kills? Explain. How many scum do you think are left? if there is more than two, who else?

also, your explanation about why you didnt protect ABR doesnt make any sense.

Well, if Faraday is telling the truth about his Serial Killer claim, then I suppose your partner would have submitted the kill on Night Four. Is there a particular reason you are asking me these questions and not Albert B. Rampage?

Whether you

like

my explanation for my protection targets is not really relevant. With a Doctor role, I try to protect the person I think is most likely to be nightkilled. Sometimes, that is not always the "obvious" kill. I felt that scum would WIFOM themselves out of killing Albert B. Rampage on Night Three -- and from the looks of it, I was right. If you have complaints about how I chose to play my role, you can save them for after the game.

Also, my case on you has largely been process of elimination, as my first post today should make clear.

I will be V/LA until tomorrow.

[Javert]

About to be out the door, but that last post from curiouskarmadog definitely needs a quick response:

1.)

You did not have the option of hammering Faraday, because he only had two votes on him and it takes four votes to lynch.

2.)

Your explanation that you only asked me questions because

I

"believed Jahudo's claim" does not make sense -- Albert B. Rampage actually

voted

based off of Jahudo's claim, which rather indicates that he believed Jahudo's claim

as well

. Which brings us back to the original question: why did you only ask

me

those questions and not Albert B. Rampage?

3.)

Your question about scum teams is basically asking me to figure out the entire game before I can say who I want to lynch today. I take the game a day at a time. If I were to say "X and Y are the scumteam," then it just let's scum easily manipulate endgame. I would rather say "X is scum with either Y or Z" and worry about choosing between Y and Z on the morrow if I live that long.

Right now, it looks like you are complaining about my night choices for no apparent reason (perhaps because you are angry that I blocked a kill by outsmarting you at night?) and trying to put an unnecessary burden on me to figure out the entire game before I can consider voting for you.

Really need to leave this time.

[Javert]

I agree that Faraday is the Serial Killer. I am withholding judgment on NickF227 -- he needs to post.

Scum is CKD / Javert IMO.

If we were scum together, we would have had the perfect opportunity to quicklynch Faraday after Post 2312, when we posted three minutes apart from each other.

[Javert]

Albert B. Rampage, can you explain where you thought curiouskarmadog was setting himself up for a power role claim?

[Javert]

I think a couple nights of stewing the latest information has helped me sort things out, but I'm not going to vote yet. Here is my current thinking:

Jahudo is Town. Both NickF227 and curiouskarmadog have each been tracked with a result of not targeting anybody. This suggests that

if

the mafia continually sends the same person to do the killing each night, Albert B. Rampage would be the killer. A scum-team of {NickF227, curiouskarmadog} would certainly have been ridiculously lucky to avoid two straight damning results from Jahudo, and I think Occam's Razor can tell me it is probably because they are not a scumteam. If there is a second mafiate (which I am not completely convinced of), I can currently see both NickF227 and curiouskarmadog fitting the bill -- chances are, I won't have to decide between the two pairings anyways, but I have thought for quite a while that if anybody was partnered with Albert B. Rampage, it would be NickF227.

I think

if

Faraday is lying about anything, it would be (i) the number of mafiates remaining, or (ii) whether he has some kind of bulletproof ability. He might even have told the truth, but in that case he still might be withholding some information. I'm not sure, but I think it is strategically sound to leave him alive today -- there is no sense in risking that he is being truthful about the number of mafiates remaining, and anyways, he should hopefully take out any scum during the night.

[Javert]

Vote: curiouskarmadog

.

[Javert]

Thanks for the game, all.

I was leery about the mafia getting additional kills throughout the entire game, but after seeing exactly how beefy those town power roles were (the Jailkeeper in particular --

zut alors!

) I'm not so sure about the balance any longer. In any case, I still think using 10 Karma Points is too few for an additional kill. Maybe 12, or up to 15. If we were we of a mind, we probably could have gotten off five kills if we chose not to role-block, daytalk, or role-strip. Perhaps there also should have been a limit to the additional kills -- probably two, since the Vigilante was similarly limited.

I think this set-up is the result of "Side A is too powerful, so I'll make Side B powerful, too." Each side definitely packs too much punch. Although it might be facially balanced, I think such set-ups are more prone to swinginess.

Thanks also to Patrick/Ether for modding and keeping the game on-track.

[Javert]

No objections, although Patrick has already shared the scum QT in his generic role PMs post.