Micro 438: Greatest Idea Mafia - Game Over

[MrTrow]

Oh, I should've said I got a "not mafia" for guille.

As I have already claimed, I will popcorn to guille.

So not only do you want to push a massclaim, even before everyone has posted and you basically quickhammered a town cop.
you also popcorn (as in force to come up with a lie before other claims are in the open, thus more likely to be caught) the person you have a not-guilty on? (yes mafia-only but still).

That really makes sense.
Also

Especially after how that hammer went down

Indeed, not just the hammer though.
Is there any one who can look at that lynch and conclude it was not scum-driven?

So diego was scum because he, a new player, should have known town should not have the need to breadcrumb?

VOTE: eyestott
Should you breadcrumb

How about no

just to be clear: this is the correct answer

[MrTrow]

This Christmas was killed Night 1.

They were a

Werewolf One-Shot Governor

.

Why not? We have 6 people, and we've lost two town already.

So one was someone you have to pretend to be your teammate the other actually was?

[MrTrow]

We have lost two town.
1 through the lynch, and 1 last night.
Please rephrase that post, as I did not understand it.

Ow that's what you meant, sorry my bad, i didn't take: it is day 2 and there is a scum dead despite a scum-driven lynch as so bad it warrants a mass-claim.
So the detail you included the lynch in those numbers didn't occur to me.
I pretty much accused you of a scumslip. 'dead buddy + i'm town -> dead buddy was town(not actually reading allignments as i already know that one) typo


(back to the post i was actually writing)
ow and to what extend you believe 'town should know, breadcrumbing is useless, yet he did -> must be scum' was a factor in his lynch, is completely irrelevant.

Fact remains: you made that argument knowing fully well it wasn't true.
After all you are a more experienced player than he is, have experience regarding breadcrumbing in particular
AND STILL felt the need to start a discussion-thread to figure out the proper way to handle breadcrumbs.
there is no way you genuinely believed a player less experienced than you should know 'breadcrumbing role as town isn't helpful'

You were pushing a false case and are therefore the proud holder of my vote.

Also would you kindly justify the detail you just conveniently skipped:
the 'popcorn order' is 'most scummy(one who is most likely to have to come up with a fakeclaim) first(as to rob them of the claims of those who answer truthfully)'
you you chose to consider the person you have a COP-INNOCENT on as the most likely to be scum who has yet to reveal.
WHY?

Don't you think it's possible that towncopeyestott could have taken the chance and lynched him?

Sorry could you rephrase this one.
Either i don't follow or it screams: "but i would have done the same if i were town"

[MrTrow]

I'm liking mrtrow's argument against Eye's claims here. But Eye has a pretty scope on the mass claim thing here. Despite his logic for doing so, this may well be lylo.
I don't think he's a cop, and I don't trust his result, but somehow I don't think he's scum. Especially not the one to preform the night kill. Probably because of his hammering a cop.

So you think he is a townie who fake-claimed cop to get someone (who flipped cop) lynched?
Sorry but one of us is missing something here.

Also, yes it is possible we are in mylo.
So?
The only reason we know we weren't in lylo yesterday is the fact espeonage and eyestott rammed through a town-lynch and the game didn't end

Do you see any possible outcome of this mass-claim, where powers and allignments don't need to have anything to do with one-another, that would make the D1 lynch any less scum-driven?
Or any other effect on allignment?
(e.g. even it it were to convince you eye is indeed a cop, how would that exclude the possibility of a werewolf-alligned cop?)

Alchemist:
what do you think about my assessment the lynch must have been scum-driven?

[MrTrow]

You think a D1 less than 24-hour (3 players effective afk and 2 rvs-votes) lynch (of a cop) is not scum-driven?

leaving espeonage, eyestott and guille on the lynch. (your vote obv-rvs and your allignment not in question (i agree with the 'scum wouldn't have thrown out vanilla-izer power' and christmas rvs, despite the detail we now know he had reason not to jump in and stop this, i think we can agree he wasn't driving this thing)

i assume we agree guille wasn't driving either (and i can see his vote being 'derp' , though i would like to know what made him

magically convinced

)

espeonage and eyestott however both pushed bullshit to make sure this lynch got through (preferably before either of the RVS-voters on him would return)

[MrTrow]

As for 'not seeing the scum motive' regarding the cop-claim.
Do you see a town motivation?
Diego's claim(in response to an 'intend to hammer') was already considered 'questionable', by the player who had taken the town-leader position at that point.
There was no reason why a town-cop would counter-claim over hammering, especially in a game where the counter-claim is not conclusive.

[MrTrow]

ah.
espeonage, good to see you're here.
Lets start this off lightly:
- what is thread-diving and why is it an excuse to wait with voting a person you consider likely scum for discarding 'investigates as cult' till after you figure out what the role does thus shattering the entire 'prob-scum due to discard (only to still place exactly that vote)
- what did you think that role did?
- what numbers in this 'balance explicitly not guaranteed'-game are the basis for your slimer-accusation

after those answers we can move on to the interesting stuff (can you guess what?)

[MrTrow]

1. still leaves: 'what is thread diving?', am i to assume 'didn't know that was what was chucked' refers to the misunderstanding what the role was? And also what was the reason you did vote him?
2. sounds fair.
3. this was what i was looking for: you were aware it was 'too much scums'(not too few) why the first roll failed(thanks for confirming the 1st roll anti-town claim and your assumption it would still be the case).
Yet you claim you chose to be town out of fear of being on your own as scum.
Can you explain this?

[MrTrow]

So in a multikill-frenzy(pretty much the worst case scenario if you were to choose scum and not extremely likely at that) you felt safer as 'team target' than as effectively your favorite alignment (with a nightkill) AND a power which is useful to a killing faction?
I don't think we're gonna get any further on this, guess possible but very unlikely is where it stays.

So what exactly about reading the Grand Ideas thread (in which i can find what Evangelistic does btw) is a reason to claim: you have a reason to claim there is a 'prob-scum due to discards' but not vote?
What was the reason you did end up voting diego?
What is your reason for not voting now?

[MrTrow]

1.
You claimed to have found a reason in the discards to call 'someone'(explicitly unnamed at that point) prob-scum
You claimed to have a reason to not vote (only implied to be related after you revealed(in a way that was apparently clear to all but me) what the reason was)
You later revealed the reason for not voting to be: actually not knowing what was discarded.
Aren't these things mutually exclusive?
Also isn't this whole 'i found prob scum, here somewhere, but i'm not giving further hints', standard fake-hunting?

Also why were you trying to find the role in 'the discussion thread that inspired this mechanic' rather than the wiki-page containing the role-list the mod provided in the rules?

2.
so basically you ordered a quick-hammer on a town-cop for rvs-wagon? (this might actually be the most honest thing that happened in yesterday's lynch
was it also 'for wagon' you discarded the 'no i didn't claim cop because of the discussion how useful this is, i crumbed the role prior to that discussion' or was that 'for shrug'?

3.
you have a strong preference for anti-town roles and have referred to 'some good articles about ....'
could refer me to a (preferably non-joke) guide to playing as an anti-town faction which doesn't have 'promote shrug' as a top 3 tool?
alternatively, could you provide any reason why anyone else should vote, on for example either of the 2 in your 'one of them must be scum'-pool or the one who 'must be scum because numbers'(preferably something else than, 'must be scum because numbers')

p-edit:

@Trow, here we see Guille trying to say how Diego's cop claim is feasible, but then suddenly voted because he was convinced. Convinced by what? It's not even clear who convinced him.
I'll need to look back at the context of Eyestott's claim, but my gut still tells me he's telling the truth.

i assume we agree guille wasn't driving either (and i can see his vote being 'derp' , though i would like to know what made him magically convinced)

regarding guille, i think we agree: guille could you clear this up please (i have a suspicion and i doubt you could do worse)

as for eyestott's claim. yes you should go and look at it yourself, but to paraphrase:
eye: i want to hammer
diego: ok i'm about to get lynched, so claim: cop
esp: yeah, not buying it
eye: no, i'm the cop, may i hammer now?
(esp: yes and fast please)
he effectively already had esp's permission to hammer(and wasn't really waiting for anyone else, though later he wanted to show he did wait for others)
there was no town reason what so ever for eye to claim cop(even if it is true).

pp-edit:
ok esp, i'll have to think about this.
That is one weird claim

[MrTrow]

lets see if i got your responses correctly (as you seem to be correct in not calling them answers)
obviously these are paraphrased

1. aren't your claim you still needed to check what actually was discarded and your claim you had found likely scum based on what was discarded, mutually exclusive statements?

i did indeed say i found likely scum based on what was discarded, clearly i needed to check what was actually discarded.
(note the actual question has not been answered)

Shrug

3. promoting 'shrug-based-play' greatly hurts the town, this is not so much a question as an accusation.
As you are a player who seems to like the articles i dare you, find me a single source that claims otherwise

Shrug.....
ow btw under 1. i believe i stated it is also ok to:
- not read the rules
- claim to scumhunt without actual scumhunt (never actually state WHY you think someone is scum), this one is repeated in 3 as well

2. warrants some actual discussion as

My vote was for pressure and is outlined in my post above. I was sure I'd found scum after I applied pressure though so I had no reason not to push through the lynch

Sounds reasonable apart from one detail (the 'failed to parse'-line comes back in that detail) which is 1 of the 2 problems i have with your claim.
the other problem i have with the claim is: why reveal it now?

But the main issue i have, i just simply can't believe you actually 'were sure you'd found scum'. (i think dedicating a separate post to this might be required)

But I was convinced that it would have been detrimental to the game if we waited. I don't think that Esp and Eyestott where wrong in thinking like that so I let it be.

Wait so you set up someone who you didn't think was scum to be hammered(eyestott stated intent to hammer

because poetry

) because you believed it would hurt the game to have more than 3 non-rvs votes? why would you think that?

Ignore the last line.

Lynchbait is a alternate way to kill lynchers.

Care to explain this post?

Oh, Ok, I thought it meant those on the Lynch wagon! Well, then disregard that assertion then.

assertion disregarded:
care to put a new clarification with your vote? (if it requires moving your vote, so be it)

@Trow: I don't think he's of the killing faction since he blatantly claimed cop after another cop did. To bold and risky for mafia or warewolf.

No it is 'to bold and risky' for a non-cop to do.
it is also 'really freakin useless throwaway of own cover' for a town cop.
A real town cop would not have said: 'as you said, his claim is BS, because i am the real cop and now i will leave for a while(shower/some more time) to give him a chance to become obv-town(which i know isn't going to happen, i just want people to SEE i'm giving people a fair chance) and hammer later'
A real town cop would have said: 'likely bullshit indeed: HAMMER' and have the 'how did you think i was so sure it was bullshit, i am the real cop' argument to justify a reveal later in the game.

there are 3 possible scenarios with his claim:
- terrible town-cop play
- brilliance beyond anything i can come up with
- standard 'grab the excuse to self-out as cop, hope others will infer towniness from it'-play perfectly matching cop-werewolf play

POE also point to guille being scum.

Care to add some reasoning?

Actually there are also the points that his wagon action was the most typical of scum and he was buddying.

I really with diego was scum.

could you explain that last line(and perhaps the line above it as well)?
it looks like you're still considering the diego-scum angle

Hey everyone. I havent read up yet, but this game is low priority at the moment as I'm near deadline for a bunch of my games.
Apologies.

Any indication when there might fall a hole in that moment?
i'm not asking when those deadlines are (as i know it is against the rules to discuss those and i already know)
i'm asking when you might be bothered to address things like:

- hammer for poetry
- why did you counter-claim cop when you could have just hammered?
- why did you popcorn to your innocent?

O dear lynch-leader.
i might even consider dropping issues like
- defense by same poetry
- disappearance act at time of lynch-leader

[MrTrow]

the 'case' against diego(hey look, he just got promoted: no longer listed as 'goon'):

• this christmas votes diego (rvs). (his only vote the entire game)
  
• diego rvs-votes
  
• alchemist votes diego (rvs)
  
• espeonage votes diego (for wagon)
  
• eyestott claims he will 'rvs-sheep diego but not until he explains' (something that has already been explained, by eyestott himself no less) then asks us to forget this ever happened
  
• diego fails to check motivation of his unvote when placing a new vote, gets called
  Contrived
  for it. (empty addition of pressure i assume)
  
• guile puts diego at L-1, with a partial reveal demand because 'as esp pointed out crappy discard' (nope, didn't happen, did it?, guille explain(again i do see an explanation, but don't believe you could do worse)) and pulled a newbie, by staying in rvs for no reason
  
• espeonage adds pressure by pointing out the
  Contrived vote
  is on practically confirmed town (more of a newbie tell than a scum-tell if you ask me)
  
• espeonage and eyestott both consider 'not knowing the difference between cop and vanilla-cop' a lynch-worthy-offence
  
• eyestott makes his intent to hammer explicit (after already demanding a claim, which received a 'not within 24 hours please')
  
• diego claims having chosen cop over mason
  
• espeonage calls BS: having a strong role the second you need a claim, also cop was the wrong choice (again scum because newbie-mistake(that wasn't there but that's not the issue))
  
• espeonage calls 'cop wouldn't call cop-discard 'meh' '
  
• eyestott counterclaims and asks permission to hammer (which he instantly receives)
  
• Diego asks and receives(esp) explanation of the difference between vanilla/regular cop
  
• eyestott asks permission to hammer AGAIN (acknowledges having received the previous permission) from the very same person (again received instantly)
  
• diego reveals crumbs and calls eyestott to investigate him
  
• guille dismisses crumbs as newbie-useless
  
• espeonage calls diego's cop claim 'based on discussion on how good the cop actually is' (when calling for 'no investigation on me, protection over there')
  
• guille unvotes because of crumbs
  
• espeonage says: crumb? shrug, i don't buy it
  
• guille actually advocates against the diego-lynch
  
• espeonage claims one who doesn't think cops are such a big deal would have taken mason, which are super obviously awesome (which they aren't: awesome: debatable, obvious: absolutely not(by the rules practically guaranteed to be useless actually))
  
• guille actually cracks the case: diego is a newbie
  
• eyestott demands guilles vote on diego because poetry
  
• espeonage counters newbie argument with 'mason is listed everywhere as super obviously awesome, ESPECIALLY a newbie would pick this': espeonage please find me this 'no way a newbie would have missed this'-location which states mason>>cop, i can assure you, the rules state otherwise.
  
• eyestott claims 'the need to breadcrumb' is reason to convict: despite having started a discussion thread about this subject himself (thus knowing fully well, this not being obvious to newbies. The moment this game ends, this story goes to that thread)
  
• guille disagrees with mason>>cop but places his vote back regardless (later revealed because he was convinced super-short days are good: still waiting on the why of that one)
  
• guille calls for time to allow others to respond (receives instant no from both esp and eye)
  
• eyestott claims hammer, yet grands another 'time to post'
  
• diego requests tips for next game (genuine newbie stuff) receives(esp), nope you need to be hammered first(go read on how to fakeclaim)
  
• eyestott tests diego's role PM, diego passes
  
• eyestott pulls a vote-gambit (the detail it wouldn't work by rules is hardly relevant)
  
• eyestott HAMMERS diego for not lying(admitting he noticed the gambit)

If anyone sees a misrepresentation here, please point them out (if not please say so explicitly)

[MrTrow]

I will admit I haven't actually read much of Trow's posting. It's dense and needs formatting.

As you wish. (the following is a neat 'point by point' list of questions)

• What is your issue with my formatting in my transcription of 'point by point listed events in chronological order'. in other words: what is your excuse for completely ignoring that one(219) (i'm perfectly willing to buy 'hard to read' on some other posts, but not that one)
  
  

• @Mod: If someone were to have the role Town Mason and there were no other Masons in the game, would they become IC or Chocolate Townie?

  Why did you ask this at that particular moment? (given how you ignore my posts, that can't be it)
  
  

• Cheers, that pretty much clears him from being group scum.

  I agree, but not for any reason you seem to believe. Care to explain how you come to this conclusion?
  
  

• Guille softed and then confirmed I was correct. He is a vig.

  Where is this confirmation? (the soft i can find, heck the discussion on the matter i can find but confirmation? I can find him practically denying it)
  
  

• If Trow doesn't shed any light on it, I'd say stott gives us more info.

  
  I hereby confirm i have no light to shed on the matter: there is no way i could have caused eyestott getting his cop-result despite slimers attempt to roleblock. I would like to know why you would want to 'lynch-for-info' over 'lynch the one who defended the one he (claims to have) caught lying'

[MrTrow]

@guille:

• why were
  you
  convinced a short (as in '3 non rvs-votes' short D1 would be helpful to town)? especially to the point you were willing to lynch someone you weren't convinced was scum
  
• any remarks on my breakdown of how the D1-quicklynch went down?
  
• why do you want Alch to 'have his way with either Istott or Slimer' before you clear something up? (this might just be a misread of your post, but that is what it says
  
• speaking of eye and slimer: do you have a preference?

@slimer:

• Short one: why are you so sure the 'liar you caught' isn't scum, especially with this buddy he would require already revealed

@eyestott

• given how you seem to be the only one remotely interested in actually defending the notion 'the D1-quicklynch could have been a genuine town-process', i'm looking forward to the 'not completely correct' aspects of my 219
  
• what is your reason (given your apparent believe you are dipoled with slimer) for not voting him?
  
• why (given how you popcorned to your top innocent for 'fast discussion') did you push the mass-claim at all and why DID you call for others to withhold their claims (direct consequence of popcorn)
  

• Look back. I never said that him breadcrumbing was a point against him. I said that my most recent experience was me fakecrumbing. I meant that breadcrumbing doesnt automatically make it so.

  
  Are you really trying to convince me this:

  Also, my last completed scum game had me fakebreadcrumbing flavour cop for the first two days.
  He's scum.
  I had no need to breadcrumb. Why did he?

  was not a point against him?
  
  

• As in, I was wrong, so I'm scum?

  No, as in, you were well aware your case was BS and pushed it anyway. For one: see the point above. For more, please answer my question about 219
  

• No, I'm saying: Okay, you can see a scum motivation for my actions. Do you see a town motivation?

  First, it is not my job to find a reason why what you did, might come from a town mindset. It is yours to present the town mindset which was actually behind it if someone presents a possible scum-explanation.
  Second: NO, i do not see a town motivation for a cop to claim when neither 'the cop himself is in no danger to get lynched' nor 'the
  fakeclaimer
  has a reasonable shot at escaping the lynch' nor 'the cop has any results to share'

[MrTrow]

I'm reading.
And clearing up my involvement in the matter (none)
And asking (among others) the ones in front of the firing-squad to justify their actions
Your point?

[MrTrow]

@guille:

why were you convinced a short (as in '3 non rvs-votes' short D1 would be helpful to town)? especially to the point you were willing to lynch someone you weren't convinced was scum

1) I wouldn't have lynched Diego, if I didn't think he was scum. "Also, my last completed scum game had me fakebreadcrumbing flavour cop for the first two days." quote from issot reminded me that just because he crumbed doesn't guaranty town, especially in this game.

Ok, so i read more doubt in

I wasn't convinced that he was scum. I thought that all the time, Well maybe I wavered it a bit when I saw the Crumb. I wanted to wait for those that did not show up to post their remarks. But I was convinced that it would have been detrimental to the game if we waited. I don't think that Esp and Eyestott where wrong in thinking like that so I let it be.

Than was actually there. Ok i'm willing to buy that.
Still doesn't clear up why you were convinced such a short day would be helpful to town.

any remarks on my breakdown of how the D1-quicklynch went down?

2) I think it's accurate for the most part when I read it back then. Only thing I saw somewhat wrong is: "guille dismisses crumbs as newbie-useless" And I feel that you have a bit of a bias against me.

So you feel

• guille dismisses crumbs as newbie-useless
  
• espeonage calls diego's cop claim 'based on discussion on how good the cop actually is' (when calling for 'no investigation on me, protection over there')
  
• guille unvotes because of crumbs

Is not a correct representation of the posts linked?

As for the bias. I'm not really getting that one, especially if you consider my breakdown of D1
You are the only one actually involved in 'the quicklynch of a town cop' who WAS willing to consider he was town(newbie)
The only one who didn't post pure BS to make sure this lynch got through

i am still curious though: how are you so sure of esp?
as for eyestott and slimer: no, there is no guarantee at least 1 of them is town(they aren't in the same scumteam though)

[MrTrow]

How does disappearing after giving an order give us more than actually answering some damn questions?

Eyestott is more willing than slimer to answer questions.
I still expect slimer to answer 'why were you defending the liar, you yourself caught' (and yes i rate eyestotts willingness to answer questions HIGHER than than.

If we really are trying to maximize the information we have, may i suggest we go after one where we have all the information from he's ever willing to give us?

i hereby request the dayvig to target VOTE: espeonage

• Pushed the lynch of 'obv-newbie' for not knowing which is stronger (mason or cop)
  
• Claims to not have read the rules (convenient, as admitting to have read the rules would have been admitting the 'lynch-worthy wrong decision' diego had made, was in fact the right decision, also 'promoting shrug-based play')
  
• Argues diegos cop-claim was purely due to the discussion before about how powerful the cop is, when diego counters by pointing out he crumbed the role BEFORE the discussion, espeonage conveniently ignores this completely until guille unvotes because of it.
  
• After the unvote makes ignoring the post no longer a valid strategy tries (and apparently succeeds) to discredit the crumb by claiming crap like
  
  • I: difference between crumbing 'i AM the cop' and 'i WANT something from the cop': doesn't fit
    
  • C:
    could have been crumbed accidentally
    
    
  • OP: cop discussion was already going on (no it was not, all that was there was how there WAS a cop discarded(making it only a LESS likely claim to make) and no addition what so ever to the alleged discussion since the C
    Which was accidental
    )
  
  
• Tries to counter guille's decision to let diego live for now (but is wavering given the 'low probability of 2 cops in the game') by again overselling
  mason>> cop
  
  
• When it is pointed out diego is a newbie, he sells it as an argument why
  he should know (mason>>cop) because he is a newbie
  
  
• Responds to 'newbie question for advice' with 'advice to be a better scum' (trying to sell the idea he can't be town subliminally to us now?)
  
• Attempts to prevent and then discredit eyestott last minute tests
  
• D2: has yet to post any reason
  why
  he believes someone scum (other than numbers)
  
• Claims (1-shot pgo) completely unprovoked stated his D1 goal was to be become nk-target by becoming town-leader: there was nothing
  other than this claim
  why his plan couldn't still work, clarification for this has been asked, response: "I can't (be bothered) read(ing) your formatting"
  
• Somehow after pulling a 'draw the nightkill'-gambit as pgo in a night in which the deceased contained a killing faction, knows he wasn't targeted
  
• Responds to:
  'why did you consider discarding 'evangelistic townie' reason enough to tell others this was a scum-tell while 'still having to confirm what the role actually does' was your excuse for not voting yourself.
  with in order
  • I can't read that sentence, please rephrase (rephrased)
    
  • because i still had to confirm what the role actually does (confirming a part of the question, but dodging the issue entirely)
    
  • I can't (be bothered) read(ing) your formatting
  
  
• Responds to:
  Why don't you make your reads clear(specifically votes)
  with 'shrug', dancing around the accusation 'shrug-based-play is an anti-town tactic' ending in "I can't (be bothered) read(ing) your formatting"
  
• Asks the mod to confrim contents from a post he claims to never have read
  to be precise my accusation of 'mason>>cop is by the rules, incorrect', while asking that very question earlier (probably) would have saved diego and there was no reason other than the post he never read to ask it now
  
• Calls for a massclaim, which he was against before based on his own (unprovoked) claim (which miraculously turned the situation from eyestott cc'ed diego to 'half the town claimed already')
  
• After having been given a list of questions: explicitly listed against the "can't be bothered to read your formatting"-excuse refuses to answer by claiming i don't read (another empty shout-down)
  
• Having the last point (both the refusal to answer questions and the empty shoutdown) pointed out is countered by giving 'unmotivated dayvig-orders' only (again ignoring every question posed to him)

[MrTrow]

@guille:
How is esp's play town oriented?
How does the detail you survived asking him who to vig clear him? (it was effectively his extra kill)

[MrTrow]

Day voting esp is incorrect.

Explain please.
I admit others following my example to the point where (at this point slimer, or believing the plan(and slimer) eyestott) can self-preservation-hammer is a bad idea.
Does that make my vote bad though? (or to word properly, considering a proper resolution to the current(likely) dipole, would you consider voting esp?)

Further, i would like to see both slimer and eyestotts responses to outstanding questions before a shot is made.
And stand by my 'if you must shoot now, shoot esp'

[MrTrow]

Sorry I meant Day vigging as that is what you implied with your vote Trow, I pressum. And I think killing Esp with the day Vig is incorrect as that would not yield as much information as killing issott or slimer.

It means pretty much what a vote is supposed to mean.
There is no one alive in this game who i'm more sure of he's scum and therefore i want him dead.
As for he's the least informative vig..... not sure
Apart from what i consider relevant:
- it could explain all the

weird behavior

he refuses to comment on (thus there is no other way to figure this out)
- it could explain how he knew about 'the alien faction only has 1 nightkill the entire game' before he asked 'what happens if there is only 1 mason' with the only location where the former is stated is the 'setup-specific-things' list on the wiki-page referenced in the rules (which he claims to have never read)

There is also:
-

espeonage is actually a roleblocker

: is the only way it is possible slimer and eye are not actually in a dipole.
(not that that's going to help as, if killing esp doesn't end the game still at least one of them is scum, but i don't see how the other informational vigs are any better, eye(his actual role and allignment+ (if as claimed) either slimer blocked him or esp blocked slimer) or slimer(actual role/allignment + either eye is lying or esp blocked slimer)
Also a thing to consider. if he really is a pgo, do you prefer to take him down by night or by day?

3: Ive pushed for a massclaim, because today could possibly be mylo. I thought that popcorning was the standard?

- Yesterday could have been lylo. So terrible excuse for the claim
- Yes popcorning in decreasing order of scummyness is the standard. So you did the least useful half because that was the standard but ignored the other half because?? You didn't want to prevent scum from having information to base their claims on?/you wanted to push your crappy massclaim through by targeting the one who was most likely to follow your instructions before someone popped in to say no?
- It's not like you didn't know 'most-scummy-first' is the standard, you changed your popcorn target to your newest top-scum-read for disagreeing with you (or admitting to only have skimmed)

espeonage and eyestott both consider 'not knowing the difference between cop and vanilla-cop' a

lynch-worthy-offence

Where did I say that was lynchworthy?

Would 'pointing out he admits not knowing it, with no additional clarification, claiming intent to hammer' do gluttony: 'now can i eat him' comes to mind

eyestott claims 'the need to breadcrumb' is reason to convict:

despite having started a discussion thread about this subject himself (thus knowing fully well, this not being obvious to newbies. The moment this game ends, this story goes to that thread)

I never said it was a reason to convict.

True, you only told us:
- 'scum breadcrumbs'
- 'he is scum'
- 'i'm town and i didn't breadcrumb'
or are you saying this isn't 'telling us there is no reason to breadcrumb as town rather than asking him what his reason was to breadcrumb as town'

eyestott HAMMERS diego for not lying(admitting he noticed the gambit)

I didnt hammer him for not lying, I hammered him because I though he was scum.

Really?

okay,my hats what I've got. Still, you might not nessesarily be town, even if you are cop (unlikely).

V0te: Diego

So, what are you really?

That's a fake vote more likely adding the zero, but I am Town Cop.

Actually, gambit is noticeable.

Vote:Diego

You put him in a situation where (it was implied) claiming town cop without noticing it wasn't a real vote might have convinced you he wasn't scum.
Even in this situation, where he noticed what you were doing, where it was clear what you were going for. He chose to not throw the 'self-preservation-lie'(the base of scum-play) and you took him seeing through you as an excuse to finally land that hammer you've been so eager to show us you could hold back.

You tested him twice:
- if you really are a cop you know the answer to this question: answer
- if you claim not to notice something i might let you live: 'why would i lie, i'm town'
And your response: HAMMER
Do you really expect me to believe these tests were genuine?

[MrTrow]

We have agreed then that Eyestott and Alch are town

We most certainly have not.

Alch is indeed extremely unlikely to be scum (having discarded the 'pwn any and all powerrole card')
Eyestott on the other hand:
just because slimer is confirmed as being

"the 'shenanigans' in

at least one

of the following is true"

• esp roleblocked slimer
  
• slimer didn't actually roleblock eye
  
• eye didn't really get a cop-result

does nothing to dent my 'eye is probably a werewolf-alligned cop'-case in the slightest
He still

• Claimed cop, for the sake of claiming cop
  
• Pushed a lynch for no reason better than poetry
  
• Went through quite some length to be seen as reasonable on the diego-hammer without allowing it to walk away from him
  
• Vanished when he was the only one with votes(ok 1 vote) on him
  
• Surprisingly didn't vote slimer despite the dipole they were in

If there is a second person we can safely assume to be town (or at least 'should be willing to bet the game on'-safe)
It is you.
The person who picked a (confirmable) ability which blocks any factional nightkill you may have.
Heck AFAICT you are more confirmed town than Alch is.
The only reason it isn't completely confirmed at the moment, is because of esp's instructions.

also:

There is no way that I know of for a PGO to outlive a vig.

This isn't exactly true.
We just got mod-confirmed (his) regular factional kill CAN in fact 'outlive'(or rather 'outdraw') this particular vig

Now as for the best case VOTE: espeonagehas found willing to put forward this entire game:
'trow must be scum because:
- he didn't follow an instruction given by his top scumreads only
- i feel eye is scum therefore trow must be'
Especially the last one is interesting coming from someone who assumed the game solved to the point where one(slimer) shouldn't even fight being lynched(vigged) with 6 players alive and up to 3 of them anti-town, with the exact same set of players which had (at least) 5 out of 9 anti-town(at least partially by choice) last draw.

Btw, Trow, I want a full card claim from you.

Now that someone who isn't my top2-scumread has considered it a good idea to ask me to reveal this, sure.

discard: lynchbait
allignment: lover
ability: 1-shot governor (do not lynch me yet, for some reason it is a public-day-role instead of its usual hidden-twilight-counterpart )

the plan was as follows:
in prob-mylo vote likely town inviting a quick-hammer, reveal play in twilight: win
however upon receiving the role i got informed this wouldn't work as the governor has been reworked into a 1-shot-day-unlynchable-maker (the

reworked

was not in the description i had to ask micc if he was sure about using this interpretation of the governor: he was)

@Townies (for those who (chose to?) not pay attention, i mean alchemist and guille here) if you have considered this situation and need me to confirm this power i will. (voting me will have the same effect, except it allows esp and eye a shot at a quickhammer should they be aligned, so please, just ask)
Leaving them to handle the prospect of going into the night with a 2 confirmed townies and a potential unlynchable to choose between, would make their next post interesting though.

[MrTrow]

.@Trow, do you have to announce making a player unlynchable in the game thread BEFORE the hammer? Can you self-target?

I have to announce before the hammer, correct.
self-target: it doesn't say, i assume so (confirming now(thought i already had), but you should assume so regardless of outcome) this assumption(even if false) does nothing to diminish the confirm-potential though.

[MrTrow]

As it turns out, i may not self-target and basically because-vote-stuff-shenanigans the deadline will be extended if i use my ability today.
As such i'm running low on reasons not to confirm (pretty much down to 'leaving eyestott guessing')

So as i see it eyestott and espeonage are the 2 remaining scum.
The question remaining, which of the 2 is more likely in the event only 1 scum is left
for which i'll go with:

• spearheaded a quick-lynch on a newbie-town-cop based on (among other crap) 'that crumb started accidentally and was completed based on discussion ongoing at the time(despite no discussion on the matter happened between the start and the end of that crumb'
  
• claims to have not read the rules (rules which would have shattered the diego-case 'newbie should know mason>>cop') yet was fully aware the aliens-factional-kill is a 1-shot (either lying about not reading the rules or got 1-shot-kill info out of role pm)
  
• requests mod-clarification on that very 'mason>>cop not true by rules' directly after i bring up the point above while claiming not to read my posts. No inspiration nor purpose of this question was ever given
  
• Claims the game is 'solved' while needing to push 'i think stott is scum, therefore trow must be scum' to actually solve the game
  
• Is committed to ignoring everything i put out(including the above, several times), yet considers me useful enough to treestump-over-lynch.
  
• Pushed for claims based on a dipole(shenanigans) while aware there are no pro-town roles which could have possibly caused said shenanigans

over

• claims cop for the sake of claiming cop
  
• delayed a quick-lynch several times for no good reason other than 'appearing town'
  
• pushed a massclaim for no reason what so ever
  
• assumed shenanigans in dipole

Now i'm writing this:
espeonage: why do you consider only one of me/eye scum AND assume it is (time for(or in your case

against

) gut)endgame

eye: yes i do consider choosing to vanish while having the most votes scum indicative.
True the 'alignment neutral motivation' checked out, thus making it less than a stand-alone case. Doesn't change the fact, there was a possible scum-motivation for it, there was no possible town-motivation for it and it was closed off with an 'appeal to emotion'-defense (in this case: pointing out the town-lylo-loss) sounds surprisingly similar to the 'claimed cop for the sake of claiming cop' and the 'considered dipole-partner possible-town' situations

[MrTrow]

I think eye is town, I think guille is town, I think Alch is town.

You are the only person I am not town reading.

If that is the case, would you (for a change) explain
- why do you think eye is town?
- why did you claim the exact opposite 6 posts earlier?

I know you have no intention what so ever to address the arguments i brought up against you. So i won't even ask.
I know you have no intention what so ever to actually bring up any argument against me. So i won't even ask

[MrTrow]

What I mean is, do you prioritise your games depending on the state of them?

Yes i do. (the fact that i do it differently (alive in 2: therefore not joining a third) isn't really the point)
As i have stated.
For the 'chooses to disappear when the holder of the most votes' the 'alignment neutral motivation(otherwise occupied)' holds up, making this the weaker argument.

The fact remains: i do see a scum motivation and no town motivation. So to the question: 'is it a scum-tell' the only honest answer is yes.
yes it is a scumtell, yes it is a weak scumtell as there is a confirmable alignment neutral aspect. no it doesn't completely reduces the tell because:
- scum-eyestott would have jumped to this excuse
- whether or not town-eyestott would have tried to live up to the promise he made when signing up for this one is not nearly as clear.

Nice way of making it all about my least convincing argument though.
the 'claimed cop, for the sake of claiming cop' has no possible town-motivation and has a possible scum-motivation still stands
the 'i will hammer later'-posts have no town-motivation i see or ones you bothered pointing out and has a possible scum-motivation still stands as well
the 'tread starter of the 'Should you breadcrumb?'-discussion considers a newbie not knowing the answer to this question a reason to call him scum' has a possible scum-motivation but no possible town-motivation
do you see a patern here?

or alternatively, can i get your read on 'at least 1 flat out lie on this page alone and flat out refusal to address anything'-espeonage?

p-edit

Why mention it then? That's just passive aggressive.

i could throw in a speech how 'active aggressive' has proven ineffective, 'violent aggressive' is against the rules and actually ignoring the issue is 'blatant anti-town and by extention a violation of play-to-win(thus against the rules)'
But the truth is:
He is playing blatantly anti-town and i don't want alchemist and guille to even have a chance of missing or forgetting it.
If it results in your help taking taking him down, that would be nice, but not the main goal.
In the event

hell freezes over

this does actually get him to answer stuff, that would be a win too

[MrTrow]

Alch: Will that make you the first to actually bring up an argument against me?

guille: at least go over the arguments i gave thusfar.
And add to that the fact eyestott didn't seem to think there was scum left after the slimer-vig.
He neither showed concern i might be right in espeonages deliberate refusal to discuss stuff
Nor considered the possibility my 'passive aggressive'-response to it being non-genuine.

That last question seems to indicate you do see eyestott as not confirmed-town.
Should the death of espeonage not end the game, don't give scum-eye the guaranteed win by telling him he doesn't have to fear you
(and him killing alch is enough to even prevent a D3 from happening)

[MrTrow]

trust me.
You don't.

I'm willing to by you knew the 2 'confirmed by role' were indeed town.
But what is to be revealed in the setup information, yeah nope.

before i reveal too much:

slimer: why did you fight my eyestott-case? (really nice setup for your fakeclaim btw)

diego: seriously, (especially given the few moments you had to work with, but even without that disclaimer) well played, i hope to see you again (i do recommend a newbie-game before that time, but still: don't give up on this game)

[MrTrow]

I really REALLY hate to admit it, but it killed 2.
There was no way i bought not 1 but 2 players targeting a practically claimed PGO.
As such i was sold on 'there must be a SK' because 'aliens tend to be more interesting as role than alignment and wouldn't have used the (required for endgame) kill'
With SK wins 2p endgame, my only chance was 'kill the sk(most likely eye, though dayvig is one of the roles to consider dumping vannilaizer for) and hope eye kills guille (as there was no way he would deviate from his order to stump me(after all he asked for the direction) )

@guille, how was that a good thing?
p-edit: so what would you have done if you read it?

[MrTrow]

that lylo.. correct i wouldn't have stood a chance in that one (the last one giving him orders was lynched, but... sufficient other differences)
my last D2 post was never intended to convince guille to target eye and admittedly getting potential 'scum-eye' to consider the possibility guille did chance his mind was only a bonus.
The goal of that post was to generate the possibility the latter had happened, watch scum-esp flip, kill guille and lylo off against eye


now that alignment is no longer a factor.
care to explain why you pretty much lied about what you did and didn't read, basically every other post?
and refused to explain any read?

[MrTrow]

@slimer:
i was completely sold on your roleblock claim.
The 'i don't think he's a cop but i do think he's town' opening before any serious claim-requests (sorry eye, but seriously? i just claimed for no reason and we have a dead groupscum so starting with my innocent: claim now)

Had i not been scum i would have taken your side in that dipole, but as 'esp=obv-scum' i couldn't risk a roleblocker marked for bloodloss, deciding to gambit and block me.
no nightkill, lylo vs 2 practically confirmed town AND the roleblocker (now flipped town) who's the most logical reason for the lack of a nightkill able to confirm target.
You had to go

@guille: nope i wouldn't have governed myself. I couldn't
but indeed i basically told you to force(ask would have sufficed) me to use my ability. (alch, did you miss the 'just ask will suffice' part too?)

but yeah the 'i couldn't' was quite frustrating:
after a 'reroll because too much scum', picking scum,(1 shot)twilight-silent auto-nolynch (usually able to self-target if x-shot) and getting:
1-shot day-unlynchable-maker, without buddies and unable to self-target

@espeonage:
otherwise i would have, one thing that stood out was how you didn't do the same for guille's 'blocks own nightkill'-vig or came back on the alch-clear after the dayvig-claim, which i assume fell in your 'better 2%', it sure fell in mine

b.t.w should i take that as a no?

[MrTrow]

I missed the just ask part. Where was that?

@Townies (for those who (chose to?) not pay attention, i mean alchemist and guille here) if you have considered this situation and need me to confirm this power i will. (voting me will have the same effect, except it allows esp and eye a shot at a quickhammer should they be aligned, so please, just ask)

note that at the time i wrote this i was still under the impression i could self-target (when you asked me if i could i replied (among,

checking now

and

you should assume i can regardless of my answer

) wouldn't effect my ability to confirm(and waste) my ability

My death was not in vain(?)

It sure wasn't.
It basically was the misinformation that got me killed.
I still don't get why the 2 of you made the choice to target the (not so) soft PGO, but yes it did help the town out greatly
If Tree shot esp pure on the 'instruction given to guille', that would have been not the best move(even if he didn't see the PGO-claim)
If he believed the instruction was to be followed, anything other than shooting guille would have gotten him killed (admittedly, not known at that time)
If he had read the instruction, he would have seen the 'only if diego flips groupscum' part

I'm just glad that my poor play didn't lose it for the team! For a game that I played less than 24 hours, I truly learned a lot about the game. Especially what not to do!! I've been thinking about it. Should I have even claimed anything before the lynch? I know never to lie as town, but I feel that the claim was actually the last straw.

I can't find any poor play on your part. (true you clearly were the newest player around but)
The crumb (though i believe it should not be needed nor blindly trusted) was not only perfectly executed but also called upon at the time it mattered to do the only thing a role-crumb is good for. to prove early intent to claim this particular role should you ever have the need to claim.
The fact you still got lynched 'for making up the cop-claim based on discussion 'how good the role is' ' is poor play. but not yours.

@esp: you also assumed to know what my role was: what did you assume?

[MrTrow]

That's not a risk.
Regarding my ability to self-target
I told you not to take my word for it.
You may have missed me saying that, but the key point stands: you didn't take my word for it
You also got mod-confirmed info i might not have even bothered to check beyond the wiki had i had a different role.
In thread i may have looked (it did) you were taking a big risk there, but you didn't

[MrTrow]

most of my refusal to claim was genuine. I didn't consider 'eyestott asks for it' a reason to claim and i considered 'espeonage asks for it' a reason NOT to claim. Especially when he started pushing the 'he should claim to clear up shenanigans' and 'you know what would make perfect sense, if he was not just any roleblocker, but the one that messes up investigations' as if anyone who actually had that role (by choice i may add) would ever admit such a thing.
i think i would have done the same as town but yeah (especially because at the time i was under the impression i could self-target) i was buying time to consider fakeclaims.

That said, pushing a confirmable role as hard as i did as a fakeclaim, would have been awesome