Micro 759: Tarot uPick III - Game Over!

[garaputo]

Unless I'm completely incompetent, some group of 2 of you will have a chance to kill NK15 tomorrow. I will promise to rage retroactively if you fail to act on it.

[northsidegal]

nothing about yeti's night actions are confirmed and they're all equally as consistent as garaputos with being scum (night one role over action, night two jailkept, night three didn't use action and there was finally a kill). also, if i consider it a possibility that acid jailkept someone to fake a guilty, i should also consider the possibility that yeti roleblocked someone to fake a guilty.

more in a second.

[fferyllt]

by the way, has anyone actually asked ffery if scum could do the two things simultaneously? if not,

@mod could scum perform the factional kill and use any role actions they might have simultaneously?

yes, they could perform both a factional kill and a role action (if any) in the same night phase.

[garaputo]

@NSG: I will only vote Yeti or porkens if the literal only other option is no lynch.

[northsidegal]

hmm...

[northsidegal]

acid's still seems more likely to be a scum gambit than yeti's, given how jailing someone has multiple possible explanations for why there wasn't a kill whereas roleblocking puts you into somewhat of a 1v1.

[northsidegal]

so, only two possibilites:

scum targeted dunker to kill – (probably means it's yeti)
scum deliberately nokilled – (could be anyone)

[Yetichain]

I also would have claimed my guilty inthread. As it was, I claimed in the hood at nancy's request.

I'd prefer Porkens again now.

[northsidegal]

acid still had really bad associatives with jabarkas, but granted porkens' weren't that good either.

if porkens is scum, why didn't he shoot garaputo night two? it wouldn't have cleared you given that roleblockers generally take precedence over jailkeepers.

[garaputo]

FWIW: I had the notion of precedence on that interaction (roleblocker/jailkeeper) wrong, which actually explains a bit about why I was hesitant to comply with Yeti's request. I thought I had said that somewhere (not sure if it was in our private thread or public Yeti, will check).

[garaputo]

I said it in post 8 of our private thread. Yeti can confirm/deny.

[Yetichain]

You did say you were unsure about order of resolution. Did you bring that up inthread as a possible flaw in the plan?
Also can you explain why you so strongly townread that early post of mine you mentioned earlier, I don't understand.

acid still had really bad associatives with jabarkas, but granted porkens' weren't that good either.

if porkens is scum, why didn't he shoot garaputo night two? it wouldn't have cleared you given that roleblockers generally take precedence over jailkeepers.

Not sure, but I'm also not sure why scum didn't shoot at all. Possibly for the sheer confusion, or to guilty me.

[northsidegal]

i was going to say that it was to not innocent you, but with the knowledge that you could have roleblocked dreal anyways i wouldn't see why scum wouldn't shoot. that might indicate that scum

didn't

have the knoweldge that roleblockers take precedence over jailkeepers. it also might indicate that scum didn't realize that they had the ability to perform kills and role actions in the same night, which if true would only point towards nk15 being scum.

if you were scum, theoretically you could have roleblocked nk15 and killed someone and tried to pass the jk off as an innocent, but that strategy relies on other people not knowing the jk/rb precedence as well as not being targeted by a tracker so i think the fact that it didn't happen isn't a reason to townread you.

[garaputo]

You did say you were unsure about order of resolution. Did you bring that up inthread as a possible flaw in the plan?
Also can you explain why you so strongly townread that early post of mine you mentioned earlier, I don't understand.

IIRC that was the first vote on the now departed scum?

RE: the night action, Yes, I was concerned about the order of operations. On review I did not bring it up in thread (or I'm searching the wrong term, I suspect the former). The primary reason I didn't commit to the plan in thread, despite the fact that I was going to use my ability on you after you asked, was that I was a bit circumspect of stating my intentions outright. It seemed to me better to keep my plans a bit closer to the vest to keep scum guessing/prevent backfiring.

acid still had really bad associatives with jabarkas, but granted porkens' weren't that good either.

if porkens is scum, why didn't he shoot garaputo night two? it wouldn't have cleared you given that roleblockers generally take precedence over jailkeepers.

Not sure, but I'm also not sure why scum didn't shoot at all. Possibly for the sheer confusion, or to guilty me.[/quote]

I think, regardless of who is scum, the question about not shooting persists. I'm not sure how it's more of a question considering porkens scum than literally any other player scum, but then again the porkens scum scenario seems pretty low likelihood to me. I mean if I wanted porkens dead, I had ample opportunity to vote porkens and have not.

[garaputo]

Sorry about the broken tags, again. That "Not sure" line wa from Yetichain.

[garaputo]

sheep me!

VOTE: NK15

[northsidegal]

[northsidegal]

garaputo is scum.

[garaputo]

garaputo is scum.

Northsidegal is wrong.

[Porkens]

I'm lynching nk15 either today or tomorrow so it might as well be today.

[garaputo]

This guy gets it.

[northsidegal]

well, here's a nice deadlocked game with 24 hours to deadline.

[northsidegal]

is "deadlock" a word? maybe i meant "gridlocked".

[Yetichain]

Okay, I hope I've given gara enough opportunity to speak. If North isn't voting Porkens with me I'll have to hope she's right on this one, because I don't think it's her or NK15.

VOTE: garaputo

[Porkens]

K we will see.

VOTE: garupto