Mini 424 - Game Over

[Javert]

I shall assume flavor within the death scene is useless in this game, as this is both an unthemed game, and the townie role PM is devoid of flavor.

However, given the way the scene is written, it appears a group (as implied with "we") is responsible for this death - the mafia.

With that said, let us pursue the scum.

Vote: The Shadow

.

[Javert]

Elias, at the time you made your initial random vote, The Shadow was at two votes. The post immediately after yours included a vote on The Shadow, putting him at three votes.

In the very next post

, you changed your vote onto omg_im_innocent_wtf, thereby putting him at three votes as well - in other words, creating a counter-wagon.

Are you claiming that you did not see the vote on The Shadow, even though it was

directly between

both of your votes? Regardless of whether the vote count was updated, adding {2 + 1} should not be a problem for you.

[Javert]

Unvote: The Shadow, Vote: Barroman

.

I am not pleased with Barroman's questions posed towards Elias_the_thief (lettered for efficacy):

a.)

Elias, you are just saying that Random votes are useless??

b.)

Well... but, why have you done a random vote if they're useless??

c.)

And why you don't answer this?

now, my first vote was my random vote. but when i saw that nothing was happening in this game, I switched it in order to get the game going again.

How much time passed? Your post was at 5:00 on a Friday Night. Then there was another post, then your post again at 10:00 on a Saturday Morning. Hardly enough to call a slow game. That's weak reasoning there.

a.)

Any layman reading Elias' posts can tell that he did not say that random votes are 'useless' - just that they will not be taken completely seriously.

b.)

See above.

c.)

This is an absurdly silly "question". Ancagalon makes the answer entirely explicit by laying out the timeframe - a direct response is completely unneccessary.

I get the feeling Barroman is trying to imply that Elias is purposefully ignoring questions (with question c) when that is a twist on reality, and also asking useless questions which have a natural negative connotation (with questions a and b) in order to make Elias look more suspicious than he otherwise would be. In other words, his questions do not strike me as an attempt to be inquisitive, but rather an attempt to be discrediting.

@ ac1983fan: Why did you unvote without comment? What do you think of the latest developments?

Personally, although I find it hard to believe Elias_the_thief did not realize he was creating a counterwagon, I am becoming wary at the sheer number of people who seem to be antagonizing him as of late. I shall be monitoring the situation, but I find it worthwhile to investigate others simultaneously.

[Javert]

MeMe, what do you think of Ancalagon?

[Javert]

Barroman, I did not strictly answer any of the questions you posed to Elias - all I commented on was that I believe you were misinterpreting Elias' talk on random voting (by saying a layman would disagree with your interpretation), and I did not answer the timeframe question, but instead noted that it was already effectively answered through Ancalagon's posting. In effect, all

I

did was point out why I did not like the wording of your questions.

and before you ask i dont have any reason to think javert is scum, he is just annoying the hell out of me

Is there a particular reason why I am "annoying the hell out of you"?

As ac1983fan said, I will

Unvote

because some tells are starting to come out with other events, and then I will

Vote:Ancalagon

for what seems to be using made up statistics with no background, with most likely seems to be in defense of his scum partner.

Just so I am clear, who are you proposing Ancalagon is defending?

[Javert]

I think Javert's kinda jumping it a bit on Barroman. He asked Elias a simple question. Regardless of whether it should have been fairly clear, that's hardly cause for a vote, I'm thinking.

Firstly, Barroman asked Elias_the_thief three questions, not simply one. Secondly, the game was (and still is) just creeping out of the random voting stage. I am much more content with a vote with some reasoning behind it (as my current vote) than a vote with no reasoning behind it (as was my initial vote).

I will pursue what I see to be even slightly scummy early in the game, and I got the feeling the Barroman's questions were not intended to be inquisitive, but more intended to cast suspicion - which seems somewhat contrary to scumhunting, and hence somewhat scummy. Hence the vote.

Is there a reason in particular why

you

are not currently voting anybody? Is this normal for you?

while barromans questions were kind of dumb seeing as they'd already been answered, they dont really seem to be much of a scumtell.

Barroman, do you agree with this? If not, what questions do you think were unanswered in-thread? And if so, why did you accuse me of being a 'poor lawyer'?

javert is annoying entirely because of his posts, i dont have a clue what his pic is.

Could you tell me what in particular is annoying about my posts? It may be possible for me to alleviate whatever offense you are taking in my posting.

[Javert]

I see what you are saying, and I must respectfully disagree. I will point out again:

a.) Any layman reading Elias' posts can tell that he did not say that random votes are 'useless' - just that they will not be taken completely seriously.
b.) See above.
c.) This is an absurdly silly "question". Ancagalon makes the answer entirely explicit by laying out the timeframe - a direct response is completely unneccessary.

None of these are 'answers' to any of your questions posed to Elias. He is still free to answer your questions, since his actual responses (which, to me, appear clearly in-thread) are much more detailed than what I have shown here.

I suppose I can understand how you could try to make him 'nervous',

but

asking Elias questions where the answers are already explicitly in-thread seems like a poor way of going about that tactic.

I perceive this as being equivalent to an interaction which goes as follows:

I believe Y is suspicious for reasons A, B, and C.

You said you are suspicious of Y. But

why

are you suspicous of Y?

Your questions simply struck me as having self-evident answers - and questions with such simple answers do not seem to me like something

anybody

would get 'nervous' about.

[Javert]

Although I do not agree that Barroman's questions were the most efficient way to get additional information from Elias, he seems sincere enough in his explanation of his intentions that I will

Unvote: Barroman

for the time being.

I think Javert's kinda jumping it a bit on Barroman. He asked Elias a simple question. Regardless of whether it should have been fairly clear, that's hardly cause for a vote, I'm thinking.

The Shadow, in addition to my earlier questions posed to you, please inform me what

you

consider to be "cause for a vote"? What do you think of others' votes in relation to mine - do they have more or less "cause"?

And what is more, if your answer to what you consider "cause for a vote" is anywhere in the realm of "I like to be certain when I vote", would you then suggest that everybody else take that position, such that hardly anybody would vote at the beginning of the game?

im not answering any more questions or comments for this game ever from kilmenator.

Regardless of whether or not you think kilmenator is scum, taking a position such as this is folly. If kilmenator asks you a question and you choose to ignore it, you are doing the town a disservice. Should you ignore such questions solely on that basis, you can rest assured that I will personally re-ask those questions so that you will be compelled to answer them.

The only reasons you should not be answering questions is if you believe it gives away something about your role, or if you believe it is otherwise detrimental to the town, or if answering a question would foil a particular strategy you are pursuing to help the town or to gain information.

I am not scum, and the fact that you are calling me lazy or stupid (an appeal to emotion) really ticks me off and is sometimes used by scum to get people playing on emotion rather than with logic.

I agree with MeMe on this. Calling somebody "lazy or stupid" is not an appeal to emotion - if anything, it is more of a personal attack (perhaps bordering on the realm of ad hominem, but I don't see it as having crossed that line).

Your comments about being busy and "fun v insults" is more of an appeal to emotion than anything omg_im_innocent_wtf has said, as you seem to be asking us not to pressure you for reasons which are not entirely relevant as to whether or not you are scum (those reasons being business and so forth).

Vote: ac1983fan

. Care to comment on the game? There should be plenty to talk about.

This vote could easily be The Shadow, but I am awaiting his answers to my questions before I decide.

[Javert]

Vote: ac1983fan

. Care to comment on the game? There should be plenty to talk about.

I feel there's actually very little to talk about.

Then when can we expect any contribution from you? You have (as of now) added nothing to the game whatsoever. Games are not somehow ensorcelled to be either exciting, fast-paced, or bland - it depends entirely on the players. When there are players who lurk or do not comment, games become less and less enjoyable.

For what reason do you play mafia, ac1983fan?

@ Kilmenator, I look forward to what you will do when you get a 'clear picture of the game'.

Apparently you just vote people more than I do.

So how often

do

you vote?

[Javert]

Apologies, I am back. Sad to see so many days of discussion were lost in the forum move, I was interested in reading back on the argument between myself and MeMe in particular. I'll try to recollect my thoughts in a day or so.

[Javert]

The one-liner posts since the server move are becoming difficult to examine. There seems to be many 'mistakes' going on – such as Elias mistaking Ancalagon for ac1983fan and unvoting Ancalagon, while then not revoting, followed by ac1983fan

also

unvoting Ancalagon for saying we 'didn't lose anything important' (which is unambiguously false – we lost a good deal of discussion which I thought was very important) and then being corrected.

I had minimal voting notes taken down for the time lost in the server move. This may or may not be consistent with LyingBrian's vote counts, but my notes are as follows:

Javert votes The Shadow (1)
Ancalagon votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (1)
omg_im_innocent_wtf votes Javert (1)
ac1983fan votes Elias_the_thief (1)
MeMe votes shadowdeath (1)
shadowdeath votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (2)
kilmenator votes The Shadow (2)
Elias_the_thief votes Ancalagon (1)
Nocmen votes The Shadow (3)
Elias_the_thief unvotes Ancalagon (0) and votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (3)
omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes Javert (0) and votes kilmenator (1)
Ancalagon unvotes omg_im_innocent_wtf (2) and votes Elias_the_thief (2)
Barroman votes Elias_the_thief (3)
Elias_the_thief FoS: Ancalagon (I)
ac1983fan unvotes Elias_the_thief (2)
Javert unvotes The Shadow (2) and votes Barroman (1)
Nocmen unvotes The Shadow (1) and votes Ancalagon (1)
kilmenator unvotes The Shadow (0) votes Barroman (2)
shadowdeath unvotes omg_im_innocent_wtf (1)
shadowdeath votes Ancalagon (2)
Javert unvotes Barroman (1) and votes ac1983fan (1)
Barroman unvotes Elias_the_thief (1)
kilmenator unvotes Barroman (0)
Barroman votes kilmenator (2)
MeMe unvotes shadowdeath (0) and votes ac1983fan (2)
Nocmen FoS: ac1983fan (I) and FoS: MeMe (I)
kilmenator votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (2)
Elias_the_thief votes Ancalagon (3)
ac1983fan FoS: Barroman (I) and votes omg_im_innocent_wtf (3)
omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes kilmenator (1) and votes ac1983fan (3)

-- Lost Data –

omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes ac1983fan (2) and votes Ancalagon (4)
MeMe unvotes ac1983fan (1) and votes Ancalagon (5)
Barroman unvotes kilmenator (0) and votes ac1983fan (2)
Javert FoS: MeMe (II)
omg_im_innocent_wtf unvotes Ancalagon (4) and votes kilmenator (1)
Javert unvotes ac1983fan (1) and votes kilmenator (2)
Barroman unvotes ac1983fan (1) and votes kilmenator (3)

Wait...your response to the first quote is saying "we lost data thats a problem because I cant use it", and then you said after the third quote that you did read it.

If you read it, as most of us also did, your putting out a vibe to me that reads "im a scum that needs to nitpick exact details to get you off my back".

Would you please explain to me how you get this vibe in particular? Did you read what was lost during the server move? And if so, how well do

you

remember it? I'm sure you are aware there was a discussion between myself and MeMe at the very least. Please tell me what it was about. Consider this a test.

Ancalagon: Why are you complaining over the fact that someone unvoted you? Distancing yourself from fellow scum?

Why are you trying to draw more connections between people on Day One? Your first reaction to everything seems to be "you must be X's scum-partner".

Also, I

will

revive some of the lost discussion, during which I was trying to clarify exactly how you come to your scum-pair analysis. My questions were something like:

Situation

: X has the most votes, and Y is voting X. Y unvotes, and votes Z, which creates a counterwagon.

Questions

: Is it your opinion that X and Y are scum-partners in this situation, or are there factors you consider other that? If there are other factors, would you mind using them to explain why exactly you tried to pair Elias_the_thief and Ancalagon?

... or

Javert

(who says he is here but has stopped talking in a very unJavertlike way).

I made it quite clear Sunday evening that I would be back and talking again after I recollected my thoughts on this game in a day or so – now it is Tuesday evening, and I am true to my word. Surprisingly enough, I do have schedules and deadlines and things to do outside of playing an on-line interactive text-based game. If you are willing to vote for me on other bases of reasoning, feel free to say as much, but if that is your sole foundation it is weak indeed.

In fact, most of the people you are willing to vote do not seem to have any actual suspicions with them - this is feeling like deja vu. You are willing to vote The Shadow on the basis of him not being here, myself on the basis that I was not here to talk, and ac1983fan in order to make a wagon.

I also think it is slightly unfair to continually hold back your other reasons for voting Ancalagon. I believe we all get the point that if he told the town he was 'reading the thread', he

should

have read the thread, and at the very least, remembered some if not most of it. I

agree

that this failure looks scummy. I

also

agree that if he cannot comment on the lost data, he should at least be commenting on what is present.

However

, nothing you say is going to magically get him to remember what was lost - so with that in mind, if you want him to respond to you any further about anything which was lost, I suggest telling him what he needs to respond to.

{On a side note, this feels to me like the second time or so that I have stepped in to intervene with something concerning Ancalagon, so I certainly hope this is not for nothing.}

Welcome to the game, spectrumvoid.

Mod:

What is the situation with The Shadow? I have been waiting for him to contribute to this game for quite some time.

[Javert]

Part One

:

The "I've got a life" point I made was not meant to be an appeal to emotion – I am fairly sure

anybody

reading my posts will not feel any sympathy for me, nor was I trying to elicit any. I was simply explaining that I think you were too quick to call paint me as somebody not contributing, so I pointed back to my post where I in fact

did

warn the town that it would take me a day or so to get back into the rhythm.

As for other games, there were indeed a number I also had to hold off in contributing in any great detail, precisely because of my most recent schedule. There are also games I consider higher priority than this particular game; it is low on the totem pole, so to speak.

Part Two

:

From what I understand of your position, you are willing to vote for noncontributors and such for the

purposes of discussion

– correct me if I am wrong – as gathered from your insistence of "see, the thread dies when Ancalagon isn't at Lynch -1!". I

can

understand that much, though as we have gone over, I don't necessarily agree with that tactic myself in comparison to others.

In other words, our common goal seems to be discussion. But the problem is, a lynch

halts

discussion.

Being willing to

lynch

noncontributors, especially when there are a number of them (i.e. the others are unlikely to have commented on the one lynched) strikes me as unintuitive. I tend to make sure there is sufficient discussion before I push for a lynch, even in cases where I am very positive somebody is scum. Furthermore, as I believe I mentioned in the lost data, I think continually pushing on noncontributors instead of focusing on things you find scummy is a good way to stop from taking stances on players.

Granted, you have given us the premise that if

you

vote for somebody, you find them scummy: but I tend to like a few lines of reasoning so that I know

why

you think that. I can hardly imagine trying to get reads on players if everybody voted with the explanation of "I wouldn't vote them unless I thought they were scummy".

Part Three

:

I, in fact, simply

could not remember

if there had been an additional case against Ancalagon besides which has already been mentioned. I did not personally recall one – but the impression of your posts (and others' posts) seemed to imply that there had been one, so I too was interested in seeing it.

But as long as Ancalagon can't even be bothered to comment on the stuff that isn't missing, why would you assume he'd be more productive if we provide him with even more to ignore?

I assume this because a good deal of Ancalagon's posts seem to be focusing directly on the lost data. I agree that he should be commenting on the latest happenings and the past posts, however, which I have already mentioned in [172].

[Javert]

I assume this because a good deal of Ancalagon's posts seem to be focusing directly on the lost data.

I figured once he was presented with something tangible to respond to, he would have no reason not to comment on other things, and would hence begin to do so.

I agree that he should be commenting on the latest happenings and the past posts, however, which I have already mentioned in [172].

Highlight added for clarification.

[Javert]

I do agree that putting people closer to a lynch often ups the discussion. My problem here stems from the fact that I have just seen and been in too many games as of late where somebody is put at Lynch -1, and the day ends with a premature hammer - whether it is done accidentally or purposefully is not entirely relevant. Regardless of whether or not that person turns up to be scum, Day Two often starts with people in the "so what now?" attitude. I try to avoid situations where premature hammers are possible in general.

Also, you are correct about [Post 170]: I had read it to mean you would be fine lynching any of those players, whereas you did specify simply voting them. I suppose the impression of your post is that you want to end day as quickly as possible, and this was mostly derived from your comment that you are "just ready for the day to be over". And I figured if you wanted the day to be done with, whoever you were voting at that time would be the person you wanted lynched - hence why I believed you were willing to lynch any of those players.

[Javert]

The discussion between Javert and Meme is interesting, mostly just talking about getting discussion going and such. The way I read it, it seems like Javert

over reacted

to meme's little joke about the lynch -1 thingy.

Please inform me how I 'overreacted'. Is there a proper way I should react when I think putting somebody at Lynch -1 when I don't feel there has been enough discussion? How I reacted was to get MeMe to explain her vote, and then we had a discussion based largely on whether or not we believed it was 'safe', whether it would encourage 'discussion', and whether that was a good way to go about getting said discussion. Since the particular line of discussion was lost in the server move, I unfortunately cannot link you to my specific posts - but if you could show me how I was overreacting, please do.

Also [in accordance with what I assume will be most players in this game], I believe that things such as 'overreactions', 'hyperdefensiveness', 'being overly emotional' etc. should all be taken with a grain of salt. You need to consider the context. Being emotional neither makes one town nor does it make one scum. It may, however, be a slight indicator on alignment for

particular players

. I am getting the feeling that omg_im_innocent_wtf's tone and yelling does not make him scum... but it certainly does not make him any more likely to be

town

simply because he has acted similarly in other games.

Furthermore, if somebody is not accustomed to playing with a certain player, I do not think calling them out for any of these things is a

bad thing

- after all, I have not played with many of you, so I

do not

know what your normal playing style is. In order to learn, I will need to elicit responses from you by calling out what I

do

see; if that is consistent with your behavior as a whole regardless of alignment, that is information we need to be

told

, not information that should be taken for granted. I can be sure without having to do research that pushing on any of those 'tells' has led to scum lynches before, and it has led to town lynches before. Sometimes the

reaction

to the accusation is more telling than the actual 'tell' itself, is what I am getting at.

So far as that particular reaction with omg_im_innocent_wtf goes, I am still deciding. It seems like he is meeting accusations of being overdefensive by

being

overdefensive, so the whole thing seems somewhat circular.

[Javert]

Nocmen, please answer the questions I posed to you in [172]. You may have answered a number of them before, but those answers (if any) were lost in the server move, and I would like to have them concretely in the game if possible.

<social/scum commentary>

Also, there appears to be a running trend in putting exaggeration into small tells.

Hyper

-defensiveness in particular just seems extraordinarily loaded. It reminds of a study done on whether or not people supported an "estate tax" or a "death tax". They are, of course, the same thing - a tax put on heirs of an estate - but (surprisingly enough) a significantly larger portion of the population was fine with an "estate tax", but most people were vehemently opposed to the "death tax".

I realize this isn't quite the same thing (one is using negative connotations to 'poison' a position, and the other is exaggerating an action to make it sound more negative than it really is), but I just thought it was slightly amusing to point out.

</commentary>

[Javert]

Nocmen, please clarify so that I am sure on what you are proposing. You are saying that you currently think the scum-group consists of {ac1983fan, Ancalagon, omg_im_innocent_wtf}, and of those three, you most want to vote for omg_im_innocent_wtf largely because he has been defended by ac9183fan and Ancalagon?

I am interested to see ac1983fan's explanations for why he thinks those particular posts are scummy - especially since for much of the game, he did not find anything worth discussing (which seems rather contradictory with finding so many of he early posts 'scummy').

[Javert]

Mod

: We absolutely need a replacement for The Shadow. In four more days, he will have no posts in this game for a month (although he posted once or twice in the server move, if I recall correctly). Also, Barroman apparently will not be able to post until the day before deadline, so that we cannot question him. With 2/11 players unable to respond to us, I would like to

request a deadline extension

.

Deadline is currently on Monday, so regardless whether or not we receive an extension I think we ought to be picking up the pace.

As it is, I'm currently trying to figure out exactly how the Ancalagon-wagon went from a full-fledged five votes (twice in the same game, as he also reached five votes during the server move) to one vote – it seems like it happened through a number of silent unvotes. Elias_the_thief was the first, and ac1983fan was the second (though this came with some explanation). The third was a forced unvote when spectrumvoid replaced shadowdeath [replacements automatically must unvote in this game, it appears], and the fourth came from Nocmen switching his vote [ultimately] to omg_im_innocent_wtf. I haven't decided what this indicates – if anything – as of yet, but I feel there may be information to be had here.

Kilmenator, please answer the questions I asked you here:

Please inform me how I 'overreacted'. Is there a proper way I should react when I think putting somebody at Lynch -1 when I don't feel there has been enough discussion? How I reacted was to get MeMe to explain her vote, and then we had a discussion based largely on whether or not we believed it was 'safe', whether it would encourage 'discussion', and whether that was a good way to go about getting said discussion. Since the particular line of discussion was lost in the server move, I unfortunately cannot link you to my specific posts - but if you could show me how I was overreacting, please do.

I am tempted to vote Kilmenator, for a few reasons, but I also feel that unvoting ac1983fan before he even explains how the posts he cites are scummy would make my action more ineffective than useful. Instead, I'll list the reasons I'm considering switching my vote below, wait for her response, and then decide.

There is firstly the "umm... dang" comment at the beginning of the game for when the town was informed we had lost a Cop, which from what I understand, is a slight scumtell. Townspeople should just buck up and deal with it, whereas scum will likely think they will be able to feign sadness or shock when they are inwardly very pleased.

As I mentioned before [actually, these comment appear to have been lost in the server move – bah], kilmenator's interaction with Elias_the_thief struck me as very Nurse-like (to use the analogy I employed before). I'll demonstrate again:

actually, no, I did not miss that part, to me it seems like an afterthought, like, "oh wait... that was a stupid reason for a vote, crap, what can I say now.... ummm.... he is gone, yeah, he IS gone, so that will work... Not anything to be overly anxious about, I havent even moved my vote to you yet, I just found it interesting the way things played out.

And your vote generated discussion which is very good for the town, the only people who are scared of discussion are generally non-pro-town players.

Portion highlighted. This just seems like trying to comfort somebody when you are actually planning to stick them with a needle. I just keep getting this same feel whenever I read this particular post.

Then there is the entire "emotional appeal" post, which kilmenator still gets a few negative points for. Post [94], as I believe I also mentioned in the server move, reads to me like somebody trying to slip back into obscurity for a short while due to people beginning to pay attention to her. Granted she returns by [105], so that seems to undermine that theory, but at the same time she goes out of her way to emphasize that she hasn't been paying much attention to the game (which has basically become her all-purpose comment), and that she is becoming "easily frustrated", which is more than understandable on its face, but I can't help but wonder if it is more like a peremptory maneuver such that if anybody tries to call her emotional again, she will simply refer them back to that comment.

So you are not voting anyone else until spectrum is dead, but then hop back on me? (BTW- you still did not use a colon after your vote) But then offer no reasons? Is it because no one else seems to be putting heat on SV and you need to get your vote on someone that you think can be lynched?

This particular comment seems a little bit like an attempt at entrapment. omg_im_innocent_wtf indeed voted spectrumvoid along with the comment "I don't care about his role. I am not putting up with this bs any more" – but this is not equivalent to saying "he won't vote anybody else until spectrumvoid is dead". But even if that

were

the case, there would only be two things he could do:

1.) Stubbornly keep his vote on spectrumvoid, which I am fairly confident would have been greeted by such things as "not considering changing your vote is not helpful to the town, so it is scummy"; or
2.) Change his vote (or agree to unvote), which Kilmenator in this post tries to characterize as being inconsistent and scummy.

I would personally prefer somebody to still be willing to change their vote (ala option 2) if they actually did say they would "not be changing their vote". And seeing as omg_im_innocent_wtf was not that extreme in the first place, Kilmenator's post here strikes me as off.

While I'm on the subject however:

1. i never actually voted for spectrum.

This does not, however, change the fact that you tried to vote for spectrumvoid. A technicality in how votes are counted in this game in no way absolves you for your action (if your action even requires absolution in the first place).

Also, I do not buy the too scummy to be scum argument.

If someone plays scummy, they are not helpful to the town, so they are just a liability, and it is smart to be done with them IMO.

Portion highlighted. Although I agree with this on one level, I disagree on another. This reads to me like somebody who is support of policy lynches – i.e. "you are always either unhelpful or scummy-looking, so I will lynch you every time I play with you". I think this type of attitude just as likely to hurt the town as it is to help it. I might as well just ask: are you in favor of policy lynches?

[Javert]

We need 8 players in agreement in order to have a deadline extension? Considering there are only 9 active players, that seems rather unreasonable. Nevertheless, I am now sending you a PM.

[Javert]

As for a possible The Shadow lynch - I am not too enthused with essentially random lynches on Day One. I do recognize that this is not technically 'random', as there are a few people I think are likely to be town at the moment, which would increase The Shadow's odds of being scum, but that doesn't put me any more at ease.

I am also less enthused that MeMe is once again willing to lynch somebody for reasons which have little to do with any perceived scumminess, but absence.

I also generally do not like lynching people without giving a chance to defend themselves, or claim, or state their

own

suspicions so that the town will have more to work with the next day regardless of whether the lynched person is town or scum.

With that said, I

firmly

believe that

a

lynch is better than no lynch at all - at least for this particular number of players. If we had 12 players alive (or 10, etc), I could live with a No Lynch.

But as it is - assuming no kills are stopped and that the mafia will be only killing (neither of which will necessarily happen) - No Lynching brings the town's total lynches down to 4, whereas lynching today assures us 5 lynches. I would rather the town have more control over who dies if possible.

If I believe The Shadow is the only person who can be lynched before deadline (which will hopefully be moved - I believe I counted 7 in favor of an extension, but I may have double-counted somebody), I will vote for him.

QUICK WAGON KILMENATOR I CANT BE LYNCHED IM A POWER ROLE AS ALWAYS

Are you being serious?

If yes, I fail to understand why you have claimed so quickly, while only

saying

you have power. This is an excellent method in which (as scum) you could "leave open the door" to expand upon this claim later, so you can fill-in-the-blank at your leisure when you think it is opportune, and with a role you think will fit in the game. At the same time, the entire purpose of your statement seems to be to derail the 'wagon' on you - which consists of two entire votes. I think you could have accomplished the same thing (in terms of getting votes off of you) in other methods than this. I'm not quite understanding your motivation behind doing this as town, whereas I can see some motivations for doing it as scum.

If no, then why did you make that statement?

[Javert]

But as it is - assuming no kills are stopped and that the mafia will be

the only thing

killing (neither of which will necessarily happen) - No Lynching brings the town's total lynches down to 4, whereas lynching today assures us 5 lynches. I would rather the town have more control over who dies if possible.

Edit by way of double post.

[Javert]

prodded, not much going on here though.

You simply

cannot

be serious.

1.) We just had a replacement you could comment on.
2.) We just had a slight deadline extension you could comment on. You could also have informed us whether or not you plan (or planned) on sending the mod a PM for a further extension.
3.) Many players (myself included) have wanted you to explain your "list" of scummy posts, instead of just saying "these posts are scummy".
4.) We just had a vague power role claim followed with a more specific Doctor by a person under comparably little pressure.

If

none of those

counts as "something going on" (let alone when put together), I don't understand why you bother to play at all. This is about as much action as you're going to get on Day One of a game.

More comments on other things to come, but this really needed it's own post.

[Javert]

It really is. ok, I dont agree with your plan to just lynch the shadow based on his lurking.

What if we end up lynching the doc , or possibly a roleblocker? then we'd be screwed.

That worked out for the best. Anyways, on the topic of OMG's claim, its the same thing he did in my last game with him. He claimed power, then claimed scum then got lynched. (he was a roleblocker). I dont think you can take anything he says at face value. That being said, I think lynching OMG would have been a better idea as opposed to shadow. shadow was inactive, so he was replaced.

Since OMG is active, we cant really justify replacing him, but its clear he's going to be no help to town.

I think if we dont get the extension, I'd be much more confortable lynching him then I was with lynching shadow.

These confuse me. Set me straight if I am interpreting you incorrectly, but this is what I am seeing:

1.) You have seen omg_im_innocent_wtf claim 'power' in a past game, then claim scum, then indeed get lynched as 'power' (role-blocker, to be specific).
->

Question

: What 'power' did omg_im_innocent_wtf claim in that game? A role-blocker, or something else? Or did he leave the door open?

2.) From the above, you conclude that we "can't take what omg says at face value" (instead of "omg is either power or scum", which I would have expected).

3.) You think "we'd be screwed" if we lynched power [a doc or a role-blocker].

4.) In this game, you have just seen omg_im_innocent_wtf claim power – and now a Doctor.

Now it seems to me that we know the following:

A.)

omg_im_innocent_wtf is either a Doctor or he is scum.

B.)

The Shadow (now Sweenytodd) can be any role

Given that, I don't see how

you

in particular would be "more comfortable" lynching omg_im_innocent_wtf over Sweenytodd when you have been telling us the whole game that omg's play has been consistent with that of other games,

and

that you have had an example where he claimed power and

was

power,

and

that he has claimed power (specifically Doctor) in this game,

and

you think potentially lynching a Doctor or Role-Blocker would "screw us" in this game.

I would think from your own logic you would have been more comfortable lynching The Shadow (Sweenytodd) – since there is still a chance he is

not

a power role if he is town, but you come to the opposite stance. Could you go into more detail why? I would like you to be as detailed as possible.

Note to All: Please stop unvoting without using colons. They will not be counted.

I'm not so sure calling for counter-claims is a good idea. A couple of possibilities: we might have more than one doctor. If omg is scum, he might be trying to draw a counter-claim to point out the real doc.

As he said, he should be a prime kill target tonight if his claim is valid. If he doesn't die, we can discuss that tomorrow.

I don't believe I've ever seen a mini game with two doctors. Feel free to link me to one if there is an example of such.

I would personally be ecstatic if somebody were to counterclaim Doctor; I think we would be guaranteed at least one scum in two players. A 1:1 trade by the town this early in the game is

always

a good trade. If the Doctor can either save anybody from a nightkill, scare scum away from nightkilling a particular person helpful to the town,

or

be the nail in the coffin of lynching scum (via counterclaiming), they have done their job admirably. Also, as it has been pointed out, a night spent killing a Doctor is a night the scum will not be killing a potential investigative role, or some other role which can effectively narrow down a scum-group (such as role-blocker, Vigilante, etc).

That said, so many people have effectively claimed 'not Doctor' at this point that if omg_im_innocent_wtf

is

scum, his scum-team probably has narrowed down the actual doctor (if there is one) to a small amount of players anyways, and in fact, may already know who the Doctor is. If that is the case, the town loses nothing by counterclaiming, and has much to gain by forcing polarization on the two claimed players.

[Javert]

Ah, that puts an entirely different light on your posts. Thank you.

[Javert]

Gracious.

What Elias has pointed out means counterclaiming omg could just plain be disastrous if he is lying as town (something I tend to dismiss as a possibility, but from a player who has a history of doing so, I must now consider it). And further, since LyingBrian has modded a game with two Doctors (one placebo) in a mini before and hence has a history for doing so, I must also consider

that

even though I would normally think it highly unlikely.

This game just got that much more complicated with only a few posts.

[Javert]

ughh,,, Your gonna make me go back, reread every post I listed, and write a paragraph about everyone? I though most of them were obvious.
I also though OMg's claim was a joke which was why i didn;t say anything about it.

Two immediate points.

1.) Yes, I

do

expect you to read back, reread every post your listed, and write about everyone - but you certainly don't need a paragraph. A short explanation is all that is necessary. If you are going to be calling things scummy, we need to know exactly

what

you find scummy, not just waving your hand at a post and proclaiming it to be scummy.

2.) If you thought it was a joke, you were more than free to say that

at the time he claimed

instead of

waiting until now

.

vote:nolynch

at the moment, it seems like no lynch may be the best option. with the deadline fast approaching, we have very little information to work on. It doesn't help that I need to get a grade in a class FROM AN F To at least an b- by tomorrow, so I can't be on here to see any additional developements.

If you think No Lynch is better than Lynching, you need to support that conclusion. I have already gone over exactly why I believe Lynching is better than No Lynching - and to make your life easier, this is my post [260]. I would much prefer the town have 5 lynches than 4 lynches, especially when there are probably a minimum of three scum. Regardless of whether we lynch or no lynch today, the town will have 4 lynches left - except by lynching, we have

at least had a chance to lynch scum

, whereas No Lynch does not allow for that possibility.

I am also frustrated with omg_im_innocent_wtf. Rules are not "fine print" - you should be reading the rules before every game, specifically taking note of deadline rules, claiming rules, replacement rules, etc.

no. you people are to blame for putting me as a leading wagon AGAIN

you people are to blame for starting a game with no deadlines and then adding one in with its own set of little rules, then blaming me for not spending hours reading fine print.

"We are to blame"?

1.) You are more than free to use your vote on others.
2.) You are more than free to use your voice to make cases against others.
3.) You are more than free to not constantly insult us.
4.) You are more than free to read the rules of the game.
5.) You are more than free to ask us or the mod what the deadline rules of the game are.
6.) You are more than free to refrain from claiming at two votes.

Don't try to lay the blame on

us

when you are more than capable of changing your play, playstyle, actions, words, and so forth. We "are to blame" only insomuch as you are. Furthermore, it could be the case that you are just plain scum - in which case there is no "blame" to be had.

[Javert]

Unvote: ac1983fan

to prevent any premature hammers or quicklynches.

I did not receive mod notice that I had been role-blocked, regardless of whether or not I have a night action. I'll have to think on this claim.

Out of curiosity, how did you randomly happen to choose me (i.e. what system of randomizing did you use)?

[Javert]

Strained post.

spectrumvoid, deadline is in two days, not today. Please refer me to the post where you said you believe you did not believe Nocmen was scummy - I just reviewed your posts and could not find one, but I admit I may have missed it in my haste.

I may be willing to help lynch Ancalagon if I cannot find an alternative - and I

will

vote him if I believe the only other option is No Lynch. I hope to make a more substantive post tomorrow.

[Javert]

By my count {MeMe, Sweenytodd, spectrumvoid, Nocmen, ac1983fan, kilmenator}, there are 6 votes on Ancalagon, so he has been lynched.

I do not know if any of the following players will be alive to answer the following, but I will ask them anyways.

1.) I will fully expect ac1983fan to explain his list of scummy posts.

2.) In post [324], spectrumvoid gives three reasons for her vote on ac1983fan, but later in post [332] says she expected to be attacked for that very post. What in particular did you expect to be attacked on, and why?

Also directed at spectrumvoid, your posts [352] and [355] seem to give fairly weak reasons for thinking Nocmen is town – in fact, you yourself say it is WIFOM, and 'bad', and frankly if you went around saying "I can't think of why scum would do that" you would have to apply it to quite a few players in this game

other

than Nocmen. This is mostly being formally noted for possible usage later, if either of you come up scum.

3.) I want to know what Barroman is thinking. He has not posted since Tuesday morning, and has been absent for ac1983's claim completely as well as the time before deadline – and I have not seen any indicator that he would be gone at this time. I will place a preliminary

FoS: Barroman

, awaiting explanation tomorrow (or if he manages to post again before the thread is locked). I am not in the least pleased by people who are absent at times such as these.

4.) Kilmenator, please inform me how common you think scum role-blockers are in mini regular games, and link me to the ones you have seen in particular, in reference to your post [326]. I tend to think they are more common in mini themes, but I have already been disproved in thinking it preposterous for a game to have two Doctors, so I am more than open to evidence to the contrary.

[Javert]

Lengthy post.

I believe it is inefficient trying to determine who omg_im_innocent_wtf protected last night. We don't know if it stopped a kill – it is only suggested in the flavor of the night scene, and weakly at that. The flavor clearly depicts him walking from a hospital as if he were an actual doctor, in which case he would have actual patients, some of which may have died (e.g. half of them).

After looking at the original Basically Basic Mafia (Mini #280), it appears as though "Capo Crimine/Crimini" (Ancalagon's role) was the Godfather role in that game, and turned up innocent to investigations. I do not know if the same would have held true in this game, but it seems worth noting.

However, that game

did

have a Serial Killer, so (in relation to the above paragraph) although we have no current evidence of there being in one in this particular game, I won't be keeping the possibility out of sight and out of mind. It certainly appears as though LyingBrian likes to add flavor for his games, and often hints as to who committed the nightkill (since I could tell each time when the Mafia/Serial Killer were responsible for the killings). I don't know if this would have been true had the Vigilante killed, however, since that did not occur in that game (and I just noted that in that game, the Vigilante had to choose their target during the

Day

phase, for whatever reason).

None of that directly helps find scum in this game, but it interested me nonetheless.

I feel it may be instructive to review the Ancalagon wagons we've had during the course of this game. Blue signifies votes off.

---

Wagon #1 on Ancalagon

:
1: Nocmen
2: shadowdeath [now spectrumvoid]
3: Elias_the_thief
*** [Data Lost]
4: omg_im_innocent_wtf
5: MeMe

4: omg_im_innocent_wtf

*** [Data Lost]
4: MeMe
5: ac1983fan

4: Elias_the_thief
3: ac1983fan
2: spectrumvoid (forced unvote for replacing shadowdeath)
1: Nocmen
0: MeMe

Wagon #2 on Ancalagon

:
1: MeMe
2: Sweenytodd [replacing The Shadow]

1: MeMe

2: MeMe
3: spectrumvoid
4: Nocmen
5: ac1983fan
6: kilmenator

---

Clearly the wagons do little to help me in particular, since I was on neither of them.

MeMe looks like the most solid voter on each wagon. Continued to return to that particular wagon a number of times, and helped to solidify the first time around, while bringing about its recurrence later.

I've been going back-and-forth for about ten minutes on who the worst votes/unvotes on Ancalagon came from. The last two seem the most suspect on the second wagon

Kilmenator's vote doesn't convince me either way. Could be scum laying down the hammer, or townsperson figuring they are better off doing something with their vote. I currently do not have a preference between the two.

I was originally thinking ac1983fan's vote near the end was particularly more likely to come from scum than town, for three reasons. Firstly was ac1983fan's suggestion of No Lynching. Secondly was that he was one of the more critical unvoters on the first wagon. Thirdly was the seeming inconsistency between posts [363] and [366]. In Post [363], he says it's 'obvious' Ancalagon is either townie or scum. After Ancalagon claims townie, ac1983fan decides he can lynch him safely. Though I still consider the first a point against him, the second actually seems more like a line of a thought a townsperson would portray. I would still like him to explain this, however: if you thought Ancalagon was either a townsperson or scum to begin with, I don't see how him claiming townie would make you vote him (since it would appear that even if he had claimed a power role, you would have disbelieved him and voted him anyways). In other words, your expectations of him being 'townie or scum' essentially meant you were going to vote for him whatever he claimed.

Elias_the_thief is really the only voter on the first wagon who looks somewhat suspect since he hopped on in the middle, and was one of the more silent unvoters after the server move.

[Javert]

Though I still consider the first a point against him, the

second

third

actually seems more like a line of a thought a townsperson would portray.

Change highlighted.

[Javert]

Indeed; distancing purposes. In any case, if Kilmenator had not hammered Ancalagon, I (and perhaps others) would have hammered him upon coming to the thread (as I mentioned when discussing Lynching v No Lynching), so there would be no sense on passing on such an opportunity to try to help oneself look more innocent.

[Javert]

Would still like responses from ac1983fan, kilmenator, and Barroman for [368]. Would also like response from ac1983fan for [380].

[Javert]

look, I'm busy right now and won't be able to make an in depth anaysis for the next week and 1/2.

sorry,

Still around, something to come later, only I dont know how much later...

sorry

...

Sorry, sorry and SORRY

.<snip>

Quite a bit of "sorry"-ing going on lately.

Just read up on Ancalagon's posts as Sweenytodd did earlier, and this post caught my eye the most:

I've still not seen any analysis from you on the stuff that isn't missing.

That's because I want you to answer my questions as well. I am analyzing, but some of the stuff that isn't missing is also attacking me, which I must defend.

From the most recent behavior, omg comes off as the most scummy. However, I can see him showing up as town, since his behavior has been consistent all game. Omg, perhaps insulting and yelling at people isn't the best way to play.

kilmenator comes off scummy, but not very. I can't see much hard evidence on his posts, they just don't seem right.

Here, Ancalagon gives two 'suspicions'. The first – and more strongly worded – is on omg_im_innocent_wtf, who has been shown to be town. Note how Ancalagon says he can "see him coming up town", which he also reiterates in a later post.

The second – and weakly worded – is on kilmenator. This may suggest a connection to kilmenator. However, his post [224], where he agrees with my suspicions on kilmenator, is enough to give me pause, although he seems to revert back to "middle of the road" territory very soon, in Post [335].

Post [335] is probably very telling, but it's difficult to draw conclusions from it this early in the game. At the time he made this post (which gives a list of who he considers scummy, not scummy, and 'not much of a read'), ac1983fan was at 4 of 6 votes, and nobody else had more than 1 vote. Given that, I don't think he made that post under the impression that he would be lynched that day, so he was not likely be making many red herrings to be pursued if he was to be lynched. About the only tentative conclusion I'm willing to draw is that if he has two or more partners, they would not all be within the same category.

Given my earlier suspicions and the (albeit weak) connection between Ancalagon and kilmenator, I will begin with a

Vote: kilmenator

.

[Javert]

I was basing the connection off of the wording of his posts, Elias_the_thief. Think about it another context. A mafia member is going to have at least one partner. Throughout the course of a number of days, they need to make sure they lynch townspeople if possible, while not lynch their own partners. However, they often try to do so in such a way that if their partners

do

die, there is not an easy connection to tie them together.

Of the two people Ancalagon called suspicious in that post, he clearly ranked omg_img_innocent_wtf as higher than kilmenator. His suspicion on kilmenator, to me, looked almost

purposefully

weak. With such weakness, he has an excuse to not push on kilmenator himself, so that no attention would be drawn towards her; but in the case she dies or is lynched, he can point back to that post and claim to have been suspicious of her from the start (which would help 'clear' him). Furthermore, by giving such weak reasons, he could be inviting somebody else to strip them away as weak/flimsy, so that he could say "I guess the case against kilmenator was not as strong as I had thought", so that others might be more willing to accept it as true, and also be gentler with kilmenator.

There is no rule that disallows scum from casting suspicion - however strong or weak - on their own partner(s). I try to keep on the look-out for it. Ancalagon already has one person he was clearly trying to hedge his bets on, and that was omg_im_innocent_wtf. Even though he claimed to be most suspicious of him, he qualifies that statement with "but I could see him coming up town". Why? So he wouldn't look as bad when omg

did

turn up town - because he had somewhat predicted it.

Given Nocmen's claim of information, however, I will

Unvote: kilmenator

, though I expect I will want clarification on that sometime soon (although not necessarily Day Two). I will see if I cannot find another place for my vote soon.

[Javert]

Nocmen's post was clearly implying Mason. I'm not sure why spectrumvoid asked for clarification, since it was fairly obvious he was not a Cop (else he could not know his Sanity - if he did, he would have a guilty investigation), and given this is a mini regular game, there simply aren't many other roles which would allow him to claim to have "proof" of kilmenator being innocent.

However, leave no stone unturned. I would like each of you to check your role PMs (and PM the Mod if it is not explicit) to ask whether or not the two of you are

guaranteed

to be innocent.

Pointer for the future, however: as a Mason role, you are often better off allowing small wagons on yourself and your partner. You (and your partner) essentially

know

that you cannot be lynched due to your role, and you are only gaining information by seeing who thinks what of you, and your partner. Anybody who lynches before a claim (i.e. the only feasible way you could get lynched, unless there was a deadline; which there is not) would basically be outing themselves as scum in any case. Also, the longer you can last without claiming, the better. You should defend before claims, if possible.

Have the two of you encrypted each others' names in your posts at all? In this manner, if one of you had died overnight, the other could point the encryption to show they were the other mason. Other methods of the same are of course possible, but this is the most straightforward.

[Javert]

Au contraire.

In order for him to have "reasonable proof" as a Cop, he would need to have two conflicting investigations - and since he certainly didn't look to have a guilty investigation, that was not the case. In a mini regular game with a

dead Cop

from Night Zero, it is pretty clear that if there is a second, both Cops would

not

be Sane. For his actions in this game, if here were a Cop, he would necessarily need to have two innocent investigations. And in that case, he would strongly need to consider being naive - which is not "reasonable proof".

Mind linking me to these Cops who assume they are 100% correct, since you have seen "LOTS" of them?

I believe Nocmen and kilem, because I see no reason for scum to tie themselves together.

1.) If they are not both confirmed innocent to each other and one is scum, I can assure you the scum would be quite pleased to be connected to a dead, confirmed, mason. We'll see if this could even possibly the case soon enough, however, when they respond to my question.

2.) Although it is very rare (and I have been in a game where it has happened), scum

can

claim to be Mason partners together. There are numerous drawbacks to this, of course, and I doubt it is necessary to go into detail. And if this were the case, tying themselves together would, in fact, explain precisely why they would "tie themselves together".

[Javert]

To what are you responding, spectrumvoid? I am getting the impression you are responding to "you have seen LOTS" of Cops think they are 100% accurate. Correct me if I am wrong.

As for the discussion thread you mentioned, is it this? If so (and if you are responding to the question I believe you are), I don't see how that is supposed to convince me that "LOTS" of players think they are infallible with a Cop role. There is no discussion on the subject, and even if there were, that would not indicate to me that you have

personally

seen "LOTS" of Cops with that frame of mind. What is the relevance of citing that discussion here?

Also, Nocmen: please confirm that your partner is guaranteed innocent. "Mason" is not enough nowadays.

[Javert]

Merci beaucoup. That will make things much easier, so long as you two aren't scum.

[Javert]

Might as well get things back on track.

Vote: Barroman

, for a few reasons. I'll try to be condensed.

1.

Began game with "BAD NIGHT!!!! The Cop is out", and as I pointed out elsewhere (I believe on a Kilmenator case), mourning the loss of a dead power role right off the bat strikes me as more scummy than townish.

2.

The Elias_the_thief questions, which has already been discussed (and doesn't need further discussion unless somebody wants to go over it again).

3.

Javert - I'm happy to see your "unvote". It seems that you really think the things. That's a good point.

Perhaps this is my own bias speaking, but I don't particularly care for giving players "pats on the head", which is essentially what this is doing.

4.

I am also getting a few mixed messages. For much of the game, Barroman has been going after kilmenator and ac1983fan. Even on Day Two, he has said as much:

I think that Javert is right.

And another thing to say; Kilmentantor and ac1983fan always look to me suspicius... and that lasts votes were suspicius... and the both voted him. Probably to look like they were inocent?

His next post (which was [398]) says he "thinks that ac1983fan could be a pro-town role", and he also says he can see suspicion on Elias_the_thief due to his placement on the Ancalagon wagons. Basically – if I am following his suspicions correctly – his top suspect should be Kilmenator. When three people vote for her, he says "don't be so hasty!!!".

And yet. After Nocmen claims to have "reasonable proof" that Kilmenator is not scum, and after Kilmenator places a first vote on ac1983fan, we have this:

Vote: Kilmentator

I don't understand what you have said...

4a.

Did you wanted to say, that you vote Ancagalon just because the deadline was near, and you want to lynch anyone, the one with more votes??????

4b

And now... you have voted ac1983fan?? I think he said he was the role-blocker, dind't he?

Both of these questions seem rather silly – rather like the Elias_the_thief questions at the game's commencement (numbered for efficacy):

->

4a

: We have actually already gone over how assuring that there is a lynch on D1 with 11 players is better than sitting back and not allowing a lynch at all. Unless Barroman disagrees with this (and if he does, I expect him to write a rebuttal to my post which explains this), there is nothing wrong with kilmenator did by making sure we had a lynch.

Furthermore, if somebody

did

have that state of mind, I fail to see how it is scummy in the context of it being a lynching vote on scum, unless you believe her to be part of a separate scum-group.

->

4b

: Seeing as Barroman himself has expressed suspicion on ac1983fan – both before and after his claim of role-blocker – I'm not quite sure how he suddenly gets to sound indignant for when somebody

else

places a vote on ac1983fan. It strikes me as very duplicitous, though that's not quite the word I'm looking for.

->

4c

: (Not from post above) Also, the fact that Barroman is telling people to "not be hasty" but still puts down a Kilmenator vote in the midst of a wagon strikes me as strange.

5.

And of course, his absence at the end of Day One - when the wagon shifted to Ancalagon - though explained, still indicates that Barroman could have been reading the game (in that he was not strictly separated from a computer), but chose not to post. I can accept his explanation of familial problems, but it does not completely absolve him for the omission of his presence.

----

On another note, I was checking ac1983fan's list of posts where he found scummy things. The best before, he had claimed that everybody had something scummy except for MeMe. But in his list of posts, none of them were any of

my

posts. This strikes me as an oversight, but I would like to see it explained (in addition to seeing those posts explained, which I have asked for a number of times).

... and zut alors! This post ended up being long.

[Javert]

To-Javerts vote because of the self admitted rather weak connection with ana, Do you not think that Ana would have tried to make connections between himself and others (innocents and scum alike) in the thread, being that he was scum and would try to take them (innocents) down with him?

My apologies for not answering this earlier, although this response is largely for the sake of argument at this point, and not because I suspect it to be the case.

At the time Ancalagon was most vocal with his suspicions on you, he was not under the threat of being lynched. I have found that when scum

are

about to be lynched (or believe they are, even if that is not the case), they tend to lay as many red herrings as possible, such that trying to analyze those particular posts are notoriously difficult. This is not as true for when scum do not believe they are in danger of being lynched. Since Ancalagon was

not

in the 'red herring' position, his objectives would be something like the following:

A.

End day with a lynch on somebody other than his scum group

B.

If somebody from his scumgroup looks like they may be lynched, he will have a backup plan (by either making himself look innocent, or by trying to connect somebody else to his partner, etc)

There could of course be other objectives (such as getting power roles to reveal themselves, etc). The post I cited in particular, however, seemed to fulfill both the main objectives.

He was pushing on a townsperson (omg_im_innocent_wtf) lynch overall, and his suspicions on you in particular were vague and unstable enough in that post - and in other posts - that it struck me as a back-up plan in the case you died as scum. In other words, I suspected he was distancing via using purposefully weak reasoning.

Again, I find that unlikely to be the case after your claim of guaranteed innocent Mason, but that was where I was coming from.

[Javert]

Mod

, could we please get prods on Nocmen and Sweenytodd?

I decided to hold off on posting for a few days to see if there would be any other reactions to the case on Barroman, but it doesn't appear it will be so.

Apologies for the quote-response-quote-response format, but after previewing my post without quotes, it's difficult to tell what I'm responding to. If there is a more efficient way to do this, I would love to hear it.

1.

I hope, all your reasons to vote me, aren't like this one. From the forums I come, people usually "acts" a little. So if I see a pro-town role death I'll be sad, and if I see a powerfull-pro-town role death I'll be more sad. And, obiously, I will do this, if I was PRO-TOWN or PRO-MAFIA. So THIS is not a reason to vote.

Is this meant to imply you were "acting" at the beginning of the game – or is this more of a translation problem here? If you could link me to this other forum so that I might do a background check on this claim, I would be much obliged.

Granted, this is not a particularly strong or compelling tell (as spectrumvoid had noted). I find this tell more useful simply by looking at the

response

it draws. This particular response was more defensive than Barroman's responses to all of my others points (save for the "deadline" response, #5), which I find amusing given that I think it is the weakest on the list. His reaction seems to outweigh the significance.

2.

This will not be addressed, since you accept it.

3.

If I'm agree with something, I'll say it. If I'm not agree with something, I'll say it. What's the problem?

You are more than free to agree with things. However, agreeing when somebody unvotes

you

in particular is something which is unnecessary to do – of

course

you're going to agree with being unvoted. My point is that your statement in particular looked tailored to give me a "pat on the head" for being a "good boy" and unvoting you.

4a

I believe that if the redline reaches, the one with more votes, get linch, don't he?

No – players are only lynched in this game if they reach the required number of votes. The player with the most votes could feasibly not be lynched if they do not hit that number. If kilmenator wanted to assure somebody was lynched, she would necessarily have to use her vote to do so – which she did. This has been discussed earlier.

4b

I beg for your pardon, because my post 388, was like that because I didn't readed the last to pages. Obiously, if I see someone guilty, and we said that he is role-blocker, and nobody say "that's not true"... I will believe him, and I will change all my thoughts from this player.

Before I respond in more detail, I would like a clarification. Are you saying that [388] was made before you even read the last two pages – and hence you never saw either of the last votes on Ancalagon for yourself by that time? And you also never saw that ac1983fan had claimed role-blocker and was not counter-claimed? I would like very precise answers to these if possible.

Exactly

what had you read by that time?

4c.

That was a difference here. You must read (in order, of course) all this posts. 399, 400, 401, 403. In 403 was where I said "don't be hasty". At this moment Kil has 3 votes on him, and you didn't let him to speak.
Then Kil posted 411 & 412. In a difference of 2 minutes, something thant always look scumish for me, and he said two things that seem scumish for me.
So I wanted him to explain that and I voted him.

One of the best ways to get a genuine reaction from somebody is to put votes on them. Three quick votes are bound to catch the eye - and since it takes 5 votes to lynch, kilmenator was in no real danger.

As I have pointed out, I don't think either of the two things you voted Kilmenator for were "scummy". Votes are necessary for lynches, and there is certainly no guarantee that ac1983fan is town. What do you think of Elias_the_thief's vote on ac1983fan, by the way?

What befuddles me is the fact that before posts 411 and 412, you clearly must have read post 404 – where Nocmen claims to have "reasonable proof" that kilmenator is pro-town, and yet you voted her regardless.

5.

Well, I have HEAVY reasons from out the game that didn't let me read the game. If you don't believe that I think that is better if the mod search a replacement, because if all your attack is based on mi absence, it's better if I'm out.

You need to understand something.

I

do not know if your real life problems

actually

kept you from posting in the game. You may be telling the truth, or you may be lying – I have no way of knowing. I will not dispute that you may have been having real life problems, but whether or not you deliberately refrained from posting at deadline for a good number of days is unknowable. As such, it will remain a possibility – and if you

did

purposely lurk at deadline, it is definitely more scummish than townish.

[Javert]

Unvote: Barroman

, still awaiting reply and to prevent a premature hammer.

[Javert]

*adjusts hat and taps foot impatiently*

[Javert]

Nocmen is cleared.

With such a powerful set of roles in the open (dead Cop, dead Doc, dead Back-Up Doc, a dead Mason, and a live Mason guaranteed to be pro-town), I find that I am highly doubting the veracity of ac1983's Role-Blocker claim. Six power roles (although admittedly a number of them could be 'duds', such as a Paranoid/Naive Cop or a Quack) in a game which does not

appear

have a Serial Killer seems like overkill to me.

Who did you block last night, ac1983fan?

[Javert]

It has occurred to me that it

may

be the case this game has a powerful town in order to balance between four mafia members (since we as of yet have no evidence of two separate factions of scum). I personally would not think a mini game which requires only two mislynches -- as would a 4-mafia team in 12 players -- for the town to lose is well-balanced, but I believe exhibiting caution over possibilities is superior to abandon over desirabilities. I would ask that people vote with care today, and all (if any) subsequent days.

I am interested in hearing why spectrumvoid thinks ac1983fan is innocent, but we shall wait until he reveals his target.

In the meantime, I will note that from this weekend to the next, I will very likely have spotty - if any - access to the internet. If this is a problem, I will not object to being replaced although I would rather play until the end. I will send a private message to LyingBrian indicating this as well.

[Javert]

Mind sharing all of your targets and on which nights you investigated them?

[Javert]

Please just claim your results and the order in which you have received them with explanations why you investigated those people each night. Considering you just tossed out this comment:

I am innocent. I think ac1983fan is innocent, pending his night result. Hence, I think the remaining scum come from are elias_the_thief, javert, and sweenytodd.
I've been liking javert's posts so far, so I'll be focusing on sweenytodd and elias today.

... it certainly doesn't take a lot of imagination to wonder who you've investigated, or who you will claim to have investigated. There are only seven players alive - you claim an innocent on one, another is cleared, you clearly won't be suspicious of yourself, and that leaves 4 players. Since you are only mentioning 3 of those players as being possible scum, without mentioning MeMe whatsoever, it certainly doesn't take a lot of imagination to wonder, and there is really no point at 'concealment' unless you are taking the players of this games to be fools.

It is Day Three, and I see no reason for you to hold off claiming your final investigation result until Day Four, seeing as you could very well die in the interim. Unless you plan on sharing your result later today (which would seem completely contradictory since you were so willing to share your result on ac1983fan as soon day opened), I don't see a reason for you to hold off claiming your third investigation.

[Javert]

Also, I don't see how nocmen's post 'clearly implies mason.' I've seen a LOT of cops assume they're 100% correct. (I have never played with nocmen before, so I have no idea whether he knew he could be insane/naive/paranoid etc etc.)

Please explain this comment now that you have claimed to be "the" Cop yourself. I find it wryly ironic that you seem to imply you think you are sane, by the by. Coming from a 'Cop' looking at Nocmen's claimed information, I'm quite interested in what

you

thought Nocmen was hinting at. Did you actually think he was a

third

Cop? If not, did you think Nocmen's post 'clearly implied'

anything

?

---

okay, I know I keep making promises... But after next week, theres no more school, so then I'll be able to make a new list of scummy posts with reasons.

I will hold you to this.

I didn't block anybody becuase I couldn't make a decision, and the first week of summer prevented me from rereading.

Truly, I would not think you would even have to technically reread in order to role-block somebody from your position in the game at that point. Dead Cop, Dead Doc, Dead Back-Up Doc, 2 Claimed Masons; if you don't think there are any power roles other than yourself, the worst you're going to do is block a townsperson without a night choice and you

might

have blocked Mafia.

{Note: Post 503, you should have said "backup Doc", not "backup Cop".}

[Javert]

Apologies, I was sick. Lucky it was only one day though.

2 nights ago, I investigated omg. I confused this game with another one, anyone who saw my sig during that time (my sig was something like: If I'm cop/doc in any game, will the mod please drop me a pm) can verify this. Yaw (another game mod) told me to change my sig.

I think I'm sane, but either naive or not naive. If I was insane, with 3 investigations, probability says I'd have received a guilty one somewhere.

I thought it was unlikely for a game to have 3 cops in it, hence why I was pressuring nocmen. I was baiting nocmen to fake-claim cop if he was scum, hence that: "I've never played with nocmen before bit", giving him an excuse.

This, for whatever reason, does not include your investigation targets with reasons behind them. Please alleviate this problem.

Question: Why have you even considered the chance of you being "insane"? That is not possible, and never was. You said you investigated Arafax - the Cop - on Night Zero, the same night he was killed, and got an innocent result. If you were Insane, you would have received a guilty result. Explain to me why you have even brought up the possibility of you being Insane when that was the absolute first thing - besides Paranoid - you should have tossed out the window.

I am strapped for time. so I cannot check over all of your posts, but yesterday you used the phrase "I think MeMe is town" (in some fashion) what I recall to be at least two times - but by your own statements, you had not investigated MeMe at that time. In fact, had you died and shown up as a Cop, myself and others would likely have thought you had investigated her the night before. I do not recall you having said anything to the effect of "I think ac1983fan is innocent" until today, even though it was apparently yesterday when you had your result on him and not today. Please explain this for me.

I second the prod on Nocmen.

[Javert]

Hello?

Hello?

Hello?

Hello?

For whatever reason, I'm the person who has forewarned those in the game that I would be strapped for time this week, and yet I appear to be the one most willing to post. Where is everybody?

I appreciate a good game of "Let's all sit around and stare at each other" as much as the next person, but I sincerely don't think it is helping us find scum.

[Javert]

Oh, bother. I - for whatever reason - had read Post 513 to read "I investigated ac1983fan two nights ago", and was about to be very cross with you (as I was starting to become in Post 515). Could you give reasons for why you chose each person to investigate on the nights you did?

I will try to give the game a fresher read-through with the latest information within the next few days.

[Javert]

Elaborate on your 'mistake' of investigating omg_im_innocent_wtf. I agree that investigating a claimed Doctor on N2 does not seem like an overly smooth move, when it is likely if they are truthful they will be biting a bullet very soon rendering your investigation useless - especially when your first result was also dead. But I want to hear

why

you investigated him, not that 'it was a mistake'.

Why did you not want to reveal that you investigated him? It has not passed my attention that you are claiming results on two players on the

same nights they died

. Note that this would work out for you if you were scum who committed those kills trying to protect yourself from possible tracker results.

The large problem here is, of course, the claimed power. If every claim is to be believed right now, he is what we have:

Town Roles

2 Cops
1 Doctor
1 Back-Up Doctor
1 Role-Blocker
2 Guaranteed Innocent Masons
1/2 Unclaimed

Scum Roles

1 Godfather
2/3 Unclaimed

That is

seven

roles of power - and although some people might argue Masons are "powerless", I certainly think the ability to night-talk is a power in itself, and the knowledge that your partner is guarantee to be town is essentially a 1-Shot 100% Cop investigation that works between two players are definitely powers.

That much power in a mini game - even with a dead Godfather - simply does not strike me as being anywhere near likely whatsoever.

By the by, if it isn't too much trouble, would you mind linking me to a finished game or two where you were a Cop who claimed investigations? I would like to compare and contrast your behavior.

[Javert]

ac1983fan: Any progress on that post where you explain all the posts you find scummy?

[Javert]

Mod

, could we please get some prods? Preferably on:

• Elias_the_thief (last post June 30)
  
• Nocmen (last post
  June 5
  ; this is the one-month mark, so he probably needs to be replaced)
  
• Sweenytodd (last post June 22)

Those who falter and those who fall must pay the price.

[Javert]

Warning: lengthy post.

Harrumph. I just read through the game to get a feel again on the latest information, and I must say it is not making today any easier. Post [324] by spectrumvoid in particular is weighing on me, due to its being timed near deadline and proposing a lynch on ac1983fan. This post does not much look like distancing from me, such that I am finding it hard to believe in a pairing of ac198fan/spectrumvoid for the time being.

Note: Also, the way in which spectrumvoid ever-so-slightly held off calling ac1983fan at the start of Day Three indicates she was not going to full-out protect him

yet

, since if he had claimed to role-block her she (as town) would know he was lying and that she was naive. This nuance furthers my belief that they would not be scum together, since this strikes me as something scum could easily overlook while trying to keep each other off the lynching block.

After reading those two players in particular, spectrumvoid comes off looking more town than ac1983fan, at least in terms of substance (although shadowdeath, the player spectrumvoid replaced, was certainly lacking in that area). However, both of their claimed actions bother me. Not blocking anybody on Night Three of this game is a terrible blunder as town, and a good way to keep options open as scum [excepting for the case where scum claim to 'block' their own partner so as to 'lessen the chances' of that player having committed a kill]. And 'investigating' two separate players who died on those exact two nights – especially when the second investigation was nowhere near optimal play – is certainly a bitter pill to swallow.

Of the two, I would think ac1983fan is the more likely to be scum, and if that is the case, spectrumvoid being naive would not really affect the 'power' of the town since a naive Cop is not truly a power but rather a liability, excepting for the ability to prove/disprove trackers, role-blockers, etc. Also, I have noticed that having a Doctor, a Back-Up Doctor, and a Role-Blocker implies quite a few methods for the town to stop nightkills with (and with two guaranteed innocent Masons, this is powerful indeed since it could [hypothetically] assure those Masons live long into the game, making it much easier to pinpoint scum.

If spectrumvoid were scum and ac1983fan is not scum, it is not immediately obvious why she would go out of her way to declare him innocent – although it is more than possible that this is being done to set up a 'guilty' result for tomorrow, which ac1983fan would likely have supported {on the trend I've noticed that people who believe an innocent investigation has been called them tend to believe those doing the claiming more readily than the person with a claimed guilty on them}, thereby making a final mislynch (assuming spectrumvoid-scum could attain a mislynch today) fairly simple to achieve.

I'm

almost

at the point where I'm thinking at least one of them almost must be scum, but I myself am cautious to get myself stuck into an either-or rut. The biggest factor here for me is the set-up.

Set-Up if ac1983fan is scum and spectrumvoid is town

1 [Sane?] Cop
1 [Naive] Cop
1 Doctor
1 Back-Up Doctor
2 Guaranteed Innocent Masons
3 Unclaimed Town
3 Scum [1 Godfather, 2 Unknown]

**

Set-Up if spectrumvoid is scum and ac198fan is town

1 Cop
1 Doctor
1 Back-Up Doctor
1 Role-Blocker
2 Guaranteed Innocent Masons
3 Unclaimed Town
3 Scum [1 Godfather, 2 Unknown]

**

**

3 scum assumed

Of course, if both are town, one must simply add spectrumvoid to the bottom Set-Up with the caveat that she may be naive. I will try to give a reread focusing more on MeMe, Elias_the_thief, and Sweenytodd in due time.

Also, ac198fan

really

needs to get to explaining his list (or making a new one) which he made on Day One. My patience for this is wearing quite thin on this subject.

[Javert]

I have sent a PM to LyingBrian to see if he is still around on the site. I know he's mentioned having problems in real life elsewhere, but this game simply won't move forward if we need to prod/replace two people, and the third only has access on weekends.

Also, spectrumvoid, scum claim 'non-optimal' things all the time - including "no action". It's a good exercise in WIFOM. I do not count that in any way a positive factor about ac1983fan's alignment. Also, by not blocking, there's no way he can be contradicted.

[Javert]

Still here, and still waiting on Sweenytodd and our mod to return. I am of the opinion that this game ought to be finished.

[Javert]

Sure, I can respond to your last post, ac1983fan.

I am really against an SV lynch. She has claimed a powerrole. assuming the setup had only 3 scum, the current ratio of scum:town is 2:6. Even if we lynch town today and the mafia NK is succsessful, tomorow's scum:town ratio should be 2:4. that being said, I would rather lynch someone that is either townie or scum than lynch someone who is either cop or scum. And, since my only two real suspicsions are sweenytodd and Elias, and I find sweeny scummier than elias, I will

vote:sweeny

If spectrumvoid is scum, she will come out with a guilty investigation tomorrow and try to have a townsperson lynched. That's rather the point of claiming Cop when you're scum - to stop from being lynched, possibly to stop partners from being lynched, and to lynch townspeople. Notably, it's much easier to have townspeople lynched if they claim to have an innocent on a townsperson who is eager to believe a Cop-claim (as happened in this case).

Really, since I think if she is a Cop she is likely to be Naive (more than 50%), I find her claimed

role

completely useless at the moment, such that "leaving alive a Cop" is not really something I will bother calculating into my decision for lynching. The only purpose of spectrumvoid

to me

is that it is possible for the two of you to try to confirm/deny each others' abilities - such that you threaten to role-block her, and if both of you are alive tomorrow, she claims whether or not she received an investigation, and then you claim whether or not you blocked her (or vice versa - best would probably be to try to find a time for both of you to claim simultaneously, but that seems unlikely given our environment). Problems here naturally arise in that you could both scum together, that you could be a scum role-blocker, that scum could guess correctly, that one of you could die, and so on.

I would prefer we either get Sweenytodd back or find him a replacement before I decide on where my vote shall go, however I will be frank in saying I do not feel strong ties to this game, though I would prefer to finish what I begin if possible.

[Javert]

...

if she [spectrumvoid] is not scum, and really is a cop, she would not survive the night, unless mafia gets roleblocked (and the big question is do we really have a RB-er, cause this town definitely has way too many power roles, and can guarantee we have a faker).
this post kinda sets some red lights in my head.

Riddle me this, hand banana:

If spectrumvoid is town, which do you think scum would kill: the unconfirmed and untrusted claimed Cop, or the

confirmed

and trusted Mason (Nocmen)? Claiming Cop at this junction is perfect for scum specifically because it is highly likely that since yesterday, the Masons would have to die in a 1-2 punch - the more confirmed innocents in the game, the more likely the scum get lynched. In other words, there is a ready-made explanation for why a claimed Cop would continually survive nights, and furthermore, the fact that spectrumvoid claims to have only innocent investigations so far makes it so when (as scum) she finally does claim a guilty investigation, she can make sure she does so a LyLo.

[Javert]

any guessing of which player gets killed by scum is wifom, and can only confuse us.

You're missing the point. The point is

you

were claiming that if spectrumvoid were town, she would be nightkilled. The point

I

was claiming that if spectrumvoid were town, the better kill would probably be Nocmen, seeing as he is confirmed innocent, and does not have even the slightest chance of being lynched.

There is nothing here which should confuse you.

Now answer my question: Do you think scum would prefer to kill the claimed Cop, or the guaranteed Mason?

[Javert]

Current thoughts on ac1983fan.

[Javert]

A few more questions.

If

you believe ac1983fan is scum, then

if

you believe spectrumvoid is town, she must

necessarily

be a naive Cop (since the Godfather has already been lynched and yet she has an innocent investigation on ac1983fan). With that caveat, do you think spectrumvoid would be killed at night if ac1983fan were scum?

In fact, even if we don't lynch ac1983fan, if he is scum he already would already

know

that spectrumvoid was naive, and therefore useless for the town.

What are your thoughts about that?

[Javert]

I'm asking you questions because I don't know your alignment, and getting you to talk is a priority at the moment.

Furthermore, in the post I just linked, I talked about the unlikelihood of an ac1983fan/spectrumvoid pairing, and listed a couple reasons for that. But if you're talking about the analysis I just directed at you to answer, if they were both scum then spectrumvoid could not be killed in any case - in which case it would be pointless in asking you who you thought scum would kill.

[Javert]

spectrumvoid, when did you go from thinking you were most likely Sane to voting the only live player you claim to have an innocent investigation on?

[Javert]

Most notable lines have been highlighted.

Ok. I've thought about this.

I think ac1983fan is pro-town

. Here's my thought process: Assume that if scum were sophisticated enough to false-claim, they were good enough to claim decently. I don't think scum would have claimed to not block last night. They had pretty good odds to work with to false-claim, eliminating the mason and me because of my first post, claiming to block either elias or sweeny or anyone else would have made sense. If whoever he claimed he blocked dies and is town, he could have passed it off saying the other scum did it.

The thing is: I don't see why ac1983fan would have been 'contradicted'. If he was scum, he'd know who to night-kill to not make a contradiction.

But I do recognise this is wifom.

In post 548, on July 18, we were told by LyingBrian that Sweenytodd would be replaced.

Your next post in the game was as follows:

I really really don't have anything to add at the moment.

Which rather implies that your thoughts had not changed since your last posts (where you posit ac1983fan is innocent). We got our replacement on July 25. Now you claim:

vote: ac1983fan

I really wanted to do this earlier

, but I wanted us to have a full playing roster (and I wasn't sure if the game was going on.)

So, I want things absolutely straight:

1.) What day did you start doubting your Sanity?
2.) What day did you "want to do this earlier" (vote ac1983fan, specifically)?
3.) What day did you first think the game might not be going?
4.) What day did you first think we might not have a full playing roster?
5.) Why did you not alert us that you were beginning to change your thought process when you said "I don't have anything to add"?
6.) Who did you plan to vote prior to voting ac1983fan and why?

[Javert]

I definitely would like a response (and possibly a further inquisition) before anybody thinks to place another vote on spectrumvoid.

[Javert]

Newbie 313: I replaced in late game, claimed cop, no one believed me.
Open 9: night-killed after I claimed.

If anyone's interested, here're games where I was scum and fake-claimed cop: open 10, open 13, and maybe newbie 300. Most recently was newbie 376.

I have just skimmed the games where you said you fake-claimed Cop as scum.

1.) Open 10 you did

not

claim Cop - you said you believed the claimed Cop [ChannelDelibird], who was in fact the Cop. Did you mean to refer to a different game here?
2.) Open 13 you claimed Cop at LyLo Day Two, with an unspecified innocent investigation very quickly.
3.) Newbie 300 you claimed Cop at LyLo Day Two, with an unspecified innocent investigation very quickly (you later clarified the innocent investigation after counter-claimed).
4.) Newbie 376 you claimed Cop at LyLo Day Two, after a townsperson had already voted incorrectly and you voted that same person claiming a guilty reaction and simply waiting for your partner to hammer.

You seem to have a pattern of trying to be as nonconfrontational as possible when you claim Cop as scum - you claim as fast as possible such that people are either forced to counter-claim you, or you will be the only claimed Cop. You also seem to claim innocent investigations, so that all you do is 'narrow down' your list of people you will lynch instead of directly going against somebody (this way you can have people 'weigh in' without forcing you to stick your foot in any more doors than necessary).

The only time you claimed a guilty was at a time where you could have just placed your vote saying absolutely nothing and wait for your partner to hammer - in other words, you only did it because it was a way to try and 'ensure' that the townsperson voting incorrectly would not unvote - again, being nonconfrontational.

Your play in this game is reminiscent of that - you have only claimed innocent investigations, and not only that, but on as few people as possible (only one of them is alive). The largest difference in play is that you seemed to be more 'playful' in the other games - and you went to great lengths to look 'busy' in the two Newbie games by explaining things. You also had a habit of weakly distancing from your partner in each of those four games (since I am including Open 10 as nugget of your scumplay in general) and then backing off so that you weren't forced into actually lynching them.

Note: could you link me to some games where you were forced to bus your scum-partner? In all three of those games where you claimed Cop, you only distanced and did not bus.

Would you mind describing how you feel your play in this game is different than the examples you cited as scum? I still need to read your games where you were town and Cop, but I figured these games were the priority of the two for reading.

[Javert]

Please answer my question again with

days

in them. July 13, July 18, July 22, and so forth. I want an exact time-frame.

[Javert]

Good deal. Waiting for target from ac1983fan.

Note: Normally in this situation I would suggest a No-Lynch, due to the odds-even probability. However, since Nocmen is cleared to be town, we are essentially 5 "unknowns" + 1 confirmed. This means there is no point in going into night again because scum would just kill the confirmed Nocmen, and we'd be in the same position except the scum would have an easier time quick-lynching.

Also, if ac1983fan is town, it would be technically possible for us to lynch wrong today and still have him keep the town in the game by blocking correctly. The same would be true if we lynched correctly - if he then blocks correctly (or the scum no-kills), the town would be given an extra lynch (although by all means if he is town, we shouldn't need that extra lynch if he blocked correctly in that situation).

[Javert]

I'm leaning towards voting ac1983fan for a number of reasons.

1.) The power roles dilemma - although of note, I am willing to wager that one of the Cops was completely useless (paranoid or naive), such that there would only be 6 power roles (including Masons as power roles).
2.) Regardless of power roles, a doctor, a back-up doctor, and a role-blocker seems a bit overkill when it comes to stopping scum kills.
3.) It makes no sense to not role-block on Night Three, claimed absences notwithstanding.
4.) His unceremonious hammer on spectrumvoid when I was in the process of questioning her, and specifically asked for nobody to hammer.
5.) As scum, this is exactly the scenario I would expect ac1983fan to set up - only successfully 'blocking' the night before the town reaches LyLo.

The next is quite admittedly WIFOM.

6.) If ac1983fan is town, then I have the following information:

-->

Town: Nocmen, ac1983fan, myself

-->

Unknown: MeMe, Elias_the_thief, hand banana

It would be a near given that hand banana is scum. But if MeMe were scum, then I am sure

she

would have been doing the killing precisely because she could be fairly confident she not be role-blocked. Essentially, if ac1983fan is town, I would have to conclude the scum-group is [Elias_the_thief + hand banana], which I concede is possible, although I will have to reread the game with this possibility in mind before I comment on it.

I could see anybody (including hand banana, but obviously not Nocmen) being scum with ac1983fan, however.

[Javert]

*Waves silver ribbon from hair to attract MeMe's attention to the thread*

[Javert]

I'm in the same boat as MeMe. At this point, I think the only use of "lists" would be to indicate to scum who they should nightkill on the upcoming night (should we have one) to give them optimal chances at being able to secure a mislynch the next day.

[Javert]

My mistake - you are correct that Nocmen is practically guaranteed to die if anybody is nightkilled. In any other situation, my statement would be true.

My suspicions will hinge entirely on the alignment on the alignment of ac1983fan. If he is town, then I would think the scum-group is hand banana and Elias_the_thief. If he is scum, I would need to review the thread to determine who his partner is, but I could see anybody (save myself and Nocmen) occupying that position.

[Javert]

Well, this confirms that the scum-group is one of two factions:

1.) Elias + Hand Banana; or
2.) ac1983fan + {Elias / Hand Banana / MeMe}

I wouldn't be averse to a hammering of ac1983fan, but I would preferably like to read the thread with the possibility of Elias + HB + Ancalagon scumgroup and see if that "clicks" for me.

[Javert]

I had actually typed up an answer to Elias' question towards Hand_Banana (since it can't be construed as "protecting" and the answer seems clear to me), but I just realized I would rather see Hand_Banana answer it himself.

[Javert]

Possible Scum-Group {Ancalagon, The Shadow, Elias_the_thief}Connections

• Post 17 by Elias_the_thief pushes a counterwagon, when The Shadow had hit three votes.
  
• The Ancalagon-Elias argument I could certainly see being distancing (especially since Elias had come under some pressure very early and very rapidly).
  
• Post 65 by The Shadow shows that in The Shadow's first actual 'post' (with content) in the game, he does not make any comments on the Ancalagon-Elias argument whatsoever, perhaps because he does not want to push either of them any further into suspicion.
  
• In post 58, Elias_the_thief says he was going to make the same points as I did about Barroman. But in Post 68 he suddenly agrees with The Shadow, and doesn't think what I pointed out was a scumtell. [This could also have been done to make it look like The Shadow had contributed something more noteworthy than he actually did]. Would you mind explaining this switch for me, Elias? I'm surprised I just now saw it.
  
• Post 81 by Ancalagon seems completely useless – there may have been a purpose he had in mind, but now that he's come up scum it certainly makes me wonder if it's meant to suggest "I don't know what time zone he is in, so I don't know him very well" (i.e. could not be scum with him).
  
• Post 129 by Ancalagon could, in retrospect, be a silent way of unvoting Elias_the_thief (done in such a way that it would not be noticed easily).
  
• Post 142 by Elias_the_thief similarly has an unvote on Ancalagon – with reasoning that does not follow, and even then he does not replace his vote in Post 149.
  
• Post 250 by Elias is a fine sentiment, but when looking for connections it can't be ignored.
  
• Post 265 can show some relief that The Shadow was replaced, and at the end Elias asks if Ancalagon can contribute more (to be possibly read as: "Hey! Contribute something or be bussed.")
  
• Note: If the scum-group is [Ancalagon-Elias-Shadow], then none of them were on the ac1983fan wagon (not even the fifth vote after his claim), which is certainly more than possible but it makes the group less probable. In fact, Ancalagon points out how he 'doesn't believe' ac1983fan and yet does not vote for him, in Post 335.
  
• Post 335 (again), Ancalagon has a complete flip on Elias from early-game (instead of using early momentum like you would otherwise think he might do).
  
• Post 567 by Hand Banana. His posts implies that [Elias or Javert] are equally likely, but he ends his post with a FoS on me and not Elias. Could have an explanation for why you did that in particular?
  
• Notably, in Post 627 Hand Banana suddenly has Elias_the_thief as his "second suspect" now that we in LyLo (possibly because it's no longer necessary to express more suspicion on me than Elias). Can I hear an explanation for this sudden change in percentage? It jumped to 90% in Post 642, by the by – and as a scum-team, percentages would not even matter at this point.

Unfortunately, Elias_the_thief has been lacking in posts for much of Day Two until today, due to constant absences, as since The Shadow was replaced by Sweenytodd, and then Sweenytodd has also been replaced, posts are also lacking in that department.

Any responses to this list would be appreciated.

[Javert]

*Crosses arms*

Well, I'm more inclined to think ac1983fan is indeed scum after having these two responses - although I'll admit I find the fact that if ac1983fan is town, then no scum were voting for him on D1 more persuasive than the responses themselves. In addition, Ancalagon's "disbelief" of ac1983fan's claim and yet not following that up with a vote suggests a connection. Not blocking Night 3 is convenient. 'Blocking correctly' on Night 4, the night which puts the town in LyLo, is convenient. Hammering SV during questioning is convenient.

Also, if the scum-pair were HB and Elias, I would expect a

slightly

more intense distancing act than what has actually occured in-thread (although this is complete WIFOM and there is certainly no rule on how much scum should distance from each other in this situation).

However, I will note this: from HB's perspective, there are two scum. For him, it does not matter which scum he pursues on which day. He has his "100% confirmed scum" in ac1983fan, and he has an objective "33% scum" out of MeMe/Elias/myself. The percentages do not change regardless of the order in which he tries to lynch. For him, voting Elias_the_thief today (as an example) is no more likely to lose the game than if he held off his vote until tomorrow.

No hammer yet in case MeMe has something she wants to say (or wants clarification on something), but I am ready for this day to end.

[Javert]

I think the town had too much power 'on the surface'. There is no way any reasonable town would possibly believe they could have

that

much claimed power (i.e. 2 Cops, 1 Doc, 1 Back-Up Doc, 1 Role-Blocker, 2 Guaranteed Innocent Masons).

I am also not a fan of deceitful roles (50% Doc, for example) in Mini Regular Games - when I sign up to play a Mini Regular game, I want a

simple

set-up, and I often expect a good amount of Townies. Two Mafiates with powers (a Godfather and a Role-Blocker) definitely make me think this town as a whole was two power-packed... there were only

three

vanilla roles (the two townies and the mafia goon). Games similar to this I think you might as well add flavor and toss it in the Mini Theme Section, where it would be generally more expected that the Mafia would have powers in order to be able to step up to the town, and expected that the town roles are likely weaker than they claim to be.

Congrats to the scum.