Newbie 1713 (Game Over)

[Alexcellent]

Cakez does have Arak and Inspector at the bottom of his reads list though. I feel like scum Cakez could fairly easily be down with Inspector's plan.

It's not much though and I suppose scum Cakez might feel he would get town points by not agreeing to the plan. So maybe it is null.

[Foxbird]

Oh, jeez, lots of stuff happened while I was in Morpheus' arms. TO MY KEYBOARD!

Spoiler: Collecting my thoughts.

Some of this has already been said, hence the spoiler.

Right. As strange as 379 seemed to me at first, it's either a Town move or an even greater gamble than Chip's distancing from Charloux. Scum!Inspector would either lose himself the game right now or have to face wiggling himself out of a lynch tomorrow if Arak flips town. Both aren't game-winning strategies. I don't think a new scum player would try such a grand scheme, especially since there's no power roles whatsoever on scum side to swing the game in their favour.
Third reason, though, could be that saying something obviously town like this could lead to the plan never springing into action at all, and attention going somewhere else instead - as is actually happening right now.

But I'm just going to say if anyone's looking at us as equally scummy, it's better to lynch Inspector first, and I'm not just saying that for selfish reasons.

Pray, elucidate...

I don't like this at all. The reason for Arak's comment is fairly obvious, so this is just discrediting and/or fluff. My gut says no.

The exchange starting at 384 also really pings me hard. The super quick spring to defend himself is very over-the-top and aggressive for an L-3 vote and no momentum on the wagon in sight. I am pretty confident that Huntress is Town (and so is almost everyone else, I think), so why attack her like this? If he is town, there is no reason to provoke a 'heated' TvT exchange. Of course, that doesn't cover him getting emotional, but... he seemed like a very level-headed player up until now.

It's also worth nothing that he should know that Charloux' angry outburst led to him being lynched. That doesn't make Chip's anger (if it is genuine) necessarily scummy, of course. It still rubs me the wrong way in this context.

It's more WIFOMy now

Definitely not. VOTE: SirCakez

I actually see Cakez' point. Being seemingly okay with being lynched is a

very

towny move, and scum knows that. It certainly made me feel very WIFOM-y when I read it at first. Still does, kinda, as I said above. I don't think it would be good for us to just agree that "oh, okay, that's town then" without giving it a second thought.

So... reads. Hm. From towniest to 'would prefer to lynch today':

Huntress, Alex
Wirt, Cakez
Arak
Chip, Inspector

[Chip Butty]

I do find it weird (read: scummy), Chip, how you react to Huntress' vote on you. Namely how you immediately attempt to associate a reason to the vote, and refute it simultaneously, without considering any other avenues of thinking, as if you're self-concious about the point Arak is making and consider it a dangerous way that you could potentially be pushed on, pre-emptively attempting to shut it down. You're at only two votes- why are you so concerned as to why you're being voted, as to demand an explanation, pronto?

The exchange starting at 384 also really pings me hard. The super quick spring to defend himself is very over-the-top and aggressive for an L-3 vote and no momentum on the wagon in sight. I am pretty confident that Huntress is Town (and so is almost everyone else, I think), so why attack her like this? If he is town, there is no reason to provoke a 'heated' TvT exchange. Of course, that doesn't cover him getting emotional, but... he seemed like a very level-headed player up until now.
...
Huntress, Alex
Wirt, Cakez
Arak
Chip, Inspector

Because of the timing coming just 5 minutes after my exchange with Arak, I thought Huntress was reflex-voting because I hadn't done an ISO of Inspector and - it was probably because I was very tired - I was FURIOUS. You should have seen the responses I typed out but somehow refrained from submitting. The first was along the lines of "Mod, I want to replace out because I don't want to play with morons". The second was something like "Okay let me self vote and you can all lynch me and see what idiots you are". The third was an offer to shadow-vote Huntress, even if she voted me. I guess I am a little (okay, a lot) frustrated because, from my perspective, I replaced in, was instrumental in nailing Charl, and now find myself under suspicion. Also, Town has a perfect start to the game, and I don't want to see that slip away. I just have to keep telling myself you don't have the information that I am Town, so your suspicions are not unreasonable. When Huntress posted that her vote had nothing to do with my Inspector ISO, I felt a lot calmer. I don't mind suspicion on me that is well thought out; it was just because I perceived a quick vote that hadn't been thought out that I was angry.

[arak-and-skhug]

Yeah but she clearly had been thinking about it, her 351, 353 and 365 all show her thinking about it. She's the only vote on your wagon (Some people are saying there are two votes and that it was L-3, they are mistaken. I was voting Chip, I unvoted to vote Inspector, then Huntress voted Chip. Only one vote). I think you panicked because Huntress voting you lends more credibility to the possibility of you being scum, she's been read as town this whole game, and I've been read pretty scummy. So when I was the only one pushing you, you felt like you could get away with being condescending and discrediting me, but you just found out get away with that with Huntress. All I see in Chip's 402 is calculated backtracking.

Did you think about that for even a minute? Arak is telling us we would be better of lynching Inspector over him today, but won't say why, and he wants an ISO of Inspector. Why? If Inspector is going to be lynched as he wants, why?

Why are you acting like I can't change my vote? I'm pretty sure I didn't enter a signed-in-blood, death-to-us-part marriage contract with Inspector and I can put my vote back on you whenever I want! Like, for example, now!

VOTE: Chip Butty

(now there's two votes on him)

I'm allowed to think multiple people are scum even if there's only one scum left. And I'm allowed to not be sure if lynching the person I want will end the day. I "agreed" to Inspector's plan knowing it would drum up discussion and shoot some energy into this group, which is something the town desperately needs. Of course it would be stupid as town for us to set our next two lynches in stone. Anything can happen and a successful town is a reactive town. Inspector's intentions were to get things moving and he obviously succeeded in that. And suddenly I'm thinking I was maybe mistaken for tunneling him so long.

Couldn't have been for long, since you posted 5 minutes after me.

Why would I not ISO Inspector? Do you think he and I are scumbuddies? Because there is just one scum left, you know...

I'm not sure if your talking to me or Huntress in this quote but if its me this is the second time you've "helpfully" informed me that there's only one scum left. GUESS WHAT I KNOW. When I said your go-to method on pushing me is discrediting me, and putting words and intentions in my mouth that I didn't mean, this is what I meant. All your doing is insulting my intelligence and annoying me. Is this all a big reaction test? You like to use big words and try to act smart, so I can't believe that you genuinely think the fact I want you to do ISO you've dodged doing so many times is because I forgot we lynched scum on Day One, which means your doing it on purpose to make me look stupid. Where's the town motivation behind that? And if that quote was directed at Huntress, that's even worse because it means you're using these tactics against multiple people which means your guaranteed to be using it against town.

Anyway

I'll say it as clear as possible:
I want your ISO on Inspector because I think it's weird that you've offered it so many times but never delivered. I want it because this whole thing started from me asking you if you seriously thought Inspector looked townier then I did, and you still needed to analyze him and you wouldn't be surprised if he's scum. (280 So technically I'm still waiting for an answer to that question and why your vote is on me and not him. (If you've only analyzed me of course you're going to think I'm scum) I want it because I think it's likely because I want to see how genuine it is, if you're scum you're gonna have to fabricate that whole scum read you promised way back 280. And before you started pushing me he was the only person with a wagon, I find it scummy that person would be the last one for you to analyze, unless your scum of course because someone like Inspector is exactly who'd you want to stick around so why would you push him? Refusing to do the ISO is like admitting guilt in my eyes. So good luck! Get on it.

[arak-and-skhug]

It's more WIFOMy now

Definitely not. VOTE: SirCakez

I can see how Inspector's plan can look WIFOMy

Q: Why would scum make that move?
A: To earn town points with a plan that probably isn't going to happen!

Q: Why wouldn't scum make that move?
A: Because if it goes to plan, town wins!

To get something out of it you'd have to go over Inspector's meta and how risky a player he is with a partner, and without a partner, and even then people can go against their meta so easily and the whole thing kinda ends up null. My gut is telling me a scum with no partner wouldn't make this move but that could be exactly what he wants me to think. So that's WIFOM.

[Foxbird]

I'm allowed to think multiple people are scum even if there's only one scum left.

And if that quote was directed at Huntress, that's even worse because it means you're using these tactics against multiple people which means your guaranteed to be using it against town.

So... is treating more than one person as scummy good or bad now?

[arak-and-skhug]

I'm allowed to think multiple people are scum even if there's only one scum left.

And if that quote was directed at Huntress, that's even worse because it means you're using these tactics against multiple people which means your guaranteed to be using it against town.

So... is treating more than one person as scummy good or bad now?

No, you misunderstood. I don't like how Chip uses discrediting as a "scum-hunting" technique because there's no information gained from it and there's no real way to defend against it, making it ideal for scum to use as they "help the town". If it was just on me then maybe it's all a reaction test but if he's using it on Huntress as well then it's clearly his go-to method. If he was just scum reading me and Huntress and making informative reads without all the "surely you don't think he's my scumbuddy" talk it would be different.

[Chip Butty]

Why would I not ISO Inspector? Do you think he and I are scumbuddies? Because there is just one scum left, you know...

I'm not sure if your talking to me or Huntress in this quote but if its me this is the second time you've "helpfully" informed me that there's only one scum left. GUESS WHAT I KNOW. When I said your go-to method on pushing me is discrediting me, and putting words and intentions in my mouth that I didn't mean, this is what I meant. All your doing is insulting my intelligence and annoying me. Is this all a big reaction test? You like to use big words and try to act smart, so I can't believe that you genuinely think the fact I want you to do ISO you've dodged doing so many times is because I forgot we lynched scum on Day One, which means your doing it on purpose to make me look stupid. Where's the town motivation behind that? And if that quote was directed at Huntress, that's even worse because it means you're using these tactics against multiple people which means your guaranteed to be using it against town.
[/quote]
To clarify, I WAS talking to Huntress. And no, it is not treating people as stupid. I just want to hear what motivation people think that scum.Me would have for avoiding the Inspector ISO. I'll say it again, it CAN'T be to protect a scumbuddy. I'll say this again too: Why on Earth would scum!me draw attention to myself in this way? Far better to just do an ISO and let you two get lynched.

Anyway

I'll say it as clear as possible:
I want your ISO on Inspector because I think it's weird that you've offered it so many times but never delivered. I want it because this whole thing started from me asking you if you seriously thought Inspector looked townier then I did, and you still needed to analyze him and you wouldn't be surprised if he's scum. (280 So technically I'm still waiting for an answer to that question and why your vote is on me and not him. (If you've only analyzed me of course you're going to think I'm scum) I want it because I think it's likely because I want to see how genuine it is, if you're scum you're gonna have to fabricate that whole scum read you promised way back 280. And before you started pushing me he was the only person with a wagon, I find it scummy that person would be the last one for you to analyze, unless your scum of course because someone like Inspector is exactly who'd you want to stick around so why would you push him? Refusing to do the ISO is like admitting guilt in my eyes. So good luck! Get on it.

Well, when Inspector posted his scheme, and you accepted, the lazy in me said well, why go to the trouble of ISO-ing someone who, it seems, it volunteering to get lynched today? But, yeah, fine, I'll do it. But then I want to hear why you say we are better off lynching Inspector today over you.

[Chip Butty]

Mess up the quoting, obviously. Can't be bothered to do it all over, so I highlighted my stuff in the Towny color green, and Arak's stuff in the scummy color red:

Why would I not ISO Inspector? Do you think he and I are scumbuddies? Because there is just one scum left, you know...

I'm not sure if your talking to me or Huntress in this quote but if its me this is the second time you've "helpfully" informed me that there's only one scum left. GUESS WHAT I KNOW. When I said your go-to method on pushing me is discrediting me, and putting words and intentions in my mouth that I didn't mean, this is what I meant. All your doing is insulting my intelligence and annoying me. Is this all a big reaction test? You like to use big words and try to act smart, so I can't believe that you genuinely think the fact I want you to do ISO you've dodged doing so many times is because I forgot we lynched scum on Day One, which means your doing it on purpose to make me look stupid. Where's the town motivation behind that? And if that quote was directed at Huntress, that's even worse because it means you're using these tactics against multiple people which means your guaranteed to be using it against town.

To clarify, I WAS talking to Huntress. And no, it is not treating people as stupid. I just want to hear what motivation people think that scum.Me would have for avoiding the Inspector ISO. I'll say it again, it CAN'T be to protect a scumbuddy. I'll say this again too: Why on Earth would scum!me draw attention to myself in this way? Far better to just do an ISO and let you two get lynched.

Anyway

I'll say it as clear as possible:
I want your ISO on Inspector because I think it's weird that you've offered it so many times but never delivered. I want it because this whole thing started from me asking you if you seriously thought Inspector looked townier then I did, and you still needed to analyze him and you wouldn't be surprised if he's scum. (280 So technically I'm still waiting for an answer to that question and why your vote is on me and not him. (If you've only analyzed me of course you're going to think I'm scum) I want it because I think it's likely because I want to see how genuine it is, if you're scum you're gonna have to fabricate that whole scum read you promised way back 280. And before you started pushing me he was the only person with a wagon, I find it scummy that person would be the last one for you to analyze, unless your scum of course because someone like Inspector is exactly who'd you want to stick around so why would you push him? Refusing to do the ISO is like admitting guilt in my eyes. So good luck! Get on it.

Well, when Inspector posted his scheme, and you accepted, the lazy in me said well, why go to the trouble of ISO-ing someone who, it seems, it volunteering to get lynched today? But, yeah, fine, I'll do it. But then I want to hear why you say we are better off lynching Inspector today over you.[/quote]

[Chip Butty]

My thoughts on everyone ATM:

Huntress & Foxbird seem Towniest.
I don't see why Inspector would have to embark on such a high-risk strategy when the game was in a such a quiet state, so I tend to see his offer as genuine and give him Town points for that.
However, I don't give Arak Town point for accepting, because he pretty much had no choice. I'm suspicious of his statement that we are better off lynching Inspector first.
Wirt I rate as neutral for now.
I am becoming more suspicious of Cakes, partly because of a game that ended yesterday, in which he was - to my surprise - scum. That tells me that I might have trouble picking him as scum. Plus there are a few things he has said, including the misread I picked him up on in our last exchange.
Alex I another one I am not prepared to clear yet. A bit scummy. Will have to ISO him too, I guess.

So, from Towniest to scummiest:

Huntress, Fox
Wirt
Inspector
Alex
Cakez, Arak

[Chip Butty]

Further re: Arak: if we lynch Inspector and he flips green, scum.Arak would face the unenviable task of finding a way to worm out of his own lynch tomorrow. But if Town.Arak gets lynched, we've burned the two mislynches we can afford, so I think we should take our time over this and keep probing.

[Chip Butty]

To clarify slightly: I dont think Inspector is bluffing, but I think Arak might be bluffing because of being boxed into a corner by Inspector's proposed scheme.

[Alexcellent]

Same story, this game is really inactive, and it doesnt seem scum reads are going to change. So lets bring some madness. Some people think arak is scum, some think i am scum (and wagon on chip is starting but i dont think thats a good wagon at all)
There is 7 town left, only 1 scum. This discussion does not seem go anywhere, so i propose the following: we lynch both. Today you lynch one of us, tomorrow the other. The game will be at least a 3/1 game if neither of us is scum (even tho i think arak is scum), and then you can still do ur shit (preferably lynch cakez). Im not afraid of being lynched, we have numbers, so arak, do you feel the same? 1 sacrifice for a town win?

Under normal circumstances I would disagree and say we just need to suck it up and persue our scum reads but I feel like scum could really thrive in this kind of apathy and it's not fun to be at a standstill, so yalla lets go for it. I'm not afraid to be lynched either. But I'm just going to say if anyone's looking at us as equally scummy, it's better to lynch Inspector first, and I'm not just saying that for selfish reasons. Unless something changes it'll come down to Alex and Wirt to decide between us and that could be interesting.

VOTE: Inspector

Honestly though I'd still rather lynch Chips then you, but let's shoot some energy into this game and maybe give PRs another night to see what's up.

I find the above two posts to be townie. Outside chance it's a bluff? But it seems like decent towniness to me.
I'm not down with this idea though and I won't be voting to lynch either Arak or Inspector today. Reasonably confident that they're both town.

Not much point of you think he is scum and you are going to lynch him, is there? You'd only need an Inspector ISo if you thought we will all be back here on D3.

I'm not sure I like the unwillingness to do this ISO.

Did you think about that for even a minute? Arak is telling us we would be better of lynching Inspector over him today, but won't say why, and he wants an ISO of Inspector. Why? If Inspector is going to be lynched as he wants, why?

And this isn't a great reaction to being voted. Although that in itself isn't a scumtell.

So, are you going to share? Or is this just a bald vote without reasons?

Possible attempt to discredit Huntress's vote.

Oh I misread it
I thought he meant lynch Arak and Chip because of the stuff in parentheses

It's more WIFOMy now

Actually reading this again I feel a bit more mixed on it. I could see this post coming from town or scum.

[Alexcellent]

So, are you going to share? Or is this just a bald vote without reasons?

Probably related to 351, which is actually a sound case.


I came back here thinking to myself Alex could very well be scum, given a few things I disliked of him (plus gut), including the behavior I pointed out D1, related to asking questions which don't sound particularly game-solvy. However I proceeded to put his posts on perspective, some of the latest ones at least, and am now less confident on that read. Analysing 347, most of the reasons he uses to draw a scumteam link between me and Charl aren't really abominable to the point mistaken town couldn't do it: He lists comparisons I did between him and Charl; pointing out my fall in activity, and lack of presence. To be clear, I didn't like inspector or foxbird a lot at the time, hence I felt the need to criticize their pushes-- they were both listing Charloux as scum, mind you-- and their reads between you two felt incoherent. As for activity, I stated tuesday there wouldn't be much time for this game available. I've finished my exams at this point, so I should be more free along the week. And regarding theory talk, I assumed there could be some chance of outright winning the game, or getting pretty damn close to, with a claim/massclaim of sorts, hence attempting to look at what scenarios we were up against if we followed through. Finally, I believe you're misunderstanding 306, and that's partially my fault: That post could have given you the impression I believed that to be the go-to plan, but I never directly stated "I am in favour of inspector and Arak claiming". If my twilight ISO is anything to go off, the correct assumption to be made would be I was referring to Chip's plan in the hypothetica, specially seeing as I never really said "You know what, my reads on inspector and arak have changed, and I'd be okay with them claiming"--never did that, in fact my earlier posts referred to myself concluding both were town. And those conclusions haven't changed.

Huntress and Foxbird are lock town. Slighty below them come inspector and Arak. Slighty below them comes Alex, who I'm feeling satisfied with. This leaves SirCakez and Chip, who I'll be looking onto next.

It's not really so much to do with your activity as it is to do with the content of your activity. You made four posts when the day started, and they seem empty to me. They are theory based posts with no push in any direction and no suspicions. You made a few posts about the possible roles in the game, and I'm sort of okay with that in itself, or I would be if you had provided more than that. But there's also an element of you not actually making any decisions or opinions in those posts. They are, what I would consider, "safe" posts. You're not pressuring anyone, you're not drawing attention to yourself.

Assuming we have Cop+Doc, and WCS, a massclaim now gets us to 3v1 MyLo, with two confirmed VTs. (WCS: Worst Case Scenario, where mafia kills optimally, Cop only gets innocent checks, and no correct lynches)

D2: 7v1
Cop + Doctor + checked VT confirmed; Mislynch unconfirmed VT (suspect pool now 4p).
D3: 5v1
Cop + 2 checked VTs; mislynch unconfirmed VT (suspect pool now 2p).
D4: 3v1
2 checked VTs; MyLo between two suspects.

Correct me if my math is wrong. What I get from this, is a massclaim is not necessarily going to win us the game outright, and it could get down to a 50/50 (assuming equal scum equity on the two unconfirmeds). It'd mean the Cop only gets one extra relevant check before the Doctor dies.

This post is just facts and numbers. I don't see "guys, we should mass claim", or an actual opinion on what to do. When I read this, it feels like you're taking the idea of a mass claim and just throwing it out there to see what happens. It's just a block of theory.

yo we don't even know if we have a cop. also if we mass claim there's so many ways for a counter claim to happen...for example if scum claims doctor, either the real doctor, the one-shot, or the jailkeeper could counter depending on what we have. That alone if a 50/50 percent chance for scum to mess up

What? There's only one mafia member left.
Let's assume for a moment a CC will happen once a massclaim begins. Let us assume scum will claim FIRST.

1. Scum claims Doctor.
   • If row 2 rolled, the real doctor CCs. We lynch today between them, and if game isn't over, the other claimer is confirmed scum.
     
   • If column A rolled, the scum is outed by the JK/BP both claiming.
2. Scum claims Cop.
   • If row 2 rolled, the real Cop CCs. We lynch today between them, and if game isn't over, the other claimer is confirmed scum.
     
   • If column A rolled, the scum is outed by the JK/BP both claiming.
3. Scum claims Jailkeeper.
   • If column A rolled, the real Jailkeeper CCs. We lynch today between them, and if game isn't over, the other claimer is confirmed scum.
     
   • If row 2 rolled, the scum is outed by the Cop/Doc both claiming.
4. Scum claims BP.
   • If column A rolled, the real BP CCs. We lynch today between them, and if game isn't over, the other claimer is confirmed scum.
     
   • If row 2 rolled, the scum is outed by the Cop/Doc both claiming.

The same thing happens if scum claims AFTER. The scenarios are the same.
So maybe I'm just misreading, and you were being sarcastic, but scum's only out here in the scenario of a massclaim is claiming VT. A CC just won't happen, unless we leave claiming until MyLo.

I agree with Cakez. Unless doctor can't heal same target twice, perhaps we should FtC.

The above is a little bit better because you at least state an opinion on a direction to go in - but you're only agreeing with SirCakez and not coming to that conclusion yourself. I can't help but suspect that you were throwing information out there to see how everyone else reacts and so you can agree or disagree accordingly.

Sorry, screwed up the quoting...

If he claims VT, maybe all VTs claim. If there is one too many, we lynch the scummiest of them?

Yeah, if all VTs claim, the PRs are right there in the open. That seems bad. When you say "the scummiest", who would you consider scummier at that point if they came forward with a VT claim?

Well, if we get it right, it's game over. If Arak claimed VT and so did Inspector, and we got one VT too many, I'd prob be up to lynch either Arak or Inspector, depending on the result of my Inspector-analysis. If there is a JK, he could jail the other, or if there is a Cop, he could investigate the other. We're bound to have one or the other, if I remember the matrix correctly.

Why have all the VTs claim, at that point? Seems useless, once the end-result is about the same of lynching between the two, and I've already explained that scum cannot CC a PR unless we hit MyLo. Having just inspector and arak claim in that scenario is better, then, as to not out PRs.

Going to be quite busy through the following days, so my activity should be erratic until the weekend.

And then the above came a while later. I guess I misunderstood and assumed that you were up for an Inspector/Arak double claim. But it's also not as if you were stating that you were against it in this post either. And this post came after over a page of content was generated with a lot of votes and suspicions going around and you had no comment on any of it, except for the post you quoted.

I get that real life gets in the way and things come up and that's fine, I usually find activity to be fairly NAI. But to me, you're playing quite differently today compared to your play D1, and it has nothing to do with your activity, but what's in your posts. And you being scum makes sense to me.

[Alexcellent]

Don't think scum!inspector does something like 379. He's posturing a chain lynch that includes himself and loses him the game. WIFOM is a crappy counter-argument to this, as he simply digs his own hole deeper if he attempts to weazel his way out after an Arak lynch. scum!inspector can just simply push Arak without compromising himself after the flip.

In the same vein, scum!Arak doesn't have to accept the gladiating match. Simply pushing is just more beneficial and less compromising. Even less once they open up their lynch options (e.g wagoning Chip)--cue comment about digging own grave.

It's more WIFOMy now

Definitely not. VOTE: SirCakez

Do you have any other reasons for your scum read on Cakez?
Why Cakez over Chip?

[Alexcellent]

@Cakez, is Inspector still your top scum read? Has your read on Arak changed in anyway?

[SirCakez]

Don't think scum!inspector does something like 379. He's posturing a chain lynch that includes himself and loses him the game. WIFOM is a crappy counter-argument to this, as he simply digs his own hole deeper if he attempts to weazel his way out after an Arak lynch. scum!inspector can just simply push Arak without compromising himself after the flip.

In the same vein, scum!Arak doesn't have to accept the gladiating match. Simply pushing is just more beneficial and less compromising. Even less once they open up their lynch options (e.g wagoning Chip)--cue comment about digging own grave.

It's more WIFOMy now

Definitely not. VOTE: SirCakez

This slides Wirt down my reads pole more. It should be blatantly obvious how it could be scum WIFOM. By suggesting he be lynched, it puts doubt into everyone's mind as to if he's actually the last scum. Thus, WIFOM

I am becoming more suspicious of Cakes, partly because of a game that ended yesterday, in which he was - to my surprise - scum. That tells me that I might have trouble picking him as scum. Plus there are a few things he has said, including the misread I picked him up on in our last exchange.

Do you actually see similarities between this game and that game or is this just paranoia?

@Cakez, is Inspector still your top scum read? Has your read on Arak changed in anyway?

My reads have been steady since my readslist, except Wirt has dropped into nullscum. Inspector is thread dodging now and I don't like it.

[Alexcellent]

Fair on the Wirt stuff.
I'm not really seeing Inspector as thread dodging though. He's decently active in here.

[SirCakez]

I meant ever since the pseudo-gladiate suggestion he hasn't posted anything.

[inspectorscout]

...because i have exams and it hasnt even been a day since my last post? Geez, gimme a sec, ill catch up

[Chip Butty]

Okay, here it is: The long-await Chip Butty ISO of Inspector.

37, 41: Starts with his own little RVS, even though he replaced in late. Looks harmless.
39: Comments on Arak's early flailing, weakly defends him, gives him nullscum. was going against the general tide of opinion here.
50: Accuses Cakez on jumping on the Arak wagon too easily. original content. More defense of Arak. Throughout the early part of the game, Inspector was fairly focussed on Cakes as scum.
55, 58: Inspector has been accused of coaching scum!Fox in these posts. we now know that can't be true. I'd say NAI now. In #55 he asks Fox about Alex. Asking for reads is good.
60: Defends a view he expressed in #55; that scum.Arak would be more likely to keep quiet about flailing accusations than to defend himself as he did.
74: Retreats a little from his defense of Arak - now seems to read as neutral.
83, 84: The famous "Townslip". These can always be read as scummy. It is a def possibility here, in that it doesn't seem to reflect deepTown thinking, like some Townslips do.
86: Votes Cakez, but in the most non-commital way possible. If we still had two scum, I would def see this as at least suspicious and maybe scummy, but we only have one. I'm prob willing to give this a weak pass atm, mainly because in my first couple games, I only had weak reads at the start of the game.

Continued Part 2...

[Chip Butty]

Inspector ISO, part 2:

92: There's a curious interaction b/w Charl and Inspector here which almost reads like scumbuddies talking to each other. Also contains the even curiouser admission that he is not a diligent scum hunter. How does he expect to be Townread, then? Scummy vibes from this post.
94: Inspector's reads. Some contain detail, some are just throwaways. Nullscum read on Charl is what you might expect from a scumbuddy who wants to maintain some distance without actually dumping anything serious on him. We know Charl was scum, so we scum!Inspector's reads of everyone else here are not to protect anybody. He is still supportive of Arak, even, though Arak has been consistently attacking him. He is fairly noncommital about most, so could be scummy fencesitting. Still attacking Cakez. Could be scum!Inspector setting Cakez up for a lynch, or Town!Inspector genuinely reading Cakez as scummy. I'm worried by this: "i still think his jump on is way too opportunistic, but seeing hes a SE he wouldnt be that stupid." - he's basically negating his own attack, which becomes very weak. There is really not much in these reads to take away, nothing he can't retreat from fairly easily. It might just be a Newbiw thing, but it could be a scummy thing too, or both. Criticizes Charloux, like I said, but doesn't vote him. That might be fair enough, since they are both "nullscum". Speaking of which, ALL Inspector's reads are "null", "nulltown", "nullscum", or "not enough info yet". Like others have noted, nothing commital. I can see why people think this is scummy.

Continued Part 3...

[inspectorscout]

I'm allowed to think multiple people are scum even if there's only one scum left. And I'm allowed to not be sure if lynching the person I want will end the day. I "agreed" to Inspector's plan knowing it would drum up discussion and shoot some energy into this group, which is something the town desperately needs. Of course it would be stupid as town for us to set our next two lynches in stone. Anything can happen and a successful town is a reactive town. Inspector's intentions were to get things moving and he obviously succeeded in that. And suddenly I'm thinking I was maybe mistaken for tunneling him so long.

100% this. This town needed more discussion so i made that 'gladiation' or whatever you like to call it. Arak couldnt refuse without making himself look really scum to everyone, so i was sure of discussion. Note: that doesnt change the fact im still up for that. Its not WIFOM at all, if i try to avoid being lynched if arak gets killed first, i look like scum. IF he gets killed first. And as arak stated, its not some contract. If people react scummy to this, no reason to not delay our honeymoon xd

@foxbird: thefuck? So, you think im either retarded scum or weird town? I never stated that i want to abandon the lynch4lynch, there is only 1 scum left and if that was me charloux would be choking me right now lol. There is no wifom involved in getting yourself lynched at all. You say im most likely town because of that post, but then post me all the way down in your scum reads. What is the reasoning behind that?

Ive been looking at stuff now and arak seems really calm and controlled. That alone could be town, but it could also be scummy because it could stop the lynch thing from happening. NAI, i guess. Still, cakez is exceeding him again, and with foxbirds later posts im not sure either. Basically because agreeing so easily on wifom - lol - and that read thing i mentioned be4. Gonna keep my vote on arak for the sake of our deal for now, but i might as well change to cakez/fox if things stay like this.

[Chip Butty]

I'm going to take a break, and do the rest a little later, if my wifi connection holds up. You can see my ISOs tend to be fairly detailed, which is another reason I kept putting this one off; I just don't need the extra work atm.

[Chip Butty]

I'm allowed to think multiple people are scum even if there's only one scum left. And I'm allowed to not be sure if lynching the person I want will end the day. I "agreed" to Inspector's plan knowing it would drum up discussion and shoot some energy into this group, which is something the town desperately needs. Of course it would be stupid as town for us to set our next two lynches in stone. Anything can happen and a successful town is a reactive town. Inspector's intentions were to get things moving and he obviously succeeded in that. And suddenly I'm thinking I was maybe mistaken for tunneling him so long.

100% this.

No, not 100% that. Arak is clouding the issue. the issue is not about being able to have multiple suspects for the one remaining scum slot; the issue is that, there being just one scum left, it removes some possible motivations from posts. The most glaring example: we know that no post posted from start D2 is posted for the purpose of protecting a scumbuddy, or distancing from a scumbuddy. Hence my questions to Arak about scum!me's possible motivation for not coughing up the Inspector ISO - it couldn't be to protect him, nor to distance myself from him. And it couldn't (without WIFOMy reasoning) be about wanting to get Arak lynched over Inspector, as Arak accused me of, because - as I have pointed out before - if Arak flips green, I'm looking shitty. So, could it be about scum!me wanting to get Inspector lynched over Arak? If so, why did I go and push Arak when Inspector quickly got a wagon of three on him at the start of D2? Even if you want to argue I was just being subtle, surely I would have half-assed my push on Arak if this was the case, rather than actually do it well enough to get a few votes on him and put my neck on the line?