In post 2799, DeathNote wrote:Like... it would be a pretty awesome gambit for Scum to no kill then Yates claims to protect his partner.
Are you effing serious right now? Or are you claiming scum in thread??
Yeah. That would be a pretty ballsy gambit.
Suicidal
if Elyse had been countered but ballsy. And, bt-dubs, Elyse had no pressure or need to claim.
What you're suggesting would have made since if we were scumbutts and one of us was a mafia silencer or something [noted for future games btw!]. I just went and checked - Tman posted several times yesterday [in fact was first voter of the day]. So do yourself a favor and dump that dumpster fire of a thought down the drain.
In post 2796, Elyse wrote:He didn't cc me (though I didn't think he got the chance to post), but why the hell would I claim that when I'm not?
I guess I'm not understanding. You're saying all three of you were masons together, right? If so, why WOULD HE counter you? Seems like if he had seen you claim he would have ALSO claimed and said it was a 3 mason team or something... What am I missing here?
In post 2795, DeathNote wrote:How they hell did mafia figure killing Tman was better then killing Yates? Did he slip up as mason or something?
3 masons.... I honestly don't know what to think about that. Rushing into an Elyse lynch seems bad when this is potentially mylo.
I am actually thinking about both of these things. It's possible they are both linked. I'm starting to think there might only be one scum left. I can expand on this if needed but based on flips I think the last scum is PR hunting and not worried about a mason or doc. I am a little concerned/paranoid that we might have an obv Town read on scum [Marquis/DN] but think the PR hunting makes the most sense. Again, I can expand on this if needed.
Point being, I'm not confident this is mylo BUT my theory is just a theory. My claim is out there. So if you guys want to talk mass claim, that's up to you.
In post 2794, Elyse wrote:I tried to make it seem like there wasn't another mason but I guess I failed.
You did, at least for me. That's why I was fine with hammering. And that's why I'm now suspicious of you all over again.
In post 2798, DeathNote wrote:Is it possible for the last two scum to be Elyse/Yates? Is that too absurd?
And now this is what I'm wavering about.
In post 2800, Yates wrote:Yeah. That would be a pretty ballsy gambit.
Suicidal
if Elyse had been countered but ballsy. And, bt-dubs,
Elyse had no pressure or need to claim
.
And this is what I'm ruminating about.
In post 2802, Yates wrote:I am actually thinking about both of these things. It's possible they are both linked.
I'm starting to think there might only be one scum left.
I can expand on this if needed but based on flips I think the last scum is PR hunting and not worried about a mason or doc. I am a little concerned/paranoid that we might have an obv Town read on scum [Marquis/DN] but think the PR hunting makes the most sense. Again, I can expand on this if needed.
Point being, I'm not confident this is mylo BUT my theory is just a theory. My claim is out there. So if you guys want to talk mass claim, that's up to you.
4 scum v. 3 masons + other town PRs? 5 scum sounds right to me just based off of balance.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 2796, Elyse wrote:He didn't cc me (though I didn't think he got the chance to post), but why the hell would I claim that when I'm not?
I guess I'm not understanding. You're saying all three of you were masons together, right? If so, why WOULD HE counter you? Seems like if he had seen you claim he would have ALSO claimed and said it was a 3 mason team or something... What am I missing here?
I'm saying that if I was scum and was claiming mason, why wouldn't tman counter me?
Answer -> I'm not scum.
To me it's down to Ythan/GC today. Ythan has been on my radar and I hate all of GC's posts today. The first one seemed to try to rush the game to an end while the second seemed fake.
In post 2806, Elyse wrote:To me it's down to Ythan/GC today. Ythan has been on my radar and I hate all of GC's posts today. The first one seemed to try to rush the game to an end while the second seemed fake.
I'm certainly not going to be disappointed if it's a me v. Ythan vote, and that's actually the correct play. It will not only confirm that I have been right about Ythan all game, but I'm comfortable enough with my play over Ythan's that the end result will be correct.
That said, I'm not sure how to respond to your inclination to think my second post today was "fake," especially since it has been the most rushed post I've done all game -- I typed it up in the few minutes I had before chauffeuring my company to the airport. It's pretty much where I stand right now.
In re: first post, that was my initial reaction to the possibility of three masons. I found it hard to believe then, especially with your "I'm the only other mason" tone, and I still don't know how I feel about it. Why did you feel the need to make it appear like you were the only other mason?
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Alright, so reviewing tman's posts w/r/t Elyse, I now more comfortable with taking the position that they were masons together than I was when today's game day began.
-----
We have tman disliking Elyse suspicions (early game days):
Ugh, I'm having a really hard time reading her. Something about her play style seems odd and hard to understand. She starts off voting Elyse for reasonable reasons, but she gets way to focused on her.
<snip>
In post 1643, Elyse wrote:I was more active and confrontational Day 1.
You were active and made posts that resonated with me.
But since I have been wrong before, and know this, I require constant Elyse-town reassurance in the form of you town-posting some more.
Can you do that please?
Can you trying showing us why you are town too?
Do you have any scum reads?
It is true that he hasn't been very active at all, so it is odd for him to request that someone else post more.
<snip>
-----
We have tman outright saying that Elyse is town (later game days):
In post 2586, tman2nd wrote:GC's unsurety over is his previous Elyse townread strikes me as town. I still townread Elyse pretty strongly, though.
In post 2662, tman2nd wrote:Oh! I wonder if that was a nk or something else.
So, I currently am town reading Elyse, Marquis, and Green Crayons pretty heavily. That leaves, Ythan, Deathnote, Bulzabeck, and Yates. Out of those, Bulbazeck seems like the best option. As, others have pointed out, there have been some inconsistencies with the way he has read people, so that's who I want to lynch today.
In post 972, Elyse wrote:sthar is posting minimal content, pacifying mollie after engaging in an argument with her, and dropping forced, fake towntells like "Desp asked me to replace into this game and I raged when I got a town PM. You can check with him postgame." and "I have a townread on mollie. So happy to finally be on the same team." He keeps mentioning that he's town and he's not a new player so this is throwing up several red flags.
I know that this playerlist is useless and all of these people are worthy of a lynch by sheer stupidity/lack of content/poor play:
pisskop
Zekrom
Formerfish
Marquis
RadiantCowbells
OhGodMyLife
evilpacman
Malakittens
but that's way too many to start settling for a lynch on a shitty/nonexistant player. We need to lynch scum and I'm most confident that sthar is scum. Zekrom can kill out of {pisskop, Marquis, RC} to eliminate one. If one doesn't die then we lynch Zekrom anyway. I'm just afraid we won't get another opportunity to lynch sthar because he's very slippery and everyone in this game gets distracted easily.
In post 2712, tman2nd wrote:Looking at that, I'd say we can't really base a read on Bulba based on RC's actions.
That sounds about right. What is your read of my slot based on my actions?
Well, I don't like what you scumread Yates for. At least, in your first post. At the same time, I get a town vibe from you. My read on you is rather up in the air at the moment.
I guess I should look at DN now.
Also, some of the ways Yates has defended himself has been poor, but I still think he is town.
Elyse, what are your reads?
-----
And then there's this random tidbit which I don't think necessarily goes one way or the other:
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
- So, upon my tman review, I'm going to trust my prior Elyse feelings since they have been reinforced. I still think Marquis is town.
- I haven't really liked the tone of DN's posts this game day. Something just feels wrong. I'm still letting that feeling simmer.
- I don't know what to make of Yates. I trust him less since Bulb flipped town, but I know that, rationally, Bulb's townness doesn't automatically make Yates scum. But it does make Bulb's much-to-do about Yates, and about Yates' claim, more legitimate.
- Ythan has basically become a nonentity in this game ever since his "contempt" spiel -- not that he was much before that.
At the moment, if I had to name two scum, I would most likely go with Ythan and DN. But Yates is there, just on the sidelines. If I had to narrow it down to one, I really, really want to say Ythan, but I realize that might be biased for apparent reasons -- so I might actually go with DN. I dunno. I want to read some more interactions before committing myself to these Ythan/DN/Yates positions.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
I've been townreading DN partially because of his really tunnelly read on me for some reason and also because I thought he was the second mason, then a potential third mason
But after tman's flip I'm going to retract my townread on DN
But I still want to lynch between GC/Ythan, or not at all because iirc someone said mylo. (I think there are 2 scum left)
I considered the possibility of lynching today in case scum have a dayvig or something, but I'd rather assume none than one. Also thinking about the strongman and things. Mafia Goon + Mafia PR left I think?
Well either Yates dies tonight or Elyse does. I don't think we get anything out of lynching today rather than tomorrow, so
Ehh... if Mafia have an added kill ability, I would be willing to wager only 1 scum left then. 4 scum with decent powers against a large town with meh powers. (Although 3 masons is pretty good)
In post 2814, Samael Mavet wrote:Wtf are you talking about GC with my tone? Can you explain how my "tone" has changed from yesterday to today?
1. 2798 and 2799 just feel weird. Which I recognize as strange, in that those posts reflect my thoughts at that point in time. But it's just something about your delivery that strikes me as weird.
2. I don't really know if I can point to a difference between Day 8 Nacho, and Day 9 Nacho. Mainly because I haven't done a study of Day 8 Nacho. At any rate, I never made a distinction between those two days. That's all you -- so, nice try at trying to force a dichotomy between those two days, I guess? It's just that there's something about your posts today that have struck me funny, and not in the good way. Not some great shift in your play that separates today from your play in previous game days.
3. In re: delving further into DN play, you cannot deny that you
I'm not opposed to no lynching today. But I'm not keen on doing it immediately.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
In post 2817, DeathNote wrote:Ehh... if Mafia have an added kill ability, I would be willing to wager only 1 scum left then. 4 scum with decent powers against a large town with meh powers. (Although 3 masons is pretty good)
Yeah. This is
exactly
what I'm thinking. This is also why I'm not sold on the no lynch strategy. I feel like we waste any advantage we have by no lynching.
Let's say we no lynch today and tomorrow I'm dead. What did we learn? Or what if Elyse is dead? Same question? The lynch pool will *still* be Ythan/GC, imho. I just feel like this is our poop or get off the pot moment.
Why would Elyse die? Elyse dying points to you as a nurse not doing your job. Or are you saying there is a second strongman?
@GC- there is nothing for me to respond or defend against when you just get a "weird feeling". Sorry that you don't like those two posts I guess? The moderator in me is trying to dissect the working of the game especially since there are now claims out. Figuring out if scum fake claimed could means winning this game so my natural thought process brought me to thinking of a Yates/Elyse combo... especially since Tman never claimed after Elyse claimed giving it that air of wifom that maybe he would have countered.
In post 2821, DeathNote wrote:@GC- there is nothing for me to respond or defend against when you just get a "weird feeling".
...That's fine? I wasn't looking for a response or defense from you at this point. I was just typing out my feelings about things.
"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent." In re Davis, 557 U.S. 952, 955 (2009) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
