oops…damn, I’m going back to remedial mafia school with rapier
OK, and he did seem to have claimed to have gotten bufftabby.
and I guess a non-mandatory Vig still makes sense for Thing Fish
Until the cop has claimed, it is better to investigate players that aren’t likely to be lynched, because the lynch would confirm them anyway. When claimed, investigating a potential lynch candidate instead of lynching has some upsides:
-if investigated scum, it gives the vigilante a clear target (since NAF is a Day action, so vig can respond right away).
-if investigated town, it prevents a mislynch (though we don’t now for sure until NAF confirmed).
amrussell said cop finding scum doesn’t give him credit. In my opinion, it does give credit. but doesn’t mean he’s confirmed (because it gives credit, scum would consider sacrificing on of their own). Finding two scum would give a lot of credit though.
I don’t see this: a living confirmed town and another dead town killed by scum reduces the pool to hide in more. Scum will kill a townie each Night and killing a confirmed town is better. Good play on their part. Also no one knew Hawk was vanilla until he was dead (nor would he be confirmed until you are). Scum knew Hawk was town though, so if you are town they killed a confirmed. If you are scum, they gave minor credit to your claim by being right about Hawk.
This could be an explanation why there was only one kill last Night, if the vigilante needs a number of votes to kill someone. Besides Chucara no one else had more than one vote (or the vigilante thought those were not viable targets).
And a :eek: to Rapier42.
Fair point, special ed. I’d hoped to be able to move right on to analysing Rapier42, and see if I wanted to switch my vote there. Sadly, there was some requirement that I do some “real” work.
unvote special ed
And now, for your edification and amusement, Rapier42. I’m putting my comments in italics, so there’s no confusion over who’s saying what. (Cookies, I’m not sure if your point 4 above refers to my paraphrasing of special ed or something I’ve said for myself?).
Day One - 7 posts
Starts offsaying he thinks that there is something to the **pede **slip, but he’s probably not scum. Gets a funny vibe from **Pleo **- not from his content, but his tone. Says that this is not intended as a smudge, just a wishy-washy vibe. Picks up **Natlaw’s **editing of **Chucara’s **quote -finds it to be misleading. Doesn’t vote, but FOS’s.
Then somediscussionwith **Natlaw **(who has now said Rapier is on his suspicion list, partly because of the FOS) over the meaning of **Chucara’s **quote.
Asks **NAF **to back up his vote for Chucara, specifically claims of fishing.
Responds to Chucara, who has said that he felt **Natlaw’s **edit was unfair, but doesn’t blame **Natlaw **for misunderstanding him. **Rapier **asks if his understanding of Chuc’s post was correct, as it affects how he looks at both **Natlaw **and me - I had chipped in earlier to say I thought the edit was fair. Also votes macey, acknowledging that he’s jumping on a bandwagon. Didn’t like the fishing or the defence, and notes that **macey **has experience from Facebook.
*Not a lot to go on here. Most of his posting was about **Natlaw’s **editing of **Chuc’s **post. I think it’s a weak case, but it’s Day One, which is when weak cases happen. The other point of note is his reading of **pede *as not-scum. Could be good analysis, could be he knew already and didn’t want to be seen pressuring pede.
Day Two - 5 posts
Apologises in his first postfor low participation, and says he’s been forced to skim over the past couple of days. On **Hawk **vs Cookies, says he didn’t like **Hawk’s **magic-bagging of his theory, but agrees with most of what he says. Was initially in **Cookies’ **camp, but now finds her less convincing because of her aggressive defence and because she’s already been called on inconsistencies. Then says he wants to hear more from **peeker **before he’d vote for him, and that he doesn’t feel the **dotchan **lynch either. Votes Cookies.
Checkswhen the deadline is, because he counts **peeker **and **dotchan **as tied.
Discusses **peeker’s **claim with Blam, and concludes that it wasn’t a “slip” but something planned. Isn’t sure what it means, but notes that **peeker **has a history of making “ill-advised and ill-executed” claims as town. And has also false-claimed as scum. On the grounds that **peeker **is a better lynch than dotchan, unvotes **Cookies **and votes peeker.. In this post he also says that we’re not holding scum accountable for their actions.
I don’t really like this vote. It’s much more driven by picking the right lynch candidate; he makes his uncertaintly about peeker quite clear. It smacks a little of pre-emptive defence should the vote go wrong, and also of the “two candidates” thinking that got* Thing Fish *in trouble - althought to be fair, at this point we were very close to the deadline.
Night - Challenged by **Cookies **about his vote for her - specifically the suggestion that someone had already pointed out inconsistencies - **Rapier **admits that he can’t find such a post, and that he must have imagined it was there. Apologises for the vote. Also addresses Natlaw, who had asked which scum actions we weren’t holding to account. **Rapier **can’t give any specifics.
*I know said he’d been forced to skim, but it really does stick out here, both in his imagined **Cookies *case and his unsupported claim of scum actions not being held to account. This could be perfect knowledge - maybe he did have specific scum actions in mind when he said it, and then realised that of course he couldn’t point to them.
Day Three - 6 posts
Suggeststhat it’s OK to for scum to target **NAFs **masonry as he reveals them, as every town NAF confirms makes the lynch pool smaller. Also, the longer **NAF **is left alive, the more chance of his finding scum.
*I don’t agree with this entirely - killing off **NAFs **masonry doesn’t make the lynch pool any smaller than killing some other townie would. It does have the effect of neutralising **NAF’s *plan, so I would say it is a problem for town.
Makes the very last post of the day to quote **MHaye’s **case against **Chucara **and make a me too vote.
Night - two strategypoststalking to **NAF **about merits of a mass mason claim. Makes the case that while this cuts down the suspect pool for town, it also cuts down the power-role pool for scum.
Day Four - posts vost counts with no analysis; hasn’t realised that **Pleo **is a) a mason and b) dead.
Okay - yesterday might gut feel was slightly town - this was based mainly on his strategy posts with NAF, which seemed to be looking out for the town’s interests, and because I hadn’t noticed anything else. Now, there are various things I don’t like: admitted skimming, leading to some quite significant errors, especially today; some possible flashes of PIS; Day Two’s vote was more motivated by breaking the deadlock than finding the scummiest player. I particularly don’t like today’s posts - not the Pleo mix-up so much as the vote count posts. These look helpful, but he doesn’t follow-up with analysis so they don’t actually do much for town. Given that I’d clearly announced my intention to do this review, the fact that his first posts today are attempts to look helpful that don’t really help seems supsicious.
All in all, I’m going to:
vote Rapier42
Other things;
Although I’m sure that **peeker **killed bufftabby, I’m open to the possibility that **Thing Fish’s **“Crisis of Faith” could make him vulnerable under some circumstances (such as investigating a demon rather than a deadite) to blowback of some sort. But it’s more plausible that we’ve got a Vig who either suffers from sort of role-enforced remorse, or has decided to play more cautiously. The last option I can think of is that our other PFK can also kill, but is currently choosing not to.
Natlaw - you’re taking a more nuanced view of NAF than I am! My position is that I really don’t want to get to LyLo without complete confirmation of NAF. If we’re stuck working out how much credit he’s got before we make a LyLo decision, we’re asking to be played. Far better to deal in absolutes - he’s not confirmed at all until he’s dead. The big question is, what’s the last possible time at which we can safely lynch him?
Two problems with this quote:
-
You are advocating removing a potential town player from the game over having that player remain in the game but be taken out of the lynch pool. The lynch pool is the same size either way, but if we don’t lynch that person we have an extra town vote.
-
You made a point to say that the scum played well.
Full disclosure, I said they played badly. In the bit Natlaw quoted, and really, they did. Killing Hawk was sub optimal. It wasn’t a bad choice per se, there were just better choices. But that isn’t the point. I don’t think anyone else would have even noticed if they weren’t scum. And if they did, why defend scum?
**
unvote MHaye**
Vote Natlaw
Well played for your first time in the game though. I wasn’t even a little suspicious of you until recently.
Holy bad grammer batman! There is a period in the wrong place and an idiot comma in the above. Sorry abot that.
Also, this post from Day 3 makes all kinds of not sense.
Nat was sure I was scum when his win condition didn’t match the public one? And then story posted about it?
It does make me pause regarding my vote though.
Good Catch there NAF!
Looks like Natlaw as a little too eager to pat himself on the back for his (and his fellow scum’s) choice of kill.
That one post is not enough to warrant a vote from me yet, but I’m going to go back through Natlaw’s other posts. We got what? About 30 hours to vote?
To be clear, I agreed with Hawkeyeop that over the past several games, we haven’t been holding scum accountable for their actions. I don’t recall pointing out anything specific about this game.
No defense on the Cookies front, I’m still baffled by that. And I’m a little bugged by you bringing up the “scum actions” thing again - go reread, and tell me where I referred to any specific scummy actions in this game that we weren’t following up on, please.
And again. See above.
Day Three - 6 posts
To the extend that NAFs plan is to reduce the size of the lynch pool, it doesn’t neutralise it at all. They neutralise his plan by neutralising him, and if they’re targeting his “masonry”, they aren’t killing him.
The analysis was coming after the vote count, but I got sidetracked by what appeared to be PIS on Natlaws part.
My posts Today WERE intended to be helpful. The offboard game blew up, and I’ve been devoting most of my time over there… it’s died off for some reason now, so I had the time to finally try to pay some proper attention over here. I just completely spaced that Pleo was already gone, and I’ve got no defense for that. I think you’re reaching on the PIS, and I’d like you to go over my interaction with Hawk and Natlaw again, and see if that really appears as you’ve represented it here.
I admit to being profoundly uncomfortable that you spent so much time on the “scum actions” theme while breaking down my post history, yet failed to mention it in your summary of suspicion… in short, I think you’re suffering from confirmation bias. I haven’t decided yet what I think your motivations are… time will tell, I suppose.
I’d be comfortable with either a Natlaw or a Rapier lynch, there is a slight OMGUS leaning towards Rapier at the moment that was reinforced with the recent alleged brainfarts about Pleonast, so I’d like to take a closer look at them both.
Alleged? What possible motivation could a scum Rapier have to build a case against a dead player? :dubious:
I have to say, in the many times I have been scum, I have never lost track of the people that we have killed.
I think him not knowing Pleo was dead is a check in the +collumn for Rapier.
Of course if Pleo turns out to have been vigged instead of being NKd that’s a different story, but even then I don’t know that it means much.
Agreed. BlaM has deserted us for 2 & 1/2 (admittedly non-consecutive) days, and I am not comfortable with the assumption that a) there is an active vig, or b) storyteller will take care of it eventually.
I dunno. That other kill could have been a one-shot from the other third party. Or a vig who’s remorseful. Or a vig who can only shoot when there’s a certain amount of votes at night. And so on.
As for the modkill possibility–we’ve had evidence before. Remember, Polydeuces was subbed out for dotchan. However, a) he’s a new player. Also, there might have been a PM sent, while I doubt BlaM would do so.
Wait…are you not worried about Z because he claimed vanilla? Or what?
…you seem oddly confident. Doesn’t mean anything, I’m just pointing it out.
I’ll stop pushing for a cookies lynch today (math does work out better, no-one else will support, I was convinced she was town until she claimed) and instead LTL.
Unvote NAF
Vote Blaster Master
because the other two cases seem only mildly convincing.
Once in a game is a brainfart. Twice in a game is, imho, suspicious because it could lay the groundwork for trying not to be held accountable for your actions.
“Aw shucks… I’m just so confused and clueless that I don’t know or what’s been said or who’s alive. I’m just a well-meaning innocent townie who has made a couple of mistakes.”
I can’t help but be sympathetic on the Pleo issue, given what happened to me in Marvel. Doesn’t give you a pass for the other stuff, though.
I was reading that as “NAF is not worried about me because he can test me for liar-ness and is planning on doing so after Cookies”, myself, but I kinda jerked at bit about it at first myself.
As for the voting, I’m going to vote Blaster Master given the sheer amount of lurking combined with the fact he jumped on peekercpa tout suite on Day Two. I need also to re-read Natlaw to decide if I think the case against him is worth it.
I would also be comfortable with lynching one of our surprisingly long list of “oh, I forgot they were even playing” players. Every game I play seems like the lurking is taken to new heights, but this time it really feels like a new level has been reached.
Yep. Because he specifically claimed vanilla, I am not at the moment worried about him. Same with Dotchan.
I think that confidence makes me more attractive to the opposite sex and makes people of the same sex like me more. Try it, it works like gangbusters. 
Quick question. Which are the other two cases you are talking about?
Moving on, I suppose I can get on board with a BlaM lynch. I don’t think it’s the best use of the advantage we have right now, but if no one like’s any of the cases against anyone else BlaM wouldn’t be too bad. He needs to be taken care of eventually, and we do have the mislynch available to us right now. So, there are worse things we could do with it I suppose.
It would be nice if we talked about some of the other folks though. We have a case against Rapier, Natlaw, and MHaye that can all be discussed. I think the case for/against Cookies has been talked to death, but it’s better than not talking.
We have other lurkers who aren’t playing. Maybe we should see if the vig can take them out? If it has to do with votes we can all vote for that person at Night and then the vig can cap them.
I had been working on the theory that amrussle and Rapier were the final two masons (based on interactions with Pede and with each other) but Rapier clearly isn’t a mason, so amrussel goes back into the pile of people who I am suspicious of. I still need to put together my case for him and HM.
Maybe someone else would like to take a look at their posting histories?
You know, so we have a bit more activity.
For me, once says he screwed up. Twice says he’s not paying attention. I’d say that’s a twine tell, since I don’t see the scum forgetting who got killed (though it did happen to me once* :D).
*I got caught trying to kill storyteller as a wolf in Conspiracy 2. In an effort to deflect this, I forgot how the vigilante worked, and voted for a dead player, claiming he was “awfully quiet”. Not my best Day.
The ones against Natlaw and Rapier42. I had forgotten about the Mhaye case, since:
-You’re the only one (more or less) who brings it up,
-We haven’t seen hide nor hair of Mhaye for a while, and
-The other two are more recent.
Yes, it is time for a change of strategy. I’d hoped that the events as they laid out would make my motivation clear, and it seems that it is partially transparent, but some incorrect conclusions have been reached. Further, my strategy to this point has simply not been working as I’d expected because, while I’ve gained potentially useful information as a result, the situation would be better if they’d gone as I’d hoped. So, now, I’ll try to head off some of the points that I’m sure people want answered:
Why haven’t I been posting? This is a two-fold answer. First, as I’ve said many times before, I put forth deliberate effort to make changes in my style from game to game. I don’t want to be an active scum in one game and then be active in the next and be pointed out as one. After evaluating the direction that I wanted to take my style, combined with the role I received this time, I decided that I wanted to try a less direct approach, which would necessarily result in a lower post count. The problem is, this was interupted by a few things, one out of game thing (ie, not being at work when the game started) as well as some in game complications, and I was unfortunately forced to lay low to avoid any correlation between my actions and my presence. As such, the largest factor in my lack of posting is, plain and simple, that it is an artifact of a series of unfortunate complications. However, as noted, the strategy that I was implementing is not seeming to work, so I won’t be doing that anymore.
So what was my strategy? It’s similar to one I’ve employed before, but in a completely opposing manner. By laying low, it is impossible for scum to assess how dangerous I am to them. This means that they leave me alive as lynch fodder. Similarly, by lurking, I avoid the “lynch the loud” attention that I have often gotten, allowing me to avoid general town suspicion and, thus, resulting in me having to make an inconvenient role claim. This has allowed me to pay close attentions to what’s been going on and make appropriate judgments for how to best utilize my role.
And, as I’ve spoken, I will not be explaining the mechanics of my role, nor will I make any sort of claim. I will, however, provide the information that I have that is useful.
First, I can reasonably confirm that Dotchan is indeed an Alpha Redshirt. The information I have about her strongly implies that that is her role.
Second, I am reasonably sure that Cookies is lying about her role. The information I have about her is inconsistent with her role claim. I expect someone will want me to expand on that, but it would necessitate me ellaborating on the mechanics of my role, so I am loathe to do that at this time.
I have one other piece of information; however, while it is potentially useful in confirming my thruthfulness, I think it will generally be much more useful to scum, so I will not be sharing that information at this time either.
So, I figure there are other questions, and I may have to end up ellaborating anyway, but, well, whatever…
Also, because I’m reasonably sure that Cookies is lying, she is the most reasonable person on whom to place my vote:
Vote Cookies
On Preview, I see that I completely neglected to address why I jumped on Peeker. Sadly, it’s pretty simple. The fact that he had made his mistake before I posted was, in fact, purely a coincidence as I was going to be posting at the time anyway; this I already stated. The fact that it was the topic du jour is the reason that I was on top of it. Otherwise, I would have spent those posts with another topic.