Already did! See Post #2000.
Wow, how did I miss that? See, I told everyone I thought that chances were slim that he was recruited. :o
I just realized something. We have no clear scum/scum activity so far in the game. Lemur voted fluiddruid, but only late in the day.
One would expect that somewhere in the game two mafia would pretend to be at each other’s throats. SCL and, to a lesser degree Idle Thoughts, attracted suspicion because of this – many of us thought that they targeted fluiddruid and/or Lemur as a means of providing cover for themselves further on down the line.
But with the present knowledge that SCL and Idle Thoughts were both town, as far as I can see there’s no clear faux scum/scum activity, or at least no major scum/scum activity involving the two confirmed mafiosi.
Here’s an interesting statistic: Neither fluiddruid nor Lemur placed a single vote on any of the eight of us still remaining! Whatsmore (unless I missed a post somewhere) the only FOS’s either of them placed upon the eight of us still left were the FOS fluidddruid placed on Cookies Day 1, the FOS’s Lemur placed on me on Day 1 and DiggitCamara on Day 4. I.e. there’s no possible mutual scum finger-pointing involving any dead mafia and a presently living town member, unless you regard the Lemur/DiggitCamara activity as rising to this level. So any mutual scum “suspicion” must be going on between two (or three?) of the rest of us now remaining.
The flip side is this: the mafia go the whole game without having a major scum/scum episode to throw the town off track. Sure, I guess it’s possible, but IMO not likely. Or is it? I think there are probably at least two scum present among us pointing their fingers at each other. There’s only a couple possibilities, I think. Is this a legit track I’m on, or am I missing something here?
Those roles are not mutually exclusive, as one Mafioso might be recruited Mason.
Then again, if this were the case, they would have probably night-killed a Mason by now.
Right?
Currently Diggit is the top of my scum list. More importantly, if there were three no-kill nights as far as the mafia were concerned (see Lemur’s post that I referred to before), it pretty much confirms the doctor wasn’t recruited. Why?
Would lemur866,a known scum, spend an entire post on the day before CaerieD was lynched (and therefore after the no-kills and any recruit) justifying voting to lynch the doctor if the doctor roleclaimed, if the doctor was in fact recruited?
I’d have thought so, as that would enable them to remove a threat to the scum win. If a mason was recruited, would their first loyalty be to the mafia or masons? In practice, its got to be to the mafia as otherwise they could disclose who the scum are to the board hence to the other masons.
I think someone’s asked this before. Not sure who. Will look for it.
. I think you need to re-read Gadarene’s post. Or alternatively try this scenario: They went for me the first night, and got doc-blocked. Went for Idle Thoughts (as the most likely doctor candidate) the second and got watch-blocked. Not knowing how they had been blocked, they now had a choice of two candidates to target so they went for me or Idle Thoughts the third night and got doc-blocked or watch-blocked.
And the watchblock is only known to have “failed” one night - there is no reason it could not have actually have blocked a previous or later attempt. (Later because the Watchman was still in the game and his blocks were still considered valid).
First off, I like how you selectively snipped off the “or it was another block on another target” piece. :dubious:
But let’s look at that scenario this way… that Idle’s self-block was the second night and that you were the target the first night (and were either Doc blocked, or Watch-blocked). You have to remember, that the mafia would have only known at that point that both kills were blocked. So I have to wonder that, if they would have changed targets after attempting a kill on you on the first night, wouldn’t it be logical to then assume they would try a third target when blocked yet again? While it’s possible they would have targetted one of you again, it just doesn’t seem logical that they’d go back and try you again, if they gave up after the first time. Hence, if they were going to try hitting you (or him) twice, I’d guess they’d do it two nights in a row.
And that was my whole point, we can construct a scenario that is possible where they would have attacked him on the second night and gotten blocked, but it just seemed like the least likely of the possibilities. I also would have a hard time believing that Idle would have been targetted twice, successful twice (even if one wasn’t supposed to be) and then the mafia DOESN’T recruit him when it would look, at least to them with two “successful” blocks, like he was most assuredly the doctor. Hence, I think the most likely scenarios are that they never tried to recruit, and tried to kill three different targets, or they targetted someone who was either doc blocked or watch blocked, recruited them the second night, and attacked Idle on the third.
I don’t quite see this happening. If the mafia had been blocked two consecutive nights on two different people as you suggest, and then decided on a kill instead of a recruit, do you really think they’d want to go back and risk bumping into the doc (again???) ? They would have known either one of you two could have very easily been the doctor self-protecting.
Because if I were in their shoes in that situation, I’d be getting nervous, avoiding anything that could posssibly result in a third consecutive block.
To quote CaerieD you are assuming they are stupid. If they targeted me the first night and were blocked, they have to consider the doc+decoy issue. Reread the post that occurred. Targetting someone and being blocked doesn’t mean they’ve found a power role. So the next night they read the post and target someone else, who they think is a good chance of being the doc. And get blocked again.
At this point do you
a) go back for one of the two, hoping to either
i) get a kill
ii) get a second block that would confirm you’ve found a good target
b) target a less high-profile target
c) waste a recruit when you don’t know which one, if either has a power role.
Personally if I were scum I’d save the recruit until there was only one/two mafia left (and people had a chance to build a record) or the non-scum only had a majority of one or two, when it could win the game instantly.
Idle Thoughts change in posting style and pursuit of SCL who I thought was town (and the fact that pursuit was based purely on known scum’s posts) made me wonder if I was wrong and he had been recruited.
However, frankly, at the top of my scum list are Diggit (defending SCL - a possible scenario is because he knew she was town. The only people who knew that for certain are scum.), followed by Blastermaster (for voting records), and Rachm Qoch (the “me too”'s and other earlier posts). I suppose I should take being accused by the people at the top of my list as flattering, but actually it just worries me.
Well, I’ve looked through all my notes.
The case against Blastermaster and Diggit is too tangled to tell if one or both are scum - even dead players put you two together (e.g. lightnin’ P1313). As a result, even though I think that one or possibly both of you are scum, I am going to vote for the person I can build a stand alone case against.
Voting record:
1: Omi/Zuma (T)
2: projammer (Town power role)
3: fluiddruid (S)
4: fluiddruid (S)
5: lemur (S) - last vote of the day and out of left field.
6: fourth vote for Lemur (S) - why so late if he still suspected him from the last day?
7: Diggit - again last vote of the day and out of left field.
Rachm Qoch,
I think that you are scum.
P2023 - “We have no clear scum/scum activity so far in the game.” Oh, I think we’ve had scum v. scum activity, we just haven’t killed the scum to confirm it yet. Your first anti-lemur866 vote (out of left field at the end of a day when he wasn’t at risk), would be what I was looking for in scum v. scum. Notable that this matches the pattern of your vote for Diggit.
You made the notorious “me to” posts with CaerieD, and early in the game you were cautioned for not contributing. At this point it was town v. town (Day One, where we now know that Omi no Kami, percypercy, Lightnin’ and Projammer were all town, and Day two, dnooman v. Projammer, both town). Why should a scum come above the parapet and put themselves at risk then? Later, when fluiddruid was at risk, you started to post.
You followed CaerieD’s lead for some time, making me think there was a voting block. Actually I now seriously suspect you were scum hiding behind her vote because you knew she was town and therefore provided cover. Also posting a defence of another poster is surprising from a town, but possible if you were both masons. We now know that CaerieD wasn’t, so if you are town your defense of her in P456 was definitely not based on certain knowledge of her status.
Note P414 and note this is now a known town CaerieD v. town Omi no Kami case - the scum loose nothing. He also posted a much stronger defense of CaerieD in 456 - when to my eyes she wasn’t exactly under threat. I do wonder if you were doing this to protect yourself, so when she died/was lynched you would look like town.
You suggested dropping info from the past two games P457 unless accompanied by details. Now firstly, I don’t think the town discarding any information is ever wise and secondly, hate to say it but that’s why I believed dnooman wasn’t scum - in the game where he was (Mafia I) he was clever, deceptive and believeable. When confronted he roleclaimed werewolf, which takes courage. This game? A totally different style. Given the length of mafia II, expecting players to follow that and find the data in 3000+ posts is rather difficult, wouldn’t you say?
Indicators if you already think he’s scum:
P458 is only suspicious if you think Rachm is scum - please note which two players he notices are not on dnooman’s count. (This could be taken as anti-dnooman, but dnooman is known to be town. Dnooman explains in 462, but it is interesting isn’t it?)
P618 Dnooman asking if Diggit and Rachm would state what they disagree with him about. “Telegraphing strategy bad. Killing townies bad.” is Rachm’s acerbic and truthful response. I am just surprised that again its Rachm and Diggit.
Kyrie P819 “I’d like to say now that I voted for fluiddruid while fully cognizant of the argument that will arise from Rachm’s post, quoted here.” Rachm arguing against a fluiddruid vote?
P756 Rachm Qoch comfortable creates a 5/5 tie between dnooman and projammer - but if he is scum, why should he care which townie we lynch?
Vote Rachm Qoch
Why am I not going for Diggit or Blastermaster? Because I can’t build a strong stand alone case, it could be either or both of them and the numbers say we have to get this one right tonight. I’m more confident that rachm is scum and working with one or both of them.
Are you arguing that Idle Thoughts being targetted on the second night, is the most likely scenario? All I’m arguing is that of the three nights his block could have happened on, that was the least likely. As you’re pointing out here, they’d probably try to hit the same target twice, which makes me wonder WHY, if they targetted you first, they didn’t target you the second night (why split up their attempts after a block?).
I’m trying to sort out what the most likely scenarios are so, rather than continuing to argue this, since it seems fruitless, why don’t you just tell us plainly what you think are the most likely scenarios.
I agree with you here. This is why, even though I think it’s likely that the recruit happened and that you’re the most likely recruitee, I don’t think if I’m confident enough in that to put my lynch vote on you.
To clarify my suspicions, I’m obviously suspicious of you because if the recruit has happened, I think it was you. I’m also a little suspicious of some of our lurker types, namely nesta and Rachm Qoch. I’m also wary of the Hal Briston / nesta deal, as I haven’t figured out what that point of that is, and it could very well be some “safe” mafia in-fighting. So, I suppose I’m most suspicious of nesta at this point.
Fair enough – I did simply miss it (even with reading through your post three times…sheesh!), and I apologize for the unfounded accusation.
Again, sorry if I misread that. When you said “Idle Thoughts has been one of the few in my ‘probably town’ list for most of the game”, I guess I didn’t put enough differentiation between “always” and “almost always”.
Either way, I no longer hold anything from that post against you. Which is kind of a shame…I’m still rather sure you’re scum, but A) that feeling is wavering just a bit, and B) no one else is seeing it, so it’s kind of a wasted effort. Ah well…certainly hope I’m wrong about you.
:smack:
Wish I’d have noticed that line before I wrote that “no one else is seeing it”.
On that note: I apologize for framing these questions on the forum. It’s only now (that Hal pointed it out) that I should have handled them via PM’s.
Ok to speak plainly, I think:
Night One: they targeted me and got doc blocked (see my strategy post the next day time).
Night two: Idle Thoughts was a strong candidate for the doctor as one of the few players experienced enough to spot what I was doing, and they had also read my strategy post so I suspect they targeted him, and got doc or Nightwatchman blocked. I think its a nightwatchman block because Gadarene says specifically:
I think this is the block that failed, as if he had been doc protected the same night whether his block was correct wouldn’t have mattered. However it is possible the block that night succeeded or was a doc block, which brings us to night three.
Night 3: This leaves the mafia with two people they know they have been blocked from killing. They can guess Idle Thoughts may be the doctor, they know I used a doc+decoy strategy. So, do they waste a recruit without being certain? Or do they try a third night kill on one of the targets to see what the result is and get confirmation? Or go for someone else entirely?
I think they tried a third nightkill, although I have no idea about the target.
a) if Day two was the failed block, Idle Thoughts may have successfully watchblocked them, regardless of who they targeted (in fact it seems more likely as it would be night 5 and if the previous block succeed by GM mistake, then it would be his only successful block in the game - unless he also got Night One which in this scenario is unlikely).
b) They could have picked a target the doc was protecting. This could have been me, the doc themself, or a different poster (although frankly the first two (b) options seem more likely, as I don’t think anyone else made themselves a real target).
c) If the block on night two succeeded or was a double block, it is possible that Night 3 was the failed block by Idle Thoughts, and they targeted him to confirm.
These are just my opinions.
Personally I think the second night is the most likely failed block, followed by the third.
See, here’s my problem, you can definitively say whether you were recruited or not and obviously, either way, you’re going to portray that you were not. The logic you present above runs on the assumption that you were not. Obviously you “know” that you weren’t recrutied on the second no-kill night, but we have no way of knowing that. While I don’t think it would necessarily have been the best move to recruit you had the first day’s block been on you, if they were reasonably confident you were doctor, plus knowing you’re a fairly strong player, they may well have decided that it was worth it, and then went after Idle on the third night. OR, maybe they targetted you again the second night, got blocked again, figured you were the doctor and would recruit you later, and went after **Idle ** on the third night.
Like I said, I’m not as sold on the idea that the recruit happened as I was before Idle’s death, which is why I’m probably not going to vote for you today
First question: Where/when did Lemur866 devote that entire post? The timing is important: and if it coincides with the timing of his SnakesCatLady accusation, he might have been using reverse psychology with that as well.
Second: Why, then, wouldn’t they have recruited you? I can see why they left Idle Thoughts alone, after all he went off on his SnakesCatLady tangent from Day 5 on and that was certainly no threat to them (and they had no big reason to suspect his NightWatchMan status).
My scenario is:
- Day3-Day4 (Night 3): kill attempt is blocked.
- Day 4.
a. Fluiddruid is killed.
b. You tell everyone that you managed to draw the scum’s attention and the Doctor’s protection at the same time - Night 4. Scum notice your post and recruit you
- Day 5.
a. I draw attention to the possibility of a doctor’s recruitment
b. Idle Thoughts picks up that idea, runs away with it, screams it from the rooftops - Night 5. Botched kill (block by moderator)
I don’t think there’s any more “point” to it than there is for the rest of this game. In a nutshell, I went through Hal Briston’s posts looking for signs he might be scum, and posted them. He thinks I’m scum, or wants others to think I’m scum (if he is scum himself), because of this. It’s pretty simple, really.
For those who don’t know what post of tirial’s I’m talking about, it’s this one.
Now, I understand tirial’s reasons perfectly:
- She, as the doctor, was using the well-known and accepted practice to self-protect at night
- After a no-kill night, she suddenly realized that that could easily lead to a recruitment attempt on her, and tried to diffuse attention from herself, alleging she had managed to attract the Doctor’s protection
However, view this from the scum’s point of view (if we suppose they tried to kill her on Night 3-this post was taken from Day 4, btw)
- They tried to kill her and failed
- You can be certain they were watching her posts like hawks, trying to see if she revealed herself
If no one else had picked up my idea I would have simply thought I was wrong. Which is why I simply outlined what I thought had happened in this post. Since Idle Thoughts guessed the same person I had guessed, I think the idea that scum noticed the same post is not too unlikely.
I’ve spent all night thinking on this (and all morning, through two whole meetings!) and I had come to some of the same conclusions, even before I saw your posts. And now, I see tirial’s suspicion list and her vote for Rachm Qoch, which seals the deal for me.
Let’s kill a scum and answer the question of a recruit once and for all.
Vote tirial.
It’s come to my attention that the Mafia win condition as currently set forth in the rules merits a small amount of clarification. Specifically, the rules state that “[t]he Mafia wins if, at the end of a day, it outnumbers the townspeople.” This, of course, doesn’t make much sense, and it’s not the way the game is normally played. (I blame the scrivener.) Rather, the Mafia should win if, at the end of a day, there are as many Mafia members alive as there are non-Mafia members. (Because they can then kill a townie during the night and assume majority status.) Otherwise, we’d be locked at a permanent stalemate, to be decided only by random.org, if it ended up, for example, that there was one Mafia and one townsperson left alive.
To sum up: There are eight players left. If, at the end of a day, there are as many Mafia members as non-Mafia members, the Mafia wins. Any questions?
I’m on a roll!