Unless, of course, that’s what they want us to think. Which would be mean intentionally no-killing last night in an attempt to throw us off, which would be so monumentally stupid that I’m not even going to entertain it.
If we didn’t have a recruit before we probably do now. There is another option I can think of, but it seems unlikely.
Anyway, to follow on from yesterday, my main scum suspect (after Rachm) is still Diggit, but before I continue I did find one question he asked at night a bit odd.
I am afraid I don’t get this Diggit. The votes were
4 for Rachm,
3 for Blaster (assuming Rachm’s vote made it in under the barrier),
1 for Diggit.
That’s not close enough to flip a coin, and why would a townie want the vote to go to a coin flip if you know we scored a mafia anyway?
My assumption is that Diggit thought it was four votes each for Rachm and Blaster.
I don’t want to speak for him, but if Diggit is of the same mind that I am (that Rachm and Diggit are both scum), then he may have meant it the way I took it – “they were both scum, so the coin flip was going to lead to lynched mafia either way”.
Well, one thing I was thinking about was what a no-kill might mean, since I think we were all pretty much expecting it.
The obvious (and probably likely) answer is that it was the recruit. OTOH, it may have been a no-kill intended to instill paranoia that it just happened when it may have happened some time ago. That is, if they had already recruited and killed someone last night, they would still need a minimum of two wrong lynches to win, which is the same as if they no-killed.
What does this mean? That I’m less suspicious that** tirial ** was recruited, but, knowing that the mafia might have recruited her knowing we’d think she wasn’t recruited. Oh boy, this is gonna be a long Day…
Sure, assuming either he or you were the one recruited last night. Otherwise, you’re lynching town.
Vote Blaster Master.
And on preview, looks like you’ve already cast your lot. I’d doubt tirial was recruited (too obvious), so with you and he voting Diggit, I hope it was you that was recruited. Otherwise, there are still two scum who will happily vote to lynch him.
… hey, I’m known for my stupid mistakes, so I will entertain it.
I was pretty much expecting it.
If we started the game with 4 scum and 3 masons (like most if not all people seem to think), by yesterday we had 2 scum and 3 masons (if recruitment already had happened) (1 and 3 if no recruitment had happened)
With a night kill (of a citizen, which with no additional knowledge for scum would be around at 40%) we would stand at 2 scum, 3 masons, 1 citizen. (1-3-2 without recruitment)
tirial would be out of the question as a potential lynch victim. She might or might not be scum.
For masons that would mean that they would have a pool of 2 people amongst whom they would have to choose their lynchee (3 votes to lynch in this case). Whether there had been recruitment or not, they could exclude tirial for the time being and leave that question for the next day.
In this scenario the masons would have had a pretty good chance to nail scum (50% at least).
Right now, the situation is a bit better for scum:
3 masons, 2 scum, 2 citizens
tirial is “officially” off the hook, because it’s “obvious” recruitment took place during this night.
Masons have to choose 2 scum against a pool of 3. Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? However, if it’s actually 1 scum against a pool of 3 (nobody’ll suspect tirial, remember?), even if the scum is hit, from then on it is easy cruisin’ for scum.
Well, since you’re still so lynch happy on me, do you care to actually make a case, or is this more of the same “just doesn’t feel right” stuff? The only point I’ve seen, which admittedly doesn’t look good at face value, is my vote for Projammer, which I’ve already explained, but would be happy to go into again if you’d like.
The bottom line is we only get two wrong lynches and, considering that the recruit will probably be hard to track down, we can’t waste lynches on “gut feelings” against townies.
You seem to be excluding the possibility of a mason recruitment, or am I missing something? If there were three masons, if the scum were targetting a mason, they had a 60% chance of hitting one, even if they had no lead on them.
Nope. What I’m saying is, their feint right now would make sense only if they already had recruited tirial (hence 3-2-2). A great part of their move would hinge on her having no blame from now on. (the scenario you highlighted is the “current” one)
Actually, I’d gladly hear that point, since that’s the only reason why I suspect you (as of now, at least). And it was the one that made Rachm slip under my suspici-O-meter, since it allowed him to keep fluiddruid as his vote on Day 3.
Hardly. The latest tip-off I got was you going along with the “Hal vs. nesta” ploy. But, I knew there were other things, so I decided to do a readthrough of all your recent postings. But something told me to take a look at your voting history first…
Wow…just, wow…of the remaining players, there are only two who voted for fluiddruid, Lemur and Rachm the day they each swung – tirial and yourself.
“Well Hal”, you say, “doesn’t that exonerate Blaster? If he were scum, would he have voted for every one of his teammates?”
Bet’cher butt…take a look at how known mafia voted the day we lynched scum:
Day 4: fluiddruid swings, Lemur and Rachm both vote for her.
Day 6: Lemur swings, Rachm votes for him.
Blaster, your name slips right in there perfectly, and also goes in when Rachm swung.
It seems pretty damn clear that the scum have a “vote for our own” policy going on. It makes sense, when you use it sometimes. Where they screwed up is in doing it each and every time one of them fell.
Sorry Blaster, I’ll still do by background research, but it’ll take an unbelievably strong case to get my finger off of you.
Okay, I’ll go through my thought process in that vote switch as best as I can. That said, I’m not going to bother to reiterate my points about why I thought dnooman was the likeliest crumb. Why? Simply because I’ve already wasted enough posts rehashing that. If there’s a part of my reasoning you don’t understand, I’ll take it on that way.
Going into the third day, IIRC, my general suspicions, in no particular order, were fluiddruid, Projammer, CaerieD, and Lightnin’; that list was actually fairly consistent with the general town sentiment at the time. Based on the breadcrumb discussion, prior to going back and doing my own re-read, the idea that fluiddruid was a scum crumb was enticing and looked solid enough, which was enough to boost her above the other three, so I voted for her; however, I made it clear that I was still VERY suspicious of Projammer.
Then came discussion about whether fluiddruid was being framed, so I unvoted her while I reconsidered. When I revoted for fluiddruid, I also made my point clear that, while I was actually less suspcious of her overall, I could not ignore the potential breadcrumb and I figured we’d get her that day, and lynch Projammer the next. So far, so good, right?
Well, thanks to her silver tongue (which almost got her saved the next day, even), I was filled with self-doubt about whether it was or was not the right vote and decided to go back and re-read all of Kyrie’s posts and look at the potential crumbs and I was surprised by what I saw. I wish I’d done that in the first place, because it never would have brought this up. As I’d stated in my vote, that it was the crumb potential the pushed fluiddruid above Projammer, with that compelling evidence lost, I corrected my “icky” feeling by voting for Projammer, whom I now had the strongest suspicion of being scum. What I DIDN’T account for, was CaerieD following my vote and that I would get blamed for that.
So here’s my thoughts. If I were scum, why would I make such a bold and obvious attempt to save fluiddruid that would, at best, result in a coin toss and result in a massive amount of suspicion to be cast upon me? Why am I being “held to task” for switching my vote when I provided reasoning (even if you don’t agree with it), while several others plainly ignored the crumb and voted earlier (much like Lemur)? Look at the results of the witchhunt from the Projammer bandwagon… Lightnin’ and almostCaerieD if not for Idle’s persistence on SCL (…I still can’t figure out why she was night-killed).
The scum have been playing us, using the fact that **Projammer ** was up against scum to try and put blame on various people which resulted in one townie lynch (Lightnin’) and almost that of CaerieD. Interesting that when Lemur was up and Millit, Hal, and Cookies didn’t vote for him, there’s no push to get them lynched in the way that those “responsible” for Projammer’s death have been pursued.
No night kill again? I’d be happy about it, but I can’t see any likely scenario other than recruitment. I think it would be very stupid for them to choose not to kill someone, even if tirial was previously recruited. The only other possibility I see is if they haven’t recruited tirial and tried to kill her again, but that makes no sense because if they killed someone else tirial would still be likely to get lynched for possibly being recruited earlier.