I’m going to try to wrap up my review of sach now.
Day 5:
sach starts us off with a wily tactical suggestion, occasioned by the two-hour delay in Dawn (or Spring, I suppose). Call it what you will, sach suggests that the Detective has a loophole here - able to claim even if technically already dead. Naturally this doesn’t come to anything, as we apparently don’t have a Detective. But it’s enough, coupled with Day 4’s mason-spotting guide, to get sach a vote from Drain.
Sach defends himselfvigorously against this, and says he was actually trying to get NK’d (presumably to protect the hidden mason). He goes back and fortha little with Drain on this, admitting that he maybe didn’t play his part perfectly, but arguing that the masons’ over the top reaction kind of gave the game away. This is essentially a strategic disagreement about the merits of pointing out slips in public.
Next up, sach votes for Natlaw. His case is that, having voted for Kelly on Day 2, Natlaw voted Maha on Day 3, essentially saving Kelly. Natlaw doesn’t immediately respond to that, but picks up sach for demanding a Detective counter-claim to Kelly, and especially for assuming that Kelly was claiming a Detective role. sach arguesthis point, stating that he couldn’t/can’t see how Kelly’s role would be anything other than Detective, and that Watcher in particular doesn’t fit. This discussion gets picked up later on.
The case against Natlaw is a reasonable one, as far as it goes (in that it’s based on a easily-seen pattern of votes); it does however slightly contradict sach’s earlier post clearing Natlaw of being a clean noser. However, there’s more information now, so changing one’s mind is perfectly legit. (Indeed, how else could we play Mafia?). This is a null tell.
Next we have a long post that is essentially a defence of Alka-Seltzer. Skeezix has argued that Freudian was in a potential mason pool with Alka and Oredigger and that there is therefore a good chance that one of those two is scum. (I think the logic there is fallacious, but of course Skeezix was right). sach disagrees, saying that if they were all town, there’d still be no reason for scum not to fish in that pool. But he goes on to say that, assuming one of them were scum, he wouldn’t pick Alka. His reasoning is that Alka is highly involved in the game, and is being picked up for ‘scummy’ behaviour that is only what town should be doing. Nor does sach think that Alka’s suspicious Kelly saving vote is all that suspicious, because it only created a tie, rather than save him outright.
Now the main thing to note here is that yet again, sach is in the position of defending a scum. This is troubling - so much of the way sach is playing strikes me as town-motivated, but this pattern raises an eyebrow to say the least. It could be a rotten bit of luck - as noted, sach has a habit of attacking other people’s cases, so some of the time he’s going to attack the wrong ones - but it could be a straight up attempt to keep Alka off the block. Note that much of this post is an impassioned plea for people to get involved in discussion, which certainly fits with sach’s own style.
Next sach unvotes Natlaw to vote Oredigger. His caseis that he thinks Oredigger’s case against Alka is “heads I win, tails you lose”. Again, voting someone who’s voting Alka could be an attempt at defense. However, notethat sach quickly unvotes Oredigger having come to the decision that his case is probably that of a biased townie - but explicitly states that he doesn’t like the Alka case and would rather lynch Digger than Alka (but would rather kill neither).
At this point Red Skeezix claims, and sach is first to point out that story should kill him.
The last thing sach does is vote for Diggit, on the grounds of low participation. He might have joined me voting for Diver, but I’d recently unvoted so he goes on to the next low-volume player.
Day 6:
sach picks up where he left off, challenging Diggit over his caseagainst Rysto (specifically his “other scum had already voted Maha” line). He announcesthat he’s going to vote Diggit or Rysto, after summing up their cases.
Then sach and I get into a discussionabout my posting levels, and whether or not scum can be identified by their actions. This segues somewhat into sach’s next post, which is a continutation of his argument with Diggit - sach defends his continuing discussion/engagement/interrogation on the grounds that it’s by seeing Diggit’s response that he’ll decide if he’s town or not.
We then get a stream of consciousness set of three posts, in which sach starts by saying Diggit should do what he can to prove alignment but ends by wondering if Diggit should avoid claiming after all. I chip in on this, mentioning that I too have a guess about Diggit’s power, which nudges sach into voting Rysto, for what he admits are not very good reasons.
sach makes more posts discussing Diggit’s claim, in response to meand to Diggit. He finishes wondering if we’re really going to lynch Diggit, and why Diggit hasn’t made a self-defence vote.
This is another Day when sach comes across as more townie than not. His attack on the bad case was on the money this time and again he’s engaging as much as possible with other players.
My heavens, that took me a while. Overall, I’m leaning town on sach. There are a few incidents involving possible defence of scum that have me a little suspicious, and I found the whole interaction with story to be frustating, but my general impression is of someone who’s trying hard to find scum.