Mafia 1114: Jim's Mafia - Game OVER!!!!

[magnus_orion]

ugh.... these deadline rules are a real pain.
Questions...
1. Est
2. see sig
3. I've been posting less frequently lately. As far as I'm aware I don't have a consistent meta as town or scum.

Javert's thing that he did would clearly draw suspicion, and has no guarantee that it would diffuse. So that's a slight town-tell...

I most concerned about this statement from davidparker though:

As it stands, it was more important to diffuse the situation and get people off your back.

Why?

... points that have been raised against mute are valid...

[magnus_orion]

@david: answer my question please.

@ mute:

I felt you were scummy with that vote as there seemed to be no doubt in your mind he was scum, and were obstinately refusing to post anything else.

elaborate and explain why you think this is scummy please.

[magnus_orion]

@magnus: The town were all tunneling on a player because of his refusal to answer questions and be apart of the town. He was not playing as "apart" of the town, so he got wagoned. That's somewhat understandable. However, it was an undesirable situation, because I clearly saw the intent behind Javert's play, and while I didn't think it was necessarily respective of him being town, it was definitely not worth labeling him scum over. They were "valid" points, but they just weren't thought out points. They didn't look into the intent behind Javert's play, and while it was what some would consider bad play (hey a policy lynch was even mentioned so it must have been bad play), it definitely helped move the game forward. The intent behind Javert's actions was town-like, the means was scum-like, as said, I see it as a null tell, but it is a step forward for town in finding scum. To me, "diffusing the situation" was a matter of focusing the town on actual scum hunting, I mean someone was more than welcome to show how what Javert did was more likely scum than town, but no one actually did that. (And no one seems intent to do it now with all the unvotes, although I can understand why Oso wants to keep his vote where it is and I'm fine with that), in fact it's probably more likely that the people unvoting and backpeddling now somewhat are scum.

Questions:
1. Do you think that scum could have (or may have) potentially take advantage of this wagoning to join the wagon?
2. Why is 3 votes "The town were all tunneling"?
3. By diffusing the arguments against a player that might have otherwise turned interesting results, do you feel that you may have wasted some opportunity to read that person?
4. How, exactly, have you focused the town on "actual" scumhunting?
4a. Is this (Focusing the town on actual scumhunting) a necessary/helpful thing to do? Why?
5. What exactly is "actual" scumhunting?
5a. Does wagoning a player for reactions qualify as "actual" scumhunting?
6. What is your read on Javert right now?

Feel free to answer in any format or order. Just please answer all of them.

Thoughts on ICE, post 47... I found this post difficult to decipher, but I think its broken into two parts: Part 1 refers to Javert and ICE's accusation toward him. And the second part refers to mute...
I have different issues with these parts so I separated them for convenience.
Part 1

Excellent. This game has developed quickly and nicely, and is now fully developing in to real discussion. I will

unvote

now, as my vote has served its purpose and then some. I got a town impression from Javert responding to my overly strong accusation.

I've bolded the hyperbole.

Yes. The hyperbole was intended.

How exactly has the game developed "quickly and nicely"?
How has your vote served its purpose?
How has your vote served additional purpose (the "and then some" refereed to)?
Why do you get a town impression from Javert responding to your overly strong accusation?

I feel like it is perfectly reasonable to question making two random votes. One completely random vote (I.E. voting someone because of their name) is inherently completely useless to the game. Two is doing something useless again. I've stated previously what things a player can do to advance the game, with both myself and Javert (and some others) having done some of these. I simply wanted to know if he was random voting for the purpose of having fun (completely innocent) or, more tellingly, if he was random voting because he though he was helping the game along. By random voting and claiming he was attempting to advance the game, I get the impression that he is trying to make himself look as if he is doing more, posting more, etc. than he really is.

Furthermore, I am absolutely disgusted by his consideration of policy lynching on day 2. David said everything I feel about that, essentially. I'd feel inclined to vote mute for the policy lynch suggestion alone as lynching someone based off of a random vote is not town motivated at all, and helps scum by causing confusion, robbing town of a lynch, and proceeding to night without having sufficient information gained. Everything else just makes me want to vote him even more.

Vote Mute.

We need some real content out of manut, Prox, magnus, and Rob.

Part 2 is confusing because it is hard to figure out that he is talking about Mute here, and not explaining his unvote on Javert. At least, if my impression of it is correct.
This one raises different questions:
How are you not advocating the lynch of someone via a random vote with your previous vote on Javert, and your comments concerning mute in the above quote?
How exactly is advocating a policy lynch scummy? Do you believe that doing so is scum motivated?
How is advocating the lynch of someone for suggesting a policy lynch not also suggesting a policy lynch?

[magnus_orion]

@ICE:

It wasn't just how he responded to my overly strong accusation, I felt like Javert (at the point of saying that, his more recent posts have piqued my interest somewhat) had very town motivated actions overall.

This is basically a side step of what I asked. Explain why you felt like Javert had town motivated actions overall. Be specific.

@DP:

You are annoying.

Your constructive criticism is noted.

Those questions were retarded. Can you please refrain from such broad questions which really just annoy me. I mean I did only spend a whole 30 seconds responding and didn't even try put any thought into my answers, but really that's just killing my desire to post more in this game and be more active. I'd rather you call me scum and attack me for something than this kind of nonsense.

I apologize for the inconvenience. I was merely trying to give you the opportunity to dissuade me from my current line of thought with your own interpretation of the events in question.
Very well,

Vote: Davidparker

David has shown an over reactive concern over the 3 votes put on another player, upon whom he had a null read, rather than allowing his read to be potentially substantiated by the reactions of the player in question, proceeded to attempt to dispel the wagon against the player. This is concerning, since it suggests David is more concerned with the attitude of the town as a whole, and how it behaves and reacts to certain actions (and suggests David seeks to control these aspects to some degree), rather than the alignments of individual players. This is an attitude which suggests scum motivation behind David's actions, especially considering the underwhelming amount of pressure on Javert at the time. His attempt to bring order to chaos I believe to be a result of his attempt to bring the game to a point where it can be predicted and controlled effectively, so that he may better fulfill his scum win condition. In particular, I believe this to be contrasted to a more town motivation, which would seek to see how Javert responds to the pressure being applied, in order to better gauge Javert's alignment, and the alignments of the players wagoning him, especially when he believes scum may have been prepared to take advantage of this situation and reveal themselves somewhat by joining the wagon (narrowing down suspects, of course, always being an important consideration for a pro-town player).
Alternatively, david may have seen this as an opportunity to behave in a manner he believed to be "pro-town" by diffusing an argument between townies. This is telling because he remains uncertain of Javerts alignment, but does not desire a wagon against javert for reaction purposes, and has in fact resisted the formation of such a wagon. Also considering his resistance to answering questions, it is difficult to imagine how he expects scum hunting to be done, having ruled out the two most generally used options.

[magnus_orion]

You, in turn seem to underestimate the value of reactions to wagon formation and the capacity for this to develop tells. Also you're unnaturally assuming in terms of Javert's intentions. Once again I feel a town player who didn't have a read on javert would be more concerned with letting javert answer for himself, especially if you felt you were giving the same answer he would've. An inconsistency in his response and your expectations would be a telling thing.
Of course, you wouldn't really be looking for that sort of thing if you were scum, you'd be more concerned that you'd be able to stifle anything you perceived as unreasonable (and thus less controllable and less predictable), and appearing pro-town by discounting "poor" reasoning.

[magnus_orion]

ugh... I had a good post going and then I sort of accidentally closed the tab... here we go again...

@Rob:

man you give me tons of good material as to why we should lynch you, but because I know of you and your history, I know that this is essentially pushing a policy lynch (regardless if you are scum or town, lynching you today is a policy lynch because you fall into the category of Furclow, Drmyshotty, etc)

what are you saying here, exactly? DP doesn't remind me of Furclow...

Are you saying that DP should be excused from what you perceive as scummy for meta reasons?

@ICE: who's patriot? Oh you meant poirot... ok
I need to go over your posts again when I get the chance.

@DP:

I probably do underestimate some tells, it's probably largely based on how I play, and how I react to certain things (ie: people voting me and attacking certain aspects of my playstyle), generally it's me in Javert's position creating negative attention towards myself to help create discussion. (ie: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15318) Anyways, point is, when I've been caught out it's not because of some "pressure wagon" getting to me, it's because I've been lazy keeping up and taken shortcuts or because as a whole players have analyzed my intent throughout the game.

Um ok... this calls into question your response to one of my questions, #3 to be precise. If you normally generate this type of situation, I can only assume you do so because you know how to read players within it. Then, from a town perspective, your actions make even less sense, because you are familiar with this type of situation and how to read players in it, so you'd want to let it continue to get better reads.

Oh, I know he's a big boy and can defend himself. But sometimes hearing defences from other people can help players. It's helped me in the past. I was tunneling on someone pretty hard and any defense they said I just read as having scum intent and refused to see any town motivation to their play. It was only when another player stood up and defended them that I felt this player was in fact quite possibly town. And yeah, I did sink his ship somewhat, I'd rather let people know how clever I was for figuring it out than let it play it's course though. I do have an ego :/

This was directed to Rob, but I'd just like to say here that there is a dis-analogy between this situation and the one you described. Javert had not offered anything in his own defense yet. Also, I'm not familiar with the situation you described, but I'm going to suppose that the second defending player didn't have a neutral read on the player he was defending.

Also, If you think you were being clever by figuring out Javert's plans, why did you seem to find other people are blameworthy for not doing so?

David, what's your opinion on ICE?

I haven't been able to read much more... I'm kinda busy with college and this game is rather low on my priority list at the moment.

[magnus_orion]

So I've been looking over ICE a bit, and I intend to do so more at some point, but before I forget, I want clarification to his answer to my question.

Explain why you felt like Javert had town motivated actions overall. Be specific.

Specifically, I'm referring to his ISO posts 3 and especially 4 where Javert seems very intent on bringing the town to a productive state. His reasoning for placing his original vote was, in my eyes, town motivated, and his vote on me, while misguided, appeared to be likewise placed by someone with town motivation. I'm not saying he's town, as while I've stated you can't determine that someone is scum from the very beginnings of the game you likewise can't declare someone overtly town this early, but it helps me in narrowing down good scum hunting targets for day 1.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my questions.
Why do you think that the actions you refer to would be done by someone with a town motivation?
Why does his vote appear placed by someone with a town motivation.

Exactly what about Javert's response to your "overly strong accusation" gave you a town impression of him. I seek to remind you that you said your vote "served its purpose" by giving you a better read. So you believe that, in some way, his reaction to your vote, which you'll have to point out for me, gives you a town impression, which you'll have to explain how.

Basically your claim in all of this is that you accomplished something useful in your vote, and having done that, your vote was no longer necessary. However, I have yet to fully understand what that useful thing was, exactly. I realize that, ultimately you acquired a town impression of Javert, but I'm seeking to know the specifics in between these two elements.

[magnus_orion]

further re-review of the game...
@Mute: Who is scum?
@conspiracy: To be clear, are your recent posts suggesting you don't find ICE scummy? (it appears that originally you thought he was, but changed your mind later... is that correct?)

prox isn't reading... suggests he has no stakes in the proceedings.

FOS: prox

@manut: when you get back... do you have any opinions any at all? Who is scum?

@jerbs:

He's also kinda overcautious, with a bit of recklessness to make himself seem town

This is at worst contradictory and at best vague. examples and explanation please.

@edge: commentary on ICE's more recent play. Your accusation involving hyperbole keeps getting referred to... the original accusation is interesting because you seem to claim ICE should've known what Javert was doing. Why do you believe this to be the case?

@Oso: do you believe ICE to be scum for reasons other than his attack against Mute?

@Javert: in retrospect, your original case on ICE is pretty confusing... while it's understandable that his failure to cite games and his attack on the first post to reasonably advance the game do, on the surface conflict with his desire to see the game advance, his stated motivation is consistent with his actions, ie. If he wanted the game to advance, then voting the person with the most interesting vote at the time with an overblown accusation would be an effective way of doing it.

@poirot: do you think hypocrisy is scummy?

I'm still gonna need ICE to clarify the stuff I mentioned in 106, but as of right now I'm not really supportive of the ICE wagon... that being said, Poirot has mentioned things to the effect that more interesting things lie after this wagon was pursued somewhat, but the initial foundation, at least, I feel is pretty shaky. I'll need to look into these later things poirot's referred to when I have more time...

[magnus_orion]

EBWOP: @edge: I would like some commentary on ICE's more recent play from you*

[magnus_orion]

ughhhh... this game progresses too fast for me.
Is ice dead yet? Can mini normals even have 2 mafia factions? Is ICE claiming to have only one partner?

unvote
vote: ICE

[magnus_orion]

Haha, I'm going to assume scum killed him for that huge wall post of his. [/sarcasm]

We've no reason to believe there is two scum factions at this point, but I don't see why ICE would claim there is two, if there was only going to be one night kill. Yadee yah, pointless speculation etc etc.

Vote: RobCapone

what? why the vote? *skims over dp's posts again*
Did I miss something?

You're right, I haven't posted a case on you, but essentially it is an OMGUS, because your case on me sucks. You are attacking me for a bunch of nonsense. My initial vote on you for actively lurking (ie: responding to questions, but not to Javert's play) was a stronger case than anything you have presented. I still don't believe that you were too busy at the time to even comment on it. You then proceed to tunnel on me for large parts of the day and make lol-worthy comments claiming that I am scum-buddies with magnus, who had started the case on me, and I had just got annoyed at. I mean you just seemed to want to avoid the obvious conclusions (ie: occam's razor), and come to some conclusion that some absurd connection exists and by pointing it out you are seeming more pro town.

At this point, I am fairly sure you are scum.

So are you claiming your day-opening vote is for Rob active-lurking? Why didn't you try to make that at all clear in your first post? Also that's a fairly weak case for such certainty.

From the very first of those quotes you post, and it's even clearer in the second, DP clearly doesn't think Jav's "antics" are going to achieve anything. So he isnt "undermining" Javert - because he doesn't think there is anything to be undermined.

no.

I'm disappointed by players reactions to Javert's antics. They are searching for reactions and you guys are giving them - bad ones.

He is moving us out of RVS even if it's by drawing negative attention to himself. Now get your votes off him.

I'll be looking at the various reactions to Javert to see which is most scummy.

Emphasis mine. He believes he can get reads off of the reactions. Later, at some point, he did admit to attempting similar tactics to what javert did in other games.

^ This. Especially given that his 194 shows he was clearly still thinking about the game, including its saccharine ending of "I'm helping town as much as I can at this point because in serious honestly, I would prefer town to win than the other scum team. I want them caught." It reads more like mafia trying to appear to be town's best friend (a really weird thing in and of itself) than mafia actually wanting to help the town. Basically, I'm treating everything he said as likely BS.

I completely fail to see what mafia would gain by lying about this.
That being said, I don't think it really changes anything anyway, so for the most part I think we can ignore it.


Having said all this, I'm not ready to throw my vote on the DP wagon today, I want to go over things some more myself and try and evaluate the case on Rob and reassess the game a bit more.

[magnus_orion]

god... I haven't posted in days =_=...
anyway... oso is clearly town at this point. JAveRT is clearly town too given yesterday's actions.
Edgerobin is a high priority suspect, due to oso's claim. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for the lack of kill
The likelyhood of 2 scumteams seems extremely high. I'm confused why anyone would doubt it.

@Davidparker: I seem to recall that you wish this game to be run like a debate. "point - counterpoint", is that correct? You seem to be attached to the counterpoint aspect today, though. Perhaps because the only point you seem to have today is a near baseless attack on Rob. I'd like to hear more productive comments from you.

You guys have goes at my use of words (ie: Rob's triple quote, where I say 3 different things that are slightly different), yet you are the ones constantly using phrases that manipulate what actually happened.

Can you specify whom the phrase "you guys" refers to?

ALLEGIANCE??!? Are you kidding? Phrases like that just make me think you are scum, there is plenty of reasons to be voting for me, and I can see why cases have been pushed against me, but using phrases like this that just misrepresent the truth is plain scummy.

Do you mind explaining what this is supposed to even mean?




@edgerobin: I believe it's already been pointed out, but asking for the RB to claim his target proves nothing at all. If anything you'd rather the information be presented earlier, regardless of faction, in order to account for it in future decisions and actions.

@prox: SPEAK... you've posted less than me!
Manut's been prodded, so we'll see how that turns out...

[magnus_orion]

oh right, I almost forgot, since its come up:

MOD: It would be greatly appreciated if you could answer the following question: if it were to be the case that there were 2 mafia (or other killing groups) in this game, and each had a different "kill flavor" (shot, stabbed, etc.), and more than one targetted the same person, would all the kill flavors be listed, or would one be chosen on some criteria, or what?

[magnus_orion]

Let's clear one thing magnus,

IF

there seems to be 2 scum groups, which it looks like there is

Javert is not cleared at all.

I'll even add that until we lynch edge and he flips confirm scum, oso technically isn't clear either

I am a skeptic by nature, I'm also ruined by playing at epic mafia, so sadly I beleive it's possible(although extremely doubtful) mafia could have NKd and made up this story

Do I beleive that has happened? No
Do I completely rule out the crazy thought? No

Oso and Javer earn credibility but I'd never say either is "confirmed" town

I do like Edge's post about Javert trying to guide Oso, nobody should bs telling oso how to use his role

It's the same as directing a cop, which isn't acceptable IMO either

No if. I have a strong town read on oso, irregardless of his claim and irregardless of the number of mafia factions. javert I also have a strong town read on, because he had no reason to believe the wagon on him would back off, and good reason to believe it would form. Plus, if he was bussing, he was pushing pretty hard and pretty fast... I'd say extremely. Javert was my strongest town read yesterday, and nothing has put any doubt on that today.

[magnus_orion]

I agree with the points david raised against conspiracy's last post, but not the level of strength of the accusation. I think david might be being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive, since he is vocally aware of his own lack of offense this game. I'm not totally certain this is scummy, though, given that it happened after I alerted him to it. However, it does make me slightly suspicious of david.

That said, I'm deeply concerned with and suspicious of Conspiracy's need to speculate on town power roles.

Back to david:

I think lynching who Oso claims to have blocked last night gives us just as much and probably more info than lynching someone we think is partnered with Ice. (And no, I'm not partnered with Ice and trying to save myself). We can confirm there is 2 killing parties, we can confirm Oso's claim, we can make potential connections to both mafia parties. Not to mention, that why are we trying to eliminate one mafia party altogether? You seem to be assuming that their night kills are only capable of hitting town.. There is a good probabilty of them hitting scum. I mean even if we knew 100% who ice's partner was, keeping him alive, turns him into more or less a random-vig who we will later lynch. There's no reason we should be speculating too hard into Ice's scum-buddy when there is no huge gain to lynching his scum buddy over lynching scum of the opposing party. (Once again, i'm not ice's buddy trying to save myself, I honestly believe this, I'd probably be trying to prove my innocence if I was just ice's buddy at this point).

^
This is very scummy, for a variety of reasons. Besides the obvious a priori, which indicates nervousness and self-preservation tendencies (which, admittedly isn't a strong scumtell), the suggestion that we should NOT attempt to lynch mafia, merely on the possibility of the mafias shooting each other, is extremely scummy.
Its simple:
We win if the mafia are dead.
Mafia win if we are dead.
We should try to kill mafia.

I find it highly improbable that, from a town perspective, a player would prefer more non-town aligned kills to less. Generally, the scum do hunt one another, yes, but that shouldn't be a reason to attempt to let them live, just a consequence of having two mafias with a chance of helping town.

I also see no reason as to why he shouldn't roleblock Edge again tonight, as it "seems" to have prevented a kill last night.

I don't think he's capable of doing that... I think oso said explicitly that he was incapable of blocking the kills two nights in a row.

[magnus_orion]

ebwop: that last line should rather be "incapable of blocking the same target two nights in a row"

[magnus_orion]

@david: so you're responding to this:

1. you advocate ignoring looking for Ice's scum buddy to go look for the other scum team, letting him just run around killing people. WTF

with this:

1. I'm saying we have role information leading us to very-probable scum. Of course looking for Ice's scum buddy is useful; but considering your entire few games play has consisted of making case after case on a town player (yeah it's different from my perspective) it kind of highlights to me how futile that effort is and how we are probably just better off lynching based on the information revealed through Oso's role.

BUT

I think lynching who Oso claims to have blocked last night gives us just as much and probably more info than lynching someone we think is partnered with Ice. (And no, I'm not partnered with Ice and trying to save myself). We can confirm there is 2 killing parties, we can confirm Oso's claim, we can make potential connections to both mafia parties.

Not to mention, that why are we trying to eliminate one mafia party altogether? You seem to be assuming that their night kills are only capable of hitting town.. There is a good probabilty of them hitting scum. I mean even if we knew 100% who ice's partner was, keeping him alive, turns him into more or less a random-vig who we will later lynch. There's no reason we should be speculating too hard into Ice's scum-buddy when there is no huge gain to lynching his scum buddy over lynching scum of the opposing party.

(Once again, i'm not ice's buddy trying to save myself, I honestly believe this, I'd probably be trying to prove my innocence if I was just ice's buddy at this point).

Are you claiming in the 2nd quote of this post that you did not say the bolded?

[magnus_orion]

DP's been ignoring me, and everything I've said.

vote: DP

Now he's at L-1. There's your pressure.

[magnus_orion]

fine... you beg the question what you WERE trying to say in the indicated post, then.

[magnus_orion]

Edgerobin is scum, 99.999999999%
However, Javert's point about role-blocking edge is good. So let's take out ICE's partner first.

[magnus_orion]

Javert's not scum. Please don't vote him.
oso, who did you block?

[magnus_orion]

...
what javert said.
also, Conspiracy, why me?

[magnus_orion]

Then Prox is probably scum.
Willing to bet Rob is the last one we're looking for.

[magnus_orion]

You make it so very tempting to lynch you regardless when you say things like that Javert :p
But seriously, I don't think you're scum.

@ oso: YO!

I'm the doc. Well, sort of. The role's name is given as "Med Student" I can protect someone each night. I'm not told whether or not the protection was successful... If it is successful, however, then my protections no longer work after that point. I basically become a vanilla.
I think I was probably successful Night 2 when I protected oso.
I protected Javert N1, and Rob N3 (cause Oso said to, and I didn't really think it mattered cause I thought I was successful N2)

Besides his overt pro-townness, it should be obvious then, why I don't think Javert's scum just on account that Oso blocked him.

[magnus_orion]

how about this:
Scum attempt to kill oso n2 -> I protect oso -> My protections don't work anymore -> I couldn't have protected rob last night -> Oso's block worked last night -> Prox is scum.
We lynch prox, and then block rob.
When there is no kill we lynch rob and win the game.

Since I've claimed, this logic is valid, and unless additional information leading to contradictions or issues with this comes up, which would be through a mass claim, then I suggest this to be the most obvious course of action.

Rob is making no sense.

magnus, just because Javert seems "pro-town" doesn't make him clear, especially with 2 mafia groups. I can point to a game where chesskid had the biggest pro-town vibe in the game and he was scum and single handily won the game because nobody thought he was scum AND that game was also a 2 mafia group game. Javert was blocked and both groups kills failed

Yeah both kills failed the night after I doc-protected an extremely powerful claimed pro-town role that would heavily be in scum's best interest to eliminate, rather than, say, ignore.
Hmm... I wonder why they failed.
The fact that you're pushing this so hard is not only suspicious, but also confusing.

n2 - had to determine if Oso's block was legit

Why didn't you investigate Oso?

@conspiracy:

Because I had either you or Rob as ICE´s partner. Rob wouldn´t be roleblocked, because of him being cop.
You being blocked + no knife night-kill = you scum

Okay.
But I wasn't blocked. And Prox was.
So then... Does that mean
Prox being blocked + no knife night-kill = prox scum?
Cause I think it does.

[magnus_orion]

double post.
I re-read my role pm to clarify 1 thing, and noticed something else, so I have 2 clarifications to make
1. The protection stops working the night after a successful protection, so presumably I can block all kills during 1 night
2. I may be able to successfully protect tonight if I was successful night 2, I had assumed I can never protect successfully again, but upon re-reading I noticed that its possible to interpret my role pm as only preventing me from protecting only one night after I successfully make a protection.

[magnus_orion]

@rob: No. You investigate oso, because Oso could still be lying and/or bussing.

You're not making any sense because I haven't seen a sensible case why Javert is likely scum. You are just claiming that Javert HAD to be blocked for the kills to fail. But that's clearly not true. So why is Javert scum?


(Checked again, wording is such that I make the player live if they would have died, so yeah, I can block all kills if they target the same person, definitely.)

[magnus_orion]

how about both scum targetted the insane power role, and both were blocked by my protect?
There, I explained how two kills failed.

[magnus_orion]

argh... So prox probably didn't submit the kill.
Where does that leave us? Technically it still lends credibility to the theory that Prox is scum, but... It makes it less certain that the lack of kill was the result of oso's block, it could be the result of some other mechanic.
I find it hard to believe that scum didn't both try to off oso N2, though.
As scum I'd have played this game by killing every night, so maybe I'm just, uh, biased towards believing scum wouldn't no-kill.
I find it slightly plausible that scum have cross-kill immunity, I think Javert mentioned mod-meta lending credence to this, so that might explain some things away. I just don't think scum would try to use lack of kills as a framing mechanism.
...
Additional Thought:
Actually if it was jan 24 that prox stopped posting and left the site, that lines up with the opening of day 2 here, which would explain the lack of a knife kill on both consecutive nights...

[magnus_orion]

Also question for the doc, why did it take you multiple times to post your role and restrictions? When I claimed I read my entire role pm and summarized it, you kept changing your story. I'm not saying you aren't the doc because in this setup doc makes sense, but you do lose credibility points if you are alive in lylo IMO.

Because I had originally misunderstood.
When I read your arguments, I wanted to check my role to clarify whether I lost the power to protect after a successful protection, or the night after a successful protection (the difference being whether or not I could save someone from 2 kills in one night), upon re-reading my role pm to check this clarification, I noticed that my previous understanding (that I lost the power forever after a successful protection) was actually incorrect, and a more thorough reading of my role pm indicated that I could protect again after only one night of uselessness.

Also, fun fact: liars are usually more certain of their story than people telling the truth. Cause the liar picks his story and sticks with it, while the truth teller tries to recount events from memory.
Anyway, I lose credibility if I'm alive in lylo by virtue of my role regardless.

Like I said earlier, if I was scum fake claiming, would I really claim innocent on a dead guy? yea I know this is wifom but honestly scum would look more credible claiming inno on someone alive

You don't know who the last scum is, you could accidentally claim an innocent on him unless you know his flip for sure.

[magnus_orion]

1. I thought it was clear. I didn't see ambiguity in my first interpretation. I was mistaken, but I didn't think it was unclear.
2. too bad. I posted from memory
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =111809280
5th paragraph, last sentence especially... Not the original article I remember this from, but it says the same thing.
I have no idea how valid or what type of evidence your website has, but its clearly disagreed with by this 2009 article. I'm have no guarantee about the validity of the experts mentioned or the article itself, but I have also heard this from other articles before, and it seems reasonable.

Its a minor point, though, because as I said before, I lose credibility merely being alive in lylo anyway.

Also, if

Also another note a person who is often lying wants to change subjects and take attention off of his lie, I am not doing that either because i am not lying. I want to discuss the matter till I am blue in the face to prove I am not lying.

then

I have provided everything I know about my role and I have explained my reasoning for investigating the person I investigated and

CHANGES SUBJECT FROM HIS ROLE MIDSENTENCE HERE

now I am really suspicious of Oso because he has the most town cred right now and I have never even heard of his role, and the more I think of it, i don't think his role would even pass the review process because it is too powerful of a town role. a RB that can block an entire faction's night kill

Bold text added by me.

[magnus_orion]

I'm gonna be V/LA for a bit... exams for the next few weeks to deal with...

... @Jerbs: what is with 490 vs 500?

[magnus_orion]

1. That is not at all what it sounds like to me from those posts
2. You

are

voting rob right now.

[magnus_orion]

magnus_orion, will you have enough time to send a night action in if there is a lynch while you are V/LA? We cannot afford for you to miss sending in an action. Please take into account that jimfinn has 48-hour deadlines for Night.

Yeah, I should... I'll try to check every day at least once so I don't miss it.

Ok guys, I promised to get a Javert case this weekend. Although I still think he is Edge's partner, I would like to point this out.
If you don't have the time to read this, read the blue lines. However, it is important to understand my line of thought and I highly suggest at least skimming through it.

Setup deduction

According to the mass-claim we have this:
2 knife mafia (presumably goons)
2 gun mafia (presumably goons)
1 entertainer (conditioned super roleblocker)
1 cop
1 medic student (conditioned doc)
6 VT

I don't think the mafias have any special powers. If one has a power, the other should have one, too. With both one power the setup is far too balanced towards the mafia. Those should be either 1-shot or a semi-useful role (voyeur, bodyguard, etc.) to stop them making overpowered. On top of that we would have been very unlucky to have both goons killed which is just a 25% chance to occur.
On top of that the scum has a possibility of having a day-QT, as ICE said when he outed himself. I know this doesn't have to be true, but he didn't lie about the 2 scum teams either.

However, 2 goon mafia with the entertainer, cop and medic student is far too balanced towards town. If either the entertainer or the cop outs himself he can be protected by the med student and won't be attacked until the med student is killed. If one of the entertainer or the cop is killed fast town can fully rely on the other and when the med student is killed both the entertainer and the cop have a free night.
Even if both mafias have a one-shot power, those can't be useful enough to help mafia enough to wall up against 3 powers.

Conclusion: The entertainer/cop/med student is overpowered and one of them must have lied

Rules application

We have a medic student and an entertainer. Both roles are odd and don't occur often. I searched for some statistics and found this:

New/variant roles may be included in limited number (no more than 1 in a Mini, 2 in a Large), and should be based on the usual role mechanics: Killing, Protecting, Investigating, Blocking, Voting, Enabling and Communication.

This means that there may just be 1 special role.
After that I searched if 1 of both roles can be normal and found this:

Roles which are explicitly Normal include:
Vanilla Townie, Sane Cop, Doctor, Vigilante, Roleblocker, Mason, Jailkeeper, Tracker, Watcher, Gunsmith, Miller, Bodyguard, Role Cop, Doublevoter, Hider, Neighbor, Bulletproof, Jack of All Trades, Serial Killer, Mafia Traitor, Mafia Godfather, Mafia Framer, Mafia-aligned versions of above roles

This are the non-variant possible modifiers:

Modifiers which are explicitly Normal include:
Even/Odd Night, Non-Consecutive Night, X-Shot, Macho, Weak, Back-Up (with or without primary role present)

Let's read back both the medic student and the entertainer to see if both apply for variant role.

I'm the doc. Well, sort of. The role's name is given as "Med Student" I can protect someone each night. I'm not told whether or not the protection was successful... If it is successful, however, then my protections no longer work after that point. I basically become a vanilla.
I think I was probably successful Night 2 when I protected oso.
I protected Javert N1, and Rob N3 (cause Oso said to, and I didn't really think it mattered cause I thought I was successful N2)

I re-read my role pm to clarify 1 thing, and noticed something else, so I have 2 clarifications to make
1. The protection stops working the night after a successful protection, so presumably I can block all kills during 1 night
2. I may be able to successfully protect tonight if I was successful night 2, I had assumed I can never protect successfully again, but upon re-reading I noticed that its possible to interpret my role pm as only preventing me from protecting only one night after I successfully make a protection.

Apart fromt he ambiguity about changing his RC, this is definitely a variant role. The Non-Consecutive Night comes near, but isn't the same: He can protect consecutive nights, but doesn't know the second time the protection doesn't count.

Let's see the entertainer role, then:

Claim: Entertainer (for the purposes of this game that means roleblocker)

I function as a normal roleblocker but have a restriction and a bonus. I can't target the same player two nights in a row but if I block a member of a group, I block any team abilities they have as well (whether the person I actually target has any abilities or not). It probably goes without saying but I'll say it anyway: Town wins, I win.

This also is definitely a variant role. Non of the "possible" modifiers do not even come close to this.

Conclusion: 1 of them is scum, or both of them are scum

Setup deduction II

This brings me to the second point. If either Oso or Magnus is scum, the setup can only be (cop/)entertainer, (cop/)med student. However, only an entertainer or a med student is far too overpowered towards town. That would mean (if town loses night 1 either the entertainer or the med student) the setup would be either 7:2:2 or 8:2:1. Both are far to much scum favored and there has to be at least one cross kill to grant town a win (in the second one that isn't true, but is very difficult to win without). A game that is based on a cross kill is extremely town unfavoured.
A cop, however, doesn't make the other role overpowered (as a doc would) and would lessen the uphill battle.

Conclusion: The cop is town

Oso scum

If Oso is scum, he would have given us a very good fake-claim. He has to be scum with either Edgerobin or ICEninja.
Edgerobin-partner: Very unlikely, since he solely caused suspicion on edge.
ICEninja-partner: This one is more interesting. He was the fourth voter of the ICE wagon and could be scum throwing his partner under the bus. A scum day-QT would make this possibility a lot higher, but still. All Oso did day 1 after voting ICE was focussing on ICE. An experienced player would know the first wagon to be made doesn't necessarely have to be the lynch. The Oso knife scum would at least have left that road open.

Magnus scum

If Magnus is scum, he would be:
Edgerobin-partner: Let's get some quotes in

Edgerobin is a high priority suspect, due to oso's claim. However, there are plausible alternative explanations for the lack of kill

True, when I read this, I immediately thought about him being the med student (although it could be a fake doc crumb). However, this gives a great connection to me: Yes edge is my scumpartner, but I'd rather let him live. It leaves a bus attempt wide open.

Edgerobin is scum, 99.999999999%
However, Javert's point about role-blocking edge is good. So let's take out ICE's partner first.

Exactly the same.
These are the only things about Edge that said Edgetown/Edgescum. He only asked questions in the other Edge-mentions. Let's give that a gun mafia possibility.
ICE-partner: I have pointed this out earlier, but I will do it again.

I'm still gonna need ICE to clarify the stuff I mentioned in 106, but as of right now I'm not really supportive of the ICE wagon... that being said, Poirot has mentioned things to the effect that more interesting things lie after this wagon was pursued somewhat, but the initial foundation, at least, I feel is pretty shaky. I'll need to look into these later things poirot's referred to when I have more time...

That's ICE-partner +1. I give it a +2 because he kept asking about ICE without forming an opinion. Those questions weren't calling ICE either scum or town. So magnus is also possible to be scum with Ice.

Conclusion: Magnus is scum, Oso is high likely to be town

VOTE: Magnus_Orion

Well guys, that is a sudden change isn't it?

So am I to take all this to mean you think I'm knife mafia (cause you think javert is gun)? K. I think you're arguments are flawed from their initial premises. I do see how you can interpret those quotes that way, but the "crumb" interpretations were correct. I was saying those things because I could've protected javert night 1, instead of oso blocking edge, and if my block worked n2, it would make it highly likely edge was scum. And if it didn't work, it would make it nearly absolute that Edge was town. I didn't have a strong read on edge, so I was relying primarily on role info in regards to edge.

[magnus_orion]

I protected oso last night. I'll obviously protect him again tonight. Believed him more than rob.
Javert is cleared, which leaves mute conspiracy and jerbs

The way I see it, it can play out this way:
Oso blocks one of them tonight, we lynch one of them. -2 leaves one suspect. If there is no kill it comes down to 5 players alive instead, and its either me or the person oso blocked. Lynch one, then lynch the other, we win.
If there is a kill than it comes down to 4 players either me or the other person. But we can't auto win unless we no-lynch
We no lynch and oso blocks the last suspect. There will be no kill, if there is a kill I have to be scum.
Since I'm not there won't be a kill but if there is we won't lose. So then you can still lynch me
I could've chosen to no-kill though, so that doesn't matter once there is no kill, so we go at it again, only oso's block doesn't work so they kill the only innocent left, which leaves oso to decide between me and the last remaining suspect.
So we should choose our targets for the noose and blocks so its me and the least likely of jerbs conspiracy or mute to choose between, so that we lynch the scum before it comes down to me and this other person. Of course If I'm believed, all this is unnecessary, we've already won, but since I've been called into question by conspiracy, whose taken the only stance that the mafia could take to have a chance in this game, and his aggressiveness does conflict with his earlier hesitations on ICEninja, but I'm still unsure. At some point I'll probably go over the game and post my thoughts on the three of them... I'm still busy with exams and things.

[magnus_orion]

uh no, you're not. Assuming only the gun mafia remains, then the fact that there was a night kill means that I didn't successfully protect anyone.
No protection = I can protect again tonight.
I only can't protect anyone the night after I successfully prevent a night kill.

[magnus_orion]

Because I

Believed him more than rob.

As I said previously.


Rob's results were nothing short of convenient and I felt that Oso, whose claim has some physical evidence to back it up, what with the missing kills that I couldn't attribute to my own role, had a claim which was more believable, especially considering what prox/shatteredviewpoint flipped.
I've basically been considering oso as conf-town. Frankly I don't see how he could've done what he's done this game as scum.
Rob on the other hand, had a very poor investigation history, and his results were all information that were public knowledge. Frankly, his results were rather convenient, so I found him highly suspect.
Between oso and rob, I had been of the opinion that Oso was more likely to be town, so
1. I wouldn't be wasting my protection on scum
2. If rob were killed, which he was, it would eliminate one of the suspects I had

And I'm pretty sure the game works out the same way, or possibly slightly more difficult for us, if oso is dead instead of rob at this point. Also, I trusted oso more than rob.

[magnus_orion]

btw, @conspiracy: why unvote when you are so certain I'm scum?
I mean you even grammatically take it as given that I'm scum here:

With that fake-claim he got himself in the best position ever. He can hunt down conf townies while not being roleblocked nor being questioned about his doc save.

It seems inconsistent. If you're so certain I'm scum then unvoting me makes no sense, unless you're either insincere about your level of suspicion of me, or merely trying to please the conftown so he doesn't get suspicious of you. Or both.
I mean you're using such extremely aggressive language, unvoting me hardly seems in line with that at all.

[magnus_orion]

oh, ok.
In 4 player lylo we can lynch one and roleblock the other.
I hadn't thought of that.
So yeah, we win.

[magnus_orion]

not gonna wait on Jerbs then?
Should we just lynch Conspiracy?

[magnus_orion]

understood.

VOTE: vote: jerbs

[magnus_orion]

gg