Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[Axelrod]

Hello! I am replacing Ramus.


It's Thanksgiving Holiday and everything, but I'm going to try and put some time into this later today.

Looking forward to it.

[Axelrod]

I have skimmed. Apparently I replaced a guy with a stick up his rear.

First impressions are that I think I approve of this CR wagon we are having and Mizzy comes across as pretty townie. The way Destructor is defending CR comes across as weird and I don't think I like him either.

Battousi seems all right. As does MM.

Unvote

I realize that doesn't tell anyone much of anything yet. I'll probably come back and make a real "case" on someone later.

Death-Millers are totally bogus also.

Apparently we also have a rapidly approaching deadline, so in the interests of moving things along I'd like to suggest to CR that he maybe go ahead and claim if he's got something to claim.

[Axelrod]

ugg, I am so behind.

I'm not very interested in getting into quote wars, as that tends to really bog down threads, so I'm

trying

to be concise.

I disliked CR early on from post #54 (where he lends support to the Ramus wagon but goes and votes someone else). It is always suspicious to me when someone expresses suspicion of one person, but, in the very same post, votes for another person. And in this case, the alleged reason for the vote was quite weak "Why were you defending Ramus."

I find ortolan more sensible at almost every point during those long back and forth post wars they were having.

There appears to be genuine frustration in post #125 where CR snipes that people are giving Destructor a pass for doing the same thing that he supposedly did - but is also very careful to say he doens't think what Destructor did was scummy.

I also found post #155 to be a strange piece of mis-direction, when seemingly out of the blue CR goes back to Ramus and asks (paraphrase) "Hey, wasn't what he did scummy?" CR goes back to this several times (without ever voting for Ramus - it's like he's just trying to stir up suspicion).

I really, really hate attacking someone for being "overly defensive." That is one of the most over-rated "tells" in the book. And, incidentally, impossible to "defend" oneself against, as they just accuse you of being even

more

defensive every time you defend yourself. Makes me want to pull my hair out at times.

More recently, after calling ort. scum in almost every post, CR Unvotes. What? He says he

still

doesn't think Ort. is pro-town, but says he's "tunneling" too much, so apparently he is just going to give up and try and find his #2 suspect.

What this

appears

to be is an attempt by CR to diffuse the situation between himself and Ort., to try and get the focus off himself and onto someone else. He goes for Battousi, who admittedly hasn't been the most sterling of posters, but in this context might be seen as something of an easy target.

The reason for asking for a claim is because, you know, DEADLINE, which is now coming in 2 days. If we want the prospective lynchee to have any time at all to claim and for us to respond to it, then it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

I'm conflicted about CR claiming that his posting in this game is different from other games where he was scum. On the one hand, that's almost the very definition of WIFOM. On the other hand, it's actually not all that easy to change one's playstyles on a dime. Particularly going from being a "lurking" scum to a very aggressive/attacking scum. It's certainly possible though, and it's more possible if one is

aware

of one's prior tendencies as scum (which CR clearly is) so, even assuming it's true, I don't think I'm going to give him huge points for it.

Frankly, the deadline is very annoying, because there

are

other people worth looking at. In re-reading, I don't like the Admiral very much, and Uriel has been a huge non-entity. Caboose I haven't got many thoughts on but what MM pointed out about the lurking here as opposed to other games is definitely concerning. (basically, I agree with MM in #175).

I am less happy than him in just going after the lurker at deadline, however. I'd rather see CR at least put in a claiming position.

Vote: ClockworkRuse

I'm not a big fan of Destructor either. People I do like right now are CarnCarn, Ort. MM, and Mizzy. They are coming off as the most "townie" sounding.

[Axelrod]

@Axelrod: I assume you meant #195 when you said "basically, I agree with MM in #175"?

Um, yes, I meant that. Although technically what I'm agreeing with is your point #2 in post 195, not your point #1.

CR: my suggestion that you claim was based on the deadline. We no longer have a deadline (although one could go back on at any moment).

I'm thinking I might prefer ThAdmiral as a target right now, for a

lot

of wishy-washyness, including a vote-unvote-vote-unvote string in successive posts and failure to express strong opinions about anyone.

Perhaps a case shall follow!

[Axelrod]

townlist:
mizzy
carncarn
mach-maf
axelrod

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like kinds of lists. The players often end up dead the next day.

FoS: roflcopter

It's just you. Lists are fine.

Especially

if the player just replaced in. I'd vastly prefer if people came out periodically and just said who they were viewing as town/scum at that point in the game. At least they are taking a stand on something.

[Axelrod]

I would respond to Axel if I knew what his issue with me was.

I will give you a few.

Your Post #122, has a few things I consider questionable, but the biggest is when you say this:

I think there is/are scum on the CR wagon. I think Batt may fit the description. I'd vote for Batt right now, but Caboose is on his wagon already.

You have not said anything about Caboose up to this point, but the only interpertation that I can give to this post is that you are finding Batt. scummy, you would like to vote for him, BUT, Caboose (who you ALSO think is scummy) is already voting for him, causing you a dilemma. Could you be "wrong" about Batt? Could Caboose be bussing his scum-buddy? And due to this dilemma, you choose to vote for no one.

If that is, in fact, your logic, then I don't like it very much. It's very questionable to refrain from voting player X because player Y is voting for him. And if you think player Y is scummier, then why don't you just vote for player Y? This is being non-committal.

In post #133, you apparently no longer have problems voting for Batt. It

appears

, however, that your primary motivation for the vote is general inactivity and a desire to get things moving. You don't make any kind of actual case here or urge others to vote the same way.

Getting things moving is not always a bad reason to vote someone, but the way you did it in that post does not strike me as a vote actually calculated to make something happen. Batt. was not under any serious kind of pressure that I remember at that point.

You have no other focus on any other player that I see other than Batt. - though you question several. Right up until most recently where you Unvote, saying his recent posts have looked good.

You do a lot of defending of CR, which, as you can imagine, I don't agree with. Right up until recently where you ask yourself if you are missing something because both the most recent replacements have found him suspicious. I find it a little odd that you would post something like that.

You also do a bit of asking for other players to be prodded. It's a bit of a meta-thing, but I find too much of that scummy.

My big question for you at this moment is: what was up with that "Caboose" remark in #122. What are you/were you feeling about him?

[Axelrod]

CR: please allow me to answer the completely strawman question you keep asking ("why am I scum because I didn't join a wagon?") which no one is actually arguing.

First, the post in question:

Ah, I see. I hadn't heard of that and I thought it was role oriented. Sorry for the inactiveness so far, I've been a tad bit busy in other games. I'll start paying attention more right now.

As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him, but I would like a better explaination about why he self-voted rather than someone else explaining something about his last game.

Vote: ortolan Why were you defending Ramus?

This shouldn't be too hard to understand. It is

suspicious

when one makes a post wherein one

begins

said post by expressing suspicions about one player (in this case Ramus), but

ends

the post by voting for a completely different player (in this case ortolan) who has been defending (very weakly) the first player.

It is suspicious because it doesn't make a great deal of sense. It is as though you are chaining your suspicions - you think Ramus is scum, therefore you think the person "defending" him is scum - and vote for the person at the end of the chain (which fails because if Ramus

isn't

scum, then your reasons to vote for ort. completely fail, so you ought to be voting for Ramus

first

to verify that suspicion, and only

then

vote people for "defending" him - though that can be a questionable basis even when you

know

the first player was scum).

But wait, you say, I wasn't expressing "suspicion" of Ramus in that post! I didn't say I thought he was scum! I didn't vote for him! So where are you getting all that bull!

Well, secondly, your post is suspicious for the

way

you talked about Ramus. Because you

didn't

say you thought he was scummy, you

didn't

say you agreed with the people voting for him, what you said was that you thought there was "adequate pressure." What the heck does that mean then?

The

logical

,

commonsense

interpretation, is that you

do

agree with those voting for him, you

do

agree that there should be at least

some

pressure on him, but for some reason, you think the current amount of pressure is "enough." Enough to do what, one might ask, but I digress. You then proceed to lend further support to the notion that you find Ramus suspicious, by stating that you want him to answer a question - to give a "better" explanation for something. The

clear

implication being that, if a better explanation is not forthcoming, you might decide to vote for him.

And then, despite this apparent focus on Ramus, you then jump over to someone completely different. You vote ortolan, and don't even give a reason for this vote beyond asking "why were you defending Ramus?"

Why were you going to let Ramus answer before voting for him, but voted ortolan immediately without giving him a chance to respond to your "question." Why did it bother you at all that ortolan was "defending" Ramus - if not because you thought there could be no defense for the scumminess that was Ramus?

What this post reads like, on its face, is you lending verbal support to the wagon on Ramus, without committing yourself to it. Without voting. Which is something that scum will often do when a townie is being wagoned - because they want the townie to be lynched, but don't want to push for it too aggressively, lest they appear suspicious for pushing an incorrect wagon. This is pretty basic stuff.

Am I over-reading your post? Certainly. Was it very early in the game? Absolutely. Do I have too much free time on my hands at the moment? Possibly.

But, regardless of that, whatever the merits of the accusations, they are most certainly NOT saying "dur, he's scum because he didn't jump on that wagon...."

Here endeth the lesson.

[Axelrod]

CR: I'm aware of your previous explanations. I wasn't actually asking you to go over them again. I was trying to point out the strawman nature of that question you kept demanding an answer to (over and over), and which you were acting like it proved something that no one was answering.

And none of those posts you quote are people accusing you of being scum simply because you didn't join a wagon. If they say anything about it at all, they at least explain

why

they thought your post was scummy.

[Axelrod]

I still have to do a thing up on thAdmiral. He's really doing a lot of "vote/quick unvote" at the first sign of a defense. And general wishy-washyness.

[Axelrod]

Okay, while we have a little time, here's what I got on thAdmiral:

What stuck out at first, was the complete lack of talking about anyone else. All his early posts are general/theory type remarks, and he rather pointedly doesn't attack anyone or vote for anyone (other than random 1st vote).

The first post where he expresses an opinion about anyone is Here. And it's a pretty wishy-washy opinion - "ortolan was 'a bit' defense, but that just seems like his natural play," "I don't think Battousi is scum, but it doesn't appear he's really scum-hunting" and "I don't want to pick between either of bat/CR."

Well, go find someone to pick then, how about that? Instead of sitting back and waiting to see who the rest of the players offer up to you on a silver platter?

Ultimately he will Vote: ortolan close to the deadline, even though still expressing doubts about same.

It's somewhat notable to me that thAdmiral hasn't really

said

anything about CR up to this point. Hasn't defended him, hasn't criticized those voting for him, nothing. Despite that CR's the largest wagon of the game. All he's said is that he hoped he didn't have to pick between bat/CR because he didn't think either were scum.

He immediately unvotes Ort in his next post, and jumps to the Caboose lurker wagon. This is now his "favorite" lynch, though, again he hasn't said anything about Caboose up to this point. One must assume that he's basing this vote entirely on MM's vote from post #195.

This vote too is immedaitely unvoted in thAdmiral's next post after Caboose makes a post, and he has been questioned for calling Caboose his "favorite" lynch. Says he hopes we could find a better target than a lurker. Still does not appear to be making any efforts to find said target himself, however.

The most aggressive post he has made in the game comes
Here when he criticizes CarnCarn for setting up what he calls a binary lynch (i.e. saying something like, if X flips town then we go after Y, or vice-versa). Doesn't vote for Carn here.

It is interesting to me that he

continues

to question those voting for CR, without ever actually saying anything about CR himself. He says it seems to him the people voting CR are voting him for his "play" choices, rather than his being scummy, and he asks for clarification. Personally, I would think that if you did NOT find CR to be scummy or a good lynch target, and he was so close to a lynch approaching a deadline, you'd say more about it (as town). You'd be more critical of those voting him, perhaps.

He then votes roflcopter because of what he perceives as his "tunneling" on CR, and poor logic in making assumptions about who would be scum-buddies with CR before we know CR's alignment. He also makes a bizarre point about rofl's play in another game, where rofl was NOT mafia, but thAdmiral is comparing his play in that game to his play in this game, and making some kind of point which I don't even understand. Sounds like he's just saying that rofl has a history of being wrong about people, but still acting certain even when he's wrong.

Again, this vote is quickly unvoted in thAdmiral's last post. Why? Because rofl has apparently made a "fair" point that "bad play does not = scum." It is as if he realized his own earlier point did not make any sense.

He still doesn't pick anyone to go after or call anyone scummy-looking. What he says now is that the case against Caboose is not a

bad

case, but that he won't be following it. (because....it's not good enough?)

He's been extremely non-committal for the entire game. He's avoided discussing other players. Every vote he has cast has been quickly unvoted. It very much looks like scum coasting, trying to stay below everyone's radar by not rendering any strong opinions.

What about it Admiral? Who looks scummy to you

right now

(and why.)

[Axelrod]

Yeah, I'm fairly well wary of Natirasha right about now. One post and he's off to quite a start. Thinking all the scum are on the CR wagon, but I'm townie (I'm on the CR wagon). Also has CarnCarn as "solidly town" (CarnCarn is on the CR wagon). Vote Mizzy (not on the CR wagon).

His predecessor was also entirely useless.

Unvote

I'm not sure what to do at the moment. I'm going to try to review some more, and then decide.

[Axelrod]

Unvote

It's interesting to see that axelrod/ thadmiral put both CarnCarn and CR at 3 votes each (just 1 under the necessary amount for a deadline lynch. Lynching both CR and CarnCarn could give us some information (obviously lynching CR would give us the most of the two).

I do believe in information lynching (with support from thinking that they are guilty), is not bad on D1, so I'm going to vote CR.

I'm wondering exactly what you think is "interesting" about it (ignoring the fact that I said I was unvoting pending a review).

Are you implying that you think I/we are trying to sneakily get the town to No Lynch?

[Axelrod]

Well, we are quickly running out of time. Natirasha has done nothing since coming in to make me think better about him than I did about uriel (which was not good). He's make one very odd and self contradictory post and commented that

everyone

seems artificial.

I think I'd rather push this lynch than any other at the moment.

Vote: Natirasha

[Axelrod]

... What? If I live through this day, you can certainly expect a re-read on you. You are willing to lynch based on one post by a player?

Well, ignoring for the moment the posts of the player he replaced (which I wasn't), when we're up against a dealine, and considering that the one thing he did say made absolutely no sense at all...yes. I'd just as soon get rid of someone who might be scum and is definitely going to be useless as someone who might be scum but is at least posting.

But I'm not against the Caboose wagon either. Reviewing his posts, he's managed to be just as useless but used more words. I've never played with him before, so I don't know how he typically is, but this doesn't look too good.

I don't know when the deadline hits my time (Eastern Standard). I can next check back in around 9:00 a.m. in case something else happens.

[Axelrod]

Welcome Urzasedatives, fancy meeting you here....

With the new extension, I'm leaving my vote right where it is until Nat. does his promised "re-read" and actually comes back and says something productive.

[Axelrod]

I feel like I'm falling down on the job this game. I've just been too distracted to do much recently. Nat's contribution above: "I strongly disagree with this lynch, but I want to live," does not make me feel like changing my vote.

This is what I got the vote at right now:

5 ClockworkRuse (ortolan, roflcopter, Urzassedatives, CarnCarn, Natirasha)
1 Urzassedatives (ClockworkRuse)
3 Natirasha (Axelrod, Mizzy, Machiavellian-Mafia)
1 CarnCarn (destructor)
1 roflcopter (ThAdmiral)

[Axelrod]

Well, this will be good for some information at the very least.

[Axelrod]

I've got a real bad case of the Christmas bussies right now. Which means I'm not keeping up with any of my games. But I've found that if I make a promise to post something meaningful

tomorrow

I usually feel obligated to do it, so that's what I'm doing right now.

TSQ: I'm very sorry for your loss.

[Axelrod]

Okay, so, apparently I lied. Maybe tomorrow. Sorry for my poor participation guys.

[Axelrod]

Most of my "stuff" is done now, so I'm going to be getting back up to speed here shortly (and this time I mean it.) Expect good things soon.

[Axelrod]

Gah. So, completely ignoring what everyone else is talking about, this is what I'm trying to do: I'm compiling a list of what everyone's basic position was on Nat. prior to the lynch.

Then I'm going to compile what everyone's position on roflocoptor was on Day 1.

Then I'm going to compile what everyone's opinion on

me

was on Day 1 (this last won't mean much to anyone else, but I do it for me).

Then I'm going to vote for someone who comes off looking bad as a result of some combination of these three things.

Starting now.

[Axelrod]

This is going to be too long to cover everyone in one post, so I'm going to do it in several.

Battousai

(38 posts in the game):

No comments about Uriel (Nat's predecessor). First opinion of any kind on Nat. comes in Post #394 where he says he doesn't want to lynch Nat. Says that in his experience this is generally Nat's playing style (not 100% what kind of playing style he is referring to here. Lurking and not contributing?)

I'll also note right off the top that this is one of the things I am specifically looking for in this review - people who avoid the Nat. wagon for the reason "oh, that's just the way Nat. is."

At this point, there are 2 people voting for Nat., myself and Mizzy. For myself, it's specifically because Nat. is being completely and totally useless. From my perspective, there's no excuse for this. Nat. cannot be defended here. What's more, I see no reason why a townie would even

try

to defend him. He has done nothing worthy of defense. So when people pop up and say things like this it's going to be an immediate Red Flag for me.

That doesn't mean that you can't think someone else is scummier looking. That doesn't mean you can't think that it's a better idea to go after someone who's more active, rather than engage in what's essentially a lurker-hunt. But what you can't do is excuse Nat. for "just being Nat." and have it not come off as mightily suspicious.

So, negative points to Bat. for that.

This is essentially all Bat. has to say about Nat. Bat. does not appear to be around for the deadline and ends the day voting for no one. More negative points there. Hrm.

Urzasedatives

(formerly Caboose):

--

Caboose

(22 posts in game): First mention of Nat. comes in

Post #34 where he's actually talking about Ramus, but references that he's familiar with Nat's "history" - which appears to mean a history of Nat. being vague and unhelpful. This appears to be a psychic post because Nat. isn't even in the game at this point.

Caboose questioned Uriel a few times, and at least seemed cautious about him while he was in the game. Nothing stands out as suspicious there.

Didn't say anything about Nat. because he got replaced out before Nat. did. Which leads us to -

--

Urza

: who enters the game with a big Post #375. In this post he appears cautious about Uriel. He does some analysis, which at least on the surface appears to be a genuine attempt, and concludes that Uriel might be a clueless townie, but is currently the second best lynch target for the day. I don't have an inherrent problem with that kind of reasoning.

His main focus is on CR from the get go. He says he's be willing to lynch Nat. in a deadline situation, but would much prefer CR. I don't have a problem with that kind of attitude either.

So, nothing there is sticking out to me, at least as far as how Urza responded to Nat.

But, before I go too much farther with this whole line of inquiry, maybe I ought to ask a general question: does Nat. actually have a well known reputation for being some kind of super flake/terrible player on Mafiascum? If he does, then this line is going to have less value than I was hoping it would. Because it's going to make the argument "oh, that's just Nat. being Nat..." at least a little more plausible.

[Axelrod]

ugg. I can't believe I also forgot there was a traitor in this game who's going to come up "town" when they die. That makes doing what I'm trying to do more problematic.

But, the scum don't know who the traitor is, yes?, so they'll presumably be treating him as a townie, which makes it not entirely useless.

[Axelrod]

Quick reviews of CC and Destructor have me leaning more towards a Destructor vote at the moment. I really don't like the way he abandoned responsibility for the lynch between Nat. and CR. Basically - here I am going to vote this person which now ties the votes up and I'm going to let everyone else decide who to actually lynch.

CC might be scum, he's not been super-town, but there are a few things he said which have me wondering.

I know thAdmiral made a post about me with some horribly misguided vote attached to it also, but I haven't really looked it over yet. Maybe later. And he could still be scum too.

Did I mention that I think I'm getting worse and worse at this game as it goes along?

[Axelrod]

I know thAdmiral made a post about me with some horribly misguided vote attached to it also, but I haven't really looked it over yet. Maybe later. And he could still be scum too.

So you haven't read it but it's obviously "horribly misguided".

I don't need to read it to know it's horribly misguided. Either that, or actively misleading. One of those 2 things.

The only question is whether you are pursuing it from a genuine town mindset or not.

[Axelrod]

I

never

abandoned responsibility for the Nat lynch. My vote was part of the difference that caused Nat to be lynched over CR and I never said otherwise. What makes you think I did?

What you said was "

Unvote
Vote: Natirasha

Because I don't know what else to do with my vote.

CR or Batt can make the difference.

My recollection was that this vote put CR and Nat. into a tie.

You are saying, I don't know what to do, so I'm putting this vote here (which creates a tie) and I'm going to let other people make the final decision. That is very much a responsibility absolving post. I'm not saying you ever claimed you didn't vote for Nat. or didn't "want" Nat. lynched. The way you voted was really, really weak though.

@CC: you are about to get lynched by default and you are being reticent in the claiming. That is

never

a good thing to do (and frankly, that's true regardless of whether you are town or scum). I'm trying to figure why you would do this as town. Protecting a power? Can't protect it if you are dead.

[Axelrod]

It's somewhat disappointing that CC's last words appear to be: "I'll claim when/if I think it's useful." That's not very useful.

[Axelrod]

Definitely do not quick-lynch. Obviously there's more than one possibility for what could have happened last Night. This is a good place to start though.

[Axelrod]

What's there to respond to, exactly? I'm not scum, and I think ort's a fool for outing himself like he did. A pro-town fool, but a fool none-the-less.

I'm replacing my vote from yesterday:

Vote: Destructor

Ask me anything you like.

Well, the "response" could be any of a number of things.

(1) No, I was never role-blocked last night you lying scum!

(2) Hey, I think

I

stopped the kill last Night because I'm a [inset role here]

(3) Hmm, this must mean someone

else

in the town stopped the scum kill in some way! Can anyone help me out here?

(4) Other

Right now you're just kind of brushing it off, and while the evidence is circumstantial, it's still incriminating.

There are a minimum of 6 townie left. Maybe seven if we actually got the traitor. There are a max of three roles. Ort is claiming one. That means there are at most two people left who might have a Doc/RBer role that could account for missing kill. And if one is a Cop, then that's one less. Numberswise, the odds are not exactly in your favor.

That or scum have (1) missed kill due to stupidity, (2) deliberately skipped kill due to extreme craftiness.

[Axelrod]

Guys, this is really simple.

We lynch mizzy and then tomorrow if she's town we lynch orto.

come the fuck on.

Come on nothing. I know that you know that there are other possibilities, so why are you acting like this is some kind of open/shut deal?

[Axelrod]

If we were going to mass claim, we should start with a simple claim of "role/vanilla" without saying

what

role you are. That would be just to get the overall numbers out there. There's potential benefits to a claim like that, and also risks.

We could also lynch Mizzy without any claims. If she came up town, then tomorrow we'd pretty much have to have all the claims immediately upfront. And

someone

would have some 'splaining to do.

I don't think everyone has even checked in yet, however, so we shouldn't go any farther with any kind of plan until that happens.

[Axelrod]

Well, Mizzy's attitude is coming across as all wrong to me. Too hostile, too defeatist, and, incidentally, not enough questioning of

what happened to the scum kill

. I mean, if it wasn't stopped because you got RBed, then what? That would mean someone in the

town

is sitting on information that might possibly save you, and you don't seem to care.

I'll try a mini review in a bit, but it's looking more and more like that's where my vote will go.

[Axelrod]

Anyone else feeling that this little tiff between Urza and Mizzy is sounding

just

a bit staged?

Mizzy: if you have accepted your lynch, and you are, in fact, a "pro-town power role" then ought you not be telling us what role you are and what you have done with it this game? Wouldn't that be the townie thing to do?

[Axelrod]

I was under the impression that if a town "Power Role" died, it would be revealed, i.e. Cop, RBer, etc. Looking at the rules, it only says that players will be revealed as "Town" or "Mafia."

Are we not finding out when "power roles" are eliminated? If not, then this sucks almost as bad as the fact that there's a scum who's showing as "Town" already.

[Axelrod]

I was under the impression that if a town "Power Role" died, it would be revealed, i.e. Cop, RBer, etc. Looking at the rules, it only says that players will be revealed as "Town" or "Mafia."

Are we not finding out when "power roles" are eliminated? If not, then this sucks almost as bad as the fact that there's a scum who's showing as "Town" already.

No, we are not. This is why I don't want to reveal my role.

I was actually looking for a Mod. confirmation on that, which he didn't give when he did the vote count, so maybe I needed to ask more directly:

Mod: when a pro-town player with a role dies, is the role going to be revealed? If not...why not?

Also: with Batt. coming out (I was suspecting it might be something like that) we now have 3 "claimed" power roles. Three is the Max. we can have. Therefore, if there is a pro-town player (or two?) with a role who hasn't come out yet, you need to announce it NOW. (you don't have to say what role you are yet - still waiting on Mod. clarification), but we need to KNOW that someone is lying, and KNOW (if you die and in case these things aren't being revealed) that we have lost one.

Otherwise, a scum could be claiming a PR NOW and we'd never know it for certain.

Mizzy: I want you to claim your role. I disagree with Batt. that it serves no purpose. I think it could be very beneficial, and at worst, do no harm at all.

In case it's not obvious, I don't have a PR.

[Axelrod]

So, Destructor is either (1) telling the truth and Mizzy is scum, or (2) he's lying, which will become evident immediately after the Lynch, leading to his own death tomorrow. As scum, this would seem a stupid thing to do, especially since Mizzy was the leading candidate to get lynched even before he claimed.

Only way it seems he would possibly do such a thing is if he though the scum could win it all

tonight

with a mis-lynch today. Checking to see if that is even possible - we have 9 alive with a minimum 6 town and a max 3 scum. If one of the scum was a vig. then they could get 2 kills tonight. that would make it 4 town tomorrow. Destructor still gets toasted. That leaves a max 2 scum, and one of them is the traitor who the other doean't even know.

I'm not seeing the gambit here.

Which makes this an easy:

Vote: Mizzy

Batt. ought definitely protect Destructor, and is probably dead tonight, but he's done his job well.

[Axelrod]

How is Destructor not lying?

He claims he got "scum" on CC, who flipped town. This means he's lying scum of insane right there, no other possibilities, yes?

He got "town" on Mizzy, who flipped town. This means he's lying scum - unless Mizzy was, in fact, the Traitor role, which will show as "town" to any Cop, Sane or Insane, and will also show as "town" upon death?

And no roles are revealed on Death. Did I mention that this game is sucky before?

Frankly, I don't see how we let him live here. I did my Maths wrong yesterday (doh), so right now there are 7 of us with still a potential 3 scum. If there are three scum and we miss-lynch, we just lose. If, we got the traitor already, then we don't lose, but we don't

know

if we got the Traitor until Destructor is dead. If he comes up town, then we got the Traitor. Plus we get the benefit of whatever inspector he got last Night.

So a Destructor Lynch means, worst case, that tomorrow there will be 3 town and 2 scum. That, at first blush, seems easily the safest thing to do.

[Axelrod]

I don't understand the gambit. A vigilante (which could have even been the traitor) doesn't seem worth a mafia death. Why the suicide?

If there is any possible way destructor is not lying, I don't see it. At all.

If Mizzy hadn't have been the Traitor, this conversation wouldn't even be happening.

Why is it more likely that I'm lying than telling the truth? The argument that there was a lack of motivation for scum to claim Cop at that point is a good one - Mizzy was already going to be lynched and there would be little to be gained by fake-claiming besides scrutiny. I was hesitant about claiming until Batt did, at which point I realised that the best play was to claim immediately.

Or another way, why is it more likely that Mizzy was a Townie and not the Traitor? Her biggest contribution to the game was getting into a spat with ort. She was wishy-washy, said she didn't like to vote until she was "sure" about things, yet called me scum with the vaguest case we saw all game. I also pointed out how her comments about my claim at the end of yesterday were telling of her alignment and how she named ThAd, Urza and MM as scum then backtracked when I mentioned that she was still voting for

me

.

Frankly, I don't see how we let him live here. I did my Maths wrong yesterday (doh), so right now there are 7 of us with still a potential 3 scum. If there are three scum and we miss-lynch, we just lose. If, we got the traitor already, then we don't lose, but we don't know if we got the Traitor until Destructor is dead. If he comes up town, then we got the Traitor. Plus we get the benefit of whatever inspector he got last Night.

So a Destructor Lynch means, worst case, that tomorrow there will be 3 town and 2 scum. That, at first blush, seems easily the safest thing to do.

See above, re: why I would fake-claim and Mizzy revealing that she wasn't Town by saying she

"thought

I was lying. Your plan is total overkill that will put the town into a precarious 3-player end-game in Day 6 as opposed to having 1 scum left tomorrow and the 2 lynches you need to find them without fail.


As for my result:
"Town" on ThAdmiral.
Last scum is Urza or MM, leaning Urza.

Vote: ThAdmiral

Frankly, at this stage of the proceedings, with NO visible dead scum, I'd be thrilled with a 3-man end game day after tomorrow. You ought to be too, since you'd be auto NK tonight if you were telling the truth and you would not be getting any more investigations anyway.

Lynch you -> 6 players (pretty much guaranteed 4 town 2 scum).
Scum NK - > 5 players (3 town, 2 scum)
If you flipped town, Lynch thAdmiral - > 4 players (3 town, 1 scum)
Scum NK -> 3 players.

The last two town will just have to figure it out. God willing I won't be one of them

[Axelrod]

Incidentally, it would appear we are back to Batt. having prevented a kill as the explanation for the lack of kill Night before last (as opposed to a RB of Mizzy).

While that looks good for me and all, it actually puts Ort. back into play as possible scum. It would have been quite the gambit for him to come out against Mizzy the way he did, however, if he were scum just trying to buss somebody - without knowledge that Destructor was going to claim a Cop result? Really, he'd only even possibly do this if him and Destructor were a team, I'm thinking.

Which might be another reason to lynch Destructor. It's still way the safest thing to do.

I am liking his responses quite a bit, however, and thAdmiral has been scummy for a long, long time....Do we trust him and risk the epic fail? I'm torn.

[Axelrod]

.

My flavor is the same flavor as the first sample role PM in one of our mod's opening posts.

[Axelrod]

Ah well. Should have been more insistant about lynching Destructor after Mizzy, but I was having trouble staying attentive to the game for long periods of time.

Well played by Destructor and Ort., no question. The set-up was extremely frustrating though, especially for someone like me. It played like a "No Reveal" game where you don't know anything with certainty for the entire time - not who was scum, not what abilities anyone had, nothing.

That was kind of weak by TSQ at the end too. I mean seriously, I don't care if you sucked this game, take a shot man.