Mini 1194: Reverse Mafia [Game Over]

[MrTrow]

Hi all, just finished my initial skim.

Hey AntB, it`s indeed been a while, since well.......

Full read after diner expect actual content in a couple of hours (please don`t hammer before that).

[MrTrow]

Maybe we should use all the day to discuss on who is scum before someone hammers Bub

True:
Bub - Parama scumpair not possible (Parama should have hammered otherwise)
Bub - Crypto scumpair unlikely (hammer possibility has been out there too long and he must have seen the 'heads up i`m gonna vote Bub soon' by Packbat)
so unless Bub/Packbat are buddies resurrecting Bub doesn`t end the game.

I didn`t find anything to exclude this possibility, i`d say if packbat is in any way likely to be scum we will not revive bub.
At this point i`d like to see parama`s packbat-scum case. (as this is an 'if you are right and we miss it, we lose'-situation please don`t just refer to your ISO on this one)
Also kiwi`s 'bub is laying low since he has accoplisched his objective of looking town' is a valid observation. (i`m not so sold on bub-scum myself, but this tell is indeed out there)

As for Bobsnox: as far as i`m concerned he`s scum:
his role makes sense if going for the 'all mafia dead'-wincon, which a 1-shot should not be leading
or for the 'all town has been alive'-wincon if this translates to 'no town in limbo'(instead of 'all town must at some point have had the status

alive

')
the fact he didn`t check the latter, more than a week after the 'no-comment' response to the loaded version of this question has been pointed out as 'not confirming/denying the claimed role', says enough to me.
(The "you" in that post indicated to me that a by-pm question from bobsnox would produce an answer.)


Also there is a connection between StrangerCoug and Parama:

If I understand this right, crypto and Packbat can't both be scum or the game would be over, but if they're both town I am going to jump off the Empire State Building.

Pointing out there can be at most 1 scum among the living and calling 1 scum in 2 of the living is a great way to imply parama has to be town without ever having to state it.

I`m wondering SC: is your suspicion on crypto based on more than his FoS on the lurker?

[MrTrow]

About Toasty`s 'townslip'

#284/285: slaxx: gg-gambit (while toasty wat the most likely candidate for revival)

#293-301: slaxx: 'gg-gambit was intended to draw a towntell out of toasty, didn`t work so who to revive'

#304: toast: 'didn`t see the gambit/busy' excuse (given the 15 minutes the gambit lasted credible) + a defence on why he wouldn`t fall for it anyway

#309-315: (probably) final part of the reason for the revival of crypto (+announcement of decision being final)
#329: toast: disapointed about not being revived?

I can see the scum motivation in that post.

[MrTrow]

of course he considers people who disagree with him scummy

This entire 'you can either sheep me or be scum' attitude really doesn`t sit well with me.
The reason i wasn`t all over this from the start, i because i believe it to be more indicative of personality than allignment.

[MrTrow]

@parama:
true: the exact wording in that post do not exactly reflect the situation.
also true: you called some players (indeed i`m one of them) scummy before they (we) showed a thought of our own.

However the point i was trying to make is:
You seem to consider every thought not coming from you, or exactly matching your vision as at least incorrect, very likely scum-driven.

Disagreeing with it is just another thing to add to the list for those people.

If this doesn`t confirm my point......(assuming to be at -7 after this)


The problem i have with it is: let`s say we give you what you seem to want: you being the only one who actually thinks (or pretents to) in this game.
Result:
If you are scum, scum wins.
If you are town, town only wins if you manage to live up to your claims(which will only be harder if no-one dares to disagree resulting in the end of content to work with).

So tell me: What is the town-motivation for just abandoning the game and leave you to play alone?
(maybe you should consider the 'detail' that no (other) townie can possibly be sure you are town)

[MrTrow]

Crypto, please give me the same day packbat just promised.

I`ll dive deeper into the issue right now and have the details in the open asap (preparing an allnighter).

[MrTrow]

@Packbat: thanks.

Sorry i kinda suck at alnighters. (or anything that screws with 'real time deadlines')

Writing now.

[MrTrow]

First things first:

If the scum-wincon provided in the pm relates to the one on the wiki, in the same way the town ones do, it`s possible this confusion around the wincon was present.
But as packbat already poined out, that probably would have led to different D0.25 behaviour.

Now on to the actual thing:

The 'slip' was probably not preorchestrated.

It however it`s motivations may not have been as it is made out to be.

Slaxx was considering to revive toasty, he throws in a little test to confirm: known to all of us as the gg-gambit.
Toasty did not provide the confirmation slaxx was looking for, not that weird considering the window was only 15-minutes.

This by itself should be sufficient, yet toasty thought more excuse was in order, which he provided: referred to by most here as the town-slip.
Which is (as far as i can think of) the only possible excuse for town not to believe slaxx.
This was clearly intended to restore his place as slaxx revive target (if there is any doubt about this, his " " pretty much confirms)

Additional indication for this comes shortly after the bobsnox-claim.
Toasty tosses himself up as a 'safer powerrole' as an alternative, despite the fact a bobsnox-revival was already off the table.

The main problem with this seems to be parama`s "if so why did i point it out so late?".
Lets take a look at that one shall we:
1. As it was likely not a pre-orchestrated-slip the reason for assuming the scumteam was completely aware of this slip takes a hit.
2. The 'the sooner it is picked up,the more likely it is 'someone knew where to look' ' argument or even better 'rather have a townie find it'
I`m going for the second one, why?:

AntB: 1 or 2 line posts with little content: no way he`s going to pick it up
Awesoma: being replaced announced (16th)
bobsnox: mainly focussed on his own PR-claim, will not find it (11th)
bub: stated having read toasty`s last posts (but didn`t catch the slip) (18th)
crypto: directed attention elsewhere (17th)
kiwi: stated to be against a toasty revive and promoted alternatives (18th)
malpascp: pushed a bub revival (by bringing up the 7 people in favor) (17th)
me: replaced in 19th posted a read-up post not containing 'the slip' (20th)
packbat: stated he was going to vote bub (16th) and actually did (18th)
pom: expressed in favor of a revive of self/toasty/malp (18th) on the 20th however malp is being presented as the favorite of the 3
slaxx: died
SC: has been pro bub pretty much the whole time.

The 18th it was becoming less and less likely someone else was going to pick it up, around the time parama claimed 'I need to read' The post directly after 'the competing vote'
Only bub`s catch-up and kiwi`s push for alternatives came later that day
The 20th it was pretty much final someone else would find it: the 21st the 'slip' was found.
There has not been another parama-reread between the gg-gambit and this catch of the slip.

The supporting role of the 'guys drop what you`re doing' post before it:
He stated being sure of the outcome (victory by that reread), by having a read on everybody. Implying he did not know that the 'price' he was going to find was mainly a single player.
Just feels like the entire read (which did happen) was intended to cover up the 'price' was already known.

I can only assume this also requires scum-cases on both for not only this.

Toast:

- situation RVS: SC was right on this one, Yes it is possible to vote random while others are discussing. It is however by no means helpfull.
- D0.75 vote pattern:
starts the packbat wagon
states bub is probably best to revive, unvotes packbat for it, but doesn`t vote bub
'still leaning packbat over bub'
later votes accordingly
- calls parama obv-town wherever possible (= a (although not the only) reason for above vote/read mismatch)

- is willing to revive bottom of his townlist (pom @ iso8)
- only calls SC out for 'anyone who ignores me or parama is scum' ,parama is no better (understatement) in that respect.
- Split the town in 2 groups on this matter and calls for a decision based on the entire group. 'someone who looks scummy agrees with you -> you must be scum'


Parama:
- sets himself up for town-leader in opening post by pretty much stating:
'i am a ..... correction...... the only competent hunter here, therefore i am town and should be revived'
Although this is somewhat playfull (for the moment)
He does manage to get resurrected based on hunting-skill, while discrediting pom wanting to resurrect SC on the same grounds (without attacking pom herself as she had 'noticed her mistake' before he got to it)

- this awesome town leader act becomes less playfull over time (as it`s working) :
from calling for being resurrected before the 'confirmed townie' based on 'I already said you could go second' (given up on this by hammering slaxx to get a vote on himself asap)
to 'When i feel i`m right, i am. Those who attack me when i`m right are on the scumlist' (with hitting nearly every chance to claim being right inbetween)

Blatantly denies information:
- 'lurkers don`t really hurt as much' <- this simply isn`t true, denying information is antitown, with flying under the radar being less of a scumtell with these mechanics it`s easier to push for a lack of information like this
- bub asking crypto to explain his wredfar-scum read for example, is irrelevant because townhunting>scumhunting
- refuses to talk to kiwi (initially based on disagreeing on his post-style, when pointed out it`s because he`s scum)
- any question remotely like what do you think of X now either encounters an 'it`s in my iso' (if it`s not an attack) or a [lets just say redacted] (if it is)
- reluctant to admit the slip is the entire town-toasty-case (when just a hammer away)

When questioned about the motivation of this combination(as it`s anti-town at best), the response is nothing more than an 'i trust me, now shut up'

Interresting detail on this matter is #593:
The post where he (based on the parama-toasty team) should pretty much believe he has won, is the first time he even acknowledges the existence of a POV that isn`t his (dropping an attitude upon victory indicates the attitude being an act)

The bobsnox claim: states it to be 'only usefull to kill of confirmed scum in limbo' (thus 1 kill when going for the 'all mafia dead wincon')
yet attacks kiwi by calling it 'The most dangarous PR to scum'. (as he`s against reviving him)

The window toasty had to 'perform the towntell the gg-gambit was intended for' was closed after getting too much responses other than intended, all by parama
One could argue he performed the towntell instead but no he did not.
he even thought something like it could be in progress (how)
Not only did he waste a way to get a town-tell out of someone, he even may have done so willingly

Summary: A flaw in a made up excuse is not a town-tell let alone a town-slip
- The excuse was not required in any way -> too cautious/other objective.
- The contents of this excuse was the only possible one -> the 'slip' was the only logical outcome of the decision to have an excuse
- Toasty claimed a 'safe powerrole' while the situation did not call for such action (yet called bobsnox out for doing the same thing)
- Parama`s reread came shortly after it became clear no one else was going to pick up 'the slip'
- Multiple standards are applied
- Toasty not once expressed doubt of Parama
- Toasty has expressed reads based on 'mayority' (no opinion yourself?)
- Parama has been actively limiting the information that became available
- At the point the parama-toasty team can smell victory, a hole appears in Parama`s 'there is only my view'-worldview
- Parama was instrumental to keeping the 'gg-gambit-window' small
- Parama had reasons to think the gg-gambit was a gambit (destroying a chance to get a town-read out of someone, in the process)
- Toasty is trying to throw people together to discredit unrelated cases

[MrTrow]

Do I think Parama is town? Hell yes I do. Buddying is not inherently scummy. Town do it too.

You still do?
Even with this 'ignore and hammer' response?

I expressed doubt on Parama at the beginning of the game.

Uhm.. you mean the 'not jumping on the wagon' while defending 'keeping up RVS'?

My reads are very much my own. you said yourself that I was the first person to start the Packbat wagon. no one had said anything b4 hand. Similarly, Pom and AntB stick out as ppl who weren't talked about as much.

You were indeed the one to start the Packbat wagon.
However the reason you stated for getting off was

Enough ppl are against it to give me doubt

That is not a read of your own.
Also in the same post you stated

but still thinks Bub is the best choice for the day.

You didn`t vote Bub before (

still

being incorrect) or afterwards.
followed by

still leaning packbat over bub

So which is it? (i see: own read on packbat-town, externally supplied packbat-not-so-town, claiming to support bub but no vote to back this up, wishy-washy statements about who is townier packbat or bub)

Toasty is trying to throw people together to discredit unrelated cases

Is this referring to SC? I was asked why I thought he was scum.

Split the town in 2 groups on this matter and calls for a decision based on the entire group. 'someone who looks scummy agrees with you -> you must be scum'

It certainly has turned out this way, but it doesn't mean I wanted it to. I also don't know where you are getting the "SCUMZORS DISAGRE WITH ME" thing from. Examples: Originally, Bub. Today, Malpascp.

One of these is in 'the case' one in the summary:
They both point to the same thing:

So basically this is turning into Parama-TT-crypto-Bub-Pom-AntB vs. kiwi-malpascp-MrTrow-bobsnox, with SC and Packbat as swing votes
Tell me: which side is townier?

I have no need to discredit Bub/crypto/pom/AntB or agree with the cases of kiwi/malpascp/bobsnox to call you/parama scum.
I also have no intention of letting you get away with using the read people have on kiwi/malpascp/bobsnox to discredit my case on you.

Slaxx's gambit: I still don't get it. That's my excuse. The soccer bit was just me being social.

Slaxx did not only claim being scum, he also claimed packbat being his partner. -> game over
All scum would instantly know this to be a lie. If you had genuinely congratulated them you would have been

very likely town

and presumably slaxx would have resurrected you for it.

The fact you didn`t, doesn`t make you scum, being AFK for 15 minutes in a game with 3weeks a day thats not going very fast, is sufficient reason for not doing so (not even sure that was required). The fact you came with not one but two excuses for such a little thing is unnaturally forced: a mistake in an unnatually forced excuse is not a reason to assume someone is town (town has no reason to force such an excuse anyway).

reluctant to admit the slip is the entire town-toasty-case (when just a hammer away)

Its not.

I stopped keeping track of him after his townslip though.

I believe Toasty townslipped. Why the hell would I need more of a case than that?

it`s not?

Additional indication for this comes shortly after the bobsnox-claim.
Toasty tosses himself up as a 'safer powerrole' as an alternative, despite the fact a bobsnox-revival was already off the table.

Being a safer version of another action leads me to believe that the unsafe version is...more dangerous. Hence, if people were worried about bob but would like some way of preventing scum from getting out of limbo, my PR is less dangerous than the killing version.

I don`t care about the difference between the 2 powers.
You tossed yourself out there as an alternative.
There was no need for an alternative, it was an excuse to out yourself to boost your chances for revival, there was no other reason to claim, at least not one based on common knowledge

[MrTrow]

@Bub:
given the premise an additional excuse is required for not 'biting' @ gg-gambit (AFK alone won`t do), is there another possible outcome that is at least as likely?
why is more likely to assume such an excuse is required? scum-toasty or town-toasty?
provided the above took place, what is so unthinkable about them using what is already out there?

[MrTrow]

EBWOP:
that second question should obviously start with 'who'.

[MrTrow]

Hey an actual response from parama.

True (by definition) a townslip is enough of a case to confirm someone as town:

Why did you refuse to give kiwi that response when he asked if it was the entire case?
Why did you flat out deny it when he did the 'hard work' for you?

Why did toasty just do the same?

[MrTrow]

I actually did say pretty much the same thing to kiwi already <_<

Ok here`s what happened :

crypto states being willing to hammer toasty (#592)
you state he should
kiwi shows up and requests confirmation on the case about to be hammered
packbat agrees to the hammer (while noting you and toast can still be a team) but doesn`t hammer
you deny to answer kiwi and call for packbat to hammer
kiwi however continues his questioning, eventually resulting in him confronting you with your own case.
Still you initially deny it being the whole case
when it still doesn`t shut him up you admit and state it should be enough.

Here is how i see it:

Yes a genuine townslip is a sufficient case.
Your unwillingness to present/restate the case that was about to be hammered looks a lot like trying to delay the opposition hoping the hammer comes before the countercase.

If both you and the slip are genuine there is no counter-case to fear, yet you were trying to prevent an attempt in the most-anti-town way i see possible.
If not you have every reason to get this hammer, (asap) at all cost.

[MrTrow]

Oh boy. Should I even respond to this?

Yes this is creating content, it provides everyone with info on both you and me.

1)So in order to say something, I have to vote? Last time I checked I put my votes down when I feel reasonably confident in my reads
2) I'm pretty sure the whole Packbat-Bub statement things were taken from separate days. I can also think 2 people are town. Packbat was a stronger town-read on me, but Parama and other players brought up some good points. Hence, I took my vote off to reconsider what was said. Then I went back on because I still had a town read. This is a basic progression of logic. Why is this scummy? You have yet to answer that question

I stand corrected on this one.
You didn`t call bub 'the best choice for the day', you pointed out packbat calling it.

3)

I also have no intention of letting you get away with using the read people have on kiwi/malpascp/bobsnox to discredit my case on you.

Guess what? When scummy people are saying things, their words should be taken with that thought in mind. If I think one group is scummier than another, who do you think I would find more truthful? None of the people on the opposite side have been obvtown, or even really tried super-hard up to this point. COntrary to the thoughts of some, I do not think this mean kiwi/malpascp/bobsnox is the automatic scum team. I would expect the scum team to take opposite sides on the case.

Also, isn't it the defenses job to refute a case against them? Reducing the credibility of a case, which includes looking at my opinions on the players involved with an argument, is part of this.

You are not only the defence, you are also the investigation team on everyone else.
It is not just your job to just discredit any case against you, it`s also your job to get the thruth out.
If the case against you is wrong (in other words, you are innocent) getting the thruth out will serve the purpose of discrediting the case as well.

What you did was using things like parama/crypto/bub contains at most 1 scum: confirmed 2 town agree with me, bobsnox has a weird claim out, common oppinion on kiwi isn`t that positive to discredit me (instead of attacking the actual case)
You want this in 'courtroom procedures', you got it: 'objection! yourhonor relevance?'

If you had genuinely congratulated them you would have been very likely town and presumably slaxx would have resurrected you for it.

"unaturally forced." HOW DOES IT SOUND THIS WAY?

There was nothing wrong with not taking slaxx`-bait.
There was no need for stating a reason to have missed it
There is nothing wrong with watching soccer (don`t think it`s fun myself, but that`s besides the point)
There is nothing wrong with telling people you`ve been watching soccer (ok response to 'aw he missed it', and the time between that post and the previous one is indeed only slightly longer than a soccer match)

There however is a problem with not considering that enough defence against the situation, to come up with something as halfbaked as 'the slip' for additional defence.
If you want to go deeper into this one:
If you truly believed slaxx was confirmed town, then why weren`t you against trading him for an unconfirmed player?

There was no need for an alternative, it was an excuse to out yourself to boost your chances for revival, there was no other reason to claim, at least not one based on common knowledge

What's wrong with suggesting oneself to be revived if you know that you can be of help to town if you have access to your power?
Would you like me to just claim?

Wanting/suggesting it? Nothing.
Using another player`s PR-claim to boost your own (as using it to refute the other suggestion was no longer required),
Outing a PR (yourself) to get the job done shortly after failing to get revived by different means has failed reeks of desperation

No i do not want you to claim now, i probably do at the end of this discussion and the one resulting from packbats reread.

[MrTrow]

@kiwi: what is your reason for adding pom to that team?



@SC: not a single one?
So you disagree with every single point in my case?

[MrTrow]

@Bub:
given the premise an additional excuse is required for not 'biting' @ gg-gambit (AFK alone won`t do), is there another possible outcome that is at least as likely?
who is more likely to assume such an excuse is required? scum-toasty or town-toasty?
provided the above took place, what is so unthinkable about them using what is already out there?

[MrTrow]

noticed the hammer, this no longer matters but:

That's possible if he was scum - I don't think it's as probable as town making the error honestly, but it isn't in any way ludicrous.

Thanks, guess i'm not completely insane then.

Not accurate. In the unvote-Pack post, #188, he quotes

me

saying that, but still lists Packbat over Bub Bidderskins:

True, noted and corrected a few pages ago.

- only calls SC out for 'anyone who ignores me or parama is scum' ,parama is no better (understatement) in that respect.
- Split the town in 2 groups on this matter and calls for a decision based on the entire group. 'someone who looks scummy agrees with you -> you must be scum'

Could you elaborate on these?

1. Although SC`s post to which that was a response, Parama`s ignoring or refuting my awesomeness is a scumtell was a lot worse than that one post by SC, yet he only calls SC out on it -> possible connection
2. his ' this turns into 'list of generally considered townier players who don`t dispute the slip' vs 'list of considered scummier or less skilled players who do'.'
suggests the opinions people have on players other than the one in my case/myself is relevant to the case (via PoE it may be but that`s pretty much it)

Parama:

Skipping most of this because:

One could argue he performed the towntell instead but no he did not.

Why do you say he didn't? Start at the gg gambit and you seem him go "I knew Pack was scum the whole time" #287/#292. That looks hella like a townslip to me.

That is indeed what it looks like, however in the post i linked to he admitted the thought it wasn`t true has at least crossed his mind.
If he knew (or in any way expected) the 'we win'-claim to be false, how does it still have any meaning he acted like he believed it.

-----------
As for the pictures: LOL

especially the first one:
The most awesome scum ever.

(That time he was right)

In fact it came from one of the episodes i was watching while writing the case.

[MrTrow]

That was indeed pure awesome (although 1 pic is now missing).

[MrTrow]

@malpascp: explanation on what just happened?

@pom/toast (yes here comes another conspiracy theory):
if the scum-play here is to 'quickhammer' a tie and win on first-come-first-serve
why didn`t they steal your vote instead (outrunning crypto is a lot easier than outrunning you two)

[MrTrow]

@malpascp:
normal: 2 town vs 1 scum, scum is forced to lynch a townie (standard 3 man lylo), 2 town vs 2 scum: scum hammer no-lynch, kill overnight and outnumber town the next day (barring 'fancy powerrole presence' the 'or nothing can prevent the same' clause would kick in)

Now could you please explain your actions:
- was it you who switched the vote? (if so why crypto, if not why do you think you and crypto)
- why did you vote before you realised the kill?
and the new one:
- your obv-scum-read agreed with your vote, thoughts?


@SC about the bobsnox claim, i didn`t see it either, but i`m beginning to(since approximately daybreak)

@Toasty: there was approximately 6 hours between daybreak and the 'mod states replacement found'-post.
The replacement took place during the day.

It`s not (just) because of that i have iceGuy as town (Hi btw)
How he missed the jinxer-claim, seems to me he`s more concerned with contributing than with 'appearing town'.

Also your mass-claim-request: all-non-dead or all-alive
And isn`t there a procedure for such things? (as in: i think that after you answer the question above, pack(or you) should state who`s next right?)

kiwieagle was modkilled, so we won't fulfill the "all town revived" anymore.

Good point:

mod: could you confirm/deny this?

(is kiwi still a townie who never had(and never will have) the status 'alive'? and (if so) does it make that particular wincon impossible?)

[MrTrow]

pretty much standard dead neutral survivor: check. thanks.

Malp/(SC)/Packbat:
ok this is good material to cause confusion.

The rules indeed state no kill was possible N1.
It also states N1 preceeds D1.
SC is correct about the rules: N1 kill was never possible
N2 no-one got killed: it is here, packbat`s list of "3 possibilities" applies
N3 is when parama got killed.

To me this reads like a miscommunication, it`s (nearly) all a naming convention issue.
Nearly all questions at the moment about N1/2 apply to N2/3

At the moment i`m against the revival of malpascp/antB/bub
and we have a massclaim going on(right) with one of them at L-1, if someone could unvote, please.

[MrTrow]

guess that confirms the switch to be a scum-power

Townie

[MrTrow]

I don`t think the medium-thing is 1-shot

@bobsnox: if you are obvtown, we shouldn`t have any need to 'fear a hidden agenda' in your posts, your analysis would be more usefull, please contribute some.
e.g.
- have you figured out the implications of a misfire?
- do you know who you will shoot if revived?
- reads in general (including a why would also be nice)

b.t.w. i have you as town now, but am against reviving you until you`ve answered at least the first 2.(please do so asap)

Yeah, but malpascp always claimed he was going to vote for Bub. So I can imagine that scum chose him as "useful idiot".

Agreed, this is an option, with this power confirmed as a scum-power there is at least 1 scum in malpascp/bub
with deaths(and at least as important,the game isn`t over yet): there is at least (very likely exactly) 1 scum among the living most likely Packbat/Pomegranate

ninja-edit:
antB are you calling packbat town, using the argument he`d be a liar otherwise?
his power explains how he`s not going to be killed, as well as strong-spirited can be translated to 'unpurgable' at least as easy.
i`m not the only one who pointed out before the 'wincon-implication-question' was way too loaded.
Rephrase or let the role in question ask by pm and there probably will be an answer.

[MrTrow]

@ Packbat:
We need to name it something right?
Yes i am the first to suggest using the name of 'a (probably alive) individual with the ability to allow a lingering spirit to talk through a (probably alive) individual' for a role which likely does exactly this.

Why do you consider it 'unlikely' for someone to logically deduce this to be a 'reasonable(at least as placeholder)' name yet 'likely' for it to be the correct name?
Note: the main 'out of the blue assumption/scum-knowledge' you accusing me of (other than using a logical name) is

Any and all night choices are carried out by only the players who are alive

Also care to explain your 'for safety sake, lets avoid SC'?
@Bub if you read Packbat`s latest post: i assume you now also see a reason for malp holding the vote.

@(living)voters: do not follow the antB vote (just yet), if i`m right he`s effectively at L-1 a.t.m.

If the ability isn't and they revive scum, we lose anyway.

[MrTrow]

Lets see if i get this:
If you are wrong about both malpascp (and me?) then he`s likely to be scum?
(reasonable/confirmable)

Still doesn`t handle the 'logical but undeducable by townie'-accusation.
(there is an assumtion in my explanation that is unconfirmable and unlikely to be disproven before endgame)

Bobsnox, the whole game is about to be in your hands: your thoughts please.

[MrTrow]

- have you figured out the implications of a misfire?
1 - No. In what sense?

You can send someone from limbo to dead.
If you hit a townie would that mean we`ve 'skipped a day' in 'all townies revived' or has it simply become flat out impossible to win by that wincon?
As,

Mod: How does this interact with the town wincon?

I can't answer this question for you.

to me this says, that the same question by you via pm would result in an answer.
Or a less loaded version might work in thread.

So far we have been working with this 'no answer' and the 'worst-case'-assumption

Mod: does the wincon "all of the pro-town players revived (it is not required that all pro-town players survive after being revived though)" require all townies to 'have been alive'(time between ressurection and death > 0) or is having no townies in limbo sufficient, in case of the former, what happens if we hit a day where limbo is empty, but none of the wincons on either side have been met?

---------------------------------------------------
Powers and their presumed purpose (if allignment is not confirmed both town and scum-purposes are presented) :

Scum-Medium (sorry i`m sticking to the name): pretty darn close to 'the ultimate scum power': grants an extra vote as well as the ability to take that right from another (for a game that`s this close to constant-lylo very powerfull as mafia doesn`t have to out-number town to out-votepower town)
Jinxer: can stop someone from being resurrected: as scum can prevent a claimed-pr from ever becoming active, town purpose: unlikely as town out-votepower scum onless something really weird happens.
Purger: kill off someone in limbo: scum-purpose: very similar to Jinxer additional: might be able to take out a town-wincon completely(if this is actually possible is currently unknown), town-purpose might be able to speed up 'revive all'(unknown) prevents someone returning from limbo(permanent) with town out-votepowering scum barring 'weird conditions' both these purposes make very little sense.
Strong-Spirited: pretty much a 1-shot bulletproof variant (if as claimed alive->limbo it doesn`t provide town with the extra day though)
Town-Summoner: being able to sacrifice a (confirmed(as in 'self')) townie to resurrect an unconfirmed one: purpose, to enable town to bring a relevant PR into play despite other things (a jinx or another pr-ressurection) preventing such (note how the day-opening-posts state the jinxers target to be unvotable as in not unressurectable)


The medium is the only reason the jinxer and the purger have a pro-town purpose: 2 town-PRs to counter a single 1-shot-scum-PR: no way (they should either have suspected something like this from the very fact their roles exist or not use their powers)
The summoner exists to either counter the jinxer or enable town to ressurect 2 PR`s in a single day.

the medium exists -> jinxer = town
jinxer=town -> summoner`s purpose = double town-pr
double town pr -> purger = town
purger+jinxer=town -> medium isn`t 1-shot

------------------------------------------
things that are missing:
- The purpose of the strong-spirited-townie: if mafia kills SST -> confirmed town in limbo -> town ressurects SST -> mafia kills SST (because he`s confirmed town and mafia-presence is already proven), there are no town-roles who benefit from more time what so ever -> there is no purpose to the SST (strong-spirited is not a townie?)

- How the potential 'non-pom-medium' hasn`t won the game by killing and 'channeling' N2: (need to charge by not killing or something like that? a 'not overpowered addition'is required for the role anyway)

(to those who jump to the easiest conclusion even remotely available(there is a role with no purpose and pom must be the medium going for a tie-quick-'hammer': why take the vote from the 'slowest player alive' when going for such a race and show up so late herself) )

[MrTrow]

@Toasty:
Why do you think packbat-scum would tell the truth about his power? (if he is scum he will lie about stuff, that`s what scum does)

About jinxing bobsnox: don`t (unlikely the one scum wants to ressurect) and if things go wrong he`s our last line of defence.

As for the Packbat-AntB team: hell yeah: with partner malpascp the 'hurry up quickhammer in progress' call for a counterwagon was my reason for calling AntB on 'effectively L-1'

[MrTrow]

After revival his power serves no purpose.
Prior to revival it protects against bob making them of 'probable opposite allignments'
With the summoner making both the jinxer and the purger likely town, it doesn`t make any sense as a town-role (not that much as a scum-role either)
As such it`s likely not-true making pack lying-scum (his claim did hold up surprisingly long as a reason why he would not be killed in the near future)

@AntB: how did you get that from the modkill?

[MrTrow]

@AntB:
on the first: good one

on the second: absolutely not: the (most probable) reason this answer was not given first time it was asked was because it was formulated in a way that an answer (doesn`t matter which one) would imply whether or not bob`s role would exist. I formulated the question (at least tried to) so it could be answered without revealing anything about the roles involved. If your conclusion could logically be drawn from this answer, it would not have been given.
Assuming all powers town has have been claimed, situation B would occur (town cannot kill so town will be killed) empty limbo with a bob-misfire results in a scum-win.

Which comes to your third point: true a shot by bob WILL end the game (there simply isn`t enough power in town to have 4 scum in this game) if we can bring the number of scum back to 2 (bob hits) it`s no longer relevant who gets revived which day: everyone will get revived (except maybe the last scum) -> all town revived
if he misses 'at least half of town alive on a single moment' becomes the only possible wincon (which will not work if scum just keeps killing)

@Toast: as for SC/malp (obviously where it comes down to,to me):
there is at least 1 scum in malp/bub
there is 1 scum in pack/pom
scum-pack -> likely scum-ant
multiple possible combinations with malp-scum
hardly any with SC-scum
SC: one of my top townreads
malp: one of my top scumreads

Another question: why kill Parama instead of ToastyToast? The Jinxer power is pro-town, and Par never gave the slightest hint of having any powers whatsoever.

Parama pointed out the 'townslip' after there was sufficient evidence in thread no-one else was going to: the par-flip didn`t clear toast, a toast-flip would clear par
Toasty had stated how he`s using his power (blocking the (one) reasonable ressurection candidate which is most scummy) with 2 scum in limbo and the one he considered 'most scummy reasonable ressurection' known his power was no threat.
Also why would parama hint toward being a PR? he didn`t need it to get ressurected, he couldn`t get lynched (or considers the possibility town doesn`t believe him).

Toast: i don`t know why you switched tactics but i`m glad you did.

[MrTrow]

@AntB:
I see where your idea comes from, but:
- why would the vig not claim during the massclaim? (reasonably answered with sleeper-vig suggestion)
- why would a mod who refused to answer pretty much the same question before (probably because it was formulated to imply whether or not bob`s role exists) start implying roles?
- how does (given town doesn`t have a real vig) the presented situation B (the standard: or if nothing can prevent the same) not resolve the situation
- the mechanics are 'under development' , an all-covering solution for something that wasn`t considered before seems pretty reasonable (in fact i would be surprised if the next wiki-update would not include these 2 rules)

@bobsnox: obviously not everyone is (and i agree)
I`m not ok with 'the one with the power that will determine the fate of us all' to not be paying attention.
I expect you to live up to

3 - lemme get back to you. I stopped paying a lot of attention when everyone was against reviving me. I've been mostly operating on vibes.

Pom/malp: Where are you guys?

[MrTrow]

get well malpascp

- If I was a vig, I wouldn't claim it until I was revived, even during massclaim.

With the discussion about (not) reviving bob because a purger is way too dangarous (while a vig would stand a chance against the medium)?
I don`t think so.

More importantly:

- The answer given is ambiguous enough

Because the question was rephrased for that purpose.
The fact he denied to answer the original version clearly shows there is no intent to reveal anything, if information about such a killing role is in the answer: cdb screwed up. (there is no way he would deliberately give such information)

- If we lack a killing role of some description, situation A will never happen, defaulting to B

Exactly.
There is nothing wrong with defaulting to B (apart from it being a scum-win).
There is nothing off about the inventor of this mechanic being 'complete' in his answer when asking about potentially relevant mechanics.
There is a problem with a mod revealing whether or not we have a vig by stating B will happen.

[MrTrow]

@malpascp:
could you take another look at the potential of the 'pseudo-kill' and explain again why we should base our plans on a lying townie?

[MrTrow]

We don't know his role. There are reasons why town fakeclaims.

- Who`s role?
- name a good reason in this situation

IF (only if) we agree that the current setup is way too unbalanced, we must assume that there is someone that is fakeclaiming town.

Let me rephrase:
your post concluded such imbalance: you assumed fakeclaiming town bacause you assumed an (otherwise) unbalanced setup.
My question (after you recheck the purger), can you explain WHY YOU believe in the imbalance.

[MrTrow]

(a) we have two townies and two scumbags,

two scumbags and scum being able to switch a vote: would be a near instant gameover. This simply cannot be the case.

But considering you seem to consider this a possibility: who decided not to kill when the blame was very likely to be on you?

Luckily it`s not required for the tactic below:

(b) bobsnox is town, and
(c) malpascp is scum,

reviving bobsnox might be our best shot at victory, because bobs could purge malpascp. In a 10v3 situation, that would mean a forced town win because scum could no longer acquire a majority.

bobsnox is town (and (thus) speaking the truth about his role)
having him succesfully purge would indeed strike a serious blow to scum (probably decisive)

Am i correct in assuming your vote not being on bobsnox means you`re not willing to bet the game on your malp-scumread (or any other scumread) at the moment ?



Malp: there still are a few outstanding questions for you, if you could get to those before you have to disappear again please do so

Pom: please get in here. 1 week 1 post(which contained a good reason for a day or 2 of absence, but nothing more) with a potential 'scum waiting for a

win by draw

-case' on you.... well just get in here

Pom/Malp: given the practical impossibility of a Toasty/Packbat scumteam i would prefer a decent bub over sc case or an unvote(directly restoring that vote is fine, it`s the draw-advantage i would like to see gone)

His latest 'prodvoid, nothing to comment on but keep your hands off my votes' with a discussion about a possible explanation about the number of VT claims he claimed to be 'totally baffled by' being one of the things he considered 'meh' doesn`t encourage the 'benifit of the doubt' in my eyes

[MrTrow]

@packbat
So your post referred to future days?

That last remark: technically correct(well sort of, better than 'current position' is out of your hands, regaining 'current position' will remain possible) answer to my question but completely dodges the point:
Are you confident enough in your read on bobsnox(town purger) and malpascp(scum) to bet the entire game on it?

[MrTrow]

completely dodges the point

To answer your question.

Yes i believe bobsnox is town.
Yes i believe bobsnox is the purger.
Yes i assume the scumteam to consist of 3 people.

Bobsnox, the whole game is about to be in your hands

Yes i do believe this game will end by the purge or in a scum-win because we waited too long with letting him take his shot.

Now would you be so kind to answer mine:

In this post were you talking about today or about later? (there will be a followup either way, just answer it)

Do YOU believe malpascp to be scum and bobsnox to be the purger (strongly enough) to be in favor of getting bobsnox to purge malpascp tonight?

You imply there is no other viable path to town victory other than the purge, yet you believe the medium to be 1-shot, care to shed some light on this?
as in if it is 1-shot town can quick-tie-hammer just as easily as scum can.

[MrTrow]

Packbat</a> » Sat Aug 13, 2011 20:53</p>
<div class="connvote(directly restoring that v14days?[/quote][/quote]
[quomp;u=14592">Packbat</a> » Sat Aug 13, 2011 20:53</p>
<div class="connquired for the tactic below:<br />

(b) bobsnox is town, and<br />(c) malpascp is scum,<br /><br />reviving bobsnox might be our best shot at victory, because bobs could purge malpascp. In a 10v3 situation133342723" > <img src="./styles/prosilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif" width="11" height="9" alt="133berlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=12359">malpascp</a> » Sun Aug 14, 2011 13:45</p>
<div class="content">I don't see aon13334342069, 'Packbat', 'wrote');" title="Quote Packbat"><span>Quot13um bein1333ew</a></strong>
</div>

<div id="message-box">
<textarea name="message" id="message" rows="15" cols="76" tabindex="4" onselect="storeCaret(this);" onclick="storeCaret(ot13um bein1333post_target3emark: technically correct(well sort of, better than 'current position' ill be V/LA for one week startiation about the n19:58rong>#950</strong></a> by n></div>
</div>

<div class="
:SCr"><span class="corners-top"><span></span>in1333eould no longer acquire ab]"
:SC><img src="./images/smilies/icon_igmeou.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":igmeou:" title="IGMEOU" /></a>

<a href="#" onclick="insert_text(':shifty:', true); return false;"><img src="./images/smilies/icon_shifty.3898that would mean a forced town win because scum could no longer acquire a majority.

<br /><br />bobsno898te=v13, 20de=viewprofile&u=12359"13, 20a> » Sun13, 2011 13:45</p>
<div class="content">I don't see ao898tha342069, 'Packbat', 'wrote');" title="Quote Packbat"><span>Quo898tm bei898thew</a></strong>
</div>

<div id="message-box">
<textarea name="message" id="message" rows="15" cols="76" tabindex="4" onselect="storeCaret(this);" onclick="storeCaret(o898tm bei898thpost_target3 class="post bg1">
<div class="inner"><span class="corners-top"><span><518be 13, 2011week startiation about the n18:5r of VT claims he claimed to be <a href="./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&a n></div>
</div>

<div class=@Mo=11 13:4: IGase.[/quoff my mp;,fI ami>
</div>

box">
/smAug>
/textawinkessage5" co;)76" tabinWink"o kind to answern></div>
</color:darkred; y/Packize:sphpl"in6" tabinnot wtex to kes i b><br /out-of-chaimpler.">Well,fI >Toa</a>29#p33umteamisloateve maanel">
<ddvoi's>


/citeyou'rion d (or-Mo=11 13:4he way to go, here.</div>


Get in/his game won SCdiv>
. You'r />In <aoff my roteor an unvote(directly restoring that 898theould no longer acquire a majority.</div></blockquotab]@Mo=><im: IGase.[/quoff my mp;,fI ami;r scumread) aWell,fI >Toa</a>29#p33umteamisloateve maanel">
<ddvoi's>


/citeyou'rion d (or-Mo=the purger.<br />YesGet in/his game won SCdiv>
. You'r />In <aoff my roteor an unquired for the tactic below:<br />

(b) bobsnox is town, and<br />(c) malpascp is scum,<br /><br />reviving bobsnox might be our best shot at victory, because bobs could purge malpascp. In a 10v3 situatio88hp?mode=viewprofile&u=14687">MrTrow</a> » Sun Aug 14, 2011 03:10</p>
<div class="content">@pack88hp nothing more) with a potential 'scum waiting for a <span style="font-style: italic">win by draw</span>-case' on you....88hp?m342069, 'Packbat', 'wrote');" title="Quote Packbat"><span>Quo88

88hp?ew</a></strong>
</div>

<div id="message-box">
<textarea name="message" id="message" rows="15" cols="76" tabindex="4" onselect="storeCaret(this);" onclick="storeCaret(o88

88hp?post_target3e_3342978" style="display: none;">@packbat<br />So your post referred to'ion about a possible explanation about the n17:28rong>#950</strong></a> by n></div>
</div>

<div class=@Mo=11 13:4: IGase.[/quoff my mp;,fI ami>
</div>

box">
/smAug>
/textawinkessage5" co;)76" tabinWink"o kind to answern></div>
</color:darkred; y/Packize:sphpl"in6" tabinnot wtex to kes i b><br /out-of-chaimpler.">Well,fI >Toa</a>29#p33umteamisloateve maanel">
<ddvoi's>


/citeyou'rion d (or-Mo=11 13:4he waynvote(directly restoring that 88ss="profile-icons">
<li b]@Mo=><im: IGase.[/quoff my mp;,fI ami;r scumread) aWell,fI >Toa</a>29#p33umteamisloateve maanel">
<ddvoi's>


/citeyou'rion d (or-Mo=g src="./images/smilies/icon_igmeou.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":igmeou:" title="IGMEOU" /></a>

<a href="#" onclick="insert_text(':shifty:', true); return false;"><img src="./images/smilies/icon_shifty.3871that would mean a forced town win because scum could no longer acquire a majority.

<br /><br />bobsno871s town (and (thus) speaking the truth about his role)<br />having him succesfully purge would indeed strike a serious 871tha342069, 'Packbat', 'wrote');" title="Quote Packbat"><span>Quo871t
871thew</a></strong>
</div>

<div id="message-box">
<textarea name="message" id="message" rows="15" cols="76" tabindex="4" onselect="storeCaret(this);" onclick="storeCaret(o871t
871thpost_target3ies and two scumbags,</div></blockquote><br />two scumbags and scum being<a href="./viewtopic.php?p=3342069#p334206916:2 is 1-shot town can quick-tie-han></div>
</div>

<div clas; b=".g near:#FFFFFF;p<brty.: 0px 2px;n6" tabinnot w/divn" stamialum to b.">UNVOTE: AntBass="quo"11" hn></div>
</div>

<div clas; b=".g near:#FFFFFF;p<brty.: 0px 2px;n6" tabinnot w/divn" stamialuto b.">VOTE: rk: technically corrscumread) aFolabouttown.<fde tha:/he waynvote(directly restoring that 871theprofile-icons">
<li m to b]AntB[/m to b]ead) a[to b]rk: technica[/vpurger.<br />YesFolabouttown.<fde tha:/he wayn./images/smilies/icon_igmeou.gif" width="15" height="15" alt=":igmeou:" title="IGhe waynv<h>Yes
nvo<pcquire a majority.[/quo_igmeouk="2e V/p342069ps
nv</</amynv<scripmaaypiletex /javascripmeca// <![CDATA[
subPanels(y to_panel);a// ]]>v</scripm>Ghe waynv<tly restpg t-fopur" t
GMEOU" /></a>
navbar<a href="#" onclick="insert_text(':shifty:', true); return false;"><img hre!--11 20>
f="#="prou be <_h
er -->uld mean a forclink<br lefte caecause scum could text-ug foause div></blockug />twn6" tabinUser Civ>rol Panel"#aMrTrskey="aecUser Civ>rol Panel3420ause (div></blockug />tw?i=pmum beflaser=in[/qupost_targvictory ot new oring ts3420) •ause div></blocksearch/>tw?search_resegosearch">Vags<br />joris3420ause purge would indeed/icon_igmeou.gif" width="1
.gif" w"urn false"15" alt=":igmeou:" indee
d mean a forclink<br navlinks-fopur" t
se scum could text-home title="Quotebsnox/>twn6aMrTrskey="h">BoarBobsnoxcesfully purg
se scum could r <die caecdiv></blockquote><br />two scuml
erw"uilittoryewtopibull; div></blockug />tw? scumdelete_cookg>
">Delete15"l clarBocookg>
ewtopibull; A"l timeclass=UTC + 1 hr />[ dib/>Y" tabinDayl>QuotS><div>Time tDSTewtb/>> ]ully pure woullies/icon_igmeou.gif" width="15" height=eou:" title="
e!--
Wehp?mo</spge_areer wraquo;ullocopyr <di.[/qiceu=1468obsclud you seelinkdiv cww/>twbb.com.
not w[/quonlg ><brs="psps i tospan></ef="amneal]<br imeb><br /freblamby ></a><v146p" w
e mav>

help keui>Bobsur"</s, k: stam]>Verons"<br>twBB3.'t want (h stly)st_targereer w
aquo;ullocopyr <di.we tokwant t/que/divue/is a o20:53 ></andew/>Yesby >twBB"quote,r of
">twBB"quotker youcww/>twbb.com.'t want </bons"p33uscludeect ns="innr />Thuppep yo /our
</aums m><bve tffs ied.

noe >twBB G nep :34206a//-->u
t town can quicpyr <direfew/>Yesby div></blohttp://cww/>twbb.com/">>twBBewtopiicpy;3420033420p334205334207 >twBB G nep
g
stitle="title="
ee waynv<tly:" ta restdth="15 namestdth="15 aMrTrskey="zha3420"IGhe waynv</s/ic="tihtml>
0

[MrTrow]

That answers the question i had for the past half hour (the problem doesn`t lie in reading from my 'fancy new laptop' it lies in writing from it (hijacked one at my parents` for this post))
My apologies for this 'chaos'.

Anyways that post was intended to be another attempt to get Packbat to reveal whether his #947 was about today (day 3) or about later.
Packbat could you answer it this time?

[MrTrow]

Spoiler: Contentless posts about my 'parse-error-post' and my response to them

Anyways that post was intended to be another attempt to get Packbat to reveal whether his #947 was about today (day 3) or about later.

Uh, how?

If you really want me to go into detail about parsers, the 'best effort' attribute of the IP-protocol, resend/dataloss on wireless communication, let me know we`ll talk about those things elsewhere. (i wrote a post containing multiple quotes of asking the same question over and over, 'preview' looked fine, after hitting submit things went

crazy

)

Your parent's computer is screwed up, man.

My laptop screwed up. My parent's computer was used to write my response to the chaos

Anyway, why haven't I been revived yet?

Because you're scum.

More likely explanation for the 2 'empty just waiting for deadline prod-dodge/respond' posts above.
Could either of you do/say something game-related?

If it wasn`t for the following i would be sold on the pom/bub/(likely)malp-team

Anyways that post was intended to be another attempt to get Packbat to reveal whether his #947 was about today (day 3) or about later.
Packbat could you answer it this time?

ToastyToast is alive, so we don't need to revive bobsnox today - TT can jinx malpascp again tonight, either way. If Toasty dies tonight, we need to revive bobs so he can kill malpascp before his teammates can revive him.

Of course, if we revive bobs today, he can shoot Bub Bidderskins and TT can jinx malpascp. That would work equally well.

@Packbat:
- Do you think i`m scum?
- Is it in any way likely that answering the question would hurt town?
if the answer to either is yes: Why?
if both answers are no: Could you please stop with denying town information and answer the damn question?
When you wrote #947 were you talking about D3 or about D4+? (to make it perfectly clear, i want either D3 or D4+ (or maybe a properly explained, none of the above) as an answer to this question in your next post)

B.t.w. There is a bs-delay-motivation and a suggestion that perfectly fits the 'other possible scumteam'-theory i have (Here`s a hint: you are one of them).
in this latest question-dodge. (will reveal what they are after i get my answer)

[MrTrow]

Could either of you do/say something game-related?

I've already said what needs to be said.

Unfortunately, malpascp has my vote, put it on Bub and went on V/LA, so we can't continue.

Sorry for the confusion: the 2 who i wanted to contribute, were the 2 who seem to be 'just waiting for the deadline' and use my 'parse-error' as an excuse to do just that. : Bub/pom need to speak up

When I made post #947, I hadn't thought it through as far as deciding which day to revive which people. At the time, I was not thinking about reviving bobsnox today, so I suppose the answer would have to be D4+.

(surprisingly) good answer (at last )
my problem with #947+aftermath:
It was a response to SC`s 'not yet confortable with a bob-revive', arguments against this make sense ONLY when you`re talking about today.
Yet when i asked about that post #951/2 it consisted mainly out of points that only makes sense if #947 was NOT about today.
I like the response, i don`t like how much time/work it took to get it. (a townie could truthfully answer that instantly, while scum would need time to think of this lie and pack did put effort in buying more time).

Anyways back to the situation at hand:

@Ice:

Spoiler: bobsnox

Both the purger and the jinxer only make sense as a town role in very odd situations.
The medium is exactly that odd situation.
Summoner makes sense to counter the jinxer (why they are both town) or to resurrect 2 PR`s in a single day. (at least: i`m not buying it was intended to 'replace out')
with the purger and the jinxer both being a weapon against the medium and no other usefull/credible PR the purger must be a town role with the purpose of fighting the medium.
This also makes the medium unlikely to be 1-shot.

As for the 'trigger-happy': he should be: It is not a power we want gone, mafia should not be allowed to kill him.
It`s true his shot WILL (effectively) end the game:If he is not to fire tonight, he is not to be ressurected today.

The 2 'reasonably possible scumteams' i see are:

Spoiler: Pom/Bub/(likely)Malp:

Only argument i have to add to this case is:

Pom/Malp: given the practical impossibility of a Toasty/Packbat scumteam i would prefer a decent bub over sc case or an unvote(directly restoring that vote is fine, it`s the draw-advantage i would like to see gone)

Neither responded (no counter argument and no desire to break this advantage): To both: question/request remains.

Spoiler: Pack/AntB/(at least as likely)Malp:

- #806(packbat): 'quickhammer in progress quick help me by voting (hereby defined counterwagon) AntB' (requires less explanation, as it being rushed is explained)
with a vote in the 'quickhammer(tie but still) in progress' (one that can easily switch) AntB could be quickhammered (yes this does require such action to be pretty much game-ending(with medium not 1-shot it would be))
The fact that it was crypto`s vote (the slowest living townie) that was stolen supports this over the 'actual quickhammer'.

- strong spirited townie: this power seems to explain not being killed, while in fact it does nothing (well maybe protect from the purger, but my reasons for believing the purger is town are already known).

- #877(packbat): 'using a logical placeholder' as a scumtell to restore the AntB vote

Of course, if we revive bobs today, he can shoot Bub Bidderskins and TT can jinx malpascp. That would work equally well.

I`d rather see that the other way around (i`m more certain about malp than about bub and a mis-jinx we can handle, a mis-purge we can`t)

(Note that as long as ToastyToast is alive, he can jinx malpascp, meaning that it is only the day after his death that we are

forced

to revive bobsnox.)

Great idea: lets wait for scum to pick the day town has to outrun scum.

- #902+(AntB): lets play under the assumption we have a lying townie

- #921(Malp): lets play under the assumption we have a lying townie

- #984(AntB): 'uhm.. lets just give up and let scum win'

I`ll try to limit the 'wall-thing' next time

[MrTrow]

If the day ends and malpascp's vote is still on Bub Bidderskins, malpascp is scum. Period.

qft

scum declaring victory

Spoiler: stuff that's only relevant in case of town-pom

I'm not bobsnox or ToastyToast - if they would prefer to shoot malpascp and jinx Bub Bidderskins that's their prerogative. All they need to do is decide on who does which in advance (and they don't even truly

need

to, as long as bobsnox hits scum - it just works better that way).

My point was: unless there is a clear reason for the other way around your suggestion is likely to be followed, which is exactly what the pack/antb/malp-team would want.

we don't

auto-lose

if it happens tomorrow.

True, doesn`t compensate the fact that the same statement in #968 was calling for the same 'give scum a 50% for no good reason'
or the fact that your 'don`t want to risk the tie-breaker' in #952 excuse for the same thing is totally bogus.

If malpascp were town, malpascp would notice that Pomegranate was scum.

The guy didn`t even find a single question directed at him in this thread.
Yes he should have noticed, but assuming he would have?

MrTrow - malpascp shot is good y/n?

On a bub revive by draw-at-deadline: you are to be

quick

-tie-hammered and you have to shoot malp. (this is not to be debated tomorrow)
On 'something actually happens today(second half)', i would like to see what, but yes he is currently the most likely scum and unless the new information provides something weird he should be shot.

I prefer to wait for his return(it`s likely we have no choice on that matter) but at the moment: YES i am prepared to bet the game on shooting malp

[MrTrow]

#902 I never said anything even close to that. I said based on CBDs message, we have some form of sleeping role who either isn't aware or isn't claiming. My thoughts != "everyone assume extra town PR and go from there"

So you did say:
'according to mod-provided information we have another PR'
You did not say:
'we should assume an extra town-PR'?

Could you please point out the misrep in the above or explain how either:
- a PR that should allow a non-instant town victory after 'empty-limbo' would be a scum PR ('all townies revived' is either not possible or instant, 'half of town alive at single point' in a situation where there will be no more revives is also impossible or instant, so which scum-PR would contribute to 'all-scum-dead')
- players should work based on mod-provided info could be incorrect

#984: indeed not a case by itsself:
in case of pom/bub/malp you are probably correct (pom`s recent 'we win' hints towards that: however we`ve seen 2 of those this game already)
in case of pack/antB/malp a push towards apathy that would benefit said team

If town gives up: scum wins (whether you are town who gives up and chooses to limit own number of proddodges over other townies still playing or scum who wants to inspire townies to do so, remains to be seen)

[MrTrow]

I don't really like Packbat suggesting that bobsnox

MUST

be revived so he can make his shot, but then again, I find the latter townier than the former.

With pom and malp holding votes and having pretty much claimed this game will end in a scum-win there are 3 possiblilties:
1: we have at least 1 townie actively throwing the game (there is nothing we can do against that (well at least not within the game) )
2: there is no relevant limitation to (against) the medium (in which case we have already lost)
3: we are in the race exactly as described: only a shot by bob can win this for town.

Problem with this is: although i agree with you that bob is way more likely to be town than pack, i simply see no way the game isn`t already over while reviving bob being a bad move. (Well there is one but i`m not going to bet the game on that (possibility 1

and

maybe 2 apply in that case))

[MrTrow]

Actually:
That we MUST revive bobsnox and have him shoot at some point has been clear for a while (as soon as the medium was revealed).
The claim (on which my list of possibilities is based) results in:
I believe that delaying the game another day, will not provide bob with more information to base his shot on.
Therefore there is no purpose in giving scum a(nother) chance to quickhammer.

[MrTrow]

the vote switch was a one-shot power. In this case, scum would have to be fast enough to get the first two votes.

This is exactly what pack was going for.
I had it on 'there must be a drawback(i don`t believe the 1-shot is it) ' same tactic required.

I`m not sure with the 'no discussion' as long as it doesn`t hinder the votes.
Those alive should vote first read later.
We need to get bob revived, we need to get bob al the info he needs to hit

As for the less than 3 scum scenario (which was the 'one' in #1014), a bob-no-fire would be a town-win, a bob-mis-fire (very likely within the 2-man scumteam scenario) would be an instant loss.

[MrTrow]

In no way do I say we should continue under the assumption that we should play as though we have those kinds of roles.

I say we must have those kinds of roles based on what was said

said by the mod right?

So what should we not do?
Believe the mod?

Barring some very strange events on scum-team-returns-sunday i have no choice but to conclude you are town, but this combination really strikes me as off.

[MrTrow]

@Toasty:

that was under the assumption of a pom/bub/malp scumteam.
bub was the first to hit 2.
If pom and malp both decide not to move their vote (which is what that scumteam will do if they either have sufficient power in the medium(and or bub) or confidence in their race-ability to win)
by the first-come-first-serve rule in case of ties bub will be revived and the game will end or turn into a race.

Considering the 'minor details' neither of those 3 players have actually played D3 and those among them that actually hold the votes flat out refuse to turn this into a guaranteed not completely scum-controlled revival
I`d say it is a pretty reasonable assumption.

[MrTrow]

malp, when you read this,

unvote

. Failure to do so will be treated as a scum claim.

FTFY

[MrTrow]

P.S. bobsnox: if malpascp unvotes, purge Bub Bidderskins.

Ok

Short version: against
Long version: not until the unvote

[MrTrow]

@bub: so you are ok with the shot, but only after you are sure YOU cannot be hit?

Pretty close to withdrawing my objection to a bub purge.

@Pack: i have never objected to post-game discussion and don`t intend to start now

[MrTrow]

Guess the 'taking the vote from crypto thing' was either to throw us off track or scum can`t pick which vote they take.

Objection to any way of attacking pom/bub/malp team withdrawn. (if it`s a bob->bub shot, fine)

[MrTrow]

Unless at least one of them shows up with something really amazing: Yes.

[MrTrow]

I don't see any unanswered questions directed to me...

Spoiler: how about these?

@malpascp:
could you take another look at the potential of the 'pseudo-kill' and explain again why we should base our plans on a lying townie?

Bub's not scum. (I forgot the fact that IceGuy replaced Crypto, dumb me)

Then why did (a) you get the vote and (b) Pomegranate sheep you onto Bub Bidderskins? That only works if Pom is lying town and IceGuy is scum.

Ow b.t.w:

I don't see an unvote.

[MrTrow]

@packbat: if you still want to know why i was 'short version: against' a bub shot as long as malp unvotes.
- i still considered you/antb/(at least as likely) malp a reasonable alternative (that suggestion perfectly fitted the team)
- would be relatively busy till deadline so i wasn`t sure i`d be around for a complete debate on the 'long version' (needed to get the idea out even if i wouldn`t time for the complete case)
- was too drunk at that moment to consider the benefits of allowing malp to believe bub was the 'relatively sure' target.
actually originally i had "(need to read up a thing or two anyway)" stated at the long version, thought i could leave it out as i clearly wasn`t a target of discussion.


about the powers, i`m sticking to everything i said while the game was ongoing:
- i don`t see the town purpose of the strong-spirited-townie:
if killed we have a confirmed town in limbo the next day: most logical revive
if revived (again): there is a confirmed town alive at night: most logical kill (after all he was the logical kill before being confirmed)
it does nothing but delay the game by a day.

- the summoner only makes sense to resurrect 2 PR`s in a single day (doc/vig combo(prob-overpowered) was the first that came to mind when i read the summoner-claim)

As for informative roles: true town doesn`t have any other information, however a cop holding 1/3rd of the votes/ on a single 'not investigating the most recent corpse' always knowing everyting is also quite strong.

The mechanic as a whole: i`d probably try it again. (but with the 'constant lylo' i understand why some players wouldn`t)

2 questions remain though:
@scum: why crypto`s vote? (from run-perspective the least logical choice)

@cdb: if pom couldn`t target the same player twice in a row, how was it no longer possible for the limbo(non malp) player and the intact living townie(or 2 living voters) to pull the planned quick-tie-hammer on bob?

[MrTrow]

IceGuy:
That would limit the voting-power of revived scum to quickhammer only.
Also it would make powerroles (assuming no roleblockers) way more powerfull, or roleblockers insanely powerfull.
Or were you considering to make the most powers limbo(dead)-only?

[MrTrow]

ice: just considered the implications of such mechanics with a cop (cop alive, RB dead, actually came to the conclusion it wouldn`t work with any information:
as soon as 1 dead scum has been identified, the game will be over.
scum cannot manipulate the votes (only quickhammer) as they are known
therefore the only way the detected scum can ever be revived is if scum holds a mayority among the living (in which case they have already won)