Good Omens Mafia! Game Over.

[Seol]

Just to say I'm here, I've got my PM, I haven't read the thread, I'm just about to do just that

[Seol]

Anyway, from a quick skim of the thread, it seems that Stewie is extremely hung up on word choice and ignoring the main ideas of people's posts.

Main ideas are barely important until you've lynched someone.

OK, I'm going to have a go at interpreting this. I think Coron means:

At this point in the game, we don't know who's allied to who, we have no roleclaim-based information, we have absolutely nothing by which we can implicate one person over another that's actually based on

facts

. Therefore, all we can look for are tells - indications that people are being motivated by scummy motives rather than honourable pro-town motives.

Once we

have

lynched someone, then we can look back and see if there are any voting patterns, people rushing to support people we now know are scums, look at who was nightkilled and who they were attacking and have a slightly more informed approach. But today, such principles that will probably serve us well in the future are next-to-useless, today we

have

to pick over word choices and such subtleties because it's all we have, unless we're lucky enough to have someone basically admit they're scum.

On the subject of Gaspode, I'm wary - he seems hugely concerned about the risk of lynching cops or docs, and that seems to be his logic is to give everybody a little slack - well, to be frank, there's too much slack at the moment, nobody's under any pressure and we're not getting anywhere. I'm also aware of the possibility that Gaspode's trying to set up an opportunity for a later cop/doc claim in his own defence.

Nope, I'd say that day 1 you've just got to keep going on base suspicion until/unless something better comes up. Whilst I'm not hugely fond of Korais at the moment, I'm picking up stronger scum vibes from Gaspode, who seems to be trying to shoot down the whole methodology of looking for tells that a) is all we really have today and b) pointed us in his direction in the first place.

Vote: Gaspode

[Seol]

Aelyn's post is pretty curious to me. Voting entirely based on what mith said leaves him open to shifting the blame.

Gaspode hasn't really done anything nonsuspicious yet, but I will

unvote

because I don't feel comfortable pursuing a lynch on him anymore.

Now that's interesting. You found him suspicious enough to vote for once, he "hasn't really done anything nonsuspicious yet", but you're not comfortable pursuing a lynch? What exactly do you want, then?

Or were you just trying to put a "fake", throw-us-off-the-scent scum buddy vote on Gaspode for later reference, and now you're concerned he might actually be getting close to a lynch (he still needs approximately infinity votes, though)?

FOS: Electra

Hey, I like this game, the scum are easy to spot!

[Seol]

Er, just history. Gaspode hasn't done anything nonsuspicious, but he hasn't done anything more suspicious either.

What, so you only keep your votes on scum who are kind enough to compound their errors? That's very forgiving of you!

I've had a history of going after someone without considering their posts from a town perspective after their initial scummy posts.

But you said he hasn't done anything nonsuspicious - in fact, all he's done is clarify that his position is one of great reluctence to vote. What has he said that makes you think he isn't scummy?

And like you said, he's not anywhere near a lynch yet, and it's not like there's a consensus that he's the one to lynch. O.o So how does unvoting make me Mafia?

It doesn't "make you Mafia", but taking a vote off whilst not finding him any less suspicious makes me wonder:
a) How suspicious did you find him in the first place?
b) Might you have had a reason

other than suspicion

to place a vote on him?

I'm just saying that at the moment your actions don't make much sense. Whilst I'm not putting it forward seriously, the prospect of it being a seperator vote is both plausible and consistent with your actions - but it was more of a poke than an indictment, I'll freely admit it's fairly flimsy.

[Seol]

Forewarning - everything bolded in quotes is my emphasis.

What, so you only keep your votes on scum who are kind enough to compound their errors? That's very forgiving of you!

I would keep my vote on Gaspode if he had actually made an error and not just

made a few posts that seemed Mafia-flavoured

.

But you said he hasn't done anything nonsuspicious - in fact, all he's done is clarify that his position is one of great reluctence to vote. What has he said that makes you think he isn't scummy?

I don't think he's not scum.

I'm just giving him the benefit of the doubt since he could be making those posts if he were town and for a while, I didn't give people the benefit of the doubt.

The only problem with that is on day one, if you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, we're never going to get anywhere. I'd be very surprised if anyone was foolish enough to actually get caught from something concrete today. So, we have to go with

something

- yes, we might be wrong, but he's the best candidate right now (well, I think so, which is why my vote's on him).

It doesn't "make you Mafia", but taking a vote off whilst not finding him any less suspicious makes me wonder:
a) How suspicious did you find him in the first place?
b) Might you have had a reason

other than suspicion

to place a vote on him?

I'm just saying that at the moment your actions don't make much sense. Whilst I'm not putting it forward seriously, the prospect of it being a seperator vote is both plausible and consistent with your actions - but it was more of a poke than an indictment, I'll freely admit it's fairly flimsy.

I found him suspicious enough to vote him

. I don't know what the other people feel exactly about him, but

the way that he posted just seemed very reluctant to commit to anything and Mafia-like

. But it's not like there was anything concrete against him, just a feeling. After a few more of his posts, I felt that it was possible that he was just a townie speaking in that manner, and

since my vote wasn't doing anything anyway

, I removed it. Make sense?

Honestly, it sounds to me like you really do suspect Gaspode, but you're just trying to be careful not to be on a bandwagon that might be wrong. Now, obviously, nobody wants to lynch a townie - but we're

not going to get proof today

(if anyone wants to prove me wrong,

please

go ahead). I'm not saying we should speed-lynch Gaspode, and it may be in the course of events scummier people crop up, and we can always switch our vote then. But if people say "oh, we need 17 to lynch, my vote's insignificant" (I'd draw a political parallel here, but we'd get OT too quick) or "I'm not voting until someone makes a concrete mistake", we won't reach day 2. Ever.

It's also interesting that what you say you find scummy about Gaspode - his reluctance to commit to a vote, despite genuine suspicion - is behaviour that you yourself are displaying.

From "the Mafia are so easy to spot" to "fairly flimsy"?

Killjoy. I still have an FOS on you, I'm not sure whether you're just naive or doing this deliberately. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt though - I'm prepared to move that FOS onto someone more deserving later.

[Seol]

If he's town, then it doesn't mean that aelyn is town too, but that there is no reason to believe that

she

is scum, other than coron's "gut feeling."

Careful there Stewie, Aelyn's not female - although that's a common misconception. So much so, in fact, that on the Misetings forums his custom title is "Not actually female".

[Seol]

So what're we doing now? Establishing a bandwagon, then switching that bandwagon to whoever's on that bandwagon with the worst logic, then switching that bandwagon to whoever's on that bandwagon with the worst logic, then switching that bandwagon to whoever's on that bandwagon with the worst logic? I'm not sure where we're going to get like this.

Ah well, for reasons that have been said over and over -

unvote, vote: Coron

. Your reasons seem worse than anyone else's to me, so far.

[Seol]

How many is that? I need to claim(role, not name) before they "acidentally" lynch me stupid freaking scum.

That's 9, with 15 to lynch. And if you want to claim, then just do it, don't make us go through a charade of carefully counting out 13 votes and then stopping and waiting for you.

[Seol]

How many votes is that?

MOD

WHERE ARE YOU?

Geez. Ever heard of "reading"? I would have thought you cared more about how many votes you had than I did. Damn, it's Saturday night, I should have better things to do than count your votes for you.

Still 9, you've got one new vote but Peacebringer unvoted you to vote Gaspode.

Oh, and by the way:

Prelim claim: I'm protown.

[Seol]

Oh, ok. I thought I'd try to be helpful, as it's not really too tricky to count them. Is there some special counting technique the mod uses that is alien to us players?

Wait, actually, it's conceivable there might be some vote-manipulation going on, so you do have a point. For some reason, I've been feeling strangely sarcastic and intolerant today.

Ah, yes, I remember why - I've been playing this game too much.

But in any case, did you seriously think that claiming pro-town means jack shit?

[Seol]

Nah, not really, but it's true.

See, this is why we have a bandwagon on you. Here, you're telling us something you want us to believe (which may or may not be true), but not giving us any reason to believe you. Arguments like "I'm protown" or "Aelyn is acting scummy, read his posts to see why" aren't arguments. There are two problems with this.

Firstly, if we don't know your reasons, we don't know that there

are

any reasons. You might have genuine good reason to (for example) suspect Aelyn is scum, but until you tell us your reasons we don't know whether you're picking up on specific, potentially important points or just following your gut (and we don't know how reliable your gut is) - so we don't know how much credence to give your opinions.

Secondly, and this is more important, if you don't explain why you're doing something while you're doing it, then it's entirely possible you're doing it for scummy reasons. I'm not saying it's not possible to commit scummy acts whilst coming up with convenient pro-town reasons, but it's much harder and you run the risk of trapping yourself in an inconsistency or lie while you do it - and as such, any tendency to try to avoid explaining your actions as you go along is potentially scummy. Any reluctance to provide proper explanations

when requested

is definitely scummy, as it implies you either didn't have one, or you don't want to share it with the town (because it's scummy).

Yes, I know you provided an explanation for your suspicions of Aelyn, but only after numerous requests (at that point, I was simply ignoring you - as I do to anyone who doesn't provide thought processes). Trouble is, it all smacks of trying too hard - too many inconsequential (not subtle - just meaningless) points added to try and bolster your case. Do I think Aelyn looks perfectly clean? No, I don't - there have been some good points made against him. However, you seem all to eager to get everyone behind you based on, essentially, nothing. It's that which I find scummy, and that's why I'm voting for you.

[Seol]

I say I'm protown because I am.

Or because you're not, and you want us to think you are. I mean, come on - think about this, who would ever say they

weren't

protown? Saying that

doesn't tell us anything

and is just noise. Volunteering

that

as a "preliminary roleclaim" is entirely pointless.

I don't know exactly what it was, I assume it was some sort of combination of the things I stated and other things in the posts. I posted them all because I DON'T KNOW.

Well, if you don't know why you find him scummy, how on earth do you expect to convince the rest of us?

[Seol]

Woo, Locus v the IS mentality. Time to settle back with some popcorn, should be fun to watch...

[Seol]

That mentality, Seol, is the one thing I hate most in a mafia player.

What, the IS mentality (which I thought you appreciated)? Or my comment about trouble brewing?

[Seol]

Woo, Locus v the IS mentality. Time to settle back with some popcorn, should be fun to watch...

settle back with popcorn?! No, we are playing an INTERACTIVE GAME.

Deary me, you're so literal. It's almost quaint.

Don't worry, I'll continue to participate. Just don't want to get dragged into

that

particular discussion. OK?

[Seol]

So, who're we lynching? I'm voting for Coron, but I'd be happy with Gaspode too. But geez, the game's slowed to a complete crawl. Where is everyone?

[Seol]

unvote, vote: gaspode

I'll just vote the one that has more votes from gaspode and coron... and I don't like lynching someone while they are gone when they repeatedly said so. Gaspode, on the other hand, seems a bit quiet since we "switched" to coron.

To me, it feels like Coron is stalling. He's apparently waiting for confirmation of how much he can claim, but has no other defence in the meantime. The amount of claiming available seems pretty clear to me in the rules on page 1.

Gaspode's quietness does concern me a bit, but I still think Coron's the best bet right now.

[Seol]

To me, it feels like Coron is stalling. He's apparently waiting for confirmation of how much he can claim, but has no other defence in the meantime. The amount of claiming available seems pretty clear to me in the rules on page 1.

Gaspode's quietness does concern me a bit, but I still think Coron's the best bet right now.

Hmm

FOS Soel

for that comment- may well be worth voting this gentleman at some point.

Care to elaborate? Coron's not had anything new to add in his defence in a good few days, but keeps saying "don't lynch me until I claim" in a game

designed to not feature roleclaims?

It feels to me like he's trying to buy time so he doesn't have to

say

anything until he's going away, when his absence is pre-explained. Either that, or he actually has nothing to say.

[Seol]

At least now we know for sure that he isn't just stalling for no reason, and that he's actually waiting for some sort of answer. This does not mean he's town, but just that he's not lying about waiting for an answer.

Just to clarify, I did believe that he was asking the mods for what he could claim. What I was criticising him for was having nothing

else

to say, or so it seemed, and also choosing to rely on roleclaims for a defence in a game where we don't really

learn

anything from roleclaims - the game's too big for counterclaims to mean anything, and he's not allowed to give enough detail for us to hope to catch him in a lie.

The rules of this game of Mafia are different - the approach being taken to roleclaiming here means that it's not really a valid day one defence strategy - well, at least that's my opinion - so when I see him relying on it, and furthermore waiting for mod permission first (taking a good few days) that'll probably run into the time he's told us he'll be away (another few days) I get the feeling that he's trying to get a situation where we won't lynch him in his absence, but he's taking so long to return we look elsewhere.

So, I think he's telling the truth, but I also think he's stalling.

[Seol]

We got back like 1 1/2 hours late and I was pretty exausted so I went to sleep. I woke up this morning went to church then logged on. Seriously people.

I think that was just general boredom/frustration - the game's kinda stalled whilst we waited for you. But you're back now!

First off I'm a mason. Secondly I can give you the name of the mason if nessisary(the point I needed clarified).

I presume you mean name the person you're a mason with? It's only a two-person group?

Would you say your role name, if you were to die, is one that could confuse us about your alignment?

It may be worth revealing the other mason,

if

your role name is one that's particularly likely to be town and makes sense as a mason. Seeing as we don't get role descriptions when people die, we can't necessarily rely on intertwined roleclaims giving us a confirmed townie situation later - if your role name

is

convincing (and I'm not asking you to

claim

, just use your judgement - how reliably "good" is the name?) then you're in a much better situation. I don't see the mason role itself as powerful, so the only way this buys you any grace is if we can get some corroboration.

After all, if you

don't

reveal them, and the town decides that's not good enough and lynches you, then that co-mason is effectively a vanilla townie - even given a situation where you name them and we lynch you anyway we've got a confirmed vanilla. Plus, I don't see what

harm

naming them could do.

[Seol]

Plus, I don't see what harm naming them could do.

Really? You can't? We've got multiple bad guy groups. If they gain knowledge which can help them to stay clear of vanilla's or the other groups, that would help them immensely I would say.

With the number of players we have here -

28

still alive - revealing one extra townie isn't going to make much difference to the odds of hitting a power role. If we're in a situation where another member of a scum group is revealed for backup, then we'll get both of them without much difficulty. Basically, yes, it will

marginally

assist the scum to have another vanilla revealed, but it's more than offset by the improved quality of our lynch today.

Or at least, it seems that way to me.

[Seol]

Hokay, I'm still sceptical but then I always am - but if Coron's got abilities beyond just masonry, then I'd definitely agree it's a bad idea to reveal. As I said earlier though, I'm happy with either Coron or Gaspode, so I'll

unvote, vote: Gaspode

.

[Seol]

He should be...

Deadline set for Tuesday 8PM (-5gmt)

.

Someone's dead, then?

[Seol]

I'm going to wait to hear what mith has to say, but I'll take some convincing. Provisional unbolded doesn't-quite-count

vote mith

.

[Seol]

Offtopic, but:

I was at a solar physics conference at Cambridge

There's one in Cambridge at the moment? There's one in Birmingham this week too!

[Seol]

This is amusing. The first day lasted two months and resulted in no lynch, and now some of you can't wait a day or two? Rushing into things is horrible play, and quite suspicious.

Well, we do have a claimed cop result which has been verified as not insane, paranoid or naive on you. That's often enough for a lynch. Plus the last thing we want now is

another

day that lasts two months and ends in a no-lynch. I'm not saying I approve of lynching you before you get the chance to respond - I don't - but to hold up yesterday as an example doesn't really hold.

I'm not sure what part of my previous post wasn't clear, but to elaborate, I was at a solar physics conference at Cambridge, the computers they had available for internet access were pathetic, and when I posted I only had a couple minutes before the next session. I wanted to read the rules to make sure of how much I could say, and I hate rushing posts.

It seems perfectly reasonable, to me, that a player who posts the level of detail that mith does would want the opportunity to compose a proper response to such an accusation.

FOS: Olio

for that.

On the other hand, the whole "give me [time] to put up a proper defence" is often a way for scum to buy time to cool a wagon and fabricate a roleclaim. You've got a good alternative explanation... but then, I think a player of your calibre always would do.

My role is essentially a vigilante type. If I'm reading the rules correctly, I'm not allowed to say exactly what the details of me using my ability are (i.e., how often I can use it, and so on). However, I will say that I haven't used it yet, and I *can* show that to you, simply by making a kill tonight (or whenever the town decides it would be useful) and you noting that it is a different type of kill. It's also possible you will be able to get an idea of what my role might be and why I might appear as scum to certain investigators; I can't say that for certain, but it seems likely.

You are claiming a role which you cannot substantiate until we go to night, and can only substantiate by killing someone. The trouble here is that if you

are

telling the truth, the only way you can do that is by taking a pot-shot into the town - you'd be trading the life of one player for your own.

This is worth considering if we can take out someone who looks scummier than you - but to date, the only real information we have points at you. So we'd be trading down - agreeing to kill someone who's less scummy-looking than you. I don't like the sound of that plan.

Furthermore, what we'd get tomorrow is a different type of kill - but I can't think of any killing method that is unambiguously town. The best we can do is verify you're capable of killing and

might

be pro-town - I don't see how you'd

prove

yourself.

I find it rather incredible that so many people have voted already, considering the type of game we're in. Do you honestly think that things will be so clear as that in this large a game with this many groups? We're going to have some guilties that can't be found by every investigator, and we're going to have some innocents appear guilty to some.

Translation - We can't trust cops.

Now, that might be true - it might be that Pooky's result is inaccurate for flavour reasons, rather than the simple Sane/Paranoid/Naive/Insane scheme. But if we approach the game with this mindset, bearing in mind we can't claim names or even describe our roles in sufficient detail to properly explain results, then the cops are useless. I'd rather not disregard such a potentially powerful role, at least not before getting some indication of how reliable (or not) the cops can be. The best way of finding that out now is lynching you. Of course, if you come up as having a clearly pro-town role, then we'll need to take a good long look at Pooky.

Pre-empting that: Pooky, can you think of any flavour reasons why someone might show up as scum to you despite being pro-town? Can you give any examples of characters where that might happen? After all, if mith has a role that's pro-town, and then tomorrow you can explain it away - well, that's easy after the fact. If you tell us how you might miss now and that does come to pass, we're far more likely to believe you. Not that I want you to say too much here, with our rather stringent roleclaiming rules, but can you give us anything?

Furthermore, it's not as if vig is even a particularly powerful role - it's at its best when we can use it as a way of mopping up known scum, but if we can't trust our cops - which seems to be the position you're advocating - then your value to the town is much decreased. It'd be different if you had a really powerful pro-town role - then verification gambits are worth considering - but you don't, so you're not worth the effort and risk.

Stop acting like a bunch of mindless sheep and think, please.

OK, I can think of a few reasons why in this situation, bearing in mind the cop

might

be wrong, it's still better to lynch you than have you try to prove yourself.

I also think it interesting that you conceded that Pooky investigated you straight away - that indicates that you

know

your role is potentially scummy-looking. That might be true of a townie, but it's (almost) always true of scum.

Basically, it boils down to - Trust Your Cop unless you've got a damn good reason not to. Can you give me a damn good reason?

vote: mith

pending a damn good reason.

[Seol]

Obviously I can't prove 100% that I am innocent. That's just the way things go in Theme games. It's simply bad play though to lynch straight away when there's a good chance at getting more information.

Well, if we've got a result on you

and

you can't prove you're innocent, then what's your defence?

And of course I disagree that I am the best you have to go on. olio's posts are just insane, for instance. I question the motives of anyone that advocates pushing through a lynch before plenty of information is milked out of things.

OK, then, how's about this for a compromise - we talk for a few days, milk the information for a bit,

then

lynch you?

Seol: http://www.mist.ac.uk/mistsr05.html (not much up yet, but anyway)

Thanks, but it's gibberish to me - my ex-girlfriend's doing a solar magnetohydrodynamics PhD and came to visit this weekend. Just thought it was a bit of a coincidence... but then, these conferences always happen in the holidays, don't they?

[Seol]

Basically, it boils down to - Trust Your Cop unless you've got a damn good reason not to. Can you give me a damn good reason?

Here's one:

My results are not guilty/innocent, they however do point very much so in one direction as to his probable alignment.

This is the problem with quick lynching on cop claims. As I said before, usually the information you get in games like this is incomplete, and when the "cop" hasn't even read the book, it's easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.

That's a good point, and is a change in position on Pooky's behalf - we've gone from "investigation says guilty" to "results are not guilty/innocent". I still suspect that you are the correct lynch, but Pooky's going to have to back his position up somewhat.

unvote: mith

for now.

On the other hand, the whole "give me [time] to put up a proper defence" is often a way for scum to buy time to cool a wagon and fabricate a roleclaim. You've got a good alternative explanation... but then, I think a player of your calibre always would do.

I haven't played a lot recently, and I'm pretty sure I've never played with you before. If I had, you would know that I don't stall for time, even when I'm scum. Having good excuses is not a sign of a good player... a good player doesn't *need* to stall for time.

You're correct in that I've never played with you before and therefore don't know your style that well. And "having good excuses" is not the way I'd put it - a good scum player always builds plausible deniability into everything by anticipating an alternative explanation for their actions. I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened - I'm just cautious to take anything at face value, especially from fingered scum (and I'll concede that you're slightly less than "fingered scum" now, but you're still not far off) - and that also applies to your assertions of what a good player would do.

Similarly, you haven't played much with me yet, so you probably don't know how cynical I can be - I rarely take anyone's stated reasons for their behaviour at face value. For what it's worth, that quoted paragraph wasn't part of the substance of my argument to lynch you, it's just acknowledging that Olio

may

have a point. I'm largely on your side in this issue.

But anyway, it's a bit silly to suggest that I arranged the conference as an excuse to buy some time, and I know you're not suggesting I'm just making it up (you could easily verify that I was there anyway).

I'm not suggesting either of those things. I was suggesting that possibly seeing as you had "cover" you might have taken the opportunity to try and cool the game whilst sleeping on possible approaches - if there's anything you're lying about/exaggerating, I'd suspect it's the quality and availability of internet access. But I'm not saying you did - I'm just bearing in mind that's a possibility.

In any case, that's pretty much both an irrelevance and probably the most spurious aspect of my post. I look forward to your responses to the rest of my arguments.

don't be a moron and add a vote to "put more pressure" on me.

I don't think most of these votes were to pressure you - I think they were to lynch you. The information we had was we had a guilty verdict on you, and under those circumstances - even given some doubt - you should be lynched. It's now transpired the situation isn't so clear-cut, so some discussion is definitely in order.

[Seol]

Well that does match perfectly with the information I got about you,

that you give bad vibes and seem evil.

Given what's been said, I can only think of one plausible role that mith could have if he isn't just blowing smoke - but there

is

a plausible role, it's not part of a group, it's unlikely to be antitown, and yes - the manner of the kill will point pretty unambiguously to that role. Furthermore, if that's the kind of result Pooky gets, I can't think of any other characters where there's a possibility of ambiguity.

Trouble is, for the role I'm thinking, this sets off alarm bells:

Maybe my character owns a farm somewhere.

If you're trying to say you are who I think you're tring to say you are, then there's no way you could own a farm somewhere. For that reason, I'm sort of skeptical you actually do have that role. Am I thinking of the wrong role?

All the other roles that make even slight sense as having killing abilities, we've already either seen a very likely kill (eg witchfinder burnings) or it's inconceivable they're not scum (eg Horsemen).

[Seol]

Seol, as Aelyn suggests, I was joking about the farm thing. Think that type of thing would be a bit specific as far as claiming goes anyway.

On the one hand, of course I knew it was a joke - on the other hand, it does seem contradictory - I've always been careful never to put something which, looking back later, is contradictory in my play, even when being facetious, for exactly that sort of reason. Perhaps I'm just too careful (anal?), and expecting other people to follow my lead on that is unreasonable.

If I were in a scum group, my group could do that anyway, and there would be the chance that

the one picked as my target

was *also* in my group, so you get a two-for-one deal.

Bolded for emphasis. I hadn't got as far ahead as this, but are you suggesting we nominate a target for you in the thread? There's a number of problems with that - the possibility of double-kills (as, depending on the mod, you don't always see both kill methods, meaning that it might not confirm you), the issue of protection (as it's not unheard of for scum groups to contain doctors), the possibility of choosing a more powerful town role and outing them, and of course the question of "how do we choose?".

Even bearing in mind the information you've given us so far, I'm still of the opinion you're the best lynch (because as I see it the potential for things going wrong whilst verifying you is high, I don't believe we'll suffer too badly from losing your role, and we get feedback on Pooky - and of course, there's nothing said so far that means you

can't

be an SK-type or just lying about everything), but I'd like to hear in more detail what your

exact

proposal for the verification procedure is.

[Seol]

I hadn't got as far ahead as this, but are you suggesting we nominate a target for you in the thread?

Well, I was going off the post above mine (Aelyn's), and this is also the usual way things are done in such situations.

It is? I've never been in a "verify vigilante" situation before, and had assumed we'd just let you do your own thing without having your target made public. Yes, there are problems with that approach too (I don't like that one that much either) but I'd assumed that was our default starting point.

There are other ways to go about it. The town could nominate several, and I pick one off the list. Or I just pick someone myself.

My issue wasn't so much how the target is chosen, but rather that it would be public knowledge (as this gives the scum a number of ways to prevent it happening). However, both of these options you proposed eliminate the possibility that you'll choose someone in your group if you

are

scum, which is why I reckon it's better if we don't give you too much choice in the matter quite yet.

There's a number of problems with that - the possibility of double-kills (as, depending on the mod, you don't always see both kill methods, meaning that it might not confirm you)

For the first, this is much more likely if my target isn't known in advance, actually. If my target is known, it's would be quite foolish of the scum to target them as well. Why would they waste a kill on someone who would die anyway just to keep me from showing my kill?

Were they to do this, they'd effectively be trading their nightkill for guaranteeing that you'll be the next day's lynch. It's certainly arguable that's a worthwhile trade.

the issue of protection (as it's not unheard of for scum groups to contain doctors),

For the second, no, it's not unheard of. Consider though that scum are only likely to protect fellow scum, and so the target is likely to be under considerable suspicion anyway (they could protect someone not in their group, but again, to what purpose? Better to use their protection on someone in their group, as there are other kills out there, and putting suspicion on someone who is going to be killed anyway seems rather pointless).

Assuming that you're telling the truth, you attempt to nightkill that person and fail. We wake up and see no kill, so we lynch you. Effectively, it's trading a night's protection (that, if used on their fellow scum, is unlikely to make any difference to anything anyway) for a guaranteed lynch the following day. I think that's

definitely

a worthwhile trade.

Plus, if the target's a member of a scum group with a protector, they'll know to protect them.

More importantly, what you're missing on both of these points is that any problems that could happen are not risks to the town, they're risks to me!

They're risks to the chance of success of the verification plan, and consequently to you. If you

are

innocent, I'd like the plan to give you the best possible chance of demonstrating it.

the possibility of choosing a more powerful town role and outing them

For the third, I think you're thinking about this the wrong way. This sort of thing is essentially a way for the town to get an extra lynch. What you're basically saying is that rather than discuss and find two lynch candidates today (lynching one and me killing the other), plus still having me as an option based on what happens tonight, you think we should give up those two chances and just lynch me now instead

Well, again this depends on the manner in which your target is chosen, but I can see where you're coming from - I hadn't looked at the situation in that way.

This line of thinking can quickly lead to the no-lynch/wait-for-the-cop style of play that is boring and generally worse for the town in theme games.

Quite the opposite - my position was

against

excessively convoluted verification schemes, and just to move on. However, I'm coming to the opinion that "things going wrong" (by which I didn't mean any harm was done to the town, but that we end up with a false negative result and lynch you tomorrow anyway) aren't actually going to make much difference compared to just lynching you today, so I'm happy to step back from supporting lynching you for now.

This is interesting though:

I'm willing to be the target for mith's vig-kill. Me being a normal townie, it really isn't a loss to the town.

Wouldn't it be better to at least

try

to vig scum? And if you're a townie, as you claim, wouldn't you think that vigging you is the only way to guarantee

not

to do that? This looks to me like a stone-cold bluff, and an attempt to make yourself look more pro-town.

[Seol]

I'm willing to be the target for mith's vig-kill. Me being a normal townie, it really isn't a loss to the town.

Wouldn't it be better to at least

try

to vig scum?

Sure. Any suggestions?

Not yet, I've been to wrapped up in the mith thing recently. I'll review the thread and see what I come up with.

And if you're a townie, as you claim, wouldn't you think that vigging you is the only way to guarantee

not

to do that? This looks to me like a stone-cold bluff, and an attempt to make yourself look more pro-town.

You know the concept "taking one for the town", don't you?

If

we are going to verify mith, I'd prefer we kill a townie and not make a pro-town player with a role to out him-/herself (or even worse: get killed) in the progress.

Of course I do, but I don't think it's appropriate here. mith was right - there's always a risk of outing power-roles, but there's also a chance we'll hit scum, and that's what we've got to go for. Killing a townie to verify a vigilante, who probably won't survive too long anyway, is not a plan I like much - the vig kill is an "extra lynch", and if we're going to be using it we want to try to hit people who we consider the most scummy.

On the buff part, if I'd were scum why in the world would I want to enter the spotlight all the sudden? And if you really think I'm scum, just let mith deal with me next night and get over with it.

Except you're not just "entering the spotlight", you've been under scrutiny today... albeit from mith, but he has some valid points.

Basically, I think you put the iocaine powder in your own goblet, and you're trying to convince us to switch. The reason I'm suspicious is I don't see why you poured yourself a glass of wine in the first place.

Another thing I worry about is maybe you've got a death trigger you're trying to activate, or have a role along the lines of Paranoid Gun Owner - maybe you're trying to set us up.

[Seol]

Ahhh, the good old Good Omens waiting-for-people-to-turn-up phase! My favourite part of the game!

[/sarcasm]

[Seol]

I'm willing to be the target for mith's vig-kill. Me being a normal townie, it really isn't a loss to the town.

Wouldn't it be better to at least

try

to vig scum?

Sure. Any suggestions?

Not yet, I've been to wrapped up in the mith thing recently. I'll review the thread and see what I come up with.

Still waiting... And mith, feel free to chime in with suggestions too. Meanwhile, I'm happy with my vote on Locus.

And everyone else, this game isn't just between me and mith!

OK, thoughts - in terms of today's activities, I'd agree with the observations so far that rolandofthewhite and Locus were hasty in compounding the votes once it was established there

was

a need for discussion, and I'm suspicious of you for your "vig me!" gambit. However, we still have the likely suspects from yesterday - Gaspode and, from earlier in the day, korais666 (I'm not mentioning Coron as I'm comfortable with his claim, for now) - what have either of them done to justify our moving on from them? Why are they so quiet today?

Right now I'm looking hardest at Olio, but at least he's participating - maybe if we put some pressure on yesterday's chief suspects we could provoke them to post, and surely our reasons for voting them yesterday are still valid?

vote: Gaspode

.

[Seol]

Still waiting... And mith, feel free to chime in with suggestions too. Meanwhile, I'm happy with my vote on Locus.

And everyone else, this game isn't just between me and mith!

Well, you two seemed to have problems with me offering myself as a vig target.

There's too many people just not saying

anything

at the moment. It's not even a case of lurkers evading discussion - the vast majority of the game just isn't here. We're heading for an abandoned game if we're not careful - trouble is, the lack of participation is killing my enthusiasm for the game, which in turn means I'm less likely to post. WHERE IS EVERYONE? GODDAMMIT!

OK, thoughts - in terms of today's activities, I'd agree with the observations so far that rolandofthewhite and Locus were hasty in compounding the votes once it was established there

was

a need for discussion, and I'm suspicious of you for your "vig me!" gambit. However, we still have the likely suspects from yesterday - Gaspode and, from earlier in the day, korais666 (I'm not mentioning Coron as I'm comfortable with his claim, for now) - what have either of them done to justify our moving on from them? Why are they so quiet today?

So do you suggest the scum vig should kill is in group of roland, Locus, me, Gaspode and korais666?

That's the way it looks to me at the moment. I would however comment I don't think we should be thinking about the vig target as a separate concept from the lynch target, they should both be based on suspicion, and as such the lynch target should be decided later into the day, when we have more to go on. For now, I'd be happy with a tentative target of any of those, though.

[Seol]

Er, how many votes on me does that make? Please don't rushlynch me before I have a chance to prove my innocence.

You can

prove

your innocence?

[Seol]

Vote Count

7 Mith (Electra, Iammars, Locus Cosecant, Peachy, PeaceBringer, rolandofthewhite, SinisterOverlord)
6 Locus Cosecant (Coron, Genocide Heart, Olio, PookyTheMagicalBear, SubtleTactix, Thoth)
2 Peacebringer (Fuldu, Mith)
1 Gaspode (Seol)

13 to lynch

.

Heh, somehow I don't believe my lurker vote is going to have the desired prodding effect.

unvote, vote: Locus Cosecant

.

[Seol]

lazarusmoth and Genocide Heart, as you can see from my posts Day 1 and Day 2. The ball's in your court now. If you want to confirm me, you can.

The only references I can see to lazarusmoth and Genocide Heart day 1 and 2 are:

Poor Pepper. I'm so distraught over her death, I'm gonna have to random vote: lazarusmoth. Got it?

Oh, and I forgot to mention (should have said this first off). Where is Genocide Heart? I remember him as scummy from yestiddy.

Which gives me the impression that, if anything, you had

less

reason to trust them than anyone else. Obviously I want to hear what laz and Gen have to say, but I'm confused why you'd attack people who you might later rely on for confirmation. Doesn't quite smell right to me.

[Seol]

For what it's worth, I'm happy with the "lynch Locus, vig PB" plan.

[Seol]

For what it's worth, I'm happy with the "lynch Locus, vig PB" plan.

FOS Seol-- this is not a good plan--I haven't read back beyond this page but Vigging me is not a good idea.

Why is vigging you not a good idea? Because you're town? But won't

everyone

say that?

I happen to think you're suspicious, because of your attitude towards mith, so I can see merit in you being mith's confirmation target.

[Seol]

my reaction to Mith is related to it not being a good idea to remove me from the game as I just stated in detail. If it is done, you will be sick about it I promise you. This is a game we cannot make direct role claims, so I cannot really say more but there is a reason I both tried to stay out the way and got reactive to Mith's BS. Wanting me gone as pro-town will hurt the town. No if's ands or buts about it. And my saying that assures my death I am afraid. If Mith is pro-town he should not be helping scum. If he is scum, well then carry on.

The thing is, that just sounds like you're trying to scare us into not vigging you. Anyone can say "I've got a powerful role, it'd be bad for the town to kill me!" - and the thing is, if we let ourselves be swayed by such arguments, we'll have no end of them. Coron and Mith's roleclaims are, at least, verifiable. Is yours?

Or to put it another way, why should I believe you?

[Seol]

Think about my reactions here though. Does it seem like scum on ropes or someone with a town role that feared losing the life over stupid spin.

That's the thing - you

do

seem like scum on the ropes. Almost like a textbook example of one.

The main person I need to convince is Mith, if he is not scum. I doubt that I did.

Well, seeing as we've more or less agreed to a town consensus on Mith's vigging, it's not just him at all.

[Seol]

Think about my reactions here though. Does it seem like scum on ropes or someone with a town role that feared losing the life over stupid spin.

That's the thing - you

do

seem like scum on the ropes. Almost like a textbook example of one.

The main person I need to convince is Mith, if he is not scum. I doubt that I did.

Well, seeing as we've more or less agreed to a town consensus on Mith's vigging, it's not just him at all.

So let me get this straight. Scum see someone with ability to kill and immediately draw attention to themself by pointing out it would be a bad idea to kill them. Especially when under no heat from anyone else. Scum in this case would lay back and look to night kill. At least if I were scum I would just go along with the town, back off.

Uh, that doesn't tally with my interpretation of today's events at all. You were under the radar until mith listed his picks for the three most suspicious people, which included you. Then you got into an argument with mith, which is what got the heat on you - and the further into the discussion we got, the more you sounded like scum running scared.

[Seol]

Whoops, I was so engrossed in the Peacebringer thing I missed the Locus comments.

Unvote

, but we

really

don't want to miss the lynch today. What's the current vote tally?

[Seol]

No. Dog is not. In the book, however, Dog is owned by Adam who is a member of them. Also, if we accept that they're masons, Dog needs to be a member for the group to be large enough.

Large enough?

If Locus, Darklight and Doomcow are masons together (and they haven't said that explicitly), they're not masons with Coron. Coron said he had one co-mason - this was when two of the Them are dead, so I'm presuming Coron and his partner are the remaining Them, and our other masons are some other group.

Also, I think we've found our Dog elsewhere.

vote: Gaspode

.