MKM II GAME OVER

[Kast]

Hi all, I'm replacing Cream.

I read through the game prior to replacing in and I have a pro-town impression from Moratorium, Ortolan, and Semioldguy.

Cream didn't claim about items, I'm guessing part of it is because cream also cannot buy or use any items.

Also, Qwints has flipped mushroom kingdom, but Qwints is one of the players who had bowser's army items (or rather information on those items).

But SK was also mushroom kingdom but did not (or claimed to not) have bowser's army information.

We didn't have a night 0 (game started in Day 1 if I'm reading everything correctly), so possibly only some of Mushroom Kingdom had item descriptions and did not have a chance to share it?

[Kast]

Oh and I was suspicious of pacman, but I guess he was replaced by semioldguy, and I don't get that same impression from semioldguy.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
-I think you are probably protown and your decision to push for the item claiming and force it through seems earnest.

I didn't like your attitude towards semioldguy testing your item knowledge. I think he had valid points and valid reason to doubt you. Once you finally showed that you did have knowledge of the items, he acknowledged that.

Overall a pro-town read, but tainted by what I see as a childish reaction.

-I have a positive impression of the other three because I felt they were being both earnest and very rational.

Visible Votecount

-sirdanilot (1): Gorrad
-Looker (1): populartajo

Not voting (14): killa seven, Kast, ZEEnon, Riceballtail, Looker, sirdanilot, Moratorium, ortolan, semioldguy, WeyounsLastClone, zwetschenwasser, Empking, caf19, AceMarksman

With 16 alive it takes 9 real votes to lynch.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
-Also, it feels like you ignore or miss things that some players post/say.

FYI- My guess is that only some MK members are provided with the BA items and due to game starting in Day 1, they were probably unable to share that information with each other.

Can someone who was around for the start of this game confirm if that is possible/true/whatever?

Things I liked about Ort:
-Ort started off raising the point that a mass claim is specifically warned against in the rules.
-I think Ort raised valid points against mass claiming item knowledge; but when it was clear that the town was doing it despite any limitations, he did participate. He remained pretty consistent with his stated beliefs throughout the process.
-Ort is one of the few players who came up with valid reasons for voting SK. Later votes seemed very "me too"-ish. Ort's vote is also early enough that I don't think an SK lynch was a sure thing, so I find it much less likely to be bussing.
-Ort's analysis of items seems to make the most sense (or at least seems to be consistent), and in particular I thought the suggestion that he sends a letter to prove himself was ridiculous.

-Also, to clarify, I don't think that the item claiming itself was the best course of action for the town, but I think that Tajo was earnest in proposing it as a pro-town tool.

@Mora-
2 and 3 aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't know where you are getting your probabilities from, but I agree that qwints being killed by a non-MK group is likely.

I think it is likely there are more than 2 factions (I think there are probably 4 factions). If any other, non BA factions are also uninformed (plausible from flavor since everyone is in the dark) I think there must be some kind of numerical or item/ability advantage to balance things.

One more possibility that I see from flavor, there are many Mario enemies who are immune to Mario's conventional methods of killing them. It's possible that Yoshi was sent to do the MK nightkill but ended up running into an enemy who is immune to Yoshi's nightkill method and possibly kills the person who tries to kill him.

[Kast]

Mod edit
Visible Votecount

-populartajo (3): zwetschenwasser, ortolan, Empking
-sirdanilot (1): Gorrad
-ortolan (1): populartajo

Not voting (11): killa seven, Kast, ZEEnon, Riceballtail, Looker, sirdanilot, Moratorium, semioldguy, WeyounsLastClone, caf19, AceMarksman

With 16 alive it takes 9 real votes to lynch.

I've been working on this post through the day as I have free time, so it doesn't address Mora's post 995 and forward.

@Sirdanilot-
My take of the game so far. It's really hard keeping track of all the players without having played through this. You really need to read through yourself though. Also, I have very few concrete ties between this and people's positions (mostly because there are few people who stood out for me).

Day 1:
-Discussion about mass claiming.

Tajo main driver of this.

-Conclusion that mass name/role claiming is probably bad
-Conclusion that Bowser's Army is actually the town despite potentially misleading role PM's.

SK showed no confusion about who was town and was suspected by some players for this

.
-Discussion about using knowledge of the BA items to confirm townies.

Tajo main driver of this.

-Response to plan was split ~60%/40% but after people started claiming some of those who refused claimed anyway so ~75% ended up claiming.
-9/17 players claimed knowledge of BA items, 4/17 claimed no knowledge and 4/17 didn't participate.

I replaced Cream who did not participate in claiming and does not have knowledge of items; I suspect that Cream and probably the 3 other non-compliant players refused to comply because they do not have this knowledge.

-Semioldguy and Tajo argued about Tajo's implementation of the knowledge checking.
-SK was one of the players who did not have knowledge of the items.
-SK claimed to be able to use items if they were given to him. This contradicted Ace's role which is not allowed to buy or use items.

Gorrad agreed with Ace's position. I also confirm that is consistent with my role.

-SK was lynched and flipped Toad (Mushroom Kingdom).

Night 1:
-Qwints died and flipped Yoshi (Mushroom Kingdom).
-Qwints is a player who had knowledge of the BA items.

Day 2:
-You probably don't need a summary on this.

@Tajo re:Looker-

Side note- could you guys link back to the posts that you reference?

Of your case against him, the first two points are practically the same-lurking-which seems to be his norm (anti-town but not necessarily scummy).
Third point is something to watch him for. I'm not sure why you draw Ort into it, but Looker replacing in and immediately voting scum with poor reason could very well be a bus and/or distancing.
Fourth point- I'm in an ongoing game with Looker, and based on his play there and what I read of his play here, I disagree with your assertion that he is not retarded.
Fifth point- It is fallacious to equate disagreement with a plan that was not clearly and obviously pro-town with having anti-town motivation.

I do think Looker needs to stop lurking and needs to participate or get replaced.

@Tajo re:Ort-
You have mentioned that your suspicion of Ort comes from Day 1. I don't recall any serious/memorable case(s) against Ort from Day 1. Please summarize (with links).

@Ort re:Tajo-
Tajo's belief in SK's claim seems to include a soft implication that he either is a goomba or strongly believes that goombas are present in the game. I also don't think the complexity of SK's claim really changed much between his initial claim and his final claim.

I do want to know why Tajo did not comment on the discrepancy between SK's claim about his item usability and Ace and Gorrad's claims about item usability. I want to hear what Tajo thinks of the discrepancy.

I don't think it is accurate/fair to say Tajo was not doing any scumhunting. I think a good analogy is to consider a game of street fighter. Tajo would be a player who is completely focused on doing super combos to the exclusion of all else. Ort would be a player who just plays, and if an opportunity comes up where a super combo would be good, he takes it, but he doesn't go out of his way to do so. Both ways could potentially win. In this case, Tajo was trying to use a super combo that is not very effective without first verifying whether it would be effective or not.

@Gorrad-
I think a lot of what you have posted so far makes very little sense and uses a lot of craplogic and jumping to unfounded conclusions. Reading your arguments, I can easily see myself falling into a big argument with you and being extremely frustrated. I don't know if this is just your playstyle. Do you have any links to previous (preferably short) games that show a similar penchant for jumping to conclusions with odd reasoning?

[Kast]

[quote=Tajo]Also the reason why ortolan wagon lost steam was because he claimed he had item descriptions in his PM, using the plan he is bashing now to save his scummy ass. But now we know this doesnt indicate he is town.[/quote]
If you disagree with Mora's presentation of the case against Ort, please summarize it and correct it.

-Is the reason that Ort was suspicious in the first place because he opposed the plan?

If that is the case, then regardless of whether he is town or scum, knowing the BA items shows that he wasn't opposed to the plan due to fear of discovery.

For now, I have to assume that Mora's reason is a very accurate summary of the case against Ort, since otherwise having knowledge of the items would probably have been ineffective at clearing Ort (I could see some contrived arguments that could be negated by Ort having knowledge of BA items, but nothing very plausible, implied, or even hinted at).

[Kast]

@Mora, 1002-
You are pretty vague.

Could you clarify your statement/thoughts?

Also to add a bit to my statement, the term "refusing to" was used by Tajo, but is actually a bit inaccurate. Cream and Killer did not refuse to participate, they simply lurked the entire Day 1.

Looker did not directly refuse; he said he would read the thread and decide after reading whether he should share that information. Then he lurked a lot, then later came back and never addressed that point again.

I'm not sure if this is one of Tajo's points, but if not, I think it should definitely be one.

RiceBallTail did refuse to participate in the claiming citing reasons that plans should be explained to the town so that town know why they should follow them before they agree to follow them and that townies might have different item costs (false negative).

[Kast]

@Mora-
It seems like your statement would make more sense changing it to more non-MK than average.

Given that it looks like we have 9 players with BA item info and 8 players without, I'd guess there was probably a pretty even distribution of MK players with BA item info, and among any DK or WW players, probably pretty balanced there as well.

I don't think it's really safe to conclude that the "refuse to claim" group has a disproportionate number of non-MK, just from that throwaway comment (of course, I don't mind if people want to assume I am more likely than average to be a townie). I would guess there is probably ~1 MK among the "refuse to claim" group (and ~1 MK among any random group of 4 players), and I could easily see one scum player naming a group of 4 players as scum (even if the group contained one of his scumbuddies).

@Item Knowledge-
Some thoughts I'd like to clarify about the items claiming-

-I agree that the simplest explanation for SK not having item descriptions and Qwints having them is that some MK players got those descriptions and some did not. I am assuming that this means there was no Night 0, and will strongly suspect any players who in future claim to have been given time to act on Night 0.

I also dislike how Tajo ignored me and others who posted this as a possible explanation, then later posted it as if it were his own original thought. Not indicative of alignment, just not a very pleasant attitude.

-I agree that Yoshi/Qwints probably shared his information, so now we can expect all scum to have item descriptions.

I find it extremely unlikely that scum will slip up and reveal knowledge of item descriptions when previously they claimed no knowledge, but if we see that, then yes I think it is worth pursuing. It is something that we should keep an eye out for.

-MKers (and potentially DK or WW players) who opposed item claiming on Day 1 may have done so not realizing that their team members had that information (although MKers probably realized it after seeing Qwints correctly answer questions).

-MKers (and potentially DK or WW players) who had item descriptions may have assumed that all team members also had that information.

[Kast]

@Zwet-
To clarify, this seems to be your case against Tajo:
-Tajo's plan required that only BA players have item descriptions in order to accurately confirm townies.
-At least one MK player had BA item descriptions.
-Tajo's plan did not accurately confirm townies.
-Tajo is scum for pushing a plan that did not accurately confirm townies and acting as though it did.

If that is accurate, your argument fails on point 4.

While Tajo did mostly ignore the potential flaws raised against his plan, a majority of players did agree that his plan was worth pursuing despite it's flaws. Unless you can make a good case to show that this majority was entirely composed of scum, that means the plan had sufficient merit that at least one townie decided to follow it.

Tajo could be scum who knew that his plan would lead the town astray. But he could also very plausibly be a townie who genuinely believed that his plan was beneficial to the town (despite it's drawbacks).

The arguments that you refer to against Tajo that are based on private information may be strong, valid cases. The town as a whole cannot determine that without learning the private information that you refer to but do not share. Until you present that information, those unspecified arguments remain weak for everyone other than you.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
It's kinda all your recent posts...but I'll try to pick one exemplary post for each of the major things that made me cringe while reading. I think it maybe a huge difference in playstyle; you tend to assume possibilities as truth until proven otherwise.
-Anecdotally relating two games in which nightkill commentary was part of the reason that scum were lynched does not prove that it is a valid tool for scumhunting. I'm sure I could find 2+ games where scum were lynched with the reason being that they were the first player to place a vote on another player. This would be a craplogic reason to believe that lynching the first person to place a vote on another player is valid scumhunting. Speculating about a NK and what it entails is not inherently scummy. It can be misused, but Mora did not post anything that does so or encourages others to do so. If you want to claim that speculating about NKs is scummy, you really need to give some reasons why it benefits scum and does not benefit town.
-Showing a potential situation in which the prices for the 4 BA items are the same as the prices for the 4 MK items shows a failure to understand Semioldguy's post. He pointed out that the only comment that he thought could be relevant to Qwint's guess was insufficient to provide Qwint with a method for correctly determining the relative values of a red and green shell. Your example is irrelevant to this. I could see you salvaging your argument with speculation that MK items might follow a similarly tight distribution as BA items (ie. all items are within +/-2 coins from each other

(I think this is what people claimed about the BA items)

, AND add in the point that red shells are generally considered superior to green shells (ie. Mario Kart games).
-You demonstrate a seriously flawed understanding of statistics. You are also inconsistent with your later claim that only the first person to comment on a nightkill is suspicious (or at least the first person is significantly more suspicious than others).
-You make a very odd comment implying that engineers will pursue irrelevant minutiae and this should excuse you for pointless craplogic.
-You assume that sirdanilot knows why/how he entered the game and that his failure to immediately share that information is scummy. This is a completely unjustified assumption.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
Does this mean you don't plan to link to any previous games?

-There is a possibility that scum could use it do out doctors or RBers. In our case, Mora's speculation did no such thing. It did help raise the point that at least some MK players had information about BA items. Your assumption that the possibility of a negative outcome makes something inherently scummy is fallacious.

-Being able to pair them up the BA items with MK items in the manner you imply would mean a player without the BA items can realistically infer relative value from only the names. I agree that Red Shell can be inferred to be better than Green Shell from flavor. This would have been a valid point to raise. However, you did not make this comparison. Further, just knowing the relative value between a red and green shell could not explain knowing the relative values of these with respect to the other BA items, so would not help with determining the value 2 EVEN IF all of the MK item prices correspond with BA item prices. This supposition is also required.

-Sorry to hear that. Stats are a pretty boring class.

-Not necessarily. Engineers tend to be pretty practical. They will pursue minutiae, but generally it is relevant to some degree. They also tend to be big fans of logic. I'll take my own word as a full engineer over your word as a "half".

-I am not stopping him from responding (nor is anyone else, which you have also baselessly implied). Regardless, it is an unjustified assumption. If you have private information that justifies your belief, it does not change that the assumption you presented to the town is unjustified.

[Kast]

@Ace-
-I went back and compared with MKM1. MKM1 has the same Day 1 start rule and the mod specifically mentions that scum can begin nighttalking when he announces that role PMs are out.

Contrast with MKM2, he has the same Day 1 start rule but does not mention nighttalking when he announces that role PMs are out.

This isn't conclusive and I doubt Mod will clarify, but doesn't hurt to ask.

@Mod-

Do we know whether any scum groups were able to communicate prior to the beginning of Day 1?

Mod: I don't think I'm going to answer that question

-Do you have any other suggestions to explain Yoshi knowing the BA items but Toad not knowing them?

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
Not really. Given that I'm not the only person who has expressed similar opinions about your posts, I find it extremely likely that other players would also express similar opinions if you posted in a similar manner in other games. Those would be the games you should link.

It is more akin to asking a professor if he can provide reference to previous papers that received negative reviews for similar reasons, or asking an athlete if he had any previous games or matches where he played while showing signs of being injured.

If you honestly have never had a game before where other players commented that you were making unjustified assumptions or using craplogic, then this clearly marks a departure from your normal playstyle.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
That's tough. I'm getting a pro-town read on the more active players (Mora, Semioldguy, Ort). They're being pretty fair, open, and reasonable.

I'm getting a mixed but mostly pro-town read on Tajo.

I'm getting neutral reads on Caf and Zwet (Zwet is probably the player I've had the most games with here on MS and I really can't read him).

I don't think Ace is being as careless/random in attacking players as he has been in the other games I've played with him. Could be he's improving as a player, could be he's more careful because he is scum. But I think his catch of SK is a huge point in his favor.

Gorrad's posts rub me wrong, but looking at some of his other games, they also rub me wrong as both scum and town. I am a bit suspicious of his "me too" tagging along with Ace after Ace called out SK, and I could see that as an opportunistic bus.

But I also have restrictions on item usage and I can't say that content indicates affiliation...maybe just the tone/manner in which he posted.

The other players are lurking heavily and nothing stuck out from my initial read of Day 1 to bring any of them into a spotlight.

I would like to hear more from Sirdanilot in particular.

Looker made an unofficial request to be replaced in a different game, and I'm guessing he's abandoning both this game and that one.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
I already posted my thought on that; but yes, I agree that it could have been an attempt to distance/bus by scum entering the game.

However, I think Looker needs to be prodded and probably replaced because it looks like he isn't active anymore. I don't think we do anything except reinforce preconceptions by pushing cases against someone who is not here. If he becomes active, then I want to hear from him. If he is replaced, I'd like to hear from his replacement.

It feels like only half the players are posting anything.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
You suspected him and set a trap, when the trap fails, you ignore it and decide he is scummy anyway. Confirmation bias.

@Sirdanilot-
Tajo's right, you avoided answering that question. What faction are you part of?

@Mora-
It would help oh so much if you could link to those posts you took the trouble to reference us to.

Also, to clarify, the 4/17 that I listed were just pulled from Tajo's list at the end of the day. Your list makes more sense in context of when Qwint's actually made his comment. It doesn't change my thought that Qwint's comment does not necessarily mean that the distribution of non-MK players within those 4 players is significantly higher than any other random sample of 4 players.

@Catching SK-
I think the claiming indirectly led to SK's lynch. The deciding factor really seems to be Ace's questioning about item buying and item usage. He had some pressure already from Ort's scum hunting, but I think that catch by Ace was what tipped things over (indirect result of the item claiming).

I think Semioldguy's speculation makes a lot of sense and answers the SK question pretty well. SK very likely had access to BA item information and probably had no limitations on item usage. He was probably being honest that he can't buy BA items but that would be because he is MK and not BA.

I'd hazard a guess that nobody on MK or any non BA faction can buy BA items since trading would essentially mean any player within that faction has access to those items.

@Ace-
The item claiming plan was no more "sound" on Day 1 than it is today. The very risk that has now been confirmed was raised more than once. There were other objections as well. The town decided to push ahead with the plan despite it's risks.

@Ort's question about Tajo-
That said, I think Tajo's persistence and posts reflect an earnest (mistaken) belief that his plan was "game-breaking". This attitude makes him look pro-town.

Actually, to be more clear, I think Tajo seemed genuinely convinced that his plan would help him, and I don't think it was aimed at helping the MK

.

I don't like that he tried backing out of SK's lynch at end of day, however, I don't think anything he said at that point had any chance of actually protecting SK. It looks like distancing but no intent to save (also no danger of no lynch).

The speculation that Tajo may be a third party player actually fits better considering this. In the previous game, the third parties were concerned with collecting coins. The item claiming plan aids that objective by narrowing down players who are more likely to have coins/able to purchase items.

@Zwet lynch-
Zwet is random, and I find I mostly ignore him (and he mostly ignores me). He's looking to get reactions out of people.

If he looks like he is actively harming the town, I would be actively in favor of his lynch. Fortunately, everyone realizes that he makes no sense and nobody is about to be swayed by his craplogic. Atm, I think the greatest disservice he is doing is distracting players from trying to actually scumhunt and/or pressure the lurkers to post and/or get prodded/replaced.

If he starts using his vote in an anti-town manner (ie. placing people at L-1 without warning, hammering or attempting to hammer) or if someone finds something actually scummy about him, I could see a Zwet lynch being appropriate.

To be clear, I am not opposed to Zwet's lynch but I think we should focus elsewhere until/unless Zwet does something more significant that being stupid/random.

[Kast]

Im leaning to believe Gorrad right now. I dont agree with his logic but there is not reason why he would out himself to incriminate Sirdanilot if he were scum.

Agree with this thought.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
There is a LOT of falling (or ability to fall) in most of the castles in most Mario Games.

A couple points I dislike about you claiming:
-You just made yourself a huge target for DK and WW if they are coin stealers in this game.
-You may have cut off the town's ability to reinforce and it was done very unnecessarily.

-"Buying" new players seems a bit anti-synergistic with not being able to buy/use items.

But I guess after your claims from before, it would be tough for you to just say, "Nvm, I don't want to share why I made him claim"

Mod edit
Visible Votecount

-zwetschenwasser (5): AceMarksman, caf19, Moratorium, Gorrad, populartajo
-populartajo (2): zwetschenwasser, ortolan
-Moratorium (1): Empking

Not voting (10): killa seven, Kast, ZEEnon, Riceballtail, Looker, sirdanilot, semioldguy, WeyounsLastClone

With 16 alive it takes 9 real votes to lynch.

[Kast]

Why is zwet being lynched. So far he doesn't stand out to me? tbh it looks like you are just lynching him for the sake of lynching zwetschenwasserchsadfasdflk. Other than his username there seems to be little to no base for this.

-It's not his username. It's his playstyle. He posts erratically, and what he does post tend to make little to no sense. He votes erratically as well, often abandoning everything he has said previously and latching on to the latest argument that someone posted.

He does this in many games as both town and scum.

-Yes, please keep us updated with your thoughts as you read.

@Anti-synergistic claim-
He has claimed a role that needs a lot of coins. Either he can collect them himself or needs players to trust him and send him coins. Either way, it is a role that, by design, wants to accumulate coins, but has no recourse to use those coins until he collects a very large number. That is anti-synergistic.

I separated that one off because synergy is not necessary in every role. Some roles are more anti-synergistic for game balance purposes. Also, I believe his role claim for reason stated previously.

[Kast]

@Fire/NKs-
I

think

you guys are harping on a less intuitive reading of Zwet's ambiguous phrase. I know people on these boards are paranoid when other players get defended, but I'm not going to be around this weekend and this looks like everyone jumping on a really forced issue.

Zwet's pretty clearly claiming that his shell protects him from fire. If fire is a form of night killing (fireflower in MK item list makes that probable even if your roles don't say anything about fire), then his shell would protect him from those night kills.

If the argument is that Zwet should know that fire is a form of night killing, I agree that he should be able to guess that with pretty good confidence in his guess. I don't think his post contradicts that line of thought.

Anyway, I won't be around this weekend; probably not available until Monday at earliest. Hopefully we can get replacements for the inactives by then.

@Sirdanilot-
Post the rest of your thoughts after you're caught up.

@Looker-
Get replaced please. Same to other lurkers whose names I don't even remember atm.

@RBT-
It's not just an appeal to emotion; he's clearly imitating one of Zwet's commonly used expressions. In this case, he is pretty justified in doing so. Zwet should provide more (some?) explanation along with his votes, even if just to give us something to laugh at.

Your post is an example of active lurking. Post some content. If you think Tajo is scum, give your reasons clearly. But don't limit yourself just to Tajo, post your thoughts on anyone and anything else.

@Semioldguy-
Buzzy beetles are pretty much fire resistant koopa troopas. If the turtles can use items, then I'd expect buzzy beetles could too. The turtles in MKMI could use items, from that alone I'd assume that the same applies here until/unless evidence surfaces contrary to that-

if you are soft claiming that turtles cannot use items, please be more clear, for now I'm assuming that was not your intention

.

Preview Edit-
@Tajo-
Want to take back your assessment of Looker as a retard? Also, if he's going to continue posting only to avoid being replaced, I won't mind lynching Looker.

VOTE: Looker

[Kast]

@Semioldguy-
Koopa Troopas are in a lot more Mario games than Buzzy Beetles. In original Mario and Mario 3, they are practically the same. In Paper Mario games, the koopa troopas stand, but buzzy beetles aren't incapable of having items.

In your pictures, the buzzy beetle has little claws at the end of it's feet. I don't think the picture you linked implies that buzzy beetles could not use items.

@WLC-
Overall this post rubs me wrong.
-Gorrad already gave his reason for that. He believes players are either summoned by another player, or randomly/spontaneously jump in. He also stated that he finds it unlikely that there is more than one BA controlled method for having BA players jump in.

It sounds like you are latching on to what other players have said to give yourself an excuse to wagon.

Not very pro-town.

-Coin-fishing?

-Partially agreed. If you assume that Ace is soft-claiming knowledge of multiple methods of night killing (or at least knowledge of the existence of multiple methods of night killing), that should clarify Zwet's post as being much more likely a claim of fire immunity (hence uncertainty about night kill immunity in general).

@WLC-
-Misunderstanding? I didn't think Caf's post is at all ambiguous. He clearly stated that the 1-Up Shroom may be an MK controlled method for having MK players jump in to the game.

@Semioldguy-
-I agree that this seems likely. However, for similar reasons,

I assume there are jump-in mechanisms for both town and scum.

I'm pretty sure this concept was discussed previously (perhaps not specifically wrt 1-Up mushrooms), if I have more time I'll try to dig for it

.

@Gorrad-

If you have role-based information that shows that Zwet is scum, then share it.

As it is, you are behaving like a claimed investigation role who is claiming to have investigated a player and caught them in a lie, but refuses to tell what the investigation result is or explain to the town how the investigation shows that the player is lying.

If you are town, then you are already a target. I supposed if you think Zwet is a sure lynch today then there is no reason to share your additional information. However, there is also no reason to promise the future sharing of such information.

@Zwet-
That wouldn't be a scumclaim. He also isn't directly stating that he has role information proving that you are scum. He is just implying that to be the case.

@WLC-

If zwet himself can't, can you explain why zwet is town?

Asking people to prove/explain how they are town is a wasted exercise. Actually though, this raises an interesting point (which seems like a natural follow up to Tajo's plan from yesterday, and I'm surprised nobody raised this).

If we assume that MK cannot buy/acquire BA items, then players who bought BA items last night and did not use them could potentially confirm themselves by trading them now to prove that they did indeed purchase such an item

. This ONLY works if we assume that ONLY BA can buy BA items (and if players who can buy BA items actually *did* buy BA items).

In application, I think there are too many risks to do this as a mass/universal action. However, we could use it as an additional check against mislynching. If Zwet has a BA item, he could trade it to a players who suspects him and use that to prove ability to acquire BA items.

@Mora-
Where did Ort claim role-information that Zwet is town?

@ZEEnon-
He is right. You are lurking. Post more content. I didn't even know you were in this game.

@Mora-
You left out ZEEnon.

@Tajo-
Your linked game is ongoing and Looker's alignment is not revealed yet. I agree that he exhibits completely different behavior in that game.

I disagree with your conclusion that Looker playing differently (in a better way than his norm) in one on-going game implies that he is scum in this game for playing how he normally does. Generally, it is more suspicious when a player *changes* their normal playstyle than when they maintain it.

Ort-Tajo was the first to apply the term "retarded" to Looker. Tajo did it to describe Looker's current level of game-play.

Unless you subscribe to the belief that retarded players are more likely to be scum, then I don't see how Looker playing like his normal retarded self implicates him as scum. I agree that it would be great if Looker posted as prolifically in this game as in the linked one.

@Ort-
To be clear, you are claiming that you have role-based information that implies that Zwet is a townie.

@Mora-
I believe the case here is that Looker had not read the game and so should not have been able to successfully vote for scum (unless he got lucky). If he was actually scum, then his vote is easily explained as a bus.

@Ort-

How is this role-based?

@Empking-
I much prefer when a player attempts to look useful over a player who doesn't try to be useful AND doesn't try to look useful. Mora doesn't really fit into either category since he has actually been posting useful stuff. That's much better than your behavior so far.

@Tajo-
Why do you claim that there are no power roles in the game? The rules explicitly state that power roles may exist in the game. The only thing not present will be normal roles.

16) In this game there are no normal roles like vig, doc, etc., due to the items in this game (see below). When someone dies, I will only reveal his rolename and alignment, not his role (example: Player 1, Mario (Mushroom Kingdom), killed Night 1). There is, however, at least one scumgroup, and that is an informed minority, and

killing, protecting, investigating etc. might appear in this game just as you’re used to.

@Tajo-
Role-fishing does not require normal power roles.

If Ort has actual role-based information indicating that Zwet is a townie, then he should share it if it looks like Zwet will be lynched if it is not shared. This is not the same as Gorrad claiming information that indicates Zwet is scum. Gorrad sharing his information at worst results in a 1-for-1. Ort sharing his information does not directly help us find scum.

Still, Ort has claimed role-based information and now explained it in a way that is clearly not role-based.

@Ace-
Did you ever consider that Law may have provided different players with different amounts of information regarding immunities/protections (and more generally, different amounts of information regarding any other aspect of their role PMs)?

Also, this reminds me of your push re: "no items" = "no hands". Gorrad has since claimed to have hands, but also be unable to use items.

[Kast]

@Ace-
?

Gorrad claimed Kamek. Kamek has hands. Gorrad claimed no items. If you are town and believe that Gorrad is town, then there must be more than one flavor reason for not being able to buy/use items.

Also, you prompted me to recheck what you each claimed. There is a discrepancy.
Ace claimed his PM does not say anything about using items, only buying, receiving, and sending.
Gorrad said he agreed with Ace but actually said the opposite, that his PM does say he cannot use items.

[Kast]

@Looker-
If you aren't interested in playing, then ask for a replacement.

@Tajo-
Requests like that aren't very pro-town. This adds to my mixed feelings about you.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
-Based on the game you linked, yes, Looker is capable of being less retarded than he is being now. HOWEVER, you have not addressed why Looker behaving retarded implies that Looker is scum.

Your linked game is not a valid meta reason for suspecting Looker (it is an ongoing game in which his affiliation is unknown).

Again, unless you are claiming that retarded behavior is a scumtell, then showing that Looker is playing as thought retarded does NOT indicate that he is scum.

To be clear, it also does NOT mean he is not scum. It is a null tell.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
I assume you meant "think

Looker

is scum".

I think there agree that there are valid reasons to suspect Looker. I don't think all of the reasons for suspecting him are valid. I don't think the retarded point is a valid reason. When I tell you that I don't think that is a valid reason, it does not mean I have suddenly abandoned my position on the other points.

I don't think it is pro-town to press players to claim well before they reach lynch threshold or have pressure on them. I would not personally mind if Looker claims because at least then he will be participating in the game instead of just posting to avoid replacement. I don't think there is enough support within the town to legitimately force a claim from Looker.

You are blurring that issue.

[Kast]

@Looker-
If you aren't interested in playing the game, ask for a replacement instead of wasting our time.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
Yes, I think Looker has exhibited scummy behavior. Specifically, I agree with your assertion that his initial vote could very likely be a bussing or distancing maneuver. I also think his failure to claim whether he has item knowledge or not is extremely suspicious. He promised to re-read and then failed to do so.

I think his lurking is anti-town, but not indicative of scum. I think his being retarded is anti-town but not indicative of scum.

I think his decision to remain in the game while practically telling us that he will not participate and has no intention to participate, but also that he refuses to get replaced is ethically wrong for the game, especially for a large and interesting game like this.

He clearly has no intention of playing to help the town win (although it's possible his attitude is a scum attempt to get away with reckless behavior).

If a someone who I know is not retarded tries to play the retarded card, it would depend on whether their affiliation normally has an effect on whether they play the retarded card, and if so, what that effect normally is.

I think you're turning things around though. Looker seems very much to be naturally retarded and in the game you linked he made (or is making) extreme effort to contribute to the game. He isn't a normally intelligent player who is suddenly playing the retarded card.

If that were this game, it would probably be something to watch out for since it could very well indicate that he is scum and more interested in not getting caught due to his normal stupidity.

You are blurring things. You have tried to claim that my suspicion of Looker is somehow tied to my objection to a specific point against him. They do not directly correlate and should not do so. You also equate calling for a player to claim with being suspicious of that player. That is not a pro-town attitude. There are appropriate times to claim and push for a claim, and there are inappropriate times. This is regardless of whether you personally feel that a player is scum or town.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
Claiming and forcing people to claim is not an inherently pro-town action.

People aren't claiming that mafia should follow an instruction manual. People are telling you that some things don't make sense to do in some situations and things that might be pro-town in some situations might be anti-town in others. Instead of arguing generalities, let's deal with specifics.

There are two players who have expressed clear suspicion of Looker. You assert that it is appropriate to force Looker to claim when there are only two people pressuring him to do so. What do you hope to gain from this push? How does this help the town at all?

-You have reinforced the impression that you are role-fishing.
-Looker has no more incentive to claim than before.
-Looker fails to claim and you find him more suspicious; reinforcing your opinion of him as scum without any valid reasons for doing that.

You deny that there are appropriate and inappropriate times, but your behavior shows that you understand that it isn't always appropriate to push for claims.
-Why aren't you telling other players to claim?
-Why did you drop your mass-claim plan?
-Why didn't you push Zwet to claim from the first moment that anyone suspected him?
-Why weren't you suspicious of Mora and others who were suspicious of Zwet but did not immediately push for his claim?

When you determine that someone is scum, the appropriate response is to lynch them. Part of determining whether they are scum usually involves forcing them to claim. This doesn't have to follow any textbook or instruction manual procedure; but you clearly have the common sense to realize that you don't start off immediately forcing the player to claim. You should also realize that the player in question only needs to claim if they feel that they actually will be lynched without doing so AND that doing so will help the town.

Claiming in this game also has one drawback that is not present in most other games. Roles are NOT revealed on death, and so scum do NOT know what roles townies had in the event of a mislynch. As a rule of thumb, it seems better to avoid a mislynch and let scum learn a townie's role than to get lynched but deny scum that information. But there could well be exceptions.

@Pushing Zwet to claim-
Your assessment that Zwet claiming is definitely a good thing is presumptuous.

There would be discussion regardless of whether Zwet claimed. By focusing discussion on Zwet, you may have distracted the town from other far more meaningful discussion in favor of making everyone realize that Zwet's natural behavior is anti-town.

If Zwet is a townie, and we end up lynching him because some players have strong confirmation bias based on Zwet's natural playstyle, then CLEARLY your pushing him to claim was bad for the town.

If Zwet is scum, but we end up sparing him since we realize he is always erratic and anti-town, then your premature push for his claim may very well have forced people to come to a decision about Zwet before weighing all relevant information.

We may also have ended up sharing a lot of critical information with scum when people evaluated Zwet's claim. Scum will definitely have an easier time crafting false claims after seeing how different townies weighed and evaluated Zwet's claim. They also can now safely ignore Zwet for much of the rest of this game if he really is a townie, and are much more likely to kill powerful townies who can actually hurt them.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
-I don't like how instead of arguing/explaining your position, you just play the "we have different play styles" card.

-Your analysis of benefits from pushing a Looker claim COMPLETELY FAILS to account for the most likely scenario of Looker deciding not to claim.

-You continue to use the fallacious claim that any action is pro-town if it generates questions and discussion. A counter-example: if you suddenly decided to push each player to claim whether they are a cop/investigative role. That would definitely generate discussion and questions. The reactions from each person would tell us a lot. However, it would NOT be an overall pro-town move.

-You are incorrect in stating that your decision to press for Zwet's claim is based on a change in opinion from not thinking he is scum to thinking he is scum. You specifically clarified that you were not sure whether he was scum or town when you pushed for his claim. Previously, you did not push for his claim despite warning him that his behavior was unreasonable and going to lead to his lynch.

Also, regarding SK, you did not initially call for his claim, despite suspicion of him.

I don't think either of these necessarily indicate that you are scum. I think they both show that you are being inconsistent in claiming that you can't understand reasons to follow conventions.

-I had a pretty neutral read on Zwet. Based on the large number of people who are jumping over a non-literal and non-intuitive interpretation of his comment, I am leaning towards Zwet=town and scum are trying to take advantage of his normally anti-town play style to achieve a mislynch.

@Semioldguy-
I agree that it is too risky to do any mass/universal trading scheme.

I don't immediately agree with your comments on individual players who are going to be lynched trading items to confirm themselves. I think some of your concerns can probably be handled by the specific implementation. I think some of your concerns are silly.

(1) Agreed and is a point against mass trading. Does not apply to individuals who are about to be lynched.

(2) We don't have to complete trades. A trade can be offered and rejected, but the offer to trade will still confirm that the player has the item.

If a player goes ahead and accepts the item trade instead of rejecting the offer, then we pretty much just confirmed one of the two players involved as scum. I think that is definitely worth letting scum get ahold of a single BA item. It also doesn't mean we cannot use the method in future; it just means we cannot use that method with that specific item.

(3) Not sure how exactly the item stealing worked for MKMI, but maybe someone can clarify (also I sent a PM to mod about that). If the stealing only worked on actual trades (ie. possible and accepted), then offering a trade and then rejecting it would clear that problem.

(4) I don't see this as a very big problem. We have a potential resource to avoid a mislynch. If the townie facing the lynch gets screwed by scum lying about the trade, then we lynch and immediately find out that it was indeed a townie telling the truth.

@Mora-
Possible. This speculation is a bit dangerous as it can help scum determine if different players have such a role abilities based on their reactions.

[Kast]

@Mora-
Yeah, I fail at reading.

Also, after re-reading the rules on items, this came up:

The information of the items you can buy will appear in your role pm.

This implies to me that Qwints having information on the BA items may mean that Qwints (and/or any player on the MK team who had this information) could buy the items which he had information for.

@Gorrad&Ace-
To clarify:
Gorrad: Role PM states that he cannot buy OR use items. It also states that he can trade and receive items. He has hands.
Ace: Role PM states that he cannot buy items. It also states that he can trade and receive items. He has no hands and the inability to buy items is a result of not having hands. Further clarification from the mod states that he also cannot use items.

@Tajo-
-That is irrelevant to my point. However, I wasn't completely fair since you provided some explanations. Please provide explanation for the parts that you did not do so.
-He is welcome to decide whether to claim or not. Your implication that Looker claiming will prove that your call for his claim is pro-town is a fallacy that affirms the consequent. Whether it is pro-town or not pro-town to force him to claim is independent of whether he actually chooses to claim or not.
By your same implication, you could argue that it is a great idea to buy a lottery ticket

if

you win.
-You have twice asserted that simply generating questions and discussion is sufficient criteria to determine that an action is pro-town, despite the problems raised against those actions. This is equivalent, but you hide the craplogic by keeping it implicit.
-So if they are town, then instead of wasting

time

suspecting them, we waste our

lynch

mislynching them?

And to clarify, you admit that you are not actually calling for a claim because you think they are scum. You are asking for a claim because you think they are clearly anti-town regardless of affiliation.

Does this mean you feel it is better to spend the time on pressuring a claim from Zwet/Looker rather than spending time scumhunting among other players?

If Looker presents a believable claim, but maintains his anti-town behavior, will you stop wasting anymore time on him?

-I did, I didn't post because it was extremely obvious and clear that your behavior was different. You voted for SK and called him your most suspicious player but did NOT call for a claim. You continued arguing with SK for your next several posts.

You then voted Ort without asking for a claim. You repeatedly call Ortolan scummy without once asking for a claim.

You return to calling SK scum without asking for a claim.

You only asked for a claim much later after there was more support for his lynch and a possibility that he might be close to lynch.

So, guess you didn't do your homework?

Also, the whole point for mentioning SK is because it is an example showing that you do not act in a manner consistent with your claimed belief that it is pro-town to immediately force scummy players to claim.

[Kast]

@Tajo-
So when someone shows you that you are being inconsistent, you just ignore it?

That is plausible given the way you reacted in your argument with Semioldguy previously.

I have already stated that I think Looker is scummy; that's where my vote will sit until/unless someone else more actively scummy appears.

I've shared and continue to share my thoughts on all the active players, and I've asked for prods/replacements on the inactive/uninterested.

I will add that Empking's recent posts look like an opportunistic wagon against Zwet and complete BS on Mora.

-As for what to do with anti-town players such as Zwet or Looker, I think we should treat them like any other player. If they do anything that is actually scummy (which Looker has done), we should push for a lynch. He should claim prior to being lynched (but it is ridiculous to call for him to claim with 1-2 votes on him).

Just because a player is anti-town and/or crazy, does not mean it is impossible to find scumtells in their behavior.

If any of their anti-town behavior is seriously affecting the ability of the town to catch scum OR if we had absolutely nothing to go on and no leads at all, then I could agree with a policy lynch. However, that is not our current situation.

@Sirdanilot-
Not quite true, although I can kinda guess at what you were thinking of.

Mora and Kast both told you to keep us updated as you go along.

Mora and Ace, chided you for posting opinions on the current lynch of Zwet based only on the initial 1/4 of the game. They weren't telling you to stop posting your thoughts, they were telling you not to judge the current Zwet wagon based only on the initial portion of the game.

Kast asked you to post your thoughts for the remaining 3/4 of the game. This was not a request to stop posting until you finished reading.

@ZEEnon-
You told us you are here and were upset that someone tried attacking you while you are V/LA. Then post some content if you are really here and not just lurking until your name comes up.

@RBT-
How does Tajo backing off a sure lynch indicate that he is mafia?

Agreed that claiming his plan is responsible for lynching scum D1 is an inaccurate way to present D1. But his plan did have a part in leading to SK's lynch. The majority of credit for that lynch should go to Ace.

@Semioldguy-
I think Looker's initial dodging against claiming whether he had items makes sense with your speculation that SK may have known the items but intentionally chose to claim no item knowledge to split up from other scumbuddies. Looker could very feasibly have been waiting for his scum buddies to act first and then make his decision after.

@Tajo-

Still big prob of having third parties in the group of people not having item descriptions.

This is the second time that you presented this speculation as fact. The first time I ignored it as ambiguous language. But now you present it again.

[Kast]

Too much stuff to go over. Not fully caught up but out of time for this (skimmed most of it nothing jumped out immediately). Here's my thoughts so far (doesn't address the latest page of posts).

Have a good weekend all.

*******
Lots of nulltells being thrown around...
*******
@Gorrad-
Agreeing with Tajo's list should have little to no bearing on his affiliation. You both agree that the active players are probably town, and the inactive players are either scum or neutral. This is a pretty safe and normal position for scum to take, particularly as it lets them blend in with the active townies.

The divergences that you both have taken are:
Tajo:
-Ort scum even though he is active
-WLC town even though isn't very active
Gorrad:
-Mora scum even though he is active
-Ort scum even though he is active
If either of you turn out to be scum, this should be noted.

@Ort-
-Asking for claims pre-maturely is anti-town but not inherently scummy.
-Lurkerhunting by itself is a nulltell. Tajo isn't tunnelling on lurkerhunts or forcing others to do so.

@Sirdanilot-
Wth?
-Regularly posting reasons and content are not scumtells.
-Being open to lynch other players if your top choice has no chance of success is a null tell, but generally I'd call it a pro-town attitude. Lynching, even mislynching, beats a no lynch. It is far better to get your number 2 or 3 lynched than to insist on number 1 and end up in either no lynch or lynch of someone you think is a townie.
-Short periods of absence happen to everyone. It's called life. Major null tell.

-In my books, Ace is 95% non-MK. If you still suspect him despite admitting his critical role in nailing SK, then present that case.

@Sirdanilot-
-Looker being replaced does not excuse his player slot from being suspicious. I agree that we should not lynch prior to his replacement coming in, but nobody has suggested that.

@Tajo-
He thinks you are basing your suspicions on BS. You disagree with his assessment of whether they are BS, but that shouldn't stop you from seeing his argument.

Ort is making some valid arguments; he is also using some invalid ones.

ie His "if A then B" is true, but you disagree on whether A is true or not

@RBT-
Tajo didn't misuse the term OMGUS. He explained that he feels he has valid reasons to vote/suspect Ort. It is nearly impossible for most people to completely separate their beliefs/suspicions from their personal circumstances, and Tajo appears to be no exception. He is probably mistaken and there probably is some OMGUS driving his suspicion of Ort. But he is correct that his vote is not only OMGUS. How is this scummy anyway?


***********
@Gorrad-
If you think Ort is scum, why would you be upset with his lynch? I don't see how that makes any sense for a townie.

@Sirdanilot-
Someone said Law is your brother. Do you know him well enough to guess how he might think?

Do you know what Mario games he is most familiar with?

Particularly, do you know if he played the original SMB, SMB3, any Paper Mario games?

@Sirdanilot-
If you are going to be lynched, then it is better to name/role claim prior to getting lynched.

Normally this is a no-brainer since getting lynched has the same negative aspect as claiming plus one dead townie.
Get lynched:
-One dead townie
-Scum learn town information to better plan their actions, craft fake-claims, etc
Claim:
-Scum learn town information to better plan their actions, craft fake-claims, etc

In our game it is different.
Get lynched:
-One dead townie
Claim:
-Scum learn town information to better plan their actions, craft fake-claims, etc

Depending on your role, it is possible that conventional wisdom (claiming prior to being lynched), is not the best thing to do.

@WLC-
I also laughed at Zwet's comment. But then I decided to write a meaningful post. I suggest you do the same.

@RBT-
Please post more and stop tunneling only on Tajo.

[Kast]

Wow, nice job team (or rather shame on the scum for outing themselves like that).

@Mod-

If the visible votecount drops below the lynch threshold, then goes back up again to the lynch threshold, will you post a new real votecount?

no

-Also, to clarify, does your comment about punishing Millar for quoting his PM mean that he actually did quote his PM?

Not necessarily, see next post

Would you take the same action if he (or any player) pretended to quote his PM?

yes, or a modkill

Tbh, Millar's post doesn't really seem like a convincing role PM, and I wouldn't have realized that it wasn't a paraphrase; the fact that the Mod publicly stated that it is a violation of quoting a PM sounds like it is indeed quoting a PM.

@Zero or Negative votes-
I don't think there is any reason to believe zero/negative votes indicate affiliation, although if scum have zero/negative votes, I assume they are either more numerous than we would normally expect OR they have some advantage to balance that.

I think it is possible that townies may have zero/negative votes without realizing it, I don't think any townies would intentionally jump on the Looker/ThAdmiral wagon when his lynch is such a sure thing, if they know that their vote will prevent the lynch.

We could have each player unvote, request a vote count (check if the unvote results in a lynch), then revote and in that manner determine if anyone in particular has a zero/negative vote. There is danger in doing this that we may reveal double voters, or potentially reveal powerful townies whose power roles are balanced by not having a vote.

@ThAdmiral-
At this point, it would be pretty appropriate to claim. You're almost certainly going to swing anyway.

@Millar-
Is that admission that you are scum? Or are you still claiming to be a vanilla boo?

[Kast]

and if you fakeclaim a role, don't pretend to use the exact same text as in a pm from me..

Ok for my side question, but that doesn't answer my primary question.

Millar's post did not claim to be the exact same text as in a pm from the mod. His post does not look like an

attempt

at an exact quote. In fact, his childish attempt to hide his role name indicates that he does not want to directly quote even something that he would have permission to do.

@Mora-
Yeah, but I figure it doesn't hurt to ask.

@Mod-

Actually to clarify based on Mora's post, would you consider it an abuse of the game mechanics if we try to use the vote counts to determine the number of votes each player has?

This goes for both trying to find out using the real vote count, but also trying to find out by seeing what is sufficient to lynch ThAdmiral

You can try whatever you want, I'll just try to make sure the game isn't ruined .

[Kast]

@Tajo-

That is the same as what I proposed except less efficient since you ask EVERYONE to unvote, instead of just unvoting enough to drop below visible lynch threshold.

Besides, the idea of people unvoting was already tossed around, I formalized it in a specific plan and asked the mod specifically if it is allowed.

But this isn't the first time you've ignored a post then posted the same thing and claimed it as your own idea. This is the third time you've done that to me and something like the 7th or 8th time you've done it so far in the game.

More relevant, if we have already hit lynch threshold, we won't be able to verify the votes of anyone who was on the wagon at the time of the posted real votecount.

Also, if we wish to follow any plan that abuses part of the game design/setup, we should first verify that it is okay with the mod before doing so.

[Kast]

Hi all,
Checking in. I may post again later tonight.

@Tajo-
It is possible that Lakitu could have been a similar role to the previous MKM game and may change sides depending on coins. That would fit with Tajo's constant pushing for people to claim information.

@Millar-
First I want to point out that we may not be at lynch yet. I will not vote Millar because today my vote counts as -2. My role says nothing to explain this -2.

@Gorrad-
Gorrad's claimed role sounds extremely powerful, and it is hard to believe that *just* losing your ability to buy/use items is sufficient to balance that out (I guess it is possible that items are just that powerful...but I doubt that). IGMEOY.

Being able to investigate people to find how many coins/items they have sounds ideal for a coin stealing/item stealing team.

@Sirdanilot-
What content are you looking for from Caf? Only Gorrad and Ort posted reasons for their millar votes, what makes Caf's vote different from the other 5?

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
To be clear, you are claiming investigation (name, affiliation, coins, items), self-targeting doctor (possibly with limitations), vigilante (by fire), AND the ability to bring new BA players into the game.

-Can you explain the discrepancy in you claiming to have sent a kill attempt at a vanilla townie (millar), but that vanilla townie surviving?

-How does your investigation work in light of the possibility of players trading coins/items and changing the amounts of coins/items that they have?

Also going to add since it was mentioned previously, but Wario has been known to use fire. In his first appearance, he battles Mario in "Fire Wario" mode (similar to Mario using a fire flower).

Arguably his use of bombs/explosions could be argued through flavor as fire.

[Kast]

@Sirdanilot-
Empking did the same thing. Caf has contributed more on the whole than Empking. I see the point you were trying to make, but I don't see why you single out Caf. I think you are tunnelling.

And yes, Millar turned out to be town. Which means he almost definitely actually was a vanilla townie.

I think everyone probably thought Millar was scum.

@Gorrad-
I find you most suspicious at the moment. Your entire claim is unbelievable. Specifically the claim to have tried to kill Millar. The only thing I can see that makes sense is that you are third party (WW) and strongly believed Millar was scum. By claiming an attempted kill on Millar, you might gain some townpoints when Millar flipped scum.

VOTE: Gorrad

My vote counts for 2 today. I do not know why my vote keeps changing.

@Votes-
I am guessing that there is a townie who is affecting the number of votes each player has (possibly redistributing votes?). Possibly a non-player controlled effect is in play that changes or redistributes votes.

From the vote count on Day 3, it looks like at least one person had a number of real votes that was greater than 1. From Day 2, it seems like some combination of players had 0 or negative votes.

@Lynch/trade-
One thing that we have not done-before lynching a player, we should discuss that player trading away any coins/items. As things are, scum are probably the only ones benefiting from the ability to trade.

While the possibility of item/coin-stealing role exists, the town is losing out on resources and potential ability to avoid a mislynch. Also, I was wondering about that and asked Law, and he confirmed that in the previous game, if the coin stealing roles achieved the number of coins for their win condition, they would leave the game and the other players would continue playing it out; if there are such roles, I'd imagine they work the same way.

[Kast]

@Sirdanilot-
Can you link to that game?

I don't see any roles in MKM1 that would fall into anywhere near as ridiculously broken a role as Gorrad has claimed. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Law does not appear to be a mod whose normal MO is to introduce ridiculously unbalanced roles.

@Gorrad-
Why didn't you investigate Sirdanilot?

You made a lot of unnecessary and unprompted claims, one of which was a strong implication that you would not be able to protect yourself.

Why did you choose to claim that you would probably die last night?

[Kast]

Ok, the narrator is a bit implausible in that it sounds ridiculous. However, it isn't actually an unbalanced role. It is a townie role that is demonstrable and has 1 shot NK immunity.

Gorrad's role is implausible because it is so extremely unbalanced. I see no indication that the town is at a disadvantage that would require the balance of a single vig/cop/doc/"recruit new player" role.

Mod edit
Visible Votecount

-Riceballtail (1): Gorrad
-Gorrad (1): Kast

Not voting (8): killa seven, ZEEnon, Riceballtail, caf19, ortolan, Empking, AceMarksman, sirdanilot

With 10 alive it takes 6 real votes to lynch.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
-What is the flavor behind Kamek using coins for his abilities?

-I believe that you probably do have multiple uses of at least some abilities you have claimed. I can't imagine you as town or scum and false claiming so many different abilities without at least some truth to backup some of it.

I don't fully buy it.

-Buying 8 coins for 3 coins definitely seems odd (why aren't you just given more coins if that is an issue). Also, I find it very unbelievable that any player with so many abilities at their fingertips would generate a ton of coins then sit on them.

-Why didn't you use more abilities on N1 and instead waited until N2?

If you weren't planning to use your coins for other abilities, why would you create so many right away? If you really have that ability, it's probably a sign that you don't want to sit around with a ton of coins.

-I've asked about letters and was told that if someone sent me a letter I would be able to read it if it has a message and that reading/receiving letters does not count as using an item. Also, I was told I cannot re-send/return a letter that someone sent to me.

I find it odd that you didn't ask/clarify that with the mod.

@Double Vote-
-The D1 and D3 real votecounts support Gorrad's claim. D2 does not.

-What is the flavor for Kamek having two votes?

-I have two real votes today. If you are telling the truth, then it would be possible to lynch someone with just 4 people on the wagon.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
Are the coin-creator and townie creator abilities limited to only night time use?

Specifically, would you be able to demonstrate the townie creator ability if you were given coins right now?

Why didn't you create a guaranteed townie for us?

Your coins don't add up to 16:
4 NK(WLC) + 4 NK(Millar) + 2 INVESTIGATE(TAJO) + 2 INVESTIGATE(ORT) + 3 SELFPROTECT + 2 DOC(ORT) = 17 coins

[Kast]

@People who can buy items-
Can you confirm if the costs for Gorrad's abilities seem reasonable compared to the costs for regular items?

[Kast]

I would actually be okay with an Empking lynch. In this game he is displaying an attitude of no interest in actually scumhunting, just responding if people say something about him and the only initiative he himself is taking is to place votes with no reasoning.

This is identical to the only other game I have played with him, and he was scum in that game. At that time, I looked at a few other games that he had recently played as a townie, and in each of those games he actively tried to catch scum.

His stated goal of finding evidence to fit to me being scum as opposed to looking for evidence and seeing what it says about my (or anyone else's) alignment also fits with his behavior from that game where he edited and misquoted other players to defend himself.

UNVOTE, VOTE: Empking

This puts Empking at L-2.

However, I still think Gorrad's claim is pretty unbelievable. Things that stand out the most are:
-Claim to have killed Millar but Millar claimed to be a completely vanilla townie
-Kamek spending coins to use spells (can't see any flavor reason for that)
-Kamek being unable to buy/use items (can't see any flavor reason, though possibly balance reason)
-Buying coins with coins (???)
-Extreme unbalance of a double-voting, nightkill immune, Dr, vig-cop who can magic confirmed townies into existence
-Affiliation+Coins+Items+Name investigation

I've touched on the first 5, but the last one is also...odd...

I would think a name investigation is equivalent to an affiliation investigation.

Item investigation makes a bit of sense for a townie; except that if it also comes along with name and affiliation, it's pretty much completely redundant (unless we have millers/godfathers).

Coin investigation seems mostly useless for a townie. It really only makes much sense for third party who needs to collect coins.

[Kast]

@RBT-
I am not liking a lot of what you are saying.

-AceM clearly did not have to say anything and very likely SK would not have been lynched. He made some very specific and unprompted claims that would be pretty suicidal as scum since he would have no way of gauging those claims.

-Why would you think Millar was a coin-stealer? He was a townie facing a lynch. You don't think he would have claimed something like coin stealer or NK immunity?

And especially since Gorrad claimed to have sent in a NK while Millar was still alive, why wouldn't Millar have admitted his immunity at that point?

You're doing the same thing I was just talking about with Empking; instead of looking at the evidence and seeing where it points, you are starting with conclusions and forcing the evidence to fit those conclusions.

FOS: RBT

[Kast]

@ZEEnon-
-Day 2 was not rushed.

-Sorry you were upset that you didn't get to post your thoughts. Please provide your analysis of that situation and his lynch now.

If a player replaced into a normal game, claimed to be third party allied with the mafia, then changed his claim to vanilla townie, what would you normally think?

-Millar was able to claim. He claimed to be a boo and a vanilla townie.

On Day 3, Millar maintained his claim with the addition that he had no voting power.

You actually responded after he had claimed. Why didn't you take that chance to share your thoughts with us?

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
Actually, if you really are a townie, I would expect scum may not have much incentive to kill you since you would now be practically limited to a double voter who can't buy/use items. I suppose it would depend on how likely they think your double voting ability is going to be aimed at them.

What is the timing of your night actions?

Particularly, what is the timing of your investigations?

Do you receive results as soon as you request them (ie. can you use an investigation result to help you decide your kill targets?)?

Since players can trade coins and/or items at any time, how does that work with your coin/item investigation?

[Kast]

Everyone who is voting me: Give me two reasons.

Look up 9 posts.

@Empking, 1644-
Incorrect. Gorrad did not state or imply any dissatisfaction with you being part of a wagon that lynched scum. He pretty clearly stated and clarified that he did not like that you were on the tail end of the scum wagons.

A more accurate summary would probably be:
-You are not contributing to the game in post number or content (lurking).
-You jumped on scum wagons after their lynches were inevitable (bussing).
-You jumped on a townie wagon.

@Ort-
Re-reading Empking should be quick.

[Kast]

@Empking-
-Reading comprehension fail.

-I linked to my reasons for voting you. You asked with an implicit promise to address. Please deliver.

-Gorrad posted his reasons for suspecting you in more than one place. You tried twisting them well beyond any reasonable interpretation. I called you on this.

That does not mean those are equivalent to my reasons for suspecting you.

-You aren't contributing to this game. You had some posts early in Day 1, then you have mostly disappeared. You have resurfaced to throw in votes with little or no content, then disappeared again. Now you resurfaced to face Gorrad and my votes, but aren't touching on anything else (and not really addressing us either...).

@ZEEnon-
Lurking is anti-town behavior. It isn't the best indication of affiliation because you could very simply and plausibly be lazy. That does not change that it is anti-town behavior.

@K7-
Care to share anything more than an ambiguous one word thought?

[Kast]

@Empking-
Please clarify what you feel is a lie.

[Kast]

@Empking-
-What do you feel about the rest of what I posted?

-Do you understand what the word implicit means?

Everyone who is voting me: Give me two reasons.

By asking people to provide the reasons they are voting for you, you acknowledge that you have seen the votes and imply desire to know the reasons for those votes. Unless stated otherwise, the implied need to know those reasons is so you can address them.

Are you claiming that you did not have the intention to address those reasons?

Why did you ask for two reasons?

-Is it safe to assume that your objection now means that you do not wish to address my reasons for voting you?

[Kast]

@Empking-
-If that is your only reason, then why did you respond by trying to discredit what you thought were Gorrad and my reasons? Your behavior supports the implication that you wanted reasons so you could answer them.

-Also, is it really that hard to keep track of the two players voting for you?

-Now that you have seen how many will give reasons (2 of 2), where do you proceed from that?

@Non-voters-
How about some votes to get things moving?

I don't mind if Empking ends up being lynched, but you are all doing the town a huge disservice by leaving the lynch in the hands of just 2 players.

[Kast]

@Empking-
You ARE on L-2.

I have a double vote and Gorrad has a double vote.

[Kast]

@RBT-
-Do you know why your vote counts for zero?

-Are you soft claiming private information that allows you to practically confirm Sirdan?

-Did you expect Ort to object to someone calling him a townie?

I agree that Ort's agreement with Gorrad indicates that Gorrad did correctly identify the first letter of his name, the number of coins he has, and his lack of items.

Mod edit
Visible Votecount

-Empking (2): Gorrad, Kast
-Kast (1): Empking
-AceMarksman (1): Riceballtail

Not voting (6): killa seven, ZEEnon, caf19, ortolan, AceMarksman, sirdanilot

With 10 alive it takes 6 real votes to lynch.

[Kast]

@K7-
Lurking = Anti-town.

Not posting, posting only irrelevant comments, and/or posting extremely short semantic jabs = lurking.

That appears to be typical of your behavior so far. Pretty much the same for Empking and ZEEnon.

How about the three of you join us in playing this game?

[Kast]

-Are you soft claiming private information that allows you to practically confirm Sirdan?

No, I just think that I have been able to put 2 + 2 together and came up with what I believe to be four.

This is a bit hard to believe. Buddying to a townie? Defending scumbuddy? Hiding a soft claim or slip?

Without some kind of private information, I see no way you can know sirdanilot's affiliation with any certainty.

The only public knowledge we have about players ready to jump in is:
-Millar jumped in as a "Boo" on Bowser's Army and couldn't tell us or chose not to tell us why he jumped in.
-Gorrad claims to have the power to summon BA players.
-Gorrad did not summon Millar.
-Sirdanilot does not know or chooses not to tell us why he jumped in.

@Empking-
You try to distract by arguing against something that is neither Sirdanilot's point nor relevant to his point.

-I did not state an exclusive list of forms of lurking. I posted a list of the behaviors which the three players I named are engaging in which are all anti-town behaviors. Your comment is a semantics argument about what lurking includes but has no relevance to my point.

-Your comment is ambiguous enough that it could be interpreted as accusing me of engaging exclusively in long semantic jabs. I think it reads a bit more sensibly as just trying to be cheeky and distracting from the point with some humor.

-I've seen some games where you did more analysis of player actions and potential motivations for those actions. I'm not seeing anything similar to that in this game. You're voting based on gut with no posts to support it; despite looking with intent to find "evidence". It certainly does not look like you are scum-hunting. Please share some more thoughts with us.

@Sirdanilot-
RBT claimed that he has no private information and that his post was not intended as a softclaim. He claims to have deduced your role from whatever information is available to the town.

[Kast]

@Empking-
You are welcome to make new points and nothing that I posted indicates otherwise.

You were attempting to argue with Sirdanilot but actually did not respond to his real point. You seem to enjoy these straw-man tactics; they are pretty characteristic of your behavior as scum.

@RBT-
So your previous comment was softclaiming to have found a plausible breadcrumb?

Sirdanilot practically confirmed that now, so I am less suspicious of your claim to think/know he is town.

One point though, just because a player made a breadcrumb does not mean that he is a townie or that the breadcrumbed role is his actual role.

@AceM-
Welcome back. I'd like to hear your thoughts on Empking, Gorrad's claimed role, and RBT.

[Kast]

@Empking-
-To be clear:
You realize that I did not post anything remotely related to telling you that you are not allowed to post new points.

You realize that you have not been directly addressing the points made in your responses to myself, sirdanilot, and other players in general.

Your straw-man responses are scummy and are characteristic of your normal play as scum.

-Sirdanilot's point is the same point that others have raised against you; you are not contributing and are not scumhunting.

You should change your behavior from the short, irrelevant, semantic jabs and straw-men to actual scumhunting.

-When I have said you were attempting to do something, it has been accompanied with the implication that you failed to actually do that thing. If it looks like I say it a lot, that's probably because you fail a lot.

[Kast]

@Empking-
-Post an example of me calling you scummy for posting a new point.

-Please try to be consistent. I pointed out that your post failed to address the post it was responding to. You answered that you were making a new point. If you are making a new point instead of addressing the old point, then you are not addressing that old point.

-I have pointed out the examples but here again for your convenience:

I posted a series of thoughts about you. Instead of addressing them, you called me a liar without any elaboration. On further clarification, it turns out you don't understand the meaning of the word implicit and so thought that I was lying. In either event, you attempted to avoid answering my points by calling me a liar (the straw man).

The next example is not a direct straw man, but does show you avoiding addressing the points brought to you by claiming confusion about the number of votes against you, and then continuing to act confused after it was clarified.

After multiple players asked for K7, ZEEnon, and Empking to contribute more, you responded to my post by asking an irrelevant question.

You also use a straw man against Sirdanilot's point. Sirdanilot called you out for not scumhunting. Your comment is ambiguous and could be taken as an accusation of Kast as lurking or as an inane continuation of your lurking, non-contributory behavior. If the former, then he corrects you. If the latter, then it shows that you are continuing your anti-town behavior. Instead of addressing this, you argue semantically that you did not specifically state that Kast is lurking; but inconsistently claim that your useless comment was scumhunting. In either case, you are using that straw man post to avoid addressing the point that you are not actually scumhunting.

You also fail to address my response to your ambiguous comment. Instead, you use another straw man and pretend that I was telling you that you can't bring up new points.

-Making up things to justify an OMGUS vote is NOT scumhunting. It is not better than short scumhunting.

Your question is a straw man; you are not engaging in short scumhunting. I am not making things up to justify an OMGUS vote. That question does not excuse you from needing to participate in this game. That question does not provide you with a valid defense.

-Given that you claim that your posts are responses, I feel safe in saying that you were attempting to respond. You can't have it both ways.

-Pointing out that another player failed to do something is not ad hom. You fail to use that term correctly.

[Kast]

@Empking-

-Pointing out that another player failed to do something is not ad hom. You fail to use that term correctly.

Give an example of when I said otherwise.

If it looks like I say it a lot, that's probably because you fail a lot.

Ad hom.

-I never said 1702 or 1707 are examples of scumhunting. How about addressing actual points instead of hiding behind fake ones?

-Once again, please maintain some consistency. I asked you previously if you understand what implicit means. You failed to answer.

Your response, which failed to answer any of my actual points, was to claim confusion about what is happening in the game. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and readdressed in case you really didn't understand. You still fail to answer.

[Kast]

@Empking-
-No. Is it difficult to read a post with quotes in it? If you feel that it is difficult, then why did you do the same thing? Also, why did you change the paragraph formatting of my post that you quoted? Is your question another attempt to distract from the actual point?

-You called that post ad hom. Please explain if you feel it is ad hom. I assumed it was in response to me pointing out that you fail often.

Was that actually a "new point"?

-Where do you get the impression that I don't think Gorrad is scumhunting?

I think Gorrad is probably a third party such as Wario. I would guess he is trying to blend into the town by catching an MK player. I think he is correct in suspecting you of being one of the MK players. This isn't anything new.

Why do you continue to claim that I say or believe things that either have nothing to do with what I posted or sometimes directly contradict my actual posts?

Are you trying to invent a case against me? This is extremely similar to our previous game together where you did the exact same thing. Are you planning to invent another fake quote in which I claim to be scum?

-How am I making my posts impossible to respond to? Please give some examples.

[Kast]

@Empking-
To clarify, 1702 and 1707 are not representative of all of Gorrad's posting so far in this game. Your logic fails. If a player makes 2 posts which are not scumhunting that does not mean the player never makes any posts that are scumhunting.

[Kast]

@Empking-
Why didn't you answer previously when I asked if you understand what implicit means?

[Kast]

@Empking-
-You asked if I was trying to make my posts difficult to read. I am not doing so. I think your question is pretty nonsensical. I didn't state anywhere that you can't or shouldn't make new points. I did state that you should not use irrelevant points to avoid answering the relevant ones.

Do you have bbcode turned off? Do you have a hard time hyperlinks? I have no clue why you think putting a link in a quote title makes it difficult to read or respond to.

-I did not say anything about your points being invalid because you fail. You asked why I keep pointing out instances when you fail. I answered that the reason I keep pointing out those instances is because those instances are numerous. No personal attack there. No use of personal attacks to discredit any of your posts.

-If you understand that I think Gorrad is scumhunting, then why did you ask this question?

- So you don't think Gorrad is scumhunting?

-That *IS* an example. You ask a leading question that assumes I think Gorrad is not scumhunting. That is contradictory to the beliefs that I have been expressing.

Why do you ask for examples, but ignore them when I post them?

If you didn't realize it, the links I include in my posts go directly back to the examples. Is the reason you say it is difficult to read my posts because you need an excuse for not addressing the points and examples?

-I have previously mentioned and linked to the same game. I didn't think it was necessary to do so again, but since you ask I will oblige.

This is where he claimed scum:

Kast claimed scum.

You exhibit similar behavior in this game as in that game; you have no interest in actively scumhunting, you only sit back and make posts when people attack you. When you do make posts, you avoid addressing the actual points, and instead post irrelevant nonsense or twisted or fictional quotes from your attackers.

[Kast]

@All-
Assuming Sirdanilot has a single vote and Gorrad and I are not lying about our double votes, then Empking is now at L-1.

[Kast]

@Empking's claim-
Tried to find anything that looks relevant to the claim. Nothing stands out as inconsistent.

It won't out scum but it will out another group and actual mermbers of the town know tht.

-Was this a softclaim of membership in a group of vanilla townies who cannot use items? Not contradictory, but a bit odd. Is there a reason to suspect that there are a large number of vanilla townies who cannot use items?

Zwet: When did the no itemers claim to be power roles?

-Consistent with a vanilla, itemless role.

We can't use items.

-This is also consistent.

Some of the above could be bussing and/or setting up for a future claim; however, they do show early commitment to this claim (possibly a fake claim, possibly his actual role).

[Kast]

@Empking-
I cannot understand what you mean with your post. It is ambiguous and confusing. Is that intentional?

These are my two best guesses at what you meant:
-You are incapable of reading pronouns consistently so initially read my post to say, "Are you[Empking] planning to invent another fake quote in which I[Empking] claim to be scum?" instead of "Are you[Empking] planning to invent another fake quote in which I[Kast] claim to be scum?". You are now confused because the example does not show Empking inventing a fake quote in which Empking claims to be scum.

-You are assuring me that none of your posts so far in this game are attempts to invent any fake posts similar to the example.

[Kast]

Post 1728 refers to post 1725. Post 1727 is clear and to the point.

@Empking, 1727-
Did you have any reason to suspect that there were multiple other vanilla players who also cannot use items?

Based on the previous game in which vanilla townies could buy items, I see no reason to assume otherwise in this game.

The similarity between Empking's claim and SK's claim (Goombas=Vanilla; no items), makes me wonder if MK were given "Vanilla Goomba" as a safe claim.

[Kast]

SK claimed Bubble Goomba who turns into Vanilla Goomba. Essentially the same claim as you plus a one-shot, NK immunity. After AceM caught him as a liar, you jumped in to agree.

[Kast]

@Empking-
You're only looking at part of what I posted. The complete thought includes that SK claimed that Goombas are vanilla. Given that you are claiming the same thing, and that I suspect you are scum with SK, I think there is a good chance that the MK was provided with safeclaim information that Goombas (if present) would be vanilla. Perhaps the mod provided a sample vanilla Goomba role PM that may have stated that Goombas are vanilla and cannot buy items.

-I don't know what you are referring to that I would be calling you out for not mentioning.

-You jumped on the SK wagon after AceM had caught him in a lie and his lynch was a foregone conclusion. If you take offense to the word "jumped", feel free to substitute it with joined or any other less offensive word.

You and SK both claim that Goombas are Vanilla and unable to buy items. The point of including that was that there is a difference between what SK claimed about Goombas and what you claim about them; but the difference in your claims only surfaced after SK was caught.

-I don't know what time has to do with anything, except that you only claimed to be unable to use items after AceM and Gorrad confirmed that players who cannot buy items also cannot use items.

[Kast]

@Ort-
They're both not contributing, but it kinda boils down to active anti-town vs. passive anti-town. I don't really believe Empking's role claim (at least not to a degree that would make me uncomfortable with lynching him), so I don't really see a need to move away from voting him.

You do have a point that K7 needs to start posting. It's about time to request another prod/replace...

@Sirdanilot-
Ort doesn't think Empking is scum, so it makes sense that he would rather have a wagon+forced claim on someone else. I don't get the impression that he was asking us to force claims from every single player.

But that does raise another point, mass claiming towards endgame is often very helpful. Due to the the limited reveals on death, the town is even more information deprived than usual and a mass claim may be even more important in that regard. However, I think we're still too early and tomorrow would probably be better. Unless there is a Goomba who is not vanilla and/or who can buy/use items, I don't see mass claims helping us much in determining Empking's affiliation (I would expect such a Goomba to counter-claim anyway).

@Mod-

Is it possible that there are less real votes than the voting threshold?

Yes.

Is there a "real" voting threshold based on the sum of all "real" votes?

The amount of real votes needed to lynch is displayed in the OP and in each votecount.

[Kast]

My last post before the weekend:

Why would lynching K7 or ZEEnon be any better than lynching Empking?

All three aren't really contributing. K7 has said the least, Empking next, and ZEEnon has contributed a bit more than the other two, but that's not much either.

I think it's much better to replace K7 than waste a lynch on him.

I don't see how you can say Empking is town. Are you basing that assessment on meta? Specific posts? Something else?

[Kast]

@Mass Claim-
I think tomorrow is better for a claim.

@Empking-
You may have a higher post count than ZEEnon, but ZEEnon has had much more content than you (still not a lot).

@Ort-
-I prefer to have people who aren't posting anything be replaced rather than waste lynches to punish behavior that isn't indicative of alignment.

If someone is actively lurking (ie Empking), and/or just posting nonsense and avoiding actual discussion (also Empking), that's a much better lynch than a complete lurker like K7.

-That said, I dislike that K7 keeps lurking until prodded, then dropping a line so he isn't replaced, then resuming lurking.

@K7-
Please stay active. Are you caught up on reading the game?

If you aren't interested in playing the game, please let the mod know so you can be replaced instead of wasting everyone's time.

@AceM-
He isn't obvtown, but he's pretty obv-not-MK. There was absolutely no reason for him to counterclaim SK's position about item usage on D1.

[Kast]

-I'd like him to answer my question and if he avoids doing so, I'd like him to be replaced.

If he makes it clear that he is ONLY going to post when prodded (ie going to ignore other players), and we don't have any genuinely suspicious targets, then he could be a possible lynch.

Or we could repeatedly request prods, which if he ignores, then he gets replaced.

-Atm, I think Empking's behavior has been more anti-town, and also clearly indicative that he will not be replaced by someone interested in playing the game and finding scum.

To clarify a bit more the difference I see between Empking as scum and Empking as town, it looks like as scum, he only focuses on himself and only responds to either say he is town, or twist his accuser's argument and present a strawman. This is a classic scum mentality as scum only really need to care about not getting lynched themselves and don't have to worry about others except when it directly relates to themselves and possibility of their own lynch.

A townie perspective needs to look at other players and the town as a whole to determine which players are potentially scum.

[Kast]

@Ort-
-You can look at the game I linked. I've linked it at least twice and possibly more times already.

Within that game, I linked to several games where Empking was town that I read at the time.

It was this very same change in his behavior that I used to correctly identify him as scum in that game.

@Empking-
Yes, I do think you suck. That is neither my only, nor my primary reason for voting you. Also congratulations on once again failing to address the point.

Ironic that you comment about ZEEnon, but completely failed to address his question about mass claiming. Another example of you not caring about anything except whether it directly relates to your chances of being lynched.

[Kast]

Mod edit
Visible Votecount

-Empking (3): Gorrad, Kast, sirdanilot
-Kast (1): Empking
-AceMarksman (1): Riceballtail
-killa seven (1): ortolan

Not voting (4): killa seven, ZEEnon, caf19, AceMarksman

With 10 alive it takes 6 real votes to lynch.

@Ort-

@Empking-
You are also posting very sparsely and you are only posting when directly addressed. Please share more thoughts with us.

Of your the 15 posts that you made at the time you proclaimed that I was stifling discussion, 9 of them were responses to me, 4 were responses to PhilyEc, 1 was a response to Zwet, and one was your confirmation post.

You did not have a single thought to add to the entire game that was not an reply to someone.

Empking

Very scummy playstyle. Quick to take things out of context, very poor logic. Low interest in finding scum, seems much more concerned with deflecting attention/suspicion. Also is inconsistent with his stated beliefs.

Playstyle discourages discussion as he tends to attack those who address him and claims it is scummy to reply to a post that does not address you before the addressee replies.

Uses craplogic to claim that doing so prevents the addressee from speaking.
Uses craplogic to argue that Kast is stifling discussion.
Uses craplogic to argue that Kast is strawmanning.

Seems too obvious to be scum (too scummy to be scum?). Also, Zwet claimed that this is standard Empking MO even as a townie. I would hate to give a pass to this, but I also don't want to ignore the metagame data.

Right now you are at the top of my list for lack of information. I would be happy with lynching you.
-Address points in my post 256. Listing them would make this far longer than necessary.
-Can you link to previous games where you demonstrated similar disregard for logic or consistency (or where other players accused you of that behavior)?

@Empking-
You have two votes in the count and an additional 2 players who have expressed willingness to vote for you but are waiting to allow replacements to join, read, and catch up.

Looked through some of your past games and I only found one finished game where you were a townie (there's probably more but I didn't have much time and the first 6 I saw you were scum, it would be great if you can link to something). You demonstrate similarly terse posting style, use of false dilemmas, and quoting out of context/misrepresenting other players posts.

One big difference I see between that game and this one is that you actively searched for and attacked what you thought were mistakes and scum tells. You do not exhibit the same reactive posting style that you have demonstrated here.

[Kast]

Funny how similar Empking's behavior is now to what it was in that other game.

[Kast]

@Ace, Caf, ZEEnon, K7-
Thoughts and votes?

@Mod-
Can we have another prod on K7, he appears to have disappeared again and doesn't appear at all interested in posting unless you prod him.

[Kast]

@Mod-

If not replacement, can we get regular prods on K7 so he participates?

If he is a townie who is intentionally not participating except to post comments like "How rude" often enough that he does not get replaced, then he is clearly NOT playing to achieve his win condition. I agree that a modkill in that situation would not be fair, but I think replacement is pretty fair. I don't know if playing with no intention of achieving your win condition breaks any rules directly, but it certainly seems like it should.

But if you're willing to prod him as often as we request, then I don't really have a problem.

@All-
Sorry for the absence, been busy at work.

@K7-
Answer the questions.

@Deadline-
I don't mind lynching Empking at deadline. I agree with Ort that caf shouldn't jump on the Empking wagon unless he actually suspects Empking. When it hits deadline, Empking will have a plurality of real votes and will be lynched.

[Kast]

@ZEEnon-
-Do you have any thoughts about players who rarely post and when they do they post off topic or game irrelevant?
--What do you think about lynching Empking?
--What do you think about lynching K7 or yourself?

-Do you have any suspects?

-You previously stated that you believe Gorrad and Ortolan are town. What leads you to this belief?

-You claimed to have -1 vote and now claim to have had this the entire game. Do you know why you have -1 vote and is it something you are willing/able to share with us?
--You mentioned that voting your suspects would prolong the day, but that implies that you have suspects who are also vote leaders. Was that an implicit claim that you are suspicious of Empking?

[Kast]

Hope you all enjoyed your weekends and late happy father's day to any dads.

I don't see anything really changing. It's interesting to see people voting ZEEnon, but if everyone's telling the truth about how many votes they have then it's still 5 real votes on Empking and 2 real votes on ZEEnon. Not much change.

@ZEEnon wagon-
If ZEEnon is scum, he probably knows that at least one of myself or Gorrad is telling the truth about our double vote (and possibly he knows/suspects we both are telling the truth), so he would know/suspect that he is safely out of range of needing to claim.

Even if he is a townie, it would be unlikely for scum to lie about something easily demonstrable like number of votes, so he probably would still feel safe in not claiming.

I don't think it is wrong for a townie to self-vote if they have a negative vote and think they may be a viable lynch candidate.

Anyway, deadline is coming soon. I see no reason to move my vote.

@ZEEnon-
What do you mean by the comment that RBT contributed to your vote situation? I don't see RBT voting you and I believe RBT claimed a 0 vote.

@Ort-
AceM was really the principal reason SK was lynched. I strongly think AceM is non-MK. I believe most other players have the same understanding of that. Not definitely town, but almost definitely not MK.

@K7-
You promised a post. Is that going to happen?

[Kast]

@Sirdanilot-
I assume you have now been told the correct amount that your vote counts for? Please share so we can determine whether Gorrad and/or Kast were telling the truth about their double votes.

@Ort-
I think there is a better target today than a lurker lynch...

@Gorrad-
I don't believe that you are telling the truth about your role.

I'm going to claim. I think today may be a good day for claims from everyone (although I am also fine if my claim is sufficient to lynch Gorrad scum).

I am a Fire Chomp. One thing this means is that I have the ability to spit a fireball from my chain at my target. I tried to shoot Gorrad because I don't believe his claim and because I thought he was clearly lying about his vote. (I didn't see Law's comment about Sirdan's vote being incorrect until this morning).

If Gorrad was telling the truth, then he should be dead right now.

This is the second time something Gorrad has claimed doesn't fit with something another player has claimed. In this case I am not confirmed town, but I'm willing to stake myself vs. Gorrad on this one (and if I die before Gorrad, then seriously lynch him guys).

Vote: Gorrad

I have a bit more to my role which I can share if needed. In particular, there is a restriction on my kill.

I did not use my power prior to last night. I considered it against Millar on N2 but since Millar was a pretty sure lynch, I decided against. On N3, I considered shooting Gorrad due to doubting his role, but I wanted to give him a chance to answer questions about his role, particularly anything that might explain his claim to have "killed" a claimed vanilla townie who flipped town and didn't die.

@Mod-

I am assuming you sent everyone a PM with their coins/votes now that the day has started. Can we count on that as a prod to K7 and if he doesn't post he gets replaced?

[Kast]

@Ort-
Can you confirm?

Also, my vote counts for 2 again today.

[Kast]

@Ort-
I have not seen anyone claim the vig kill on qwints.

@Sirdan and all-
-How complete should this mass claim be?
-Is it possible for the moderator to provide a randomly ordered list of currently living players which we can commit to claiming in that order?

@K7-
-Can we assume from your post that you have absolutely no plan to deliver on your promised post from D4?
-Can we also assume that your comment means you do check the game but just don't bother trying to play?

@Mod-

-Can we get a prod on AceMarksman?

[Kast]

Sirdanilot and AceMarksman are right about the microgoombas in SMB3.

Interesting claim, but I think the lack of night kill(s) makes it very plausible. Also interesting that Ort says he knows there was another kill last night, but that still fits since we have seen more than one kill previously.

@Ace-
Why did you pick K7, and who did you pick on previous nights and why?

@K7-
You said your vote normally counts for zero, but Ace has claimed that his power reduces your vote. What does your vote count for today and if your vote was not reduced, then do you have any way to explain this discrepancy?

With the two of them telling incompatible stories, I'm inclined to believe one of the two is lying. I'm inclined to believe Ace more than K7.

[Kast]

it is interesting that both Kast and AceMarksman claimed results last night that incriminate someone,

which never happened previously as far as I'm aware.

Not quite true. Gorrad claimed to have attempted to kill Millar but Millar survived and claimed vanilla townie. Given the near universal suspicion of Millar, it seems extremely unlikely that any protection roles would have bothered to protect Millar.

This would normally be pretty solid evidence incriminating a player, especially if that player's role was already unbelievably overpowered. A direct contradiction between a confirmed townie and another player is generally more reliable evidence than a missing NK and a claimed roleblocker.

@K7 Wagon-
-What does RBT's vote count for today? Yesterday it was zero (or at least claimed to be zero). This would put K7 at possibly just 1 *claimed* real vote. If we're actually going to test his zero vote, then we need more people to vote for him.

I can vote K7 if RBT's vote is still zero. If not, two someones other than myself or Gorrad (who is also a claimed double real voter), need to place votes.

-If we're not waiting for a demonstration of K7's vote, then let's hear from anyone else who is claiming and/or end the day.

[Kast]

Okay, so if there is one more player who has a vote worth 1 or less, please place your vote so we can see the real votecount.

[Kast]

Okay. If everyone is telling the truth about their votes, then K7 should be at L-3 (Ace=1, RBT=0, K7=0, Caf=1).

I'm going to

Vote: K7

. This should put him at L-1 if everyone is telling the truth. It puts him at 5 players voting for him, so we should see a real vote count. If K7 is lying about his vote, then I don't mind if he gets lynched. If RBT is lying about his vote count, then it'll be obvious to me (and hopefully obvious to others since Gorrad and I demonstrated our double votes yesterday). I'm mostly assuming that the claimed single votes are most likely telling the truth since that is something we can test fairly easily.

@K7-
Caf hasn't said to quicklynch you and end discussion. He said he was holding off on voting to ensure that you did not get quicklynched, but since that is not the case, then he will go ahead and place his vote. With my vote we can confirm your claim.

Mod: vote not counted, please unvote first

[Kast]

Oops.

UNVOTE, VOTE: K7

[Kast]

Yes thanks. Vote count would be much appreciated.

[Kast]

@RBT-
ZEEnon claimed a -1 vote that he has claimed has been part of his role for the entire game.

The real votecount looks like everyone is telling the truth about their current number of real votes.

I would like to hear an answer to the potential discrepancy between Ace claiming a power that reduces another player's vote and K7 claiming to have 0 votes as his normal number of votes.

@AceM-
Can you get clarification on:
-Whether your power always reduces the number of votes?
-Is there a fixed amount that your power reduces to/by?
-Can your power reduce votes below 0?
-Does your power only work on players who can jump/fly?

@Claims-
I'm going to unvote until we get the rest of the claims.

UNVOTE

If there's nothing that changes my mind after that, I'd support lynches on Gorrad or K7.

[Kast]

@ZEEnon-
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have a double-voting, two-shot vigilante, two-shot "affiliation + name + items + coins" cop, two-shot doctor, two-shot bulletproof, two-shot townie creator, who could potentially also enable other townies to buy lots of items. Hence my suspicion of Gorrad. But I would agree with you that it is unlikely that the town would have two players with double votes (although I also don't know why my vote is a double vote).

I assume you think one of us is lying about our role and not lying about the double vote?

@Claiming-
Are Caf, Ort, RBT, Sir, and ZEE all willing to go ahead with claiming?

If so, you guys could roll off and claim in that order.

[Kast]

@Caf-
"Fair" would be to use a random method to determine order which prevents scum from stacking claims in a favorable way.

However, I've already claimed as have my top suspects so the others claiming is something that might help but probably won't do too much. Given how easily everyone here believes implausibly overpowered roles, I doubt that scum have much to worry about from a claim.

Your suggestion certainly seems more fair and reasonable than Ort's suggestion. If we're going to proceed with a mass claim, might as well go with that.

[Kast]

@All-
Hope everyone enjoyed the 4th of July weekend (at least all who celebrated it).

@ZEEnon-
I can confirm that I did have -2 votes (and claimed it at the time). I believe ZEEnon's claim, and his post to Gorrad was a pretty unsubtle hint about his power (that he could manipulate votes).

@Gorrad-
I'm also an Eagle Scout and I agree that being called a liar in mafia game is hardly an insult or something worth getting upset over. K7's post is a bit of an appeal to emotion. But good to see that he can pay some attention without being prodded.

@Sirdanilot-
I never dictated a claiming order. I named the players who had not yet claimed in alphabetical order and suggested that either the moderator produce a random list, or the players in that list roll off to determine a claiming order.

@Caf-
This claim is plausible and seems pretty consistent with previous actions. Flavor makes sense as well. I assume this means you would like to hammer again today?

@RBT-
Your claim is ambiguous although it seems to suggest something that is a bit odd.
-Are you claiming that you lose the ability to vote?
-Are you claiming that you lose a single vote?

-Are you claiming that your sacrifice is permanent or temporary?
--If temporary, how long does it last?

-At what point do you decide whether you are using your power?

Since everyone has claimed except Ort and Sirdan, I assume you are saying Ort is a parakoopa? Is this based on private information? If you know Ort is a parakoopa, that would mean you know he is BA. If you are just guessing based on breadcrumbs or something he may have hinted at, then why wouldn't you let him claim first and use that information to test him (ie. if he breadcrumbed Parakoopa but he claims something else, you would be able to catch that).

@Claims consolidated-
Living Players:

ACE

- ParaGoomba -

1?

RV/0 Coins/No item list - Blocks target player from jumping for one night and reduces that player's vote the following day.

Caf

- Hammer Bro -

1?,1?,1?,

2,1 RV/4 Coins/Item list - If he hammers in the real or visible votecount, then he gains 1 night immunity to getting jumped on, double vote for 1 day, and 4 coins.

Gorrad

- Kamek - 2 RV/6 Coins/No item list - Vote cannot be changed. Two-uses of these abilities:
4C Fire NK
2C Doc
3C Bulletproof
3C 8C Creator
10C Townie Creator
2C "Name/Alignment/Item/Coin" Cop
3C Busdriver

Kast

- Fire Chomp - 0,1,-2,2,2 RV/0 Coins/No item list - Immune to fire. Limited fire killing ability.

K7

- Dry Bones - 0 RV/0 Coins/Item list - ?.

Ort

- ? -

1?

RV/4 Coins/Item list - ?.

RBT

- Spike - 0,

2,2?

,0,

0

RV/? Coins/? Item list - "Sacrifice voting power to vig a player"

Sirdan

- ?(Spiny) - -/

1?/1?/

0

/1?

- ?

ZEE

- Monty Mole - (-1) RV/1 Coin/Item list - Multiplies target player's RV by -1.

Dead Players:

SK - Toad(Bubble Goomba) - ? RV/? Coins/? item list - ? (1 Shot NK protection that disappears on N4. Vanilla after that.)
qwints - Yoshi - ? RV/? Coins/Item list - ?
ThAdmiral - Toad - ? RV/? Coins/? Item list - ?

WeyounsLastClone - Green Koopa - ? RV/? Coins/Item list - ?
populartajo - Lakitu - ? RV/? Coins/Item list - ?
semioldguy - Green Parakoopa - ? RV/? Coins/Item list - ?
millar13 - Boo(Diddy Kong) - ? RV/? Coins/? Item list - Vanilla townie.
zwetschenwasser - Buzzy Beetle - ? RV/? Coins/Item list - Immune to fire.
Moratorium - Red Koopa - ? RV/? Coins/Item list - ?
Empking - Goomba - 1 RV/0 Coins/No Item list - Vanilla townie.

@My thoughts/speculation about each player-
ACE
Plausible claim. Role seems balanced. Inconsistency between his claim to reduce votes and K7's apparently unchanged vote. D4 RV count supports Ace over K7.
I don't think Ace can be MK, and mostly think he is telling the truth. I would like Ace to start answering questions though.
When I compare my own role with Ace's role, his role seems to fit well; we both have no items/item knowledge, but I have a limited NK and Ace has a partial roleblock.

@Mod-

Can we get a prod on AceM?

Caf
Plausible claim. Everything seems consistent with previous posts and previous public actions. Role seems balanced.

Gorrad
I find this claim unbelievably overpowered. I also find it a bit unlikely that town would have a single double voter whose vote cannot be changed. It seems much more likely that an independent would have an unchangable double vote for balance purposes. Unlike everyone else's roles, there doesn't appear to be any negative effects that would balance out the Kamek role.
I suspect that Gorrad is probably an independent/third party (possibly Wario or DK).

K7
After checking Caf's claims about votecount I checked back on the D4 RVcount and you are listed together with AceMarksman as having 2 RV.
From the D5 RVcount, you seem to be telling the truth that you have 0 RV today. Dry Bones in the previous game came back to life after dying. His vote counted for 0 in that game.
This discrepancy in your votes makes me suspect that you may have looked at he previous game and just selected a BA role that matches your current 0 votes without paying attention and realizing that Ace claimed to reduce your votes.

Ort
No claim yet. Tough to read. I don't understand the extreme trust in Gorrad. Simply identifying another player's coins/items/possibly rolename should not be sufficient to prove that he is on BA team.
Ort acts very sure of his reads on others, even without necessarily having solid evidence behind it. This could just be playstyle.

RBT
Role is ambiguous, either poorly communicated or potentially a bad fake claim. RBT claimed that his #RVs has been changing every day. This seems inconsistent with the claim of having 2RVs AND that he has not been killing anyone. With no counterclaim, I am guessing that he may have actually killed Qwints, and probably has a killing power.
However, I don't see the flavor for his claimed kill and I suspect that he may be the final third party (Gorrad one of WW/DK, and RBT the other). He may even be telling the truth about his vote being restricted in return for killing (or powering up his kill). This would explain killing Qwints. I would actually be okay with lynching RBT, but I would like to hear answers first.

Sirdan
No claim yet. I have gotten the impression that Sirdan is genuinely trying to find scum and/or remove anti-town players.

ZEE
Claim is plausible and consistent with previous posts/actions. Seems to be more active now than previously and more interested in finding scum.

OVERALL-
K7 and RBT have direct inconsistencies in their claims. I would be happy with lynching either one of them. Gorrad has a possible inconsistency, but Ort vouched for that. If Gorrad is scum, I suspect Ort is his buddy (AND vice versa). I would be happy with lynching Gorrad as well.

For now I'll re-

VOTE: K7

based on the two voting discrepancies (claimed 0RV for the entire game despite D4 apparently having 1RV; Ace claiming to reduce his vote, but K7 claiming 0RV).

[Kast]

Uh...wth? That looks like you just hammered K7.

If you really believe Caf is town, then why didn't you let him hammer?

[Kast]

@Ort-
I think you're overestimating the amount that people trust you due to Gorrad's claimed investigation. I think it's more that you haven't been particularly scummy despite your strong convictions about who is scum/town.

@All
Since it appears we're probably in twilight, I'm going to share the restriction on my kill. I was initially planning to keep this secret and potentially kill an extra scum, but I think the risk of it happening and the town getting thrown into confusion is probably not worth the chance.

I have a limited number of fireballs in my chain

(I guessed 4 but mod would not confirm)

, when I fire the last one, I will self destruct. The explosion does count as an additional non-fire kill on my target and can potentially kill other players

(mod did not clarify what conditions must be met for it to kill other players, but I have been guessing that it would kill players who target me).

Tbh, I don't think I'm a big target for scum or townie roles, but I plan to use my kill tonight and I wanted this out in the open in the event that I die and take people with me. If there are a lot of kills with me as one of them, it is possible that people tried targeting me and I exploded.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
I am immune to fire (this possibly biased me to believe Zwet's claim more than others did), but that doesn't mean that fire is the only MK (or other scum) kill method. I would assume Fireflowers work similar to MKMI, in granting a fire based night kill, but I would not be surprised if a Mario or a Luigi character (or possibly even Toad or Peach ala SMB2) could naturally jump on players as a kill.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
AceM and Caf19 are both voting K7 already. K7 and RBT are also voting K7, but both of them claimed and appear to have 0 votes. We just had a real votecount that confirmed this. If your vote counts as at least 1 RV, then that was the hammer.

Caf also claimed that he has a powerup based on hammering and I specifically asked about letting Caf hammer again today.

@Ort-
You really don't have to believe me about it. If tomorrow comes and I am dead along with 4-5 other players, it is probable that 2-3 deaths came from scum, and my death plus 1-2 other deaths came from my kill target, myself exploding, and possibly someone caught in my explosion (which I assume means someone who targetted me). If we have a large number of deaths like that, we will VERY likely be in LYLO so having the extra kills accounted for can help immensely in solving the game and avoiding a loss.

I believe we are in twilight. If K7 has anything to share, please do so now.

RBT can still answer the questions while it is twilight. Impending lynch is unfortunate, but RBT remaining silent until the mod posts a lynch scene after being uncharacteristically vocal is more circumstantial evidence pointing at RBT as probable independent.

[Kast]

@Gorrad-
It's actually not so bad since K7 is probable MK. Mostly I don't like that hammer since it I think Caf is a probable townie and it would have been really nice to let him power-up.

[Kast]

@Sirdan/Gorrad-
Sorry, but I didn't believe that claim. I think it was/is overpowered.

-Gorrad investigated Ortolan and found him to be BA. I suppose a mafia don ability or insane cop could allow for that result, but without some reason to suspect either, I'm more inclined to assume Ortolan is BA.

With 6 alive, we can't have 2 from each non-BA faction. I'm guessing we have 3-4 non BA remaining.

I don't think Ace can reasonably be MK based on the D1 MK lynch, but I guess he is possible third party.
RBT also can't reasonably be MK based on the N1 MK kill, but likewise he could be third party.

That leaves ZEEnon and/or Sirdan as remaining possible scum. I doubt Sirdan could be the only MK player remaining as that would mean scum started with just Yoshi and two Toads which seems unlikely to me.

@Ortolan-
Yesterday you mentioned that you can confirm at least 1 scum attack that went through. Are you willing to share more on that, and particularly, do you know if there were more kill attempts last night?

@Mod-

I'm okay with giving Ace a bit more time as long as he actually follows through. Also, please prod RBT.

@RBT-
It was unfortunate that yesterday was cut off early, but please post now answering the questions from yesterday.

Previewed and caught that but thought I'd leave it there just to show through process...

@Ace-
I don't see why you would assume that. I think it is more likely that there are 3-4 anti-town roles left, probably 1 from each faction (DK/MK/WW).

Why would you assume that there are two players from the same 3rd party faction? In MKMI, DK and WW each had a single player.

If RBT and Sirdanilot are on a team, I would assume that team would be MK.

Also, have fun at the beach.

[Kast]

Also, I'd be okay with lynching from among the suspected third party members or ZEEnon. If there is 1 MK remaining, then I think it's probably slightly better to lynch ZEEnon, if there are more than 1 MK, then it's better to lynch one of the probable third party guys.

I think 1 remaining MK is a bit more likely than 2, but not so much that I'm unwilling to lynch among the third party guys.

[Kast]

@ZEEnon-
-If it wasn't clear enough, yes I did NK Gorrad. I didn't hide my suspicion yesterday. His premature hammer certainly didn't help.

-With no counter claims, it seems likely that RBT actually killed Qwints. You can argue WIFOM if you feel like it, but I don't believe mafia would NK one of their own members on the off chance that they survive to endgame.

-Yesterday I thought K7 was MK and Gorrad was WW or DK. Turns out I was mistaken about both of them. It would be stupid to continue thinking they were scum, and I find it very odd that you call it scummy to reassess the situation.

Also, I find it suspicious that instead of addressing my analysis, you just OMGUS me and call me suspicious.

@Counting Kills-
N1- 1 Kill
N2- 3 Kill
N3- 2 Kill
N4- 0 Kill
N5- 2 Kill

N1- RBT killed Qwints (MK)
N2- Gorrad killed WLC (BA)
N2- ??? killed Tajo (BA)
N2- ??? killed SOG (BA)
N3- Caf killed Zwet (BA)
N3- ??? killed Mor (BA)
N5- Kast killed Gorrad (BA)
N5- ??? killed Caf (BA)

Ort claims he knows there was at least one scum kill on N4 (but it somehow got stopped).

Then that gives us one unclaimed kill per night (excepting N1 when there were zero and N2 when there were 2). This seems consistent with a single mafia kill, plus one SK (probably RBT). There are a fair number of kill immunities/protective abilities, plus a chance that the SK and mafia double targetted. I would suspect that the remaining faction probably has an alternative win condition.

From Caf's role, it is clear that there is a Jump-based kill. From flavor, the jump based kill makes sense for MK and possibly WW (possibly both).

With that said, I'd like to know if Ace targeted anyone on N1, which could be the reason for no MK kill.

Also, if Ort has information about NKs from nights other than N4 which could help us "solve" the game, that would be appreciated as well.

[Kast]

@Ort-
-RBT said Sirdan is a Spiny. Sirdan said his role is linked with RBT. RBT claimed Spike. RBT claimed to have caught Sirdan's breadcrumb and since then Sirdan has trusted him.

Everyone has claimed now except for Sirdan and yourself.

-Ace claimed Paragoomba.

-ZEEnon claimed Monty Mole (-1RV personally and multiply target player's vote by -1). His power is pretty well demonstrated. His name and affiliation are not.

-Notre Dame was open role. I don't think anybody made any implausible role claims in that game. If you are again referring to an ingrained distrust of me due to misreading me in another game, there's really nothing I can do or say about that.

I'd appreciate more if you'd address my reasoning instead of reminiscing old games.

[Kast]

Btw- I see no flavor reason for Spike and Spiny to be linked.

[Kast]

I choose to use my vig power, and sacrifice voting power for the NK. This number was not made known to me, and would seem to be two. I must have real votes in order to kill.

You didn't answer any of my questions about your role. Also, there is a minor contradiction here.

-You claimed to be a double voter but have claimed 0 RV multiple times while also claiming to have not killed. You also claimed that your number of votes has been changing without knowing why. How do you explain this?
-Is your loss of voting power temporary? If so, how long does it last?
-At what point in time do you decide whether to give up your voting power?

@Ort-
-Your voting behavior was scummy. It made you into a safe mislynch target. If you look at my posts in most of my games, I apologize when I'm mistaken, regardless of affiliation.

-My ability can kill me when I use it. I would rather use it only on people that I strongly believe are lying. I am pretty sure that I have at most 4 uses of my ability, and suspect that it is actually less than 4, although I was unsure of the amount less than 4.

@Ace Claiming-
Wth? Ace already claimed yesterday and I already corrected that. Not paying attention much?

@Ace/Sirdanilot-
Ort is confirmed BA by Gorrad. Gorrad is confirmed BA by his death. That means he wasn't lying about his role (even if it was overpowered). If he had to pay 2 coins for his investigation AND he was limited to only two investigations, it seems extremely unlikely that those investigations would be fake. The only plausible reason I can see to doubt his investigations are if they were implemented as a check against his otherwise unbalanced role.

HOWEVER, I find this unlikely for two reasons:
-He investigated Tajo and said Tajo was BA and Tajo is confirmed BA.
-If mod meant that as a balancing measure, it is an unreliable one since it is not at all guaranteed that Gorrad would use the investigations; particularly not when he could simply kill his suspects and/or create some confirmed townies.

@Sirdanilot's claim-
Sounds plausible on it's own.

I don't see any link between yourself and RBT.

@Overall-
Ace and Sirdanilot both having high levels of distrust for Ort are suspicious. It makes me suspect that we may be down to just me and Ort as BA, with possibly ZEE/Sirdanilot as MK, RBT and AceM as the two independents.

If that is our situation, I don't really see BA winning this one, but the best chances would probably be lynching one of the probable independents (RBT or AceM) to remove one NK. That would leave us with 2 town, 2 mafia, and 1 independent, and potentially 3 night killing abilities.

I don't think there is enough information to determine an ideal course of action, though I suspect scum are also probably unclear of how best to proceed.

I also suppose that at this time, if there are independents who have compatible win conditions with the town, now might be a good time to share that and see if anything can be worked out.

[Kast]

@ZEEnon-
To be clear, you are implying that your vote is still worth -1RV and so it cancels AceM's vote?

[Kast]

@RBT-
You didn't answer what time you choose to use your power.
-Is it at the start of the day?
-Anytime during the day?
-Is it at the end of the day?

-Do you give up your voting power at the time that you use your kill?

Also, I imagine you can ask the mod to clarify whether your claimed loss of voting is permanent or temporary.

@AceM-
You haven't answered whether your power can reduce votes below 0.
You haven't addressed that you claimed to have targeted K7, but he claimed to have had 0 votes the entire game and is confirmed town.

[Kast]

@RBT-
I would like to hear the answer to Ort's question as well. What makes you think that Ort is a parakoopa?

@AceM-
I guess you are still V/LA until Thursday? Answer once you get back.

@ZEEnon-
Who did you target last night?

[Kast]

@Sirdanilot-
Hope everything turns out okay.

@Ort-
-To be clear, are you saying that RBT is correct and you are a Red Parakoopa?

-It looks like RBT's 2010 and ZEEnon's 2013 say pretty much the same thing, although ZEEnon presents it in a more visually obvious manner.

-I don't follow how RBT guessing/knowing Ort's role name makes him more suspicious.

@RBT-
-I only think Ort should claim his role if he thinks it will help the town. At this point, a majority of players (Kast, Ort, RBT, ZEEnon) seem to pretty clearly believe that Ort is town. Making Ort claiming for the sake of claiming seems like a waste and could potentially be harmful.

-Please clarify how many votes you have had at each day of the game so far. If others can do this too, that would be appreciated.

@AceM-
Hope you are having fun at the Beach. When you get back, please share with us who you targeted each night.

@Real Votes-
If everyone is telling the truth about their vote amounts, then we have to be pretty careful with our votes today, and it looks like I have a large control of who finally gets lynched. I'm going to go through the past vote histories and see what I can find (particularly the past real vote histories).

AceM 1?/Kast 2/Ort 1?/RBT 0/Sir 1/ZEE -1

PS- As a sign of good faith to Ort, realize that if I were scum, I could simply join AceM's vote and Ort would be the first at 2 votes, so he would be the inevitable lynch. I am not doing this because I am pretty sure Ort is town.

[Kast]

@Mod-

Can we get a prod on AceM? He posted that he should be back from V/LA on Thursday.

@All-
I'd like to hear from everyone on how many votes they have had at each point in the game so far. So far, I've seen some unusual spots in the voting history, so honesty is much appreciated.

We're pretty much in LYLO now, and I'm not sure there even is a way out for us, but if there is a way out, I think my votes will really matter. Any information that helps make a better choice is much appreciated.

[Kast]

Specifically, I'm guessing that there is someone with some form of vote manipulation power other than what has been claimed so far. Either someone is lying, someone was messing with votes who is now dead, or Law put in some mechanic that is either not player controlled or that players are unaware of.

[Kast]

Really sorry to hear about Sirdan and Law, my condolences.

Really busy last weekend and most of this week, I'll try to catch up and finish the voting analysis I was working on.

Thanks to new mods and replacement players for stepping up.

Could the new mod's confirm that all of Law's previous real votecounts were correct? Particularly the first one in which there was a real vote that nobody cast.

[Kast]

@Zazier-

Thanks.

@Real Vote Counts-

(Confirmed Votes)

(Claimed Votes)

(Guessed/Assumed Votes)

Real Votecount

-Shadow Knight (9): Moratorium

(1)

, ortolan

(1)

, qwints

(1)

, semioldguy

(>0)

, WeyounsLastClone

(1)

, zwetschenwasser

(1)

, Gorrad

(2)

, Empking

(1)

-Looker (2): caf19

(1)

, populartajo

(1)

-ortolan (1): AceMarksman

(1)

-Empking (1)

Not voting (4): killa seven

(0)

, Cream147

(0)

, ZEEnon

(-1)

, Riceballtail

(2)

, Shadow Knight

(?)

, Looker

(?)

With 17 alive it takes 9 real votes to lynch. Deadline: May 4th 2009.[/b]

Real Votecount

-ThAdmiral (6): Kast

(1)

, populartajo

(1)

, AceMarksman

(1)

, Riceballtail

(0)

, zwetschenwasser

(1)

, Gorrad

(2)

, Empking

(1)

, caf19

(1)

, sirdanilot

(1)

-zwetschenwasser (1): Moratorium

(1)

-populartajo (1): ortolan

(1)

-Gorrad (1): WeyounsLastClone

(1)

Not voting (3): killa seven

(0)

, ZEEnon

(-1)

, ThAdmiral

(?)

, semioldguy

(0)

, millar13

(1)

With 17 alive it takes 9 real votes to lynch.

Real Votecount

-millar13 (7): ortolan

(1)

, Moratorium

(1)

, Empking

(1)

, AceMarksman

(1)

, sirdanilot

(1)

, Gorrad

(2)

Not voting (0): killa seven

(0)

, ZEEnon

(-1)

, Kast

(-2)

, Riceballtail

(0)

, zwetschenwasser

(1)

, caf19

(1)

, millar13

(1)

With 13 alive it takes 7 real votes to lynch.

End of Day 4 Real votecount

-Empking (4): Gorrad

(2)

, Kast

(2)

, sirdanilot

(0)

-ZEEnon (3): caf19

(2)

, ZEEnon

(-1)

, ortolan

(1)

, Empking

(1)

-AceMarksman (0): Riceballtail

(0)

Not voting (2): killa seven

(0)

, AceMarksman

(2)

With 10 alive it takes 6 real votes to lynch.[/b]

Real Votecount

-killa seven (4): AceMarksman

(1)

, Riceballtail

(0)

, killa seven

(0)

, caf19

(1)

, Kast

(2)

-caf19 (1): ortolan

(1)

Not voting (2): ZEEnon

(-1)

, Gorrad

(2)

, sirdanilot

(1)

With 9 alive it takes 5 real votes to lynch.[/b]

D5: vote count checks out if everyone told the truth about their own votes. AceM's target K7 does not appear to have any effect. ZEE claimed no target this night.
D4: vote count checks out if everyone told the truth about their own votes, except for AceM who appears to have a double vote. AceM's power appears to have affected Nyx. ZEE's power appears to have been unable to affect Gorrad.
D3: vote count checks out if everyone told the truth about their own votes. AceM's target Millar does not appear to have any effect (unless Millar was originally a double voter). ZEE's target Kast appears to have worked.
D2: this one is screwed up a lot. The three individual voters+single RV seem understandable. Semioldguy confirmed losing his vote.
There are 3 missing votes on ThAdmiral and 3 unclaimed RV on ThAdmiral's candidate. Possible ThAdmiral was a triple voter (unlikely). Possibly an MK day power (what comes to mind is the inverting block from SMB:3). Possibly someone has a hidden vote or votes that they did not use.
D1: once again, ThAdmiral's candidate is odd.

There was and possibly still is an unaccounted for vote. Even into D4, AceM had an unclaimed vote (which was mentioned while K7 was lynched). His claimed vote reduction does not add up with the real vote counts. I'd guess that AceM has some vote manipulation power(s) that he tried to build a fake claim around but messed up.

[Kast]

@ZEEnon-
I think it is likely that both AceM and RBT are third party.

I would think that RBT killing Qwints is a more sure sign of non-MK than AceM catching SK. However, I don't think it's an either or, they can both be third party, and I think that is probably the most likely scenario.

@AceM-
-Can you explain the discrepancies between your claimed power and the real vote counts?
-You've been asked several times to answer whether your power can bring a player down to negative votes, but as yet no answer. It's a bit late, but what is the answer to that?
-You've also been asked whether your vote reduces other players votes by a fixed amount, or generally how that works. Please explain.

@RBT-
-What is the nature of your kill? So far jumping and fire are confirmed; your claim doesn't sound like either of those.
-Since negative votes are possible, are you able to sacrifice your negative voting power? If so, how would that work (more negative? closer to zero?)

@Who to lynch-
At this point in time, I don't see a winning town strategy. The best case I can see is if we only have 1MK/1DK/1WW then we successfully remove one faction. At that point, we enter night with 3 town and 2 "independents" where it becomes a prisoner's dilemma for the independents (assuming they can identify each other) or just boils down to luck if they can't.

I'm suspecting AceM is an independent who primarily relies on vote manipulation, while RBT may be a more traditional SK. In this sense, if it comes to endgame with 1 town and 1 of the two independents, it would probably be better to face off a townie with RBT. However, it may be better to lynch RBT today as he seems more likely able to kill tonight.

The other thought that bugs me is that AceM and RBT as independents have access to items that we have no clue what they do. If similar to MKMI, we would assume that each of them may have an inherent one time use ability (possibly a kill) in addition to whatever else they have. This could completely screw up the night.

I'm open to thoughts and reasons why one is better able to help the town win than the other (beyond just one is more definitely scum than the other).

@For completeness-
I also think ZEEnon is the most probable remaining MK (if there is just one MK). This is continuation of what I posted at the beginning of this day and also something that I came across while looking at D1. ZEEnon he goes from saying he agrees with everyone that SK should be lynched, to suddenly believing and defending SK and asking everyone to justify their votes at the last minute. He also went from entering the game and trusting Tajo to claiming that Tajo was his biggest suspect. The latter comment on Tajo could be a scum slip admitting that he actually killed Tajo who was his top "suspect".

[Kast]

@New Mods-

Can we get a prod on AceM?

@RBT-
-ZEEnon's vote count is pretty consistent with what he's claimed so far. The only odd point is D2 where everything is screwed up.
-Why do you have -1 vote today?

@Ort-
One thing that bugs me; why would AceM (as third party or as MK) try to lynch you? I would think third party would probably want to equalize by working with town to lynch other scum and increase their own chance of winning. Possibly an unusual victory condition (kill all 'troopas?), short of that, it's not making much sense to me.

@AceM-
-Why did you target nobody yesterday?
-Why did you target each player that you claim to have targeted?

@ZEEnon-
-Same question, why did you choose each player that you chose?

@Dry Bones-
One thing to consider, in the previous game, Dry Bones came back to life after being dead for a while. It is possible that he might come back in this game as well (although we'd probably not notice given his posting record).

[Kast]

Nothing has changed my opinions, but i'd like some more discussion.
AceMarksman is scum

(Third Party)

. Riceballtail is scum

(Third Party)

. ortolan is town. Nyx is

[a wildcard]

. Kast is

[town]

.

ZEEnon is scum (MK)

Any disagreements?

Agreed with the italicized changes.

[Kast]

@AceM-
Do you have any answers to these questions:
-Can your power reduce a player to negative votes?
--If your power is used on a player who already has a negative vote, does it become more negative or closer to zero?
-Do you have any explanation for the discrepancies between your claimed targets and the real vote counts of those targets?

[Kast]

@AceM-
Hope you enjoyed your time at the beach. Since you are back now, answering the questions you left hanging would be much appreciated.

[Kast]

@AceM-
My mistake. I see you did address those questions, although I don't think you addressed them satisfactorily.

This is incorrect:

Go back and look at the begining of each day and see who said that their vote doesn't count/counts for one less today. It will coincide with who I targeted.

Your list:

It was, in order of night target, semioldguy, millar, sirdan, k7, no one.

Semioldguy and Sirdan confirmed their votes reduced by 1 (and RV Count also confirms).
Millar did not claim that, and instead claimed to be vanilla. RV Count supports that he either did not have his vote reduced OR was a double voter and lying to the town even up to his death.
K7 confirmed that his vote was 0 and has been 0 the entire game.

Also, why did you have 2 RV on D4?

-Given that your claimed ability specifically stops the mafia kill, why wouldn't you use it as we near endgame?
--Related item missed earlier: you previously claimed that jumping on players is the Mushroom Kingdom's main way of killing. How do you know this?
--Also related item: You previously claimed knowledge of multiple methods of killing (specifically, you claimed to know whether you were immune or not immune to all methods of killing). How does this reconcile with your claim of Paragoomba with no claimed immunities and knowledge that MK kills by jumping?

[Kast]

@RBT-
-I don't think you answered the "method" of your kill yet. So far fire and jumping are on the table. Does your kill fall under a third category (if so what)?
-You claimed that you chose to not kill anymore due to the low chance of hitting scum, yet you have also claimed 0 votes and inability to kill without having real votes. The former implies a kill that can be used more than once. The latter indicates that you were a double voter with a one shot NK, both of which are now gone. This seems implausible compared with the power levels of other roles so far.
-I don't believe you ever answered whether your loss of votes was permanent or temporary. You said you would ask the mod. What was the answer?

@ZEEnon-
Why did you target Caf (unless you're just being honest and admitting that you NKed caf)?

@AceM/RBT-
Why should I vote for the other one of you?
I'm guessing you are both Third Party. One of you has demonstrated vote manipulation. One of you has claimed an otherwise unclaimed kill. It would seem prudent to remove a probable killer before he has a chance to kill again. However, it seems suicidal to allow a vote manipulator to live into end game.

@All-
Actually, I think I can see one way this works out to a town win (assuming Nyx is town, also not guaranteed win, but fairly good chances).

I want to hear AceM and RBT's answers, then I can share my thoughts.

[Kast]

@Ort-
-I linked back to all the RV Counts in the quote headers. The newmod confirmed that all of the RV Counts are legitimate.

-I'm suspecting that the Third Parties may each have had some setup information about the MK and BA.

[Kast]

I am immune to fire and shells, and will become a normal goomba if I am jumped on.

Uh...paragoombas die to both fire and shells. They do reduce to regular goombas when jumped on. I think you're lying. Not a big change since I already thought you were lying.

I am more concerned with your thoughts on why RBT should be lynched instead of you. It would probably be easier if you present the argument in the context that the person you are convincing believes you are both likely third party scum.

[Kast]

@ZEEnon-
-Incorrect. Paragoombas are the jumping ones. They have wings and can jump fairly high, but they always land back on the ground and spend a majority of their time walking, usually only jumping when Mario approaches.

In any event, shells can be carried and immediately kill a paragoomba. If the paragoomba can be jumped on, then it can have a shell smashed into it OR a fireball fired into it. Any enemy that can be jumped on can be reached by fireballs; you can actually reach some enemies with fireballs that you cannot reach by jumping.

-What did you think about Caf's claim? He claimed an easily demonstrable role.

[Kast]

@Paragoomba Immunities-
Some parakoopas jump, others fly all the time. If paragoombas are immune to fire and shells, one would expect parakoopas are likewise immune.

@AceM-
-It seems odd that you didn't share your immunities when you claimed. You sound almost unkillable except by lynch. Vote manipulation plus immunity or 1 shot protection from multiple NKs methods sounds like an independent role.

It also seems a bit odd that your one claimed weakness (being able to be jumped on) is also able to be solved by using your power to prevent other players from jumping on you.

-Immunity to fire limits options for tonight.

I had initially been thinking we could lynch RBT and remove a potential NK (it would certainly simplify things), I could shoot AceM tonight and hope for ZEEnon to target me. Either I explode and he dies with me, or at least we are left with one town (ort) and one possible town (nyx) who should be able to outvote ZEEnon. Even if ZEEnon did not target me, at least one of {ort, nyx} would survive and could possibly outvote ZEEnon. If I lived, then there would probably be two of {kast, ort, nyx} alive and we should definitely be able to outvote ZEEnon.

I was hoping that RBT and/or AceM would let anything slip that could help determine the viability of this plan.

Now, however, it looks like AceM pretty much can't be NKed, and likely will use his vote manipulation powers. I strongly dislike the prospects for town winning an endgame with an independent with demonstrated vote manipulation powers including a double vote and a vote removal/reduction (which he did on D4).

If we lynch AceM today, I can shoot one of RBT or ZEEnon (unannounced which one). If I survive (ie. started with 4 fireballs), then we should end the following day with at least one player alive out of {Kast, Ort, Nyx} and one alive out of {RBT, ZEEnon}.

RBT appears to have 0 vote (I'm guessing AceM targetted RBT last night to reduce likelihood of RBT voting him) so hopefully town can outvote him.

If ZEEnon survives, he can possibly also be outvoted (depends on how many townies are alive, whether he can use his claimed -1 RV multiplier, and what order players vote in).

If I die, then potentially one of ZEEnon/RBT might die with me (seems unlikely), and it may come down to whether ZEEnon/RBT targeted unique targets or not.

Vote: AceM

@Ort, Nyx-
Appreciate looking over my thoughts and pointing out if I missed anything.

If my vote allows scum to turbo lynch for a win...I'm not really seeing much better options right now. (If nyx is MK with ZEEnon, then this is probably still the best we can do, since it is quite possible that RBT as SK would need to shoot nyx as potential mafia buddy for ZEEnon).

[Kast]

Btw, lynching ZEEnon is similar to lynching RBT. We still end up with at best 2 townies facing off against AceM who has a demonstrated double vote and vote reduction power.

[Kast]

Some feedback would be appreciated...

[Kast]

2) (This is directed at Kast.) Why is my role so overpowered and unbelieveable when gorrad's role also existed in the game? Did you forget about that?

3) have we forgotten about RBT?

-Your role itself is not completely overpowered and unbelievable. The primary reason I am suspicious of you is that mod provided evidence (RV counts) and testimonies from confirmed townies contradict your claims.

Your role claim also changed from early soft-claiming multiple immunities, to later claiming without a hint of those immunities, to later claiming nigh invulnerability to night kills.

The flavor of your claimed role also does not fit with game flavor.

-Having one overpowered townie does not make it more likely that there are more than one overpowered townies.

Overpowered roles tend to be independents.

-I haven't forgotten RBT. If you can show me a way for town to lynch RBT and win, I'm open for suggestions (or rather if you can show me any way that town greatly improves chances of winning). If you were not immune to fire, then it would be better to lynch one of RBT or ZEEnon.

-Have fun at band camp.

[Kast]

-Lawrencelot only sent me one PM at day start with how many votes I have. I don't know if that would have been a different number but changed as a result of ZEEnon.

-I think it is likely that both AceM and RBT are liars. Combine that with RBT probably killing MK on N1, and AceM's instrumental role in lynching MK on D1 and D2, I think they both have to be third party.

-My primary reason for suspecting ZEEnon as MK is process of elimination. I don't think an MK mafia with just toads and yoshi is realistic. There is probably one MK member remaining. It isn't me. I don't think it can be Ort, AceM, or RBT. I think it is unlikely to be Nyx due to joining D2. ZEEnon is the only fit. His behavior is also consistent with an MK player (not necessarily indicative that he is one).

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether ZEEnon is MK or not, since I don't think lynching him is the best way for town to win.

[Kast]

@Ort-
I was referring to day 3. I was given a PM (as I assume all were) that I don't have any coins and my vote was -2. It said nothing about my vote changing or anyone using a power to affect my vote. I can guess that ZEEnon did indeed use a power to affect my votes. But I can't prove that it was ZEEnon, or that it wasn't a result of some other mechanic.

Also, I have received a similar PM on each day since I replaced in.

[Kast]

Flying out of country tomorrow for work. Won't be back until at earliest the 20th. Unsure of internet access during this time. Sorry for the short notice.

[Kast]

GG. I'd like to know why my vote kept changing.

I think town played fairly well, but enough townies made enough mistakes/slips that we could easily blend in.

Scum didn't get any fake claims and didn't have item lists. Qwints was a traitor, which is how he probably knew the item list. He got NKed on N1 because MK didn't realize he was MK.

[Kast]

K7, thanks for lying to the town about your vote. I think it helped tremendously in making AceM's claim less believable.

Initially, I thought Gorrad had to be third party with ZEEnon pegged as an additional third party.

If MK recruited a player using a 1-UP Shroom, what would that player be? We were hesitant to use that as an option since we weren't sure that the player who joined would be on our team.

[Kast]

Millar really hurt the town, I was wondering why we were able to kill the green parakoopa by jumping but not the red one and also AceM claimed 1 shot immunity that the green parakoopa should have shared.

Millar also should have been paying attention to the game since he still had a vote. His lying up to his death was also pretty helpful for scum.

[Kast]

@Sajin-
I think multiple town players lying about their votes hurt the town much more than any loss of information from those votes changing.

If any townies took the time to analyze the votes, D2 gave them a strong chance to definitively catch us lying about our votecounts.

[Kast]

@Ortolan-
Votecounts were authentic. However, RBT and I didn't know how many votes we actually had on D2. It was secret from us as a punishment. I thought my vote was 1 but it was actually -1.

K7 lied and claimed to have 0 votes when he actually had 1 vote.

[Kast]

@K7-
Once you were lynched, you could have let the town know the truth instead of taking that information to the grave with you. It's usually better to admit a mistake than to lie and try keeping it secret.