/Invitational 11: Pick your Poison 5 (Game Over)

[zoraster]

Briefly on to check e-mail and what not, but I'm still on V/LA until Friday. My first thought is Roleblocker is better to give than anything else. The Jan will be annoying and will have serious late-game repercussion. As this is a semi-open game, the Jan will take away the advantage that this provides to the town.

[zoraster]

Edit: I think the assassin route is one worth considering, though I don't have the time or inclination to think it throught... just enough to exhort you to consider it very seriously.

[zoraster]

Last, and sorry to keep posting but I can't help myself but start to get involved: Consider that our roles are likely to be 2 hiders who it really won't hurt to lose. Roleblocking that won't hurt, and assassinating that won't hurt.

[zoraster]

Okay. I am now Sober and ready.

A Hider Claim is a definite good. Remember that the only way that having two hiders is good is if we know about them. Scum probably didn't do it unless they, like me, neglected to think about the ramifications (but they'd be stupid not to spend more time than I did thinking about things). If we only have one, so what? The hider is a pretty darn weak role.

Vote: Option 2

3 week deadlines = snoozefest.

[zoraster]

Knowing its what is going to happen by nature weakens the move.

Yea, its bad if we're at all the PR's left alive and no scum dead when massclaim happens but that is a bad scenario no matter how you cut it. Knowing PR's aren't inherently trusted because of their claim is fairly standard and lynching even A scum that flips breaks this wide open.

And the swaths of vanillas is more of the same we will actually be able to find and lynch a scum: even with 3 scum left the claims have to be split to PR's / not PR's (in this setup I'd assume 1 PR claim 2 not) which means trying to lynch in the PR and clear that set.

However, if there are two scum left at massclaim and its an obvious 1/1 and the vanilla scum is found that's all but game right there.

So I guess my answer is tied into the mentality behind the discussion - if we can't lynch scum then the janitor is REAL bad. If we can lynch scum then the janitor becomes weaker by comparison - and I don't think the existence of the janitor actively hampers that pursuit near the level that is presented.

Thinking on it, the jan is only

really[/b] bad if we have a vigilante on our side. If not, then we'll know that the death is a townie. We may not be able to count power roles as effectively, which is definitely bad, but we'd at least know the alignment.

A vigilante would not have been terrible to give us, so there's certainly a chance that's out there.

[zoraster]

Zoraster agrees with Zorblag. Hider claim = good. Full mass-claim = not necessary and probably harmful.

[zoraster]

I'm not sure I think your reasoning makes any sense, Rhinox.

So what if that's "the role most want to give"? If we get two hider claims, i doubt most will want to give them a roleblocker.

Consider the possibilities:
1. There is one or fewer hiders, we don't have them claim, we give scum a RB = Good
2. There are two hiders, no claim, we give scum a RB = Bad
3. There is one or fewer hiders, we do have them claim, we give scum a RB = Good
4. There are two hiders, they claim, we give scum something other than RB = Better than 2.

My only concern in all of this, upon reflection, is how we actually confirm the hider claims if we don't have a mass claim. Scum KNOW how many hiders there are. If they gave town one hider, they could very well claim hider since we won't be able to count power roles. Yes, eventually we MAY be able to tell they were lying when three other power roles die, but that's considerably down the line, and I think if I were scum I would be willing to take the hit of a scum member dying down the road on the off chance town has three power roles die.

So upon further reflection, it seems to me (unless I'm missing something) we do need to mass claim or figure out some other way of reducing the problem.

But the reason not to have hiders claim has nothing to do with the fact we WANT to give them a RB in a vacuum. If we have more information, we may want to make different choices. What daft, superficial logic. Makes me wonder.

[zoraster]

@Rhinox, the only time we would want to give scum a roleblocker would be if two hiders claimed. If we just got one claimed hider Troll be fine with giving them a roleblocker. If the scum choose to use their roleblock and kill on someone who might be protected by a weak doctor or a jailkeeper and who might kill themself by hiding behind scum or behind the person the mafia attempt to kill or behind someone a potential vig kills then Troll can certainly live with that use of their resources.

If we do have two hiders Troll would much rather have them hiding behind eachother right from the start than spending one night confirming others. The advantage of two unkillable confirmed townies be too great to want to risk getting them killed with their own roles (and there be plenty of ways for that to happen.)

If we get no hider claims at all and are able to narrowing in on the setup and what town roles there be there be more advantages than simply denying scum fake claims. It should help the town make informed decisions in general. Troll would argue that if we could know for sure which one (or more) of the power roles no was picked by the scum (and by the pigeonhole principle we do know that must be true for at least one of the power roles) we clearly be in better shape in terms of our expectations and information.

@Zoraster, if we get two hider claims and one was fake then we would get to lynch scum on day two. When the real hider tried to hide behind the mafia member them would get killed night one. If we have no roleblocker then it would be completely clear what happened. We no would need a mass claim to figure that out. Troll would trade our hider (if we have exactly one) and the ability to pick the roleblocker for a sure scum lynch come day two of a game this size.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

Doh. Should read things more closely. Then yes. I'm with Zorblag.

[zoraster]

As mith says, it will be very hard for us to get rid of four scum in this game without some sort of support. That's why the hider claiming seems like a good idea. Either way, we need to try and count up who's in favor. Obviously a hider claim does not work if we have a lot of people resisting.

Also, my grandparents live in Denton, mith.

[zoraster]

MME + Hoopla + ? + ?

Ya'll hurry up and pick something.

As has been mentioned, it does not make sense to vote for things before knowing if we're claiming hiders or not.

[zoraster]

@ooba and Zoraster, Troll thinks that the two of you explicitly support hider claims. Troll wonders if you would be willing to give your best arguments for why this be the case.

Gladly.
1. It seems to me there is a chance, albeit it somewhat small, that we would gain quite a lot from a hider claim if we get two hiders claiming. It seems to me that the only reason this would be particularly bad for mafia to give to us is if the two hiders work together in some manner, preferably to keep two cleared players alive the whole game. But if the mafia either (a) didn't realize this [perfectly possible] or (b) realized this but figured town would not have the hiders claim BEFORE town gives them the roleblocker, they would not have a particular downside. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that scum can think that far ahead.

2. The minus of a single hider claim is pretty low. This is especially true if we don't give them a roleblocker as the hider will still be able to hide at people's houses until he targets a mafia member.

3. If we get zero hider claims, we know a lot more about our setup with little downside and can make better choices with our selections. The mafia already know how many hiders there are. If there aren't any, it's much better for us to know that. It narrows the field for future fake claims as well as hider is a particularly GOOD role for mafia to fake claim if there aren't any other hiders.

[zoraster]

I'm a little distressed at how many people are pretty much taking the easy "no thought" route to this game. It's an invitational, guys. Yes, setup talk can be a bit iffy, but presumably you picked Patrick, and that means you knew it was going to be pick your poison. Knowing this, you should have known you'd end up in a game that spent the first bit of time talking about the setup.

Given that you knew it, spend some time and really think about it rather than go "oh. well. roleblocker wouldn't be bad. let's just play." We ARE playing here, and this stage may be the most important stage of our game. So pay attention, and don't give short shrift to these discussions just because you're bored.

[zoraster]

(PS. That wasn't directed at you hoopla)

[zoraster]

not a hider

[zoraster]

Why jan over role cop? Either way

Vote: Assassin

[zoraster]

vote: rolecop

[zoraster]

vote: DGB

You can call anything a gambit, but sometimes it's just playing anti-town. That's the case here.

Fos: Amished

as well, but DGB has my vote for the foreseeable future.

[zoraster]

i am not in favor of quick lynching just to quick lynch.

I am, however, in favor of lynching DGB.

Vote: DGB

just to confirm.

[zoraster]

Well.

VOTE: Hoopla

Let's go then.

Justify your vote, please.

[zoraster]

no u

Plus it's not like this is a big surprise.

DGB made an anti-town move and then tried to shrug it off with "oh it's a gambit." She gets my vote for that, and she should get more votes for it.

Now you.

[zoraster]

DGB is DGB.

Also Hoopla is Hoopla.

We should have a wagon race. Whoever fills up first wins!

This is banal crap. Play the game and at least explain what you mean by that.

[zoraster]

I'm not sure I see the connection between your criteria and where people are located, ooba. I'd love to hear how you square DGB with being town, even if you just mechanically try to apply those criteria you listed.

[zoraster]

I'm not sure I see the connection between your criteria and where people are located, ooba. I'd love to hear how you square DGB with being town, even if you just mechanically try to apply those criteria you listed.

Forgot to add - I cannot see scum ever gambitting like that ... Puts a lot of pressure on her at the start of the game. The only probable trade-off is that Janitor was hammered. In fact if I was scum, I would have probably lurked it out until Assassin was hammered too and then declared gambit at start of D1 to increase payoffs of move.

She would. In fact, the "gambit" to show your town seems very DGB to me. In fact, it seems engineered to do just that. There was little to no town gain in what she did, even theoretically. Yet it came at an obvious price. But by doing the fake gambit, she gets town points because she's pretty confident people will take it the way you do.

anyway, my question was still about your criteria to your actual selections. They seem to be not so related.

[zoraster]

She would. In fact, the "gambit" to show your town seems very DGB to me. In fact, it seems engineered to do just that. There was little to no town gain in what she did, even theoretically. Yet it came at an obvious price. But by doing the fake gambit, she gets town points because she's pretty confident people will take it the way you do.

anyway, my question was still about your criteria to your actual selections. They seem to be not so related.

Not only are you dispensing from scum hunting announcing right out of the gate that you'll be tunneling on me, but you're also trying to make sure I don't hunt scum.

FAIL

Caught you

DIE SCUM DIE

vote: zoraster

I am scum hunting. I went hunting and found the likeliest scum. I suppose you'd prefer I start randomly voting and act off of low information rather than that high-level scuminess? No. The best scum hunting comes from going after people who are acting scummy, and you're number one.

I'm not preventing you from hunting scum at all. Is there a reason you cannot do so? Perhaps you're less effective when being attacked, but you don't get a "super scum hunter" badge that makes you immune from being hunted. That said, if you did have such a badge, you would have had to give it to the chief along with your sidearm for the anti-town stunt you pulled.

[zoraster]

Why are you voting in that manner based on the events of Day 0 while you were basically completely uninterested in getting views and so on during it?

I'm voting Hoopla cuz she's scum. Zoraster's pretty upset about it too, look how this is paying dividends already.

I'm not upset you're voting Hoopla. I'm upset you're voting people and then refusing to say why. And for defending people without saying why. If you don't want to play the game, don't sign up for the game.

[zoraster]

Why MME, mith? Three of your four top 4 are pretty active and have had suspicion on them from others. I don't think that's true of MME.

[zoraster]

got a prod. been traveling to visit my folks. I'll evaluate why there aren't more DGB votes shortly (as well as whether the other wagons have merit).

[zoraster]

Thx Flay. At least one of these guys is scum.

DGB, Elmo, KMD, Plum, Rhinox and Zoraster.

Remember to isolate Tajo when you are in endgame and POE gives you a name out of this list.

Probability of getting at least one scum right by picking six people completely randomly: ~75%.

zoraster: which is more scummy: defense of something that's anti-town (somewhat scummy) by another player, or an anti-town action by a lone player. That should give you enough information.

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems to me it really depends on the specific situation. But probably the latter.

---
So anyway. I think it's unfortunate DGB went AWOL at a pretty crucial point. If she was going to @!#@$ make a dumb gambit, she needs to be around to discuss it. Regardless, the game goes on, and it's not scummy she's going to Caffwagon.

Papa zito to me comes across as more frustrating than scummy. I reserve the right to revise that, but so far he just comes across as kind of an asshole.

Hoopla, usually pretty collected and thoughtful in her posts has become more and more incoherent. Hoopla: why herod?

MME needs to step up and actually answer because he or she clearly has no idea what's going on in the game.

I'm looking for another place to go with my vote, but for now DGB feels firmly like the clearest choice, and she returns soon. So it returns unless I can get a bead on someone else. But I think now that she's returning, DGB needs to feel some more lynch pressure.

[zoraster]

Thx Flay. At least one of these guys is scum.

DGB, Elmo, KMD, Plum, Rhinox and Zoraster.

Remember to isolate Tajo when you are in endgame and POE gives you a name out of this list.

I don't know if you meant this as a joke or serious, but you realize that mathematically, if you pick any random 6 people in a 20 player game in which there are 4 scum, there is an 80% chance that at least 1 of those 6 players are scum. Unless you feel being prodded is a scum tell, you might as well have picked 6 names at random.

In a game with this amount of superstars and at the pace we are going, there has to be at least one lurking.

Yes I know that silly stuff about 1 of 6 players is scum blah blah blah. What I did was to give a DEFINED list of players. Random can kiss my ass. In endgame, every reason to decide your vote counts and adding green to this defined list (with town flips) should be helpful in the long run.

I was just saying that acting like you'll be proven super-smart at the end if one of your six is scum is, well, not that impressive. If you get 3 or 4 scum in your list, on the other hand, I'll be impressed! It wasn't really a game comment so much as a, "well, i'm not sure this is brag worthy if you're right and one is scum."

[zoraster]

Zoraster, can you explain in two sentences why you want to lynch DGB?

Sure:

DGB made her anti-town "gambit" without any real calculation on whether it was helpful to the town, but she reasoned (correctly, it seems) that a "gambit" almost always comes across as pro-town, even when its substance is decidedly not. DGB is absolutely capable of using such a ploy, and we should not allow scummy behavior to slip by just because it comes from an chaotic player.

[zoraster]

V/LA until Sunday night

[zoraster]

Back from vacation. I have a game I'm modding that I need to launch, but I'll be catching up very soon, given that the deadline approaches.

[zoraster]

isn't everyone "maybe scum"? In any case, sorry for the absences. Been bad timing with travel, the timing of night, etc.

I'm reviewing back, but some of my reading feels "stale" if you know what I mean. Perhaps better to answer some questions to get back into it? Anyone have any for me or was that wagon just driven out of malaise?

[zoraster]

So maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but are we completely leaving the elmo tajo thing alone? It seems like in our quest for information, this might be a good place to start, especially since we know they have a roleblocker.

[zoraster]

That's not really an answer, Elli. Care to elaborate? Actually scummy or Punishment for being absent? Is that a good way to encourage people to start posting again?

[zoraster]

So maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but are we completely leaving the elmo tajo thing alone? It seems like in our quest for information, this might be a good place to start, especially since we know they have a roleblocker.

unvote, vote zoraster

It doesn't happen often, but some votes really don't need an explanation.

That may be true, but more often they do need one. This is one of those times where it does.

[zoraster]

Are you even reading the game? I just posted a case against you.

Also, obv you're not scum hunting at all. Lazy scum much?

I assume you refer to this post.

First, I was referring to elli's post. I see nothing to connect his to yours, but that's okay.

Second, I haven't been "active" lurking. I've been pretty passive about it, unfortunately. My attempts to catch up have, admittedly, been not great. But what I

was

trying to accomplish in each was to get a dialog going, much like this one. It's very hard to get back into the swing of a game with just a bunch of essays. It requires actual "conversation." If that's targeted at me, so be it.

But I have a feeling this is a lot more about what I did before than what I did since I've been off-and-on. You didn't feel confident enough to bring any heat on me when I was pressing for your lynch before, but now that I'm "vulnerable" so to speak, you've been going after me.

[zoraster]

hmm it seems i'm mistaken then, although by the third post I think I was having trouble getting on.

However, my larger point remains: what's motivating you seems to be in response to my reaction to your "gambit." You accuse me of focusing on you, but it seems to me that's the correct method. I never claimed I would never change my vote from you, but rather that you had earned my vote for the foreseeable future. Which was correct. Because you made an incredibly anti-town play, and that deserved some serious insight. Just because other people were able to pass it off as you being unpredictable and whatever, doesn't mean it wasn't actually scummy.

Regardless, I've strayed here. I still am curious about the elmo tajo dynamic.

[zoraster]

Wait.
When you said passive lurking earlier.
You meant you were here reading, but just not posting rite?
Be honest.

No. The opposite. This is my only game right now, but you can probably go through MD, which I am normally very active in, to see whether I've been active on the site as a whole. Obviously that's not determinative, but I would have had to be pretty dedicated to lurking as a strategy to lurk site wide.

Can you point to any "insight" you have provided in this game?

Insight? not really. My only major point has been that DGB has been anti-town and if you don't act on that, then I'm not sure how you plan on evaluating DGB on the whole. Beyond that, no. I can't say I've provided "insight."

[zoraster]

...I guess I don't understand what you were trying to say above, then: "Because you made an incredibly anti-town play, and that deserved some serious insight."

Sorry, let me try to clarify. I think "insight" may have been a poor choice of words made in a hurry. I meant to say that it deserves some

inspection

. But to further explain what I mean by this:

I'll speak from my own perspective. We can talk about whether DGB is wacky enough that hers will vary from mine, but as a starting point, perhaps that'll give more to grasp.

Let's say I'm sitting there and there are five people left to claim whether or not they're hiders. I get the idea to fake claim hider. I'll do a cost and benefit (pro and con if you prefer) analysis of it. It's clear there's a cost. It may cause confusion among players, it may make players make a suboptimal choice in terms of our selections. Add to that the general proposition that confusion, unless done for specific reasons (e.g. protecting a cop) in specific situations, is generally a negative for the town.

I say, "okay. But maybe there's a great reason to fake claim!" so I try to come up with the positives. And what are they? They may provide a small tool in getting a read on a player? That's what was advanced by DGB if my recollection serves me. What else is there? Remember that the scum have a much better idea of whether that claim is actually real or not. If, as DGB says she suspected at that point, there were no hiders in the game, scum knows it. But town doesn't.

So I look at this, and if I'm town I have to think, "gee. It sure seems like a bad idea because it's going to hurt the town without much in return." And so I don't do it. Because it's not in favor of the town. It's ANTI-TOWN.

I think there are legitimate arguments to be made that maybe DGB wasn't making such a calculated approach to it. Maybe that falls under her meta of being wild and crazy. That may make it less likely she is scum because of it, but it doesn't make it less anti-town.

That said, to me it seems like the actions of a scum who plays bold and assumes she won't be called on it enough to take real heat. And let's be honest here: if she thought that, she was right. And yet she still managed to sabotage that part of the game.

---

[zoraster]

We still have 6 days or so but we really need to start laying down the law here. People, in their next post, should post the order of preference for three of the current "wagons" going right now or even better, change your vote for who you want to lynch. Game is stagnating a little and this needs to be rectified.

VasudeVa>>>>zoraster(so THAT'S why people are voting him)>>DGB

Why do you say three wagons and have DGB up there and not Ooba?

I want a real caught up post from zoraster before I delve into the pot o' three that isn't VV.

do you want to know about anything in particular? I'm not going to do a post-by-post thought thread. I don't find it helpful, and I don't tend to think like it. That's not just an "empty" request designed to look active without doing anything or because I'm lazy; I'm serious. I'd rather address something specific with some direction.

I could maybe go for zoraster also. Unless he picks up, I wouldn't want him to see endgame, meh.

That's as good a reason as any articulated, I think. All I can say is once I'm "into the game" so to speak, I'm far more active.

[zoraster]

I don't get what you keep saying about getting info the elmo-tajo thing.
You being zor.

And what do you think aboue people OTHER than DGB.

+1

We shall never find out

The scum will take the secret to his grave

obviously I'm a bit biased, but this type of semi-joke (said meant to be serious but in a humorous way) is DGB scum at her core.

Regardless, what Elli (and now mith) have asked for is time consuming given the amount of review it takes. It will come, but posting "heh heh he's not posting on it" ain't going to make it happen faster.

[zoraster]

All right, I'm at L-1. Before anyone hammers, give me half a day or so to get my thoughts on all the players, which despite what DGB has insisted, was coming anyway. Anyone who hammers before then should be shot or lynched.

[zoraster]

So I've done each player, but each is a fairly brief discussion.

DrippingGoofball

I won’t spend much time here talking about DGB. She’s scummy, and I suspect anyone who’s not on coast should feel at least a bit uncomfortable with the way she’s playing

ekiM

I think ekim comes across as pretty townish. The pressure he applies seems natural, even when it’s wrong.

Ellibereth

Somewhat Scummy. He puts pressure on Vas while saying that he thinks Vas is town. That’s fine, but he plays it off as, “You’re making yourself look bad here Vas” So I don’t know what the point is other than to seem “fair and balanced.” Still, not top of my list.

Elmo

As town as they come.

Herodotus

I don’t get the concern on him at all. I like his analysis. I think a KMD lynch could actually sort out some of the concern. If KMD really is all about vote analysis, I tend to agree with Herod. It would be a bizarre play as town. That said, I’m not thrilled about his push to get VV to summarize his meta. It’s my opinion that if you start a case using meta against another player (or as a defense), fine, but the onus is on you to provide the work involved.

Kmd4390

Scummy. He would be my second choice for a lynch. First, he has read Elmo as scum, which seems unfathomable to me if you’re being honest. Second, he’s playing very cagey style that seems pretty scumm to me. Third, if Herod is right about his vote analysis, then he should have wanted to avoid the jan at all costs

mith

I’m pretty undecided on mith. He’s playing the reasonable man part, which is good, but it’s not coming across as terribly town to me either.

My Milked Eek

Hard to make any read on him at all. Whether you think I’ve posted content or not, MME has posted even less

Ooba

Yeah his initial scum list was in itself pretty scummy and pretty disingenuous, but since then his play hasn’t been particularly scummy – though perhaps a little light

Papa Zito

Taking on troll was weird. I lean town on him actually, but I don’t feel particularly passionate about it.

Plumegranate

I think the fruit women have gotten a little lazy. I lean scum on them, but as in PZ, I’m not passionate about it.

Rhinox

The Rhinox/Seraphim thing feels like two people on the same side fighting.

Seraphim (replacing Slicey)

Seraphim feels like a frustrated town, but town nonetheless.

SpyreX

First a disclaimer: I’m not good at reading SpyreX. I tend to think he’s town in all my games: even games where I’m the mod and he’s scum. But he comes across as town to me.

VasudeVa

Overwhelmed scum. Not happy about being scum, but doing his best to play it. That’s my read on him.

AdumbroDeus (replacing Zorblag)

Town due to Zorblag’s play

[zoraster]

so you think...I guessed that elmo killed amished and was right or...? What am I missing here?

What do you mean?

[zoraster]

Surely if zoraster is scum, he would be aware of the Kmd/Elmo situation (via quicktopic if nothing else). But on the other hand, surely if zoraster were town and thought the Elmo situation were worth discussing, and had been told

why

it wasn't being discussed, he would

go read the relevant portions of the thread

.

This is even more detached from reality than the pre-V/LA My Milked Eek post. Ignorance is probably about as (un)likely either way, but add the possibility that he's scum playing dumb and it's yet another point against him. Nothing about that post reassures me about zoraster (still not much of a DGB case, nor a vote; the "I'm more active than MME!" comment; more "eh?" moments with Herodotus - what concern? - and "Rhinox/Seraphim"...).

zoraster: Claim.

UNVOTE: DrippingGoofball
VOTE: zoraster (L-1)

What a load of horsehockey. You ask me to read effing 30 pages of stuff and come up with a post on every person (you being whoever was asking -- elli and DGB in particular). I have done that. If you don't particularly like it, so be it. I'm not particularly detached from the game. I've read each and every person as carefully as I can manage. If you're not particularly interested in that read, that's fine. But to simply yell "detached!" without actually elaborating why (you have made no effort to say what the relevant posts are. there are a lot. It's not just me not wanting to delve in, it's not having a clue what you're actually talking about) is ridiculous.

By the by, take notice that what mith is actually attempting to do is discredit my reads. I think we're all pretty sure I'm getting lynched here -- that's fine, it's even understandable. But mith's post isn't really about that. It's about trying to take any venom from the reads. Take from that what you will.

Oh, and I claim vanilla.

And please, mith. Not voting DGB? I haven't exactly been shy about it in the past. I just wanted to actually get caught up and actually post something further before voting again. But whatever. You say it like that should be in some what damning. In some situations not voting a player can be. But when a player is far from a lynch later in the game and the person isn't trying to have it both ways (i.e. saying someone is scummy then not voting the person so that they get scum hunting points without actually being responsible), I don't know what you hope to cull from that.

But for you, princess:

VOTE: DGB

[zoraster]

Zoraster, the problem is you called KMD scummy and your second choice for lynch, despite the fact that KMD has claimed tracker with a non-disputed result. Elmo was tracked to a kill (by KMD), and Elmo confirmed that result, so the only way KMD is scum is if BOTH KMD and Elmo are scum, or KMD took a random guess and got impossibly lucky. Since Elmo is "as town as they come", it really doesn't seem to make sense that you can call KMD scum. That was a pretty big point at the beginning of the day today, and kinda hard to just miss in a readthrough.

Simple explanation: I'm an idiot. In my defense, to my knowledge KMD has never actually outright claimed tracker, he just made statements of certainty. Regardless, it's something I should have caught, I suppose.

Zor, did you do that list via readthrough or iso>?

I did a readthrough a few days ago when I was catching up with the game, and then did the person-by-person analysis mostly by iso (sometimes checking the context for things).

[zoraster]

UNVOTE: Zoraster
VOTE: Papa Z

'splain?

I hope that the big wagon on him is NOT going to make the others feel that they can relax and lurk.

All right, I'm at L-1. Before anyone hammers, give me half a day or so to get my thoughts on all the players

I'll process later, but obviously post 1131 is no good.

@Zoraster: unless you are scum who considers your lynch inevitable, please try for real. ATM, it looks like that's what you are.

"try for real"? Once again. You want something, be specific. "Play better" is a nearly worthless suggestion. I have tried to engage people in actual conversation, but when I've done so I've been asked for a rundown of all players in the game. I don't believe a series of essays is in any way useful to the town. Got an issue with a specific part of my post? please point it out.

As to the inevitability of my lynch, eh. I don't really know which way that cuts. I'm not saying any of that out of any sort of "take my ball and go home" kind of thing. Just that from where I was standing it seemed very likely I was going to be lynched, and while that wasn't ideal (from my perspective, the chance of me being scum is 0% after all), it wasn't all that bad either (given I'm not a PR, I hadn't been terribly active in the game, and I may serve as a distraction for later). My goal, then, was not necessarily to stop my lynch but rather to make my lynch and flip as profitable as possible. Lynching lurker is not all that positive. Lynching a more active me who has given thoughts (whether you consider it "real" or not) could potentially lead to bigger dividends. At the very least it's started more back-and-forth.