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

[mith]

Howdy, all.

I'll start by stating that I totally disagree with Hoopla on Vigilante strategy. The number of days we have isn't as important as the number of kills the town controls, and the Vigilante role is our best chance at increasing that number. It's exactly the reason we don't want to give the scum the Assassin - it potentially increases their number of kills.

(On a related note: Troll, mith can't say with any certainty what mith would have argued for as scum, since mith no scum. But mith do find the Hider and especially the Weak Doc to be double-edged, since they have the potential to provide extra town deaths, and since their ability to confirm innocents is limited/risky. So, mith think it possible scum included either or both and in multiples. That said, mith thinking the Jailkeeper is the weakest, the Tracker is a long-shot, and there are many reasons scum might have given us a Vigilante - such as scumHoopla thinking she can talk the Vig out of using the ability. So mith unsure what good speculation on the roles will do, aside from giving scum hints at what fake claims might be more viable.)

The Janitor is more annoying than harmful, and the Rolecop is strictly stronger than the Roleblocker. I think Janitor/Roleblocker is probably best, though my second choice would be Rolecop/Roleblocker (not a lot of synergy between those roles).

[mith]

Plum: In most cases, I would think the scum would just kill any power role the Rolecop found. Leaving power roles alive and blocking them seems an entirely pointless exercise, except for the Hider.

Hoopla: To say we would be "basically signing away any chance at effective bandwagon analysis" is absurd. That said, I'm still mulling it over, and am starting to lean toward the "Rolecop isn't that strong, and while no reveal wouldn't be devestating the annoyance would probably push us toward poorer decisions" line of thinking.

Couldn't care less on the deadlines.

Vote: Roleblocker

[mith]

While it's encouraging to keep seeing this sentiment of "screw the power roles, we don't need them!", a 4:16 vanilla game would be *tough* on the town. Let's not be too hasty to throw the power roles under the bus - we want the scum to choke on the poison they've empowered us with.

Will think more about the Janitor vs. Rolecop decision tomorrow... I won't be voting for the Assassin, though. The "benefit" of the no-power-claim idea (making it unlikely, but not impossible, that the scum will get an extra kill) doesn't outweigh the cost (willfully ignoring a potential source of information).

[mith]

I really should be in bed. I'm too tired to process all of that.

Initial thoughts: It's a good plan if we think there's a significant chance the scum gave us 2 hiders. As I said before, I think it's possible, but I don't know about "likely" - particularly given some of the other comments on likely scum choices. But until I'm more awake:

Unvote: Roleblocker

[mith]

Hoopla: My main concern isn't cutting off night-generated information; it's cutting off information from the claim itself, and the reaction to it. (And I say this having last played regularly in a meta where there was an overreliance on claims and I was perpetually arguing in favor of not claiming and/or lynching claimed power roles, so it's a bit weird to say. But those arguments were situation-specific, whereas your argument is policy lynching power role claims.)

The problem with your plan is that if we have a power role claim that we *don't* want to lynch (because it's believable for whatever set of circumstances, if not completely confirmed - like a Vigilante claiming a nightkill on scum and not being countered), we are forced to either lynch that player anyway (dumb) or gift wrap an extra nightkill to the scum.

Anyway. I am less against this plan than I was last night, even given the potential problems I see. It's basically a choice of giving them a Rolecop and having our power roles die faster, or giving them an Assassin and risking an extra kill or two (but one which can potentially be blocked by three of the roles we might have in the game - the Jailkeeper becomes more useful in an Assassin/Roleblocker game, because a confirmed innocent power role claim can be protected from the Assassin while the downside of the role being blocked is mitigated somewhat by the presence of a Roleblocker who would probably already be blocking that role).

I'm more firmly against the Janitor this morning for the following reason: Without the Janitor in play, we are at the very least able to keep power role claims accountable by the knowledge that there are exactly four of them.

Troll: I don't think a 2-Hider setup is likely enough to make your plan worthwile. (And I'm especially concerned that there might be no Hider, but one of the scum might claim Hider - I'm not sure how we could deal with that effectively.)

[mith]

Good point, we probably do have a way to test a single Hider claim.

I feel better about the idea now than I did earlier, but I'm still not convinced. I'll keep thinking about it. (I wish I had a bit more time to just sit and think about this game; it's a very interesting set of options Patrick has given us.)

[mith]

Hoopla, the wording you are using on occasion when discussing your plan is really bugging me - I know what you're trying to say, but its making me feel like you are more concerned with lynching power roles than with preventing successful fake claims or extra scum kills.

I can think of several reasons why we might have a confirmed power role, or at least a power role claim we would prefer to not lynch immediately. Vigilante kills scum and isn't countered; someone is run up close to lynch and a Hider/Weak Doc comes out to save them; Tracker catches someone visiting the scene of a murder; there's probably something involving the Jailkeeper's blocking ability, as well.

Herodotus, I'm pretty curious about point 1. Why were you asking the mod whether Hiders can be Roleblocked?

[mith]

Ok, there are 19 other players in this game. And only one of them has posted since my last post nearly 24 hours ago. Unacceptable.

I'm a little uneasy about zoraster's reasoning... scum would be stupid not to have thought about the Hider enough to not give us two, but we should do it anyway because the only way two Hiders is good is if we know?

(The variation in power-role evaluation for different players is pretty interesting. Though unfortunately unlikely to be useful for scumhunting at this stage in the game.)

[mith]

Hoopla, I cited reasons

four

of our five possible power roles might out themselves and yet us have very strong reasons not to kill them immediately. To mention two of them and then call them the "only facet we sacrifice" makes me feel like being bullying and condescending.

Further, with all but the Tracker, I'm not suggesting these power roles are just coming out unprompted because of information - I'm suggesting that there's a reasonable chance we will run someone up close to lynch that will cause legit power role with information to come out, in such a way that lynching them would be very poor play (yet having an Assassin in the game forces us into a tricky situation).

But with the Tracker... are you seriously suggesting that a Tracker with a damning investigation should just sit on it (risking, oh, I dunno, getting killed before revealing that information?), or that to do so would qualify as a worthwhile sacrifice for the cause of not giving the Assassin a kill? That's ridiculous.

Herodotus: I don't want to say too much about the numbers I have on this, in case the Mafia don't know what the optimal play is, but I don't think massclaim is likely to benefit us as much as having the power roles functioning normally would.

[mith]

Sorry for the double post, not awake enough yet and I forgot a couple things.

Herodotus: Given that you are tossing around the idea of a massclaim, I find it odd that you ignored the whole Hider-claim discussion and jumped right into a L-2 Roleblocker vote. I'd like some thoughts on Troll's idea, please.

In case it wasn't obvious to everyone else: My previous question to Herodotus was more of a "So you're scum who was trying to figure out whether to give us a Hider or two?" thing. Other things that bug me about posts 90 and 96...

1. Given that the discussion was about whether we should do a Hider-claim so as to possibly avoid giving scum a Roleblocker, I'm not sure how he could miss that no one was assuming the Hider was unblockable (possible I missed something from someone assuming just that, or that he only skimmed enough to see the latter part of the Hider-claim discussion and missed the Roleblocker stuff).
2. In point 2. he said he has no synergy-related ideas... yet point 3. is a synergy idea (that is, Janitor and Assassin don't have synergy).
3. And, of course, what I mentioned earlier in this post regarding post 96 (if he's aware enough of the Hider claim discussion to feel the need to mention post 90 point 1., and if he's going to suggest a massclaim, why is he sidestepping the Hider discussion and voting Roleblocker?).

(Admittedly, those are all pretty weak points. But hey, it's not even day 1 yet and I've got two suspects whose names start with H.)

[mith]

"Being not awake enough yet seems to have made you not notice that it was Amished, not I, who made the L-2 RB vote." - Bleh, I see something bolded and my mind immediately equates it with a vote. My mistake, and you gave a further reason for not discussing Troll's idea, so we're cool there.

However: Isn't that ("discussion from too many people about hider claiming will reveal to the scum who their best NK targets are") potentially a problem with your massclaim suggestion (if it were discussed further), or Hoopla's "lynch claimed power roles" idea, or pretty much any discussion we could have day 0 about power roles? I agree we should be careful, but given the wide range of ideas and opinions on optimal strategy I don't think we're going to give anything away to the scum.

Regarding the Hider/Roleblocker question, it felt to me that you were trying to present yourself as helpful, but without really adding anything to the discussion (and so you weren't necessarily thinking about it from a "scum probably want to know this and would need to ask if they were unsure, town are less likely to think to ask it until day 0 is underway" perspective, but rather a "this is something rather innocuous that I asked/could have asked that could make me look helpful" thing). As I said, it's a pretty weak point.

Wondering: Can you reference any games where you've seen an unblockable Hider?

[mith]

Herodotus, it can't

make

you scum if you're

already

scum... (Partly just curious, partly think it's odd to use the phrase "I've never seen blockable hiders before" if you've never seen unblockable ones either.)

I think it would be pretty stupid on the part of a Hider to claim before we have consensus that a mass-Hider-claim is a good idea; I'm not seeing how someone expressing a pro-mass-Hider-claim (or con-) leaning without claiming Hider gives the scum any information at all (nor how discussing a Hider-claim in the abstract is any different from discussing a PR-claim in the abstract).

Elmo: Not ignoring your question, but want to see answers from a few of the less talkative people before I give an answer. (Likewise, I have some more to say on the Hider-claim issue, but I'd like to see something from Herodotus and from the pro-Assassin camp on that first.)

SpyreX: Can you rewrite that first sentence? I've read it three times and still don't know what you're trying to say.

[mith]

SpyreX: The Janitor potentially alters the power role count if the Janitor uses that ability on a day we lynch a claimed power role (whether the lynchee is actually a power role, or scum). Say we later massclaim, and end up with four power role claims (or four claims + already dead power roles) - because of the Janitor, we don't know whether all four all telling the truth (because we lynched scum earlier in the game and don't know it), or whether we already lynched a power role and have a lying scum among the claims. We might only get three claims (plus the original one), and we're good - but I think it most cases it would benefit the scum to take advantage of the missing reveal (if we lynched a power role earlier).

Without the Janitor in the mix, we would of course already know whether that power-role-claim lynch was a good one or not, and thus know whether we still have a fake claim in the midst of the real ones.

(I still kinda feel like I'm reading gibberish from both you and DrippingGoofball, probably because I've been wiring today and my brain is fried. I hope what I think your saying and have responded to is what you are actually saying - that if we only get 4 total power role claims, the Janitor ability is irrelevant because they're all confirmed. It's true, but it's problematic because scum can screw with us with a single fake claim.)

[mith]

"Scum, to utilize this, has to have at least one member claim a PR." - Yes, and my point was that

scum almost certainly will utilize this

. You haven't answered this, you've just hidden it in a flow chart.

(Note that if we were certain the Janitor was going to Janitize day 1, we could avoid the power-role-counting part of the problem by not lynching power role claims - but unfortunately, we don't know that for certain.)

[Don't understand the "clearing swaths of vanillas" line, either.]

[mith]

SpyreX: You do understand that with a Janitor in play, we wouldn't know how many scum are left (and thus the split)... right?

(I agree that the Janitor power loses its effectiveness as we kill and reveal more scum; and if I've gotten you from a stance of "Janitor? No biggie." - which is where I started out as well - to "Janitor is potentially real bad, but probably weak", then that's all I'm looking for out of this argument. While I do think an accurate count of power roles is important, on top of the other information we might potentially lose to a no-reveal, I'm not completely set against giving them the Janitor; the only thing I am confident of at the moment is that the Roleblocker is the weakest of the four.)

DrippingGoofball: I think we're already attempting to answer that question (I am, at least). Arguing about the strengths of individual roles is both providing me with ideas for countering those roles that I might not have thought of yet, and challenging me to defend my current leanings (both to persuade others and to persuade myself). The "whys" of various players' leanings are also important (for example, I might be able to convince myself that the Assassin is less bad than the Rolecop, but if a choice of Assassin is necessarily coupled with the "lynch all power role claims" plan, I won't be voting for it because I think that plan is flawed).

As to your question: I would say that an extra scum kill (on a power role) is worse than a single no reveal; but also that we are nearly guaranteed some shenanigans with a Janitor, while the Assassin's ability to kill anyone is uncertain. At the moment, I think the Janitor is probably the lesser of those two evils.

[mith]

Heh... not that I think the question any less valid (if you were making things up, you might not have had that game in mind, nor remembered that I did the resolution that way), but I really should have remembered you played that game (since you were a Magic Traaaaain with Shabba) and wouldn't have bothered to ask if I had.

(FWIW, while I don't recall ever having the potential for a Hider and a Blocker in any other game, I wouldn't rule out deciding to resolve things differently - the intuition that inspires Natural Action Resolution breaks down a bit when it comes to Xyl's list, and it would be pretty easy to argue for any ordering of the first five.)

I've read Troll's posts as an argument for a town strategy, not as a recommendation to individual players. It's not a strategy that makes any sense if not everyone follows it. I suppose I can see where you're coming from, but do you have any objection to discussing it on the basis of "this is something under consideration only as a whole-town strategy, and would only be implemented with a consensus"?

[mith]

I'm starting to come around on the massclaim idea a little... ooba makes a good point that Rolecop/Janitor is a better combination for massclaim. I think it's better than a Hider-only claim, at least.

My main concern is that I can think of too many power role combinations that don't give us much benefit beyond the "Named Townie" effect (either we have confirmed innocents, or scum have to fake claim, and either provides an EV boost). While there are some combinations that would be really good (the 2 Hider or 2 Weak Doctor possibilities that Troll brought to our attention, among others), it's the same problem as the Hider-claim strategy - I don't know that the likelihood of those "really good" combinations is high enough to warrant outing power roles and shortening the time they have to use their abilities.

VasudeVa: That argument is more an argument for the weakness of the Roleblocker than any synergy issue - the scum always have a kill, whether we give them the Assassin or not, and if there's a power role out they are usually going to prefer to kill it rather than block it.

The question, then, is whether they are

able

to kill it, and that's where my earlier synergy comment about the Rolecop/Roleblocker breaks down a bit... but even moreso with your argument. There are reasons the scum might want to block a power role found secretly with the Rolecop, but with an outed power role it's much more likely that the kill attempt from an Assassin might be prevented, and the Roleblocker also helps the scum there by making sure the power role can't do anything until eliminated.

[mith]

ATTN: Slicey, and anyone else bored by the strategy talk.

Please read posts 92 and 99. To make clear my current stance (which I didn't word correctly in post 73): I am very much against the plan proposed by Hoopla/Rhinox of "Let's give them an Assassin, and then discourage power role claims/lynch them so the Assassin can't kill anyone". I am not so much against the idea of giving scum Assassin/Roleblocker - since it may be the weakest combination - but if it's getting votes because you think the "lynch all power role claims" plan is a good idea, I think you're being led astray.

Also, what Herodotus said: we're not done discussing possible alternative plans, don't hammer Roleblocker. Basically, I think we're all in agreement that we're giving them the Roleblocker

if

we don't come up with some big clever potentially game-breaking plan, but if we do come up with such a plan the Roleblocker would screw it up.

---

Herodotus: Yeah, the Named Townie/Census thing isn't good enough on its own (thus my initial stance of "massclaim is a bad idea"). I think the fake claim issue is less an issue with actual power roles in play, though... the scum are left with an interesting dilemma:

a. No fake claims, and give us four confirmed innocent power roles. They'll kill these off as fast as their able, but we'd get

some

use out of them, plus the Named Townie effect of reducing our suspect list during the day and increasing our chances of a successful lynch.
b. One fake claim. Here, a lot depends on the lineup of power roles, but there is potential for catching the scum out via a Jailkeeper or Tracker (and maybe some other ways). The important thing here is that with only one fake claim, we probably wouldn't lynch a claimed power role until we were sure who the fake was, the Janitor spent that ability, the Janitor died, or etc. etc. So, I don't think the "power role count" downside of giving them a Janitor is in play as much with a massclaim.
c. Two fake claims. Now the scum can make it very difficult as far as figuring out who the fakes are, but they've put two eggs in the proverbial basket to do it.
d. Four fake claims. Obviously a winning strategy for the scum. Do this one.

Which of those options is actually best depends somewhat on the power role distribution. Anyway I won't be advocating massclaim unless I can convince myself that our potential gains outweigh the downside even in the "scum are smart about it" case (and even if I do that I'm not sure how well I would be able to persuade anyone else without giving more info to the scum than I want about how to play it, bleh).

[mith]

Ugh. "their" = "they're". I hate when I catch things like that right after clicking submit; at least if I don't spot it, I don't

feel

like an idiot, just look like one...

[mith]

The idea isn't "let's massclaim so we can stick the scum with a completely useless Daycop, hurrah!"; that's as silly as "let's lynch power roles so we can stick the scum with a completely useless Assassin!".

The idea is "massclaim could potentially be game-breaking, or at least give us a definite advantage over playing this out in a more normal fashion;

if we decide that's the case

, Daycop/Janitor is the best combination of abilities to give the scum, because one is useless and we can work around the other to some degree and the other two options are worse".

[mith]

VasudeVa: The "if" part doesn't make the argument more convincing; it's important only in that you were clearly misunderstanding that the argument for massclaim is entirely separate from the Rolecop/Janitor pair. If the only reason for massclaim was that we would be able to stick the scum with useless roles, it would be a terrible idea; but that's not the only reason for massclaim. The question is whether the reasons for (potential for gamebreaking, forcing the scum into a choice between giving us a bunch of confirmed innocents or taking on a messy fake claim situation, increasing the utility of the power roles while they're alive) outweigh the reasons against (scum know who the power roles are, and will be able to kill them more quickly or leave them alive to mess with us in a messy fake claim situation).

[Insert slight annoyance at Hoopla here, for discussing the scum's best plan; though I suppose it may have been obvious anyway, so my attempt at keeping them in the dark may have been pointless.]

I think the big downside with massclaim is the possibility that we have something like 2 Jailkeepers and 2 Trackers (which probably has an above average likelihood, based on the "If I Did It" comments) and thus are unlikely to get a good return on the massclaim; I think the Hider and Weak Doctor roles have a good chance of benefiting from a massclaim, and at least the Vigilante would be more informed in exchange for a lower EK (expected kills).

[mith]

Huh.

I said "keeping them [the scum] in the dark", you said "keeping

us

in the dark". Can we lynch Hoopla yet?

[mith]

(Hoopla, I understood what you were trying to say if you're town. Mostly, I just like messing with people on wording things, see how they react.)

To be a bit more accurate, my holding back information only helps the town if I'm town, if I've figured out the correct play for the scum, if they haven't, and if we choose massclaim. However, it only hurts the town if I've figured out a non-obvious correct play for scum which makes massclaim a poor choice for town; and since I'm town, I would obviously reveal such a strategy immediately so we can rule out massclaim and move on. As you say, other town need to be figuring this stuff out for themselves because they don't know I'm innocent, and because we're more likely to catch such a bad strategy (or good strategy) if more people are thinking about it from different angles (and, of course, wouldn't want scum-mith having some secret massclaim killing plan up his sleeve - but, [obvwifom]I would be acting quite a bit differently if I were scum... for one thing, I wouldn't be drawing attention to the fact that I am holding back information, and there would be a stronger push for massclaim coming from somewhere if scum had a good anti-massclaim strategy[/obvwifom]).

Anyway, I remain unconvinced that massclaim is a good idea for the reason given in post 153; will be voting for Roleblocker and... something else (still unsure, there) tomorrow if we haven't come up with a great pro-massclaim idea by then.

Rhinox: At worst, we can only lose 1 lynch to the assassin; and whether we lose a lynch at all with only 1 Assassin kill depends on the parity (which is hard to know, with potential for extra kills and blocked/protected kills). Losing a lynch to an Assassin kill is pretty bad though, because we're trading a lynch on the town's top suspect for a kill on a power role we presumably didn't want to lynch (compare to Vigilante kills, which also cost us lynches, but in return for extra town-controlled kills; 2 Vigilante kills + 1 lost lynch + 1 lost Mafia kill = pro-town). Overall... I think I'm leaning Assassin, but it's close with the Janitor; those two abilities are really difficult to compare balance-wise. (And it's encouraging that you aren't on auto-power-role-lynch if we pick Assassin.)

[mith]

That's part of the advantage, yes (see post 153). The problem is that the use we get from the power roles needs to be significant enough that we're making it a dilemma for them.

To be more clear than I really wanted to be: With something like 2 Jailkeepers and 2 Trackers, scum are quite safe not fake claiming power role. At best, we get a bit of WIFOM action from the Jailkeepers (will the protect/block the Trackers/each other or not) and a small number of weak investigations (which are slightly improved by the three other claimed roles, but day 1 we're talking 1/19 vs. 1/16), but it's not much of an improvement over having 4 Named Townies outed and lined up for slaughter, which in turn is hardly an improvement over not having power roles at all (19% vs. 17% or something like that).

With other combinations of power roles, there's more synergy. For example, Hider/Tracker/Weak Doctor = Weak Doctor keeps Tracker alive, Tracker tracks Hider, and now we have a more effective investigation (either Hider hides with an innocent and we have someone else confirmed, or Hider hits scum and Tracker outs the scum the next day). And that's where we force the scumbags into doing something they don't like - either let that engine run, or fake claim and try to muck it up (which we would deal with on a case-by-case).

To summarize: The point of massclaim is to

try

to be proactive, but while we have the advantage of knowing the number of power roles, scum have the advantage of knowing what the power roles are, and depending on the power roles a massclaim may not be proactive at all, it may just out the power roles for little reason.

---

One of the things that occurred to me a couple days ago regarding the outed Hider part of the Troll plan: Roleblocker is bad (though apparently Troll is ok with risking a power role to that, now?), but so is Assassin - because while the Hider can hide from the Assassin... read the last part of the Assassin PM: "If a kill fails for some other reason, you do get to try it again." That means the Assassin can just keep targetting the Hider, until the scum get a double kill (either through the Assassin, or through killing the Hider's target, or through the Hider picking scum).

It may not be the most devestating plan ever, but it does counter the "at least if we out a Hider, the Hider can hide from the scumkill if we don't give them a Roleblocker" argument to some degree. So, my current thinking is that it would be a bad idea to give the scum an Assassin if we out any power roles, even a Hider. Which leaves Rolecop/Janitor... and Rolecop is still quite strong with three hidden power roles.

So, my next thought was: We combine the two claim plans. We mass-Hider-claim. If we have 2 Hider claims, we're golden. If we have 0 Hider claims, we stop (or perhaps move to a Weak Doctor claim, but probably not). If we have 1 Hider claim, we continue to a full massclaim - Rolecop/Janitor in play, and I think an outed Hider likes the massclaim anyway in some ways (though I need to think about that more; Hider/Vigilante = Vigilante reveals kill target, Hider avoids that target; Hider/Tracker/(Tracker or Weak Doctor) = see above, which doesn't work so well if we aren't sure on the kill count/if the Hider can be blocked).

Anyway, that's way longer than I expected it to be and more time than I intended to spend on it... I don't know that massclaim even makes the 1 Hider-claim case better, much less bumps the overall plan up enough to make a day 0 claim strategy reasonable, but I do think it's worth considering as a possible improvement to "give the scum a Roleblocker or Assassin and screw the claimed Hider over" or "give the scum Daycop/Janitor so as not to screw the claimed Hider over, even though it's a bad idea".

[mith]

"If there no be any hiders (which certainly be a possibility) then that lets scum decide if them want us to have a mass claim" - This is a good point... though it's not all that different a choice than we would be giving them with a full massclaim from the start (better, in some sense, because they can't just sit back and pick off confirmed power roles in the 2 Jailkeeper/2 Tracker type setup - if they want to force the power roles out, they have to put one of their own at risk).

Anyway, this morning I can't see much good coming from an attempt to mix strategies like that. That's what I get for trying to think about strategy while overheating, I guess.

I'm still not convinced by a full massclaim, so I'm moving on from that. I'm still hung up on "Roleblocker bad if we out a Hider", but I'm more set against any of the other scum role combinations if we do a Hider claim. So, I think I'm pretty set on voting Roleblocker regardless, and I'll give Troll's posts another close look and try to give Hider-claim a fresh look. Leaning Assassin for the other role if we don't Hider-claim, probably Janitor if we don't (though I haven't considered Rolecop/Roleblocker with Hider-claim yet, will think on that too).

Vote: Roleblocker

[mith]

In Denton, not much time (we're babysitting for friends for a bit soon, heh), real quick:

My Milked Eek: Massclaim sucks if we discount the power roles entirely and just treat them as "pool dividers". I have a spreadsheet which exactly calculates the EV for such games (Census, see Open Discussion thread), and unless the scum fail hard at the claiming part (and 3 or 4 of them claim power roles) it's not worth doing. EVs go from 17% (Vanilla) to 19% (4 claimed "power roles", ignoring abilities) to 23% (1 scum fake claim) to... I don't remember off the top of my head, not much higher.

In such a game, the clear scum strategy is to not fake claim. It's different here because the power roles do have abilities, but I don't think it's enough gained to counteract the "power roles outed and dead soon" aspect (or the risk of a scum fake claim, depending on the setup they've chosen), unless we think there's a good enough chance we have 2 Hiders or 2 Weak Doctors (and for the former, Hider-claim is better, obviously).

[mith]

Rhinox, having 2 claimed Hiders and no scum Roleblocker is a super-strong position. Having 2 unclaimed Hiders and a scum Roleblocker is slightly better than having no Hiders.

Unrevealed Hiders can possibly confirm an innocent or two, but at the risk of dying... and not only does that risk of an extra scum kill cancel the benefit of scum possibly missing a kill trying to hit the Hider, the latter is actually not that much of a benefit (because if scum miss a kill in a game which they know contains 2 Hiders, they are probably going to be able to assume that they've tried to kill a Hider, and can then Roleblock and kill the Hider).

I'm going to vote yes on Hider-claim. I may well change my mind when I'm back in Tyler tomorrow and have a chance to sit and think about the game for a bit, but that's where I am at the moment.

Hider claim?
Yes - 2 (Plumegranate, mith)
No - 5 (ekiM, Amished, PZ, Rhinox, Vas)

[mith]

Rhinox: It's not that the "prevent kill" and "extra kill" possibilities negate; the chances of the latter are significantly higher (though I think you get that).

As you correctly point out, the benefit of the Hider is the potential for confirmed innocents. But how good is that, really? If the Hider survives N1, revealing the confirmed innocent immediately isn't any good (especially with Assassin/Roleblocker), so either he can chill there in the safe hiding place (and still risk dying to scum targetting someone who probably isn't getting a lot of heat, without revealing any information to the town) or go elsewhere. If he risks hiding with a different player the next night, we're now at >40% chances for the Hider dying before D3, with the potential benefit of two confirmed innocents early in the game - which isn't that useful.

The suggestion that a Hider might confirm up to

five

innocents is ridiculous. The chances are far too high that they will die.

The Hider isn't a net negative, but it's not much of a positive.

In the 2 Hider case, the scum can act on a missed kill based on their knowledge of the setup - but even if they gave us a Jailkeeper or a Weak Doctor, of course they would try to block/kill their missed target. Letting 2 Hiders live another night to potentially break the game the next day is suicide.

Papa Zito: I'll stop when we hit a majority against, and not before; I've only just convinced myself, so I'm not going to rule out the possibility that some others might read the arguments and be swayed, even if you are ignoring everything I say.

[mith]

Vote: Option 2

[mith]

Post 207, the sentence just before "Papa Zito:", I should rephrase: Letting 2 Hiders live to potentially break the game in the future (if the Roleblocker dies) is extremely risky for the scum.

Rhinox: Some numbers for you to think about.

EV in a 4:16 Vanilla game is ~18%.

Consider a hypothetical game which is 4:16, has 2 Hiders, a scum Roleblocker, and other power roles play no part). Consider an ideal start for such a game - the 2 Hiders hide successfully with different innocents the first two nights, scum are lynched the first two days, and the scum even miss a kill the second night before the Hiders come out day 3 and reveal their confirmed innocents. Scum can now take out all six confirmed innocents, but they're in a tough spot, right? Well, yes, compared to the Vanilla EV, but it's not as overwhleming a town advantage as you might guess. EV: 55%.

It's pretty good, and certainly good compared to the Vanilla EV. We would expect to do a bit better still in an actual game that played out that way, because of the information gained from the lynches... Of course, that's not the actual EV of a 2 unclaimed Hider game - it's absurdly optimistic. In reality, the chances of us lynching two scum to start the game are quite low (we'll be beating the odds just to lynch one), the Hiders probably wouldn't both do so well (and odds are in favor of one getting killed if they both try to confirm innocents the first two nights)... really, the only thing that isn't "best case" about that scenario is the pesky Roleblocker.

Now consider a game where the 2 Hiders are known from the start, and the scum don't have a Roleblocker. EV: 66%. No assumptions or optimism necessary here; and in this game, the EV would be a bit higher still, because we would have two more power roles. Such a situation isn't "won" for the town by any means, but this is the sort of EV that leads to setups being declared "broken" (see: Original Newbie).

Have I at least gotten the point across that we're not just talking about "2 different approaches to a strategy"? Having two unkillable roles is better for our win probability than even an "ideal" scenario involving two unclaimed Hiders.

[mith]

Elmo: If we can get a 1:1 trade out of any of our power roles, we should happily take it. [morenumbers]The EV for a game this size goes from 18% to 28% if we remove the Hider and a scum. To get the same EV bump from confirmed innocents at the start of the game, we'd need 8.[/morenumbers] Confirmed innocents aren't that valuable until late in the game (and dead scum are almost always more valuable, unless it's the confirmed innocent that takes us to the "auto-win" threshold).

With a single claimed Hider and no Roleblocker, we could get "full investigations" two ways: if we think we have a Jailkeeper, the Hider can announce the hiding target, and the Jailkeeper can block/protect that target (if they're scum, the Hider dies, but we know that's why, and if they're town the scum can't get the double kill); if we think we have a Tracker, the Hider doesn't announce a target and the Tracker tracks the Hider (the Hider can provide a "safe target" for a potential Vigilante - someone high on the Hider/Town's suspect list), and if the Hider dies the Tracker can deduce the alignment of the target from the nightkills.

With the Roleblocker, it's more about protection initially. I'm still not entirely sure what the best plan is here, but I think if there's a Weak Doctor they should protect the claimed Hider (if a Weak Doctor dies night 1, we lynch the Hider; if we have a Weak Doctor and no Hider, that should be enough to keep scum from claiming Hider, and if they do it anyway we get the 1:1 trade - there's some fiddly things involved to cover the "legit Hider, Weak Doctor gets killed by normal scum nightkill or Vigilante kill" possibility, but that's workable), and if there's a Jailkeeper they should block/protect the Hider with some probability (not sure what's ideal).

Troll is pretty firmly on the "so we give them a Roleblocker, so what?" side of this, while I am a little less decided (I don't like any of the non-Roleblocker combinations we could give the scum, but there are some definite benefits to having a claimed Hider and no Roleblocker). The thrust of the "Hider-claim" argument, though, is that a single Hider unclaimed isn't all that strong, while a claimed Hider gives us some options for getting our power roles to work together; that may not be enough to make the EVs line up completely, but I think it is enough to make Hider-claim better overall (taking into account the likelihood of 0 claims, 2 claims, or a scum fake claim).

[mith]

Of course, neither of those work Night 1 if we give scum a Roleblocker. I think that's got me leaning toward Janitor/Assassin if we do a Hider-claim.

We're running out of time for this, though. Given how many players haven't been posting lately, I'm not all that confident we would get claims from everyone in time to vote on scum roles even if we agree on a Hider-claim immediately.

Mod:

Can we get some prods? DrippingGoofball hasn't posted in over a week, and there are others over the 72 hour mark.

[mith]

If you think a Hider-claim is a wash for 1 Hider, why are you voting no?

As for the "just do it" part, I suppose if we have a Hider who wants to claim without waiting for consensus, there is nothing stopping them. I don't think a partial claim is a good idea, though, and that's what we would risk if we start claiming without consensus.

DrippingGoofball: We're still discussing whether a Hider-claim is a good idea. And we need to decide soon and do it before we run out of time.

[mith]

Right, I'm going to kick off Hider-claim. We don't have a majority, but with Ellibereth apparently abstaining (meh), along with SpyreX and DrippingGoofball's comments plus Slicey's posts before disappearing, I think we're close enough.

I am not a Hider.

I will be voting Roleblocker/Assassin if we have 0 claims, Janitor/Assassin if we have 1 claim, and probably Janitor/Assassin if we have 2 claims (though I'm considering Rolecop/Janitor instead).

Unvote: Roleblocker

[mith]

In the case of a second claim, Rolecop gets weaker, but so does Assassin, so I think Janitor/Assassin is the play in both cases. I'll go ahead and vote (and will be on frequently enough to change my vote if I have some flash of insight or if the vote is going another way and it's necessary to reach 11).

Vote: Janitor
Vote: Assassin

[mith]

One problem with giving the Rolecop is in the case where DGB is the only Hider claim and is lying. The claim is still testable by Vigilante, but not by Tracker because the scum can just give the Rolecop power to DGB. They could do that with the Assassin too, but the Assassin only has two shots.

If DGB is telling the truth and is countered by a Tracker, worst case is we lynch them both - and scum can already force a 1:1 trade by fake claiming now. Don't want to spell out why it's a bad idea for scum in the not-worst-case (in case they are considering doing it), but they are certainly better making the trade now if DGB is legit and they want to get rid of her.

[mith]

Bleh, of course... I keep forgetting the "Day" part of the Rolecop.

In that case: Giving Rolecop/Janitor means a single Hider claim is fully testable by both Vigilantes and Trackers. However, the power role kills due to a Day Rolecop come a night earlier than they would for a Night Rolecop, and I was already leaning toward the Assassin being the weaker of the two. Will unvote so Assassin doesn't get hammered while I'm thinking about it, but I'm still leaning that way.

Unvote: Assassin

[mith]

(Discussion on both of these can wait until day 1 is underway, but: Hoopla has been consistently anti-Janitor, yet while she claims to have thought DGB was obviously fake-claiming she remained silent while the Janitor was locked in. DrippingGoofball seems awfully certain that we have no actual Hiders, given that four players haven't claimed.)

Hopefully, some/all of the unclaimed will show up. I suggest we go ahead and get Roleblocker close to hammer, decide on a cutoff time for waiting on that based on how many players can definitely be online [some amount of time before deadline], and hammer at the cutoff time if nothing has changed. It should go without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that if there's a Hider among the unclaimed who doesn't claim in time, keep that to yourself.

Rhinox: While I am annoyed about DGB's play (and really, we all should've known what we were getting into when we made our preference lists) sulking about it and giving up out of frustration is just as bad; at least she's

trying

to catch scum if she's innocent.

I'll be setting my alarm for whatever cutoff time is decided on, so I'll be around to switch if needed.

Vote: Roleblocker

[mith]

Troll: That's what I was going for, yes, but after further consideration, I would rephrase...

I think it is correct play to give a Roleblocker if we have no Hider claims, regardless of how many unclaimed players we have.

If there are "several" unclaimed players (all three of those currently unclaimed, maybe two?), I think it's probably worthwhile for a Hider in that group to stay hidden for a night (but such a Hider should make their own decision on that). However, if we get down to one unclaimed (maybe two?), and there is an unclaimed Hider, they should definitely claim day 1 - scum know if there is a Hider, so staying hidden would allow for the scum to block/kill without giving us the chance to bring any protective roles we might have into play.

[mith]

Troll: With three unclaimed, I just don't see it as all that likely that scum will use a block and a kill on a player that only as a 1/3 chance of being a Hider. But you may be right.

Amished: What happened to "Yeah, no rolecop; that's the most dangerous one for scum in my eyes."? I'll be the first to defend someone's right to change their mind after further thought, but I'm not seeing a progression from that statement to this stance in your posts.

I'm not really seeing the synergy between Roleblocker and Janitor; explain? The possibility of leaving a power role alive and blocking (or scum fake-claiming and then having an excuse for no results) has been discussed before (and in fact, you dismissed it earlier with "and if they think that they have one they'll just try to kill it anyways.") and it's not apparent why you think that has anything to do with the Janitor.

[mith]

Amished: The Rolecop is powerful on its own - it allows scum to find power roles more quickly and kill them. The fake-claim argument is pretty much a red herring here - odds are we will have a power role claim (real or fake) long before scum eliminate all the power roles, with or without the Rolecop, and so eliminating power roles isn't really hurting them (because the Janitor potentially provides uncertainty on the power role count regardless).

Ways to deal with a first power-role claim might include:

1. Lynch them anyway, and live with the Janitor annoyance.
2. Wait for the Janitor ability to be used and/or the Roleblocker to use up blocks.
3. Vigilante kill, if we strongly suspect them but don't want to mess with 1.
4. Weak Doctor protection, if we believe them (extra Weak Doctor death = caught power role).
5. Trackers have an increased chance of success if the Roleblocker is active (though 3. and 4. interfere somewhat).
6. Jailkeeper may hit the Roleblocker, and in that case a legit claimed power role may know they weren't blocked while a fake claim may not know what happened and get caught.

VasudeVa: Unless I missed a claim somewhere, we don't have any Hider claims at the moment.

[mith]

See 286.

[mith]

Hm. That's not a terrible idea. If we were to vote for Rolecop, an early massclaim is likely a good idea. (Don't know that that's enough to leap to "Giving them a Rolecop is a good idea", though.)

[mith]

Going to bed. Will wake myself up before deadline in case I need to switch, though given the total lack of posting that seems unlikely.

[mith]

Good, we're decided. Back to bed.

[mith]

Actually, it does matter, because if we do have a Hider, the scum now have it narrowed down to two.

I guess whoever is left (Kmd4390 and My Milked Eek, I think?) should go ahead and Hider-claim.

[mith]

"Remember that scum have to pick their roles in the next 24 hours. During that time it be best not to talk about suspicions."

And claim, Kmd.

[mith]

Hoopla: 299, go.

My Milked Eek: I'd like an answer to Troll's question in 247.

Re: Quicklynching... if someone is obvscum, it doesn't matter what the Janitor does, and unless we catch the Janitor V/LA or something we're not going to get from 0 to 11 without the Janitor noticing. If we're talking more "someone is a few votes from lynch, we should just hammer them quickly rather than discussing further/waiting for claims", there's more of a chance at getting a lynch in that the Janitor might want to clean up but can't, but I don't think that makes up for the loss of information (in discussion near hammer, claim, etc.) - it's similar to my issues with Hoopla's "lynch all power role claims" plan. It also hands the scum a defense they wouldn't normally have if they want to quickhammer someone ("I thought they were obvscum and wanted to avoid the Janitor!").

[mith]

Hoopla: Now that you've had time to get over being dazzled, what do you think of DGB's action (and the response to it)?

[mith]

Hoopla: DGB gambits as scum and town. This is true. DGB does not, however, gambit arbitrarily - she has reasons for her actions (more than just "teehee, if I do inane things all the time, no one will be able to read me!", though that likely plays some not insignificant part in her meta-building). As town, DGB does try to do unexpected things to cause the scum to slip up (even when those unexpected things have negative consequences for the town, as was the case here). As scum, DGB likes WIFOM, getting the town to focus on the wrong things, and setting up mislynches - often in ways which in retrospect are blatantly scummy, but which are written off as DGB-being-DGB.

Look past the word "gambit", at the details of her action. What was her motivation? Was it, as she claims, to get reactions and scumhunt? Were her expectations for those reactions reasonable? More importantly, do you think

she

expected those things? Was it reasonable for her to assume there would be no further Hider claim? Do you think the timing (deadline) or situation (partial-massclaim) would make town-DGB hesitate?

"I am still learning how to read DGB" is a cop out. We're all "learning" to read DGB, and everyone else in the game - it may have been a while since I last played, but I'm pretty sure no one has demonstrated the ability to read other players perfectly. If you're town, take a stab at it. If you're scum, make something up, and then we'll lynch you for it. No pressure.

(Current Top 4, in no particular order: DrippingGoofball, Hoopla, My Milked Eek, zoraster)

[mith]

Hoopla: I am currently listing DGB in my top 4; I am not voting for her, I am not assuming that her fake claim was a scum plot. If I felt I had a strong case for her being scum, I would make it. Getting you to take a stand on her is more about you than her; your initial response was incongruous with your expressed thoughts on the game, and then you went with "temporary insanity", "dazzled", and "DGB does bizarre things".

On to the meat. I very much disagree that DGB was "squarely at the forefront" of a let's-get-on-with-it movement. ISO her; posts 3 and 8 show an interest in scum role discussion, post 11 addresses the Hider-claim idea, and while it's noncommittal it's certainly not Papa Zito-speak either. She didn't post much (V/LA), but when she did it wasn't unaware of what was going on.

Any heat DGB is getting for the "result" is not coming from me. My suspicions of her are based on two things:

1. Her certainty that there would be no Hider claims coming from the remaining four players.
2. A sincerity-based read of her retraction and subsequent posts. I've experienced DGB-town (and managed a fairly consistent town-read on her: e.g., "I still think she's likely innocent, though. Sincerity is something I look for as well, and as much as I disagree with most of what she says, she looks like she really believes it when she says it."), and I've watched DGB-scum's thought processes (see CT3 QT, though it's a long and sometimes painful read).

Papa Zito, Troll: You two have hydra'd together several times. I'd be interested in your current reads on each other.

[mith]

EBWOP: Append: ", and at the moment, her play feels more like the latter." to point 2.

[mith]

"SCUM: expected to be overly skeptical because they

know

I'm making it up." - emphasis mine. I was aware of your response to Troll re: diminishing probability, but it doesn't ring true. (297 sticks out in the stream of posts, actually... Asking if we are assuming no Hiders after assuming no Hiders for your scumhunting leads me to think 286 was a slip, rather than something representing your actual mindset at the time.)

[mith]

populartajo: RVS is an illusion, RVS-in-a-game-with-two-weeks-of-day-0-discussion doubly so. (Also, given that ooba

just said

he wasn't mechanically following a list, I don't think he is giving a locked-into-those-positions vibe. In other words... what Elmo said. Don't find ooba scummy at the moment, but don't find your reasoning valid either.)

Mod:

Could we get some prods? (My Milked Eek is the one I'm specifically waiting on at the moment, but I think there are others not posting.)

Vote: Hoopla

[mith]

My Milked Eek: What Troll said. (Wow.)

Hoopla: I'm reasonably confident you can work out why the Janitor got hammered by looking through the posts between DGB's claim and retraction (Hint: What do Janitor/Assassin and Janitor/Rolecop have in common?). I also find it very hard to believe that you saw DGB's claim and thought it was clearly fake, but didn't notice that Janitor was climbing in the vote count. I think you're lying scum and I want to lynch you. How does that make you feel?

[mith]

Still happy with my vote, still want a coherent post from My Milked Eek, a little annoyed that DGB is V/LA because I would like to see how she reacts to the growing Hoopla wagon.

Hoopla: Why do you find Kmd suspicious? Who else do you find suspicious, and why? You've made two votes with negligible reasoning to back them (and the reasoning you gave when unvoting ooba doesn't really explain why you found him vote-worthy in the first place). I'd like to figure out which scumbuddy you're distancing from before we lynch you.

[mith]

I hesitate to say this, because I don't want to encourage his inattentive playstyle, but townish. (I'll withhold my reasons for now, because his play in the immediate future could completely negate the read. On that note...)

Kmd4390: Who are you suspicious of, and why? What are your thoughts on the current wagons?

Hoopla: Would you answer the second question asked in my previous post? (And the first, if I am to ignore the answer you gave.) Also, girl or boy?

[mith]

Hoopla: I meant the baby, silly. I think mith is a good name for a boy.

Any reasons for any of those suspicions?

I think Papa Zito is badly wrong with his Hider-claim stance (and that should be no surprise to anyone), but I don't find him particularly suspect at the moment. Troll and Papa Zito sound like an old married couple.

[mith]

(FWIW, from the point of view of a pro-town player, each other player has a ~21% chance of being scum at the start of this game. If the given pro-town player were given absolute certainty that among 6 of the other players there is at least one scum, the chances of each of those players being scum increases to ~26%. It's not a large gain, but it's not negligible, either.

There are other problems with this method: tajo could be scum, it's a pretty arbitrary snapshot of "lurkers", and when he says "there has to be at least one lurking" it's really just a rhetorical exaggeration of "there is a good chance at least one is lurking".)

populartajo: Re: 514, read the thread you lazy bum.

For those who actually have been following my back-and-forth with Hoopla, am I correct in feeling that Hoopla is dodging my "why?" question (which I've asked three times now)? Is this normal for her, playstyle-wise?

[mith]

DGB: "Was that a leading question, or are you actually interested in the answer?" - Was that a leading question, or are you actually interested in the answer? Because if you're interested in the answer, you've already given it for him...

532/533 seem interesting, but I'm too tired to put my finger on why. Between her vote, 527, and 534, DGB is all over the map. At least she took a definitive stance on Hoopla.

[mith]

If that's suspicious, why did you not vote him for it?

Not even a little bit interested in switching my vote, but the VasudeVa wagon looks to be a great source of information.

Ellibereth: Please stop posting in caps. It's annoying.

Mod:

Hoopla is over the 48 hour mark.

[mith]

Hoopla: Reasons for your suspicions. Go.

Mod:

populartajo just passed the 48 hour mark as well.

[mith]

Elmo: I don't think his

behaviour

has been townish. He asked a question (in 491) that I don't see scum asking in that situation (with at least one possible exception, which is why I've been waiting to see his next few posts before explaining further).

Pretty meh on the zoraster "slip" being a slip, and less suspicious of him at the moment simply because of the timing of the wagon. His day 1 postings have felt more genuine (aggravation at both DGB and Papa Zito), in contrast to his day 0 postings (which felt a bit like he was sheeping behind Troll).

Hoopla needs to die. I'm sure this is bias on my part because I think she's scum, but the last several pages have reeked of scum trying to push things away from her/town getting cold feet, while she twiddles her thumbs and plays lurker.

I'd like everyone, if they haven't already, to express a preference between the three leading wagons. Go. (Hoopla>>>zoraster>VasudeVa)

[mith]

(EBWOP: Behaviour meaning "his almost complete lack of participation in the game"; obviously him asking a question is a part of his overall behaviour.)

[mith]

SpyreX: Am I reading post 620 correctly? You would be "absolutely surprised if [the player you are currently voting for is] scum"?

(Has no one else commented on this because I'm reading it wrong, or because it's so ridiculously scummy that it blew everyone's scumdar?)

VasudeVa's recent play feels like he's trying to play up to the Village Idiot pass people are giving him (which is weird, because I didn't think he deserved the label until the zoraster vote). Not sure what to make of him, now.

Hoopla needs to die. Nowish.[/broken record]

[mith]

We are 30 something hours away from deadline, and the leading wagon (scummy scum scum Hoopla) has 5 votes. This is rather pathetic.

SaintKerrigan: You aren't voting. Get on it.

zoraster: DrippingGoofball is not going to be lynched today. We are not ignoring that she is in the game (and I continue to think she has a higher than average chance of being scum) nor that she made a gambit that was either ill-conceived or anti-town, but your vote is being wasted.

Troll, Rhinox: I agree that Papa Zito's views on the hider situation are off. I don't currently think he's scum. I believe others have expressed similar views, and no one seems interested in adding their vote to yours. Your votes are being wasted.

Ellibereth, Herodotus, DrippingGoofball: Unless the player you are voting for receives another couple votes in the very near future, your votes are being wasted. Herodotus brings up a couple of good points on Kmd (though I still lean town there), and I am somewhat suspicious of Herodotus himself (mostly by connection to Hoopla; and I don't like 689 at all); but it doesn't appear either wagon is going anywhere today.

(I could lump Hoopla in there, but given her complete lack of participation, and the whole her-being-scum-thing, I'm not terribly concerned about her vote being wasted.)

Everyone else: You should be voting for Hoopla. Get on it.

[mith]

populartajo: My top 4 at the time included zoraster, not ooba. Could you elaborate on why you don't like that top 4 (and what zoraster's 413 has to do with that)?

"Why the hell is she doing this if she is town?" - Exactly.

Re: Janitor. What Rhinox said.

Re: Vig(s). Definitely should be used to narrow down our field of suspects. Hopefully that was obvious to everyone anyway.

Unofficial vote count:

Hoopla (8) -- Papa Zito, Amished, mith, Plumegranate, Elmo, Seraphim, DrippingGoofball, Rhinox
zoraster (3) -- Kmd4390, ooba, VasudeVa
VasudeVa (2) -- populartajo, SpyreX
Kmd4390 (2) -- Herodotus, ekiM
Papa Zito (1) -- Zorblag
Herodotus (1) -- Hoopla
DrippingGoofball (1) -- zoraster
Not Voting: SaintKerrigan, Ellibereth

Deadline: ~15 hours.

[mith]

Meh. Hoopla, I don't think this was good play, but it's good to know you had a reason for acting as you did. I would have been extremely annoyed if you had just given up on the game as town.

If you're scum, this would be an extremely foolish gambit, so if the Janitor has been used, assuming you are town is the correct play. Don't like Seraphim's reaction at all.

Otherwise... Hoopla's reads make sense for the most part. If the janitor has been used, we need to be a little careful with traditional wagon analysis, though - scum may have been voting differently knowing the lynch would be no reveal. (Strongest agreements, in case I am killed: Elmo, VasudeVa, and zoraster are probably town; DGB, Herodotus, and SpyreX are suspect.)

[mith]

Won't be voting for Herodotus today. Have some minor doubts (mostly WIFOM), but overall the thought processes make sense and read genuine.

FWIW, I did not see Hoopla's breadcrumb. Obvious in retrospect, but I was too locked in on trying to get a read. Curious whether anyone else will claim to have seen it.

No vote yet, need to do a bit of rereading. Pretty busy this weekend (family in town, start of football season) but that shouldn't keep me from posting.

[mith]

I'm not seeing how anything productive is going to come out of nightkill speculation just now, and I do see a rather big negative (Vig-fishing).

For that (and other reasons):

VOTE: DrippingGoofball

[mith]

"Using it on the first member of their team to be lynched would have been the sensible play." - Or on the first power role to claim, if that player was likely to be lynched anyway (and I don't know what reason they would have had to think Hoopla was a power role).

I suspect it's most likely 3., unfortunately (the "use it day 1 in all/most situations" plan). I remember when Troll suggested this (post 15) as the obvious scum play, I thought he was crazy (day 1 janitor is annoying, but not really worse than that; while they could potentially have caused mislynches or claim-count-confusion by waiting) - but after Hoopla's gambit it stands to reason that more players thought "two day 1s" was a good reason to use it.

Of course, that doesn't mean bandwagon analysis is completely useless - the janitor use probably affected scum play in some way. (Just not sure which way - were they more inclined to pile on the innocent wagon, knowing they would be hidden? Were they setting up future lynches on the basis of Hoopla's non-flip?)

[mith]

Kmd: At this point, I think you may as well spell out what you're hinting at.

Lynching Elmo is a terrible idea, though. If he's scum, he dies tonight, and we don't out the Vig. (If he's town, you're an idiot either way, but at least we force the scum to use kills instead of doing the job for them.)

[mith]

DGB, Kmd: Kmd's result makes it

likely

Elmo is scum; I absolutely agree with that. His lack of Amished suspicion yesterday does not make that a certainty, though, and lynching him is still not the correct play. Let's break it down:

If we lynch Elmo:

a. Elmo is scum! Hurray. We have gained some "should we lynch Elmo or not" information to inform the Vig kill.
b. Elmo is the Vig. We've lynched a power role for absolutely no reason. Congrats.
c. Elmo is a(nother) Tracker. We've lynched a power role (and chalk it up to bad luck).

If we don't lynch Elmo:

a. Elmo is scum! The real Vig shoots Elmo in the face tonight. Meanwhile, we've gained other wagon information today, rather than just the "reaction to Kmd claim/Elmo wagon" information.

Pretty much a wash with the above a.

b. Elmo is the Vig. We haven't lynched a power role for no reason. Scum are forced to use a block, and probably go ahead and kill him as well (since he would be all but confirmed tomorrow by virtue of not being shot in the face).

Strictly better than the above b.

c. Elmo is a(nother) Tracker. If scum did shoot Amished (and tajo was the Vig kill), Vig kills Elmo, and we've killed a power role (and chalk it up to bad luck). On the other hand, if scum shot tajo (and Amished was the Vig kill), the Vig has reason to believe Elmo isn't scum, while scum have no reason to think Elmo isn't the Vig - so scum again are forced to use a block and kill, while the Vig can do something else.

Strictly better than the above c.

In fact, given that last bit, I don't think Elmo should even claim unless he

didn't

target Amished (in which case we do lynch him and then Vig Kmd if Elmo is innocent).

If there is a flaw in my reasoning, by all means, point it out.

[mith]

My suggestion is we proceed to lynch as we normally would, with the additional information that Kmd is basically confirmed innocent and Elmo is likely scum for the purpose of bandwagon analysis.

If you're the Vig, you try to shoot scum (and almost certainly get blocked and killed, at which point we yell at Kmd for outing a power role needlessly). If you're not the Vig, the Vig shoots you unless the Vig shot Amished (since you couldn't have killed tajo unless you and Kmd are both lying). I think our worst case is "Elmo is Mafia Roleblocker and blocked Amished, Vig shot Amished"; the former seems so unlikely that I think we're better off ignoring it (and revisiting in a day or two if Elmo is still alive).

If we have a Weak Doctor, Kmd should be protected (probably best way of catching him if he and Elmo are both scum and this is some sort of bizarre bus-y gambit). If we have a Jailkeeper, WIFOM the scum on Kmd.

Am I missing anything?

[mith]

Bleh, Herodotus stole my thunder.

Again, to summarize:

If he is scum, he dies either today or tonight. These are basically equivalent.
If he isn't scum, lynching someone else gives us a chance to hit scum today.

This isn't rocket science. This is the correct town play.

[mith]

ATTN: EVERYONE

Commenting on the nightkills is still a bad idea.

Elmo may be town (and if he is, the Vig has already been outed and it doesn't matter); but if Elmo is scum,

he and the other scum are still looking for the real Vig

.

It would be foolish to ignore our personal feelings about Elmo's innocence/guilt in trying to decide who is scummy and should be lynched, but comments about the likelihood of a tajo Vig kill vs. an Amished Vig kill are just giving the scum information.

---

Rhinox: Read 430/431, 729 to start with. Add a pinch of Vig-fishing, and that her reaction to Kmd's softclaim doesn't sit well (regardless of Elmo's alignment, it would seem to be in scum's best interest to jump on the soft claim immediately: either distancing from Elmo/earning town points/running Elmo up to claim and pulling out the real Vig, or free lynch on a power role).

[mith]

The List(tm)

DrippingGoofball - See 843.

Seraphim - 692 is pretty scummy in retrospect. Not a fan of his case on VasudeVa. Thought his reaction to the Hoopla claim/hammer was off.

SpyreX - Similar to DGB's Kmd/Elmo reaction, 809 feels like bussing if Elmo is scum. Agree with "It looks to me as if SpyreX is searching for something to use to jump on my wagon at that particular time." from Hoopla. (His posting throughout also rubs me the wrong way, but I'm chalking some of that up to playstyle clash.)

Ellibereth - The Kmd vote day 1 seems inconsistent with 712. Too much "playstyle-spam" to get a solid read on otherwise.

zoraster - Hasn't posted enough, and spent most of the day tunneled on someone who was in no danger of being lynched.

Rhinox - Perhaps town points for pointing out the "if Elmo is the Vig and scum have an idea who he might shoot, they may not block him" issue with Elmo discussing suspects too freely. Otherwise, something doesn't feel right here, but I haven't put my finger on it yet.

Zorblag - Started off seeming pretty helpful strategy-wise (probably null-tell); mostly tunneled on Papa Zito day 1, and is now lukring/absent.

My Milked Eek/Saint Kerrigan - Haven't posted enough to get much of a read.

VasudeVa - Thought he was actually being pretty reasonable until he started playing to the VI accusations, but that makes him a bit suspect. Otherwise, the whole thing did give the feel of "easy lynch" shenanigans.

ekiM - Possible fishing aside, haven't found him particularly scummy.

ooba - 794 reads as genuine "I don't know what's going on here, but I'm going to discuss it anyway", rather than a plot to look uninformed. (The "ask Elmo to shoot himself" plan is stupid, but sadly people actually do read Pie's inane strategy posts and take them to heart.)

Plumegranate - Nothing jumping out as scummy so far.

Papa Zito - Leaning town.

Herodotus - Unwilling to lynch today, due to Hoopla breadcrumb reaction.

Elmo, Kmd4390 - Off the lynching table today.

---

Rhinox: Why is DGB on your town list?

[mith]

Mod:

Can we get a prod on Zorblag (and anyone else who hasn't posted recently... no time to check for myself right now)?

[mith]

Papa Zito: If you have a compelling case against ooba, make it. At the moment, it's hard to evaluate both your case against ooba (not knowing what it is), and it's also hard to evaluate your motivations/thought processes.

Die DGB die, etc.

(My brain is mush tonight; going back and forth on the Seraphim/VasudeVa argument, and I feel like I ought to have a better read on it by now, since it has kinda taken over the past few pages.)

[mith]

EBWOP: At the moment, it's hard to evaluate both your case against ooba (not knowing what it is), and

it's also hard to evaluate

your motivations/thought processes.

Sigh. Brain mush.

[mith]

Papa Zito's case is a pretty meh. The "Roleblocker blocking Vig = Scum found Vig" part is interesting, but would mean scum wanted to use the Roleblocker blindly, potentially wasting shots they would want later in the game. (Also, ooba doesn't seem the sort of player to come up with a plan like that.) Otherwise, it boils down to a "the Rolecop could find the Vig" argument - which is true, but is really just a statement of the strength of the Rolecop and leaves the question of why the scum gave us a Vig in the first place.

At some point, I want to look through the statements of "what would you have given as scum" to see if there's anything point to who might have been more likely to give us a Vig and a Tracker. (Unfortunately, I'm not terribly confident in that leading to anything useful. If I had a complete MD/meta workup of every player in the game and had a clear picture of how everyone evaluated the various roles, that's one thing, but scum have an obvious incentive to lie about it during day 0. But maybe something will come up on the "that doesn't look like a genuine statement" front.)

ooba: Answer Rhinox's point in 1000: Why did you go from a stance of "zoraster>VV" yesterday to voting VV, on the basis of 801?

Also agree with Rhinox's assessment of SpyreX, and that ooba's vote has some bus-like properties - except I don't think VV is scum, so I won't be voting for ooba on that basis. I've had some doubts about Seraphim's scumminess along the lines of Rhinox's defense, but at the moment my read on Seraphim is something like "Has done some scummy things, and overreached a couple of times with the VV case; could see town getting drawn into a vote based on VV's playstyle, but could see scum getting drawn to an 'easy lynch' as well; don't see anything pointing to his being town."

Third paragraph is weird, though - zoraster hasn't said anything at all, and Papa Zito seems to be locked into tunnel-mode, but both of those things are either scummy/not scummy on their own. Feels a bit like Rhinox is trying to create a scummy motivation where there isn't one, and is particularly reaching when he brings me into it. Almost a "hey, don't forget about mith, he could be scum!" sort of thing, much like DGB's 395. (The "these people aren't discussing VV" thing is especially odd coming from someone who earlier today posted "Here's an idea...lets ignore the VVI and lynch scum".)

DGB: Two questions. One: How accurate do you feel your reads are, in general? Two: If you're innocent, how do you think you would have played this game to this point as scum?

Agreed that zoraster's most recent post is pretty scummy; I guess I missed it amongst the Kmd/Elmo talk.

[mith]

Oh, one more.

Papa Zito: Who is your top suspect other than ooba if ooba is scum? Who is your top suspect if ooba is town?

[mith]

I found your earlier statement ("Now that you mention it, 100% of my reads are self-meta projections...") pretty interesting - I'd say most of my reads are "how are scum likely to act?" projections, but not

self-meta

projections. (That is, my current vote isn't based on you acting like I think I would as scum, but rather on you acting like I think

you

would as scum.) It's especially odd to see such a statement coming from you, given that you have one of the more unique playstyles on the site.

Anyway, question one was more a curiosity. Part of what I'm looking at in question two is: "If DGB is using a self-meta projection to scumhunt, does her self-meta match her scumhunting?" - and at the moment, I don't see a lot of that (for example: Would DGB-scum tunnel/lurk, as she is giving as her reason for a zoraster vote?), though that may be because DGB missed the point of the question, instead focusing on "this is what I'm not doing, but would do as scum" WIFOM-defense.

Possible slip in that she is now assuming that tajo was the scum kill; while she has expressed some confidence that Elmo is town after his claim/rationale post, this again reads as certainty rather than assumption (much like the "scum know there are no hiders" thing from day 0 that kicked off my DGB suspicion). The progression from "Kmd has role info, all ahead full!" to "I'm convinced Elmo is town to the point that I am assuming tajo was the scum kill" that town-DGB would have had to make just doesn't feel plausible.

[mith]

Rhinox: Your point doesn't have validity to it because it's false; I have weighed in on Seraphim/VV, as recently as three days ago. I was vacilating on Seraphim last night (because at times their argument felt like two town getting too caught up in each other to catch scum; and partly because of DGB's vote), but otherwise I have had (and expressed) a pretty consistent "Seraphim acting scummy, VV probably town" lean.

Anyway... obviously you suggesting we ignore VV would cause me to ignore VV (whatever my alignment). I brought it up because of the inconsistency - it's a weird argument for anyone to make (see: rest of that paragraph of 1039), but especially you.

DGB: "The F??? You ask me a question that can only be answered with a WIFOM-BBQ..." - No. I ask you a question with a context that should have been clear from question one. I am trying to find a pattern to your votes, in the context of your pronouncement that "100% of my reads are self-meta projections". You've now backed off that statement a bit ("how I've acted as scum in the past,

and how I've seen my buddies act and interact

"), and I have no doubt you could justify every one of your votes on that basis; that doesn't make the initial statement any less interesting.

[Note that I'm not saying that it was

scummy

to focus on WIFOM-defense. I think the natural inclination of any player, regardless of alignment, is to notice things they have done or haven't done that they (think they) wouldn't/would do as scum - I could no doubt list a dozen myself.]

My last paragraph is disingenuous? How, exactly? Am I fabricating your reaction to the Kmd softclaim, or Elmo's post? There is definitely a disconnect there, and the following is a perfectly plausible explanation: DGB sees that Kmd tracked an innocent Elmo to a corpse, gets giddy that two power roles are outed and one will be lynched, bandwagon-ho without analyzing the situation, uh oh mith pointed out the correct play, DGB backs off Elmo hard at the next convenient time and forgets she shouldn't know tajo was the scum kill. I don't

know

that that's what happened, but it's my current best guess. (Ladies and gentlemen of the town, does her paragraph here not reek of ad hominem?)

The next paragraph is just silly. I'm a pretty slow and methodical poster usually - between lunch, shooting hoops, and watching TV, I probably started that post a good two hours before I hit submit; I added the last line (the one agreeing with you - even as scum, you make some good points occasionally) on preview, but the questions were in the post well before I saw your case on zoraster. (Never mind that it would be borderline idiotic for scum-mith to try to discredit a case on a scumbuddy because of a single vote from an erratic player.) But hey, now that you brought up the conspiracy/paranoid thing I guess you've got to stick to your guns.

(FYI: Michelle in town for the long weekend; will be around and posting at least once a day as usual, but probably not spending two hours on any posts.)

[mith]

Rhinox: I suppose I can see how you might read that as on the fence. It's more "I'm wary about feeling this, but I'm leaning town" for VV. I am not the type of player (unlike many in this game, apparently), to declare definitively that someone is town (or scum), and am constantly reevaluating my reads as more posts are made. The progression here has been something like:

a. VV wagon day 1. At time, looks like obvious Hoopla-counterwagon, VV probably innocent, those on it questionable.
b. Seraphim's case is a bit overblown; don't feel VV has played all that unreasonably, and the VI label doesn't fit.
c. VV's zoraster vote, where he may be playing into the VI vote, slight uptick on the scumdar.
d. End of day 1, Seraphim's reaction to Hoopla is questionable. Going into day 2 he's a top suspect for reasons stated in 895.
e. By 895, not much has changed. Seraphim listed at two, VV at nine. I have more doubts about VV than those listed below, but the "easy lynch" feel trumps those doubts. Otherwise, I haven't discussed either much because I have been focused on the Kmd/Elmo situation, and am more interested in getting DGB lynched.
f. At 994, Seraphim/VV has taken over the thread a bit. When I say I'm going back and forth I'm talking about "tonight" - in my current state (too much maths), at times while reading I feel Seraphim might be tunnel'd town, yet posts like 959 are quite scummy (he immediately retracts when PlumPom points this out, but hard to see town with genuine VV suspicion reaching that degree of stretch in the first place).
g. 1039, it's a new day, and I've had a chance to read the first paragraph of 1000 and it doesn't ring true. My summary of my read is broken down into three parts: Scummy things (those given in 895, and e.g. 959); doubts (could be tunnel'd town, but could be also be scum drawn to lynchbait); and "don't see anything pointing to his being town" = "the doubts I have are of the

could be

variety rather than the

likely is

, and I currently have no reason to prefer the tunnel'd town idea over the scum->lynchbait idea, whereas given the scummy things listed earlier I do have a reason to think he's scum). [Given the context of my statement - Rhinox declaring him town - it should be clear that when I say "I've had doubts,

but

..." what follows is me still thinking he's scum, not me being on the fence.]

Bleh, the third quote should have read: "Anyway... obviously you suggesting we ignore VV

wouldn't

cause me to ignore VV (whatever my alignment)." (I am really bad about skipping past a "n't".)

As for the rest, of course my focus is on lynching DGB - she's my top suspect (and while she currently only has one other vote, I'm not interested in either of the lead wagons, and there is quite a bit of time left - if I decide in a few days that DGB won't be lynched, I will be switching to Seraphim unless something major affects my reads). I haven't asked (many) questions of Seraphim/VV because they are generating a lot of information as is, and few questions have come to mind.

Herodotus: "Possible", but point taken.

[mith]

zoraster: We are leaving the Elmo thing alone because either he's the Vig (and we shouldn't lynch him, obviously), or he's lying scum and the real Vig will shoot him in the face (so we shouldn't lynch him and risk being wrong, since he's dead anyway).

Can you point to any "insight" you have provided in this game? My suspicions of you have little to do with the quantity of your posting (annoying, but I don't really have any reason to believe you're lying about your access), but with the

quality

. Day 0, lots of sheeping Troll, not a lot of original thought. Day 1, "OMG DGB ANTI-TOWN GAMBIT DIE", but the

why

is lacking (your theory of "she was trying to earn town-points which she knew would work" fails because the reason why such a play might work as scum is precisely because she

would

do that gambit as town), and the little you contributed regarding other players was vague/obvious/repeats of what others had already said.

---

The two-Vig scenarios basically work the same way as the one-Vig scenarios. But to summarize the plan:

If you're a Vig and you shot tajo, shoot Elmo tonight.
If you're a Vig and you didn't shoot tajo, shoot someone other than Elmo tonight.

[mith]

...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."

[mith]

DGB>zoraster>>>ooba>VasudeVa

(zoraster return to the game has jumped him ahead of Seraphim, despite the weird ooba omission; Papa Zito sixth, to round out "everyone who has a vote" list, though I need to do a fresh reread of him in light of Herodotus' vote.)

ooba: From post 1080: "Also I find it intriguing that you were able to look at the kills, go back and see the D0 exchanges and come up with that theory in under 5 minutes ..
Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:49 pm
Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:55 pm" - Huh? Can you explain what you're talking about here? I don't see any posts with those timestamps.

[mith]

zoraster: "I'd rather address something specific with some direction." - Here's something specific: Who do you find suspicious, and why? Apart from rehashing your DGB argument (which comes down to "I can see her making the gambit as scum" - and even as someone who finds her quite scummy, I think that's a poor argument), you have given

no

opinions on anything going on in this game (and you've now made eight posts in the past two days - that combinations reads as "scum who was lurking until someone poked him in the quicktopic, and now is posting without much content other than a lame not-into-the-game defense").

[mith]

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)

[mith]

Kmd, no offense, but that's a stupid conclusion to reach. If I were scum, why would I be looking for a reason to vote town-zoraster? Scum-mith would have been quite happy not being on that wagon.

I think you've just demonstrated the possible advantage scum-zoraster might have in playing dumb.

zoraster: Can you explain why you were wanting to discuss the "elmo tajo thing" earlier? Were you aware before Rhinox's post that Elmo had claimed Vig?

[mith]

Kmd: I don't think you're understanding what I was arguing in my previous post ([preview edit]I don't know how you get "therefore if zoraster doesn't know I claimed, he must be town" from my post at all[/pe]). This was my approximate thought process:

a. Oh, zoraster posted, ~reads~, wait, Kmd???
b. Wow, that's one of the biggest "not-a-clue" moments I've seen in Mafia.
c. Maybe that's a point in his favor, though. Surely scum would know what was going on.
d. Though they might to play dumb for WIFOM reasons/so we come to that conclusion...
e. But wait, how could he not know what's going on if he's town? He's been asking about stuff, he's supposedly doing a big reread...
f. Thoughts c and e make actual ignorance a null-tell (he

could

be ignorant either way, it just seems really unlikely); feigned ignorance can only come from scum.
g. Expressed ignorance is a point against him.
h. I'm already suspicious of zoraster. This is another point against him. Is there anything about his read-post that points toward him being town?
i. No. What Rhinox/Seraphim thing? What concern on Herodotus? His comment on DGB reminds that zoraster hasn't made much of a case on her, and that he hasn't voted her today. Other little wording things (like the MME comment).
j. He's already second on The List, nothing about this reads town, let's put him back at L-1, get a claim, and lynch him.

I wasn't saying that he

was

definitely playing dumb, nor voting him for that reason; I was saying that the possibility of him playing dumb breaks the deadlock of ignorance and turns it from a null-tell to a slight scum-tell. (If I were just looking for an excuse to vote for him, why bring up the "scum shouldn't be ignorant" point at all?)

As for "explain to me why zoraster could possibly want to act like he didn't know I'd claimed tracker" - I already pointed out one; he dropped from 8 to 5 in a few hours. My own initial reaction was "wow, he has so completely missed the plot, he can't be scum", and it's possible he was trying for that reaction in a last attempt to survive.

If you don't think that's legit suspicion, and that I'm just making up the above thought process, fair enough. You're wrong, but there's not much else I can say to convince you.

---

zoraster: I want an answer to the question I asked in 1150.

Current thoughts on zoraster - after 1136, playing dumb seems a more distant possibility (if he is, that's an impressive acting job). However, I'm still not seeing how he as town doing a reread and posting thoughts on everyone could have possibly missed the Kmd claim (see ekiM's post).

1155 continues the "ask specific questions" schtick... which doesn't impress given the two specific questions waiting for him at the top of the page. Additional questions:

What "concern" on Herodotus were you addressing in your big post?
What Rhinox/Seraphim "thing" felt like two people on the same side fighting?

[mith]

~bangs head on something~

Kmd, part G of my thought process is a rather simple syllogism. Obviously if you don't agree with a premise (D: playing dumb is possible), you aren't going to agree with the conclusion.

Your football analogy completely misses the point. Let's fix it to make it look more like my actual argument:

Assume the Packers and Vikings are equally likely to win the NFC

North

. You have a sum of money you want to wager, and you see that you get even odds on a "Packers to win NFC North" bet. Is that a fair bet from your point of view?

No, because the Lions and Bears (no matter how much they suck), have some non-negligible chance of winning the NFC North. They might play really well by accident, the Packers and Vikings might all lose their legs... who knows

why

it might happen. The point is that the actual chances of the Packers winning the NFC North are less than 50%. Maybe 48%, maybe 45%... the actual number depends on how much the Lions and Bears suck. So it's (slightly) more likely that the Packers won't win the NFC North.

That was my thought process here. "He's town, scum would know what was going on" = the Packers. "He's scum, he couldn't have missed that on a legit reread" = the Vikings. "He's scum, playing at being dumb either to make us Packers fans or for some unknown reason" = the Lions and Bears.

I don't have any idea how likely it is zoraster-scum would play dumb, and any guess as to why he might do it is just that, a guess. (As I said in my previous post, I don't think it's all that likely after his response to me.) But if you want confirmation that this is how I think, look no further than this very game - my nagging suspicion on VasudeVa (who I otherwise find likely town) had a similar premise (that he might be playing up to the VI label that was being used). It's not a strong point against either of them - but in zoraster's case, it was one small point among many.

"How could scum possibly miss that? How could town? The answer doesn't change either way." - That's the whole point of F, part 1. To spell out the syllogism one more time:

Premise 1: Actual ignorance is a null-tell.
Premise 2: Feigned ignorance is possible, and can only come from scum.
Conclusion: The ignorance on display is a slight scum-tell (add a small possibility of definite scum to what is otherwise a null-tell).

[Premise 1 is actually a bit more complicated than that. On the reread itself, town should be more likely to catch something like that, because they are more invested in the reread/analysis. Scum-zoraster, if he's making that post out of ignorance, might be playing some WIFOM mind games, but otherwise doesn't care about any of his reads. (This is countered by the quicktopic factor - scum-zoraster has more opportunity to catch the Kmd-claim, because he might catch it in the quicktopic rather than in the thread.)]

---

tl;dr: Your case boils down to "I don't think mith believes zoraster-playing-dumb is an actual possibility"; the remainder of my post follows logically from that premise. It is easy to demonstrate that one of the main things I look for in reads is whether the post looks genuine (ISO me in this or pretty much any other game), and thus "he could be feigning ignorance" is one of the things I considered a possibility when looking at his post.

---

I still want answer from zoraster, but I don't buy that DGB agrees with Kmd's post, particularly after 1161 (which now looks like a "wait and see" post). Back to DGB.

UNVOTE: zoraster
VOTE: DrippingGoofball

[mith]

On other quick point, Kmd. Let's imagine I'm scum and want to vote for zoraster (for whatever reason).

zoraster has just made a big post. Said post contains a big gaping hole of ignorance. Said post also contains four other things I want to pick on. Which of the following actions makes more sense, from my perspective:

a. "Gee, I really don't like that post, for these four reasons. Btw, zoraster, you should really try to read the thread next time before you make up reads."
b. Hm... well, ignorance is a null-tell, I can't attack him on that basis. Oh, I know! I'll create this idea of him "playing dumb", which I totally don't believe is possible, but I'll say it is so that I can call his ignorance a point against him. That makes five, that's sure to look convincing!

Your reason for voting me hinges on the belief that I added in a point I don't genuinely believe in

for no reason

. Does that sound like something hypothetical scum-mith would ever do?

[mith]

DGB: You agreed with Kmd's post, before he posted it, and made 1161 rather than voting for me? For serious?

Kmd's case against me is clear, if misguided: He thinks there is

no chance

zoraster-scum would play dumb, and he doesn't think I believe he would do so. 1161, on the other hand, uses words like "unlikely" and "I don't think" when discussing the fake-ignorance possibility. That's not evidence you agreed with Kmd; it doesn't rule out the possibility of fake-ignorance, and it certainly doesn't touch the question of whether I would genuinely consider it a possibility.

[mith]

EBWOP for pronoun clarity: "and he [Kmd] doesn't think I believe he [zoraster] would do so."

[mith]

...how could my logic possibly lead to the opposite conclusion? That doesn't even make a little bit of sense.

[mith]

I'm not going through the logic again - it's right here in 1170 for anyone to look at.

DGB's post is wonderful, though. She discredits the one part of my post that might lead one to the conclusion of town-zoraster, agrees with the "ignorant-town-doesn't-make-any -sense" part, but then turns around and says ignorance is likely either way. How does that work? She again calls the "playing dumb" possibility "remote" rather than ruling it out entirely (as Kmd does) -

the whole point is that actual ignorance is a null-tell, so any possibility of "playing dumb", even a remote one, bumps the ignorant post to some level more scummy than null

.

The rest has already been addressed in my responses to Kmd. My motives in voting zoraster are clear from my posts - he was my second suspect before his much anticipated analysis post, said post failed on multiple counts such that it's difficult to believe that it came from a townie trying to figure out the game, we were getting fairly close to deadline, and support for a DGB lynch was lacking (hopefully this latest string of posts from her will help on that front).

---

zoraster: I still want answers to the questions asked in 1150 and 1160.

[mith]

We're... 36 hours from deadline, I think? People need to be voting, or moving their votes to a viable lynch candidate.

Mod:

My Milked Eek has not posted in four days, after supposedly returning to the game.

[mith]

Golly gee, DGB, that's awfully generous of you, cutting me slack like that.

I'd rather lynch DGB than zoraster. Her recent posts don't read like town-trying-to-find-scum; they read like scum getting a little caught up in the excitement of the pretty-much-confirmed innocent barking up the wrong tree when she can't get the justification straight for her own vote.

VasudeVa: We are nearing deadline, and you're jumping to someone with no votes? That seems particularly odd for you, given your "I wagon, it's what I do" meta defense.

What are your thoughts on DGB and zoraster?

[mith]

VasudeVa: I asked for your thoughts on them, not which you would rather lynch. What about each is scummy enough that you could "swing for either"? Why do you find zoraster more scummy? Why did you unvote zoraster?

Also, why do you "really feel" that SpyreX needs to die? I have no interest in switching to SpyreX today, but I'd like you to elaborate anyway.

[mith]

Seraphim, have you read 1170? If not, I suggest you do so. If so, I suggest you justify your vote beyond "I agree with Kmd even though mith already refuted his reasoning".

(Your other comment on me, in 1149, was already partly addressed in 1055 - I was never "sitting on the fence". My willingness to vote for you as deadline approached was obviously contingent on you both being my next-best suspect and on there being a chance of you being lynched; it's clearly untrue to suggest that I "looked ready to jump on until other players started calling me obvtown", given that I was arguing with one of those players who said he thought you were town. I switched to zoraster because he jumped ahead of you on the scumdar - for reasons you can track through my posts - and because his was the only viable wagon at the time that I had reason to get behind.)

What are your thoughts on DGB? You've said very little about her (apart from 938, and listing her relative to others with possible wagons).

[mith]

VasudeVa: You think DGB is town, but are willing to lynch her anyway? Why? Also, where did zoraster admit to active lurking? (All I see is him saying exactly the opposite.)

[mith]

Er... I think you should probably read that zoraster post again.

(Forcing a dichotomy? Seriously? I specifically asked for thoughts on them individually, after your initial response was to compare them.)

[mith]

Seraphim, yes. (Nothing has changed here, except to add a possible slip - won't discuss it for now because it relates to Elmo's alignment, but if I'm alive tomorrow I'll comment on that, and if not I suggest ISOing him.) VasudeVa... I'm warming up to the idea of him as scum based on our recent exchange; his lack of intelligent response could be alignment-neutral, but his recent posts don't fit well with the (admittedly insubstantial) meta I've built of him, and it occurred that there has been a lack of commentary from him on DGB (that is, if she's scum I think he's a good candidate for scumbuddy).

zoraster still second, yes. My main hesitation about him at the moment is that I don't think it's likely DGB is scum with him, and I feel pretty strongly that she is scum. Otherwise, his return to not posting when the heat shifted elsewhere doesn't look at all pro-town.

Why no to DGB?

[mith]

Rhinox: Remembered on ISOing your post to look for previous comments on DGB that I've already asked you something similar. So, to rephrase: Do you feel her recent vote for me (based on Kmd's reasoning, which you call "weak") and then switch back to zoraster (after "So now I'm thinking you must be scum, and zoraster town." in the previous post) reflects actual scumhunting?

Off for a while (to eat and watch football). I'll be around tomorrow to switch my vote if necessary. (If I'm alive day 3, I'm V/LA from the 13th to 22nd - will check the game once a day or so, but won't be online much otherwise.)

[mith]

AdumbroDeus, Kmd: VV doesn't have the votes to be lynched by deadline, but DGB may. Thoughts on DGB?

Note: I don't think anyone should be switching from the zoraster wagon unless they are definitely going to be on again before deadline. There are currently enough of us available to switch to zoraster to avoid no lynch, but someone switching to DGB and then not being around to switch back might leave us in no-lynch land, if DGB doesn't have the votes.

[mith]

ekiM, Ellibereth, ooba: None of you have posted content recently. Thoughts on DGB and zoraster, go.

Mod:

ekiM is over the 48 hour mark.

[mith]

That pretty much rules out a DGB lynch, then.

Power roles should know what to do tonight (if not, read through the discussion back on whatever page, or ISO me to find the relevant stuff).

UNVOTE: DrippingGoofball
VOTE: zoraster

[mith]

Sigh. This computer has a mouse with side buttons which apparently mean "go to the previous page and wipe out everything you typed".

Kmd: Do you have any further reasons for voting me? If so, please elaborate so I can provide some sort of defense. If not, go read 1170. At the moment, I am in the unfortunate and frustrating position of having a confirmed innocent going after me for a weak (and completely debunked) reason, and while you are dead wrong you are probably going to get some wagon support simply on the basis that you are innocent. Given that, I'd like to convince you of my innocence, but that's hard to do if you've stopped responding to logic.

(WIFOM applies as always, but reasons I'm not scum include: There was a Vigilante in this game, and scum-mith would never ever have let his scumteam give the town a Vigilante; scum-mith would not have pointed out that the wagon on said Vigilante was a bad idea, since he was testable - perhaps someone else would have pointed this out, but perhaps not, and one never turns down the possibility of a free lynch on a power role; and, there would have been

no

reason for scum-mith to want any part of a town-zoraster wagon, particularly given that zoraster's top suspect was mith's top suspect, and said top suspect, DGB, was the instigator of the zoraster wagon... scum-mith would perhaps have pointed out that ignorance was a null-tell so as not to lose wagon momentum, but otherwise would have kept his hands clean.

Oh, and mith+DGB in particular is one of the most inane theories I have ever come across. I thought DGB was supposed to be the crazy paranoid one.)

Seraphim: Same question as Kmd (with the addition of: see 1197 for further debunking). Also, answer the question asked there: What are your thoughts on DGB?

My vote goes to DGB, obviously. She started yesterday as my top suspect, and made what appears to be an opportunistic jump to me. Additionally, the possible slip I mentioned carries more weight now that we know Elmo is town. [As a reminder, in post 1041, DGB says (in response to a question about how she would play this game as scum) "First of all, you'd be dead, not tajo.", at a point in the game where she shouldn't be certain tajo was the scumkill (that is, Elmo could have been scum, and the real Vig killed tajo).]

(The possible slip on Seraphim no longer applies - and actually makes me suspect him slightly less, in that it would have to be unusually subtle play for scum to put something in like that. The comment in question was in 1139, where he says: "Maybe I should look elsewhere and let the vig handle things." Had Elmo turned up scum, my thinking is that town-Seraphim shouldn't expect the Vig to be able to handle anything, because the Vig might be Elmo, who is known and blockable; on the other hand, if Seraphim were scum and knew Elmo was his buddy, he would know there is a real Vig out there operating unblocked, who could potentially "handle things" after taking care of Elmoscum.)

VOTE: DrippingGoofball

[mith]

Kmd: I suspect

anything I say

will do nothing for your opinion of me, because your opinion of me is irrational and inexplicably set in stone.

That said, I will carry on trying. (I'll drop the Vig argument - it's actually the one that I feel most strongly about, it's something I would never do as scum, but it's also the least verifiable.)

Re: The "Don't Lynch Elmo" argument. Obviously scum

can

play as they would as town (thus the WIFOM disclaimer). In this case, I wasn't "getting involved in planning", I was initiating a discussion which prevented

a provable town power role

from being lynched, in a situation where that discussion not taking place would have resulted in a mislynch where the scumteam could hardly be blamed. (The weakness of this particular reason is that it's certainly possible scum-mith might have expected someone else to come up with that plan and decided to present it first for town-points, but given the initial reaction to the plan - see, for example, SpyreX's post - and your certainty at the time that Elmo was scum, I think as scum I would have at least waited until Elmo claimed to see whether an easy lynch was on the table).

Re: The zoraster vote. No, I don't know your take on the zoraster vote, not as it relates to this point. What you said was: "I think you wanted to jump the wagon and felt the need to add a reason you didn't actually believe. Why? Not sure."

[Your speculation which follows is ridiculous (there were no other wagons of note at the time, and the zoraster wagon didn't need momentum), no longer applicable (he came up town), and far-fetched at best (nothing about his posting suggested he was a power role - he was clearly either scum-giving-up or vanilla knowing he wasn't going to be saved by a claim - and in fact when I asked him to claim I had it in mind that if he claimed a power role I would take that as pretty convincing evidence of his being scum).]

So, enlighten me. Why would scum-mith jump on the wagon of a townie for what you suggest are insincere reasons? What would scum-mith have to gain from that, when he could easily express indignation at the lack of attention zoraster was giving the game and otherwise happily watch the lynch of a townie while keeping his vote on DGB to set up the next day's lynch? It makes no sense as a scum play, but it makes perfect sense from a town-mith perspective of "zoraster has been acting suspicious, and his catchup post is entirely unsatisfactory, time to lynch him and get on with things".

Anyway. While you're reading 1170, read Herodotus' 1183, Elmo's 1199, and iamausername's recent catchup post. If you won't listen to me, listen to them - two of them are confirmed innocent, free of any possibility that they might be lying about their take on me. I can't help but feel that you are too caught up in the

possibility

that you might have caught the site owner as scum that you aren't actually considering the evidence to the contrary.

---

My Milked Eek: I am a mathematician, spend a significant amount of my time reading/writing/editing scientific papers, and spend much of my time on site speaking in admin-voice. Someone finding my tone "artificial" doesn't surprise me. (So, meh to the vote, but it strikes more as lazy than opportunistic. Really need to see more from MME.)

---

Agree with Rhinox's point 3 that a second Vig remains a possibility, and that Kmd unblocked lends weight to that possibility, and that we shouldn't discuss this in detail - if we have a second Vig, we will likely know it for certain tonight.

One small point in DGB's favor that came to mind as I was trying to fall asleep last night is that if she were scum, one would think scum would have blocked Elmo rather than letting him get a kill off. If there's a second Vig, this point goes away (they could have blocked Elmo and killed either Elmo or Herodotus, while the Vig killed the other - depending on what happened night 1), but if Elmo was the only Vig the only other possibility that makes sense to me is that scum might have looked at Elmo's reasoning for the Amished kill and decided he was unlikely to target his (public) top suspect.

Not sure how strongly I feel about this point at the moment, but not enough to make me move my vote.

[mith]

Kmd: I'll quickly debunk the reasons you've come up with this time (VV was in no danger of being lynched, zoraster wasn't worth silencing because no one was listening to him) to move on to the rest.

You accept that I play differently than you do - so why are you hung up on this case based around me thinking differently than you?

Here's where I think we are crossing wires (and I have already explained this at least twice, which is why I am extremely frustrated with you, but let's try once more). Kmd, you are saying:

a. mith gave a reason for zoraster-town.
b. mith ignored that reason in favor of something "extremely weak" (zoraster-playing-dumb)
c. OMG, mith put zoraster at L-1 and demanded a claim for reasons he couldn't have believed in!

You saw what you saw... but what you didn't see was what actually happened:

a. mith gave a reason for zoraster-town.
b.

mith gave an equal and opposite reason for zoraster-scum.

c. mith gave an additional (possibly "extremely weak", though not how I would label it of course) reason for zoraster-scum.
d. mith concluded (through logic verified accurate by a now confirmed innocent third party) the ignorance was a slight point against zoraster.
e.

mith then gave four other reasons why zoraster's post was suspect, in addition to the reasons he had already expressed in previous posts.

f. mith then looked at the looming deadline, the apparent inevitability of zoraster's lynch (he had already been at L-1, with Herodotus unvoting to make sure attention was paid elsewhere, and to give time for zoraster to make his promised post), and the pile of suspicions, mith thought "let's get on with this".

I'm not sure what you're talking about re: appeal to authority. If you're talking about name-dropping Herodotus and Elmo, I'm not asking you to look at them as "authorities", I'm asking you to look at them as unbiased third-parties (obviously, if I

were

scum, I would be making arguments to persuade you of my innocence, just as I am now, so you have to evaluate what I am saying from a "sincerity" stand point... the problem is that you've reached the wrong conclusion, so I am left with resorting to pointing you at players who reached the right conclusion with the same data). If you're talking about the "site owner" comment, ~shrug~. Certainly not an appeal to my authority; just trying to figure out why you are tunneling on me with such a poor case. It has happened before, and I that's the impression this gives - particularly when you keep repeating the same series of events which

didn't actually happen in the way you are portraying them

.

[mith]

"So if the Packers only have a 45% chance, would you be willing to bet against them based on that fact even though they have the best chance to win?" - It's not worth attempting to discuss logic with someone who can't understand that if the Packers have a 45% chance of winning and a 55% chance of not-winning, the correct bet is on them

not-winning

.

But it does explain why you lose all those avatar bets.[/ad hom]

Can someone who isn't me please explain where Kmd is getting this wrong? He is obviously having trouble comprehending my posts, and I'm at a loss for what to do about it.

[preview edit]I see iamausername is on it.[/edit]

[mith]

Everyone: Go read DGB's 1180 ("your conclusion ought to be that zoraster's lack of attention is a NULL-TELL at best"), then her recent post ("that ignorance of the game is often a scumtell"). Then read Kmd's argument, and mine, and see that she keeps claiming she agrees with Kmd while the reasoning that follows shows she does nothing of the sort. Then vote her, because she's scum scum scum. Then, give me money. (Hey, worth a try, if you're with me this far...)

Kmd: Read DGB's posts where she is claiming to agree with you. Based on what she has said, is she actually agreeing with you, or no?

"Because I think the chances of the Lions/Bears winning are close enough to call it zero..." - If you think

15%

is really close enough to call zero (your choice of number, not mine)... hey, Kmd, can I have 15% of your financial earnings for the rest of your life?

"I understand your posts" - This obviously was not the case (see iamausername's post). 1275 is a better attempt at understanding - you follow the logic, you just dismiss the premise of "faking is a possibility". Where you fail there is in coming to the conclusion of "mith must be scum, because he couldn't

really

believe it's a possibility either", even though we have established that you and I do not think in the same way, scum-me would have had no motivation for sticking a flawed logical argument amongst other reasons for a vote, and scum-me would have had no motivation to switch to the inevitable town lynch in the first place.

[mith]

Kmd: You seem to have the mistaken belief that I am arguing with you in an effort to persuade everyone else that your case is bad. I'm not - those who have actually expressed their views on it are largely on my side (the exceptions being DGB - who you apparently think is scum, and whose arguments don't actually fit with your case - and Seraphim).

The more pressing issue, of course, is that while you're not going to get enough votes on the basis of your flawed argument, you

might

get enough votes if you add in serial bandwagoners, players who decide to follow you just because you are innocent, those who suspect me for other reasons, scum who don't actually fall into any of those categories but pretend to, and, if all else fails, deadline voters. The fact remains that from the perspective of all the other innocents in the game, I

could

be scum, and my lynch is preferable to no lynch at all. If the confirmed innocent remains maddeningly tunnelled, even if the case is obviously terrible, I remain at risk of being mislynched. Thus, I'm trying to persuade

you

that your case is bad. As things stand, either I am going to be mislynched, or at the very least you are missing a golden opportunity to give a good hard look at other players - it's hard to analyse the other players with mith-is-scum blinders on.

[mith]

Stepping outside the game for a moment...

Kmd, in all sincerity I hope that when my alignment is revealed as pro-town - whether that happens at the end of today, or on a later night or day, or at the end of the game - you resist the urge to brush this fiasco off as a "oops, guess I was wrong, my bad, teehee" moment and seize the opportunity to take a good hard introspective look at your play and your logical reasoning skills (or lack thereof).

We all make mistakes, in Mafia and elsewhere. Everyone gets bad reads. It happens (a lot), and it's ok. What's not ok is for you to get the tunnel fever like a newbie, despite multiple third parties telling you your case is rubbish; determination in the face of reasoning isn't a badge of honor, it's just stupidity. What's not ok is for you to decide that you've "got enough of a feel" and don't need to share your thoughts on the other players, or ask insightful questions, or otherwise contribute to the game beyond your pathetic tunnel and an acknowledgement that you might have to move your vote at deadline. That's not... [actually, I don't know what "good" thing you could think the position you've taken in 1284 represents, but whatever it is, stick it here], it's just bad play.[/patronising tone]

Now that I'm finished talking down to Kmd, can we get on with lynching DGB?

[mith]

Now that I've eaten and let the annoyance at Kmd pass, thoughts on other players:

Innocent:

mith, Kmd4390.

No interest whatsoever in lynching today:

ekiM, iamausername, Plumegranate. Good things are coming from these players (though could do with more from ekiM), nothing pinging the scumdar.

Need to post more:

AdumbroDeus, My Milked Eek, ooba, VasudeVa. (VasudeVa: You've made it clear you want SpyreX dead. Make some effort and present a case beyond quoting him and calling him useless.)

Uncertain:

Ellibereth, SpyreX. I think these are my strongest disagreements with iamausername's catchup. I like SpyreX's most recent post quite a lot, but I've had my reservations about him throughout the game, and am not sold on him as town. On Ellibereth, I strongly agree with the comments on 752 and 1227 (guilty of coasting), but I'm meh on the rest (pretty speculative). Needs to post more, and would be interested in thoughts from anyone more familiar with his playstyle.

Suspect 3:

Seraphim. OMGUS (and seems reluctant to wade into an actual discussion of his reasons for voting me; until he does so, my feeling is he's playing follow-the-tracker to avoid responsibility for his vote). Has said very little about DGB, which could be a grouping-tell (somewhat mitigated by the fact that both of them jumped on me with Kmd yesterday - a bit bold if they're scum together).

Suspect 2:

Rhinox. "I didn't actually intend to act on what I was saying in that post" - That's supposed to make us feel

better

? (Apart from having them as my top 2, I don't feel strongly about a DGB-Rhinox pairing; don't see what iamausername sees here, I guess.)

Public Enemy Number 1:

DrippingGoofball. ISO me, read iamausername's post, read Plumegranate's recent post. Die scum die.

[mith]

Ellibereth: Have you played with DGB before? (If so, could you link some examples?)

DGB: Playing to my vanity? This is the second time you've said you would have killed me (the first being in conjunction with the possible slip on the tajo kill), and I didn't find it persuasive the first time. Care to elaborate? (Or, and I know this is a crazy idea, respond to any of the various accusations pointing at you?)

[mith]

To be more specific: Have you played in a game in which DGB has posted a wagon analysis like the one above (for preference, one in which you were town; but if you've got both, even better)?

[mith]

DGB: The first bit isn't really alignment relevant for either of us, but I can empathise; to have an illogical player like Kmd biting at my heels all the time is pretty annoying, too.

Changing your mind a lot is probably a null-tell (maybe even a slight town-tell). It's

how

you've changed your mind that bugs me, including the lack of a coherent justification for some of those changes (e.g., agreeing with Kmd despite a clear lack of understanding as to what Kmd's case actually is strikes me as more likely to come from opportunistic scum than town trying to figure out whether I'm scummy or not).

Curious - Can you point to any examples of you being "resigned" as town? As scum?

---

Ellibereth: I was curious about 1304; if you had never played with DGB before, or if you had and had been dismissive of her particular brand of wagon analysis, it's an odd post to make. (It's still a little odd, actually, in that ekiM is middle-of-the-pack of DGB's list, and Plumegranate were "passing mentioned" by tajo; but a history of collaborating with DGB's analysis leads me to believe you at least thought you saw something interesting in that.)

VasudeVa: Why does DGB feel town to you? I can tell from your earlier posts in the game that you are capable of something more "substantial" than what you are giving at the moment.

SpyreX: Can you summarize your case on VasudeVa? (Preferably in a readable form that doesn't involve excessive use of the shift key?)

I won't be posting again today, and I'm not sure whether I'll have time tomorrow at all. Back home Tuesday night.

[mith]

I'm back in the country. Will catch up tomorrow.

[mith]

"Let's please stop helping scum find the two remaining power roles, shall we?" - This.

---

Note to self: 1328.

---

Rhinox/Kmd: The V/LA thing is a poor analogy, for two reasons:

1. I wasn't voting zoraster because of ignorance. I was voting zoraster for a variety of reasons, and was discussing ignorance to talk through the logic (in that my initial thought was "scum would know what's going on, is he town?", and I was considering alternatives to that, eventually coming to the conclusion that it was in fact a minor point against). I clearly wasn't suggesting he should be lynched solely on the basis of a display of ignorance, any more than I would suggest a LA-V/LA plan.

2. V/LA is something that happens all the time, and additional many players (including myself) have ethical issues with lying about it (because it's out of game). Ignorance is something that seemed unlikely either way, and relative to that, the possibility of scum in a desperate situation playing dumb either because he's given up or for WIFOM reasons seemed more likely in comparison, at least to the point that it wasn't negligible.

---

Fate's posting style is painful (but that slot remains likely town). Kmd continues to be wrong. Want to read through ooba's catchup again (while looking at all the posts he's referencing), when I'm less braindead. Happy with my vote.

[mith]

AdumbroDeus: How complete would you say your marathon catch-up session was?

[mith]

My level of interest in this game appears to be inversely proportional to the number of capitalized letters. (Seriously, people, the shouty look-at-me posting style is quite annoying to read. Cut it out.)

DGB: I'd like you to explain a few things, pretty please.

1. What is the reasoning behind your ranking system in this game? For example: Why did you choose the vote counts you chose, what is the rationale behind X scum being on each wagon, etc.?
2. How does the system you've used here compare to previous games? For example: The ranking here appears to focus more on those off wagons, only uses end-of-day vote counts, and has a different scoring system. Why the changes?
3. Explain the inconsistencies in the total scores, vs. the wagons posted. For example: It seems clear that you've given Rhinox 3 points for the Hoopla wagon, the ooba wagon, and the zoraster wagon. It's not so clear where Kmd's points come from.

Ok, the NyQuil I took is starting to kick in. More when I'm awake again.

[mith]

DGB: So, if the whole premise is that scum don't put all their eggs in the same basket, why would you then "call the scum team" with four players who were all on the very first wagon you included in your analysis?

I am predisposed to dismissing your wagon analysis (not because wagon analysis isn't useful, but because the point system is mathematically naive, and doesn't analyse motivation within a wagon)... but here (as compared to the rankings to be found in the Ellibereth links) your system is devoid of any thought beyond counting up who was on the lead wagons, and spit out a result which completely contradicts the premise of the wagon.

[mith]

Fate: If you had been in this game from the beginning, you might have a good point. After all, I could have chosen my list to avoid playing with players whose "playstyles" (using the term very loosely... caps-lock != playstyle) I find annoying. If, on the other hand, you replaced into a game in which one of the players has previously requested another player stop posting all-caps, it shouldn't be entirely unexpected that the same player would find a sudden surge in capitalization to be grating on his already frayed nerves, and ask again that it stop.

Everyone: Read 1467, and DGB's response. I don't understand how DGB is still alive. She's not even attempting to address the points raised - her first post doesn't explain why a (supposedly resigned) town-DGB would create a wagon analysis based on a premise of scum-spread-themselves-out and then predict a scumteam of players who were all on the very first wagon of the game, her second fails to discuss the relevant issue (which is not "mith thinks your system is silly", but "mith thinks your system in this game bears little resemblance to those posted by town-DGB in other games which, while still naive, involved some critical analysis on whether the top suspects actually fit together as a team, and how various flips would affect the rest of the list").

No interest in voting Plumegranate. I think they're town. I think ooba is town as well - there is a lot of what he says that I don't agree with/isn't well reasoned, but it reads genuine. Pretty frustrated with Seraphim's disappearance - I was hopeful his response to my questioning would be helpful in determining his alignment. Quite suspicious of HackerHuck - in part because of something VV said before leaving the game, in larger part because of VV's reactions to DGB-scum, and in part because of HH's most recent post. I'll see if I can elaborate on that last bit when my brain works again - still ill, and waking up at 4am because of the time change.

Mod:

Seraphim hasn't posted in a while.

[mith]

Ah. The downside of having sigs off is being unaware of things like that... Seraphim, I hope things get better soon.

[mith]

ooba: I was going to ask how you go from "The 'ask Elmo to shoot himself' plan is stupid, but sadly people actually do read Pie's inane strategy posts and take them to heart." to "mith pointed out that this might not be the best solution in an open game", but I think you're just attributing that to the wrong player.

AdumbroDeus: You read everything that came up? And nothing stood out as noteworthy about Kmd?

Show of hands... who buys AdumbroDeus' entry into the game as a genuine attempt at catching up?

[mith]

Thank you Fate, I appreciate it.

AdumbroDeus: Kmd is a Tracker. Discuss.

[mith]

So, you are aware of that, but you are

leaning

town on him, and you "like KMD too, but not as much as the former two [mith and DGB]"?

[mith]

We're going to the hospital soon (sister-in-law in labor); doubt I'll be on again today.

DGB still easily top suspect, but agree with Fate that ooba's response is scummy. Would vote him over Plumegranate (but that was already the case).

Fate: Thoughts on DGB?

[mith]

Fate: Here's what I could find about DGB by ISOing you...

"DGB I R HIDER" - Which iamausername followed up on, but I don't recall you ever giving an answer for why the gambit makes her 200% town.

"ooba just soiled th hell out of the DGB wagon..." - Which leaves me wondering how his switch to Plumegranate affects your opinion of the DGB wagon? (Still soiled?)

"DGB is on the verge of losing her town read because shes voting off VC analysis alone..." - Missed this until now... I guess it's true that you've talked about your thoughts on DGB a bit. Just not much.

Rhinox: Caught this while looking at the context of Fate's posts - "Fate, I was down with a ooba lynch until hero ruined that idea for me." - What did you mean by this?

[mith]

Ellibereth: Are you scum with DGB, or would that be too obvious?

PokerFace's DGB analysis... meh. Keys in on the possible slips I've mentioned, but then spends a seemingly disproportionate amount of post talking about something that most of us seem to agree is a null tell. The bit at the end feels slimey. Like "Ok, I've posted loads and loads about my scumbuddy, now I'll try to avoid any responsibility for my deadline vote".

(There are too many potential DGB-buddies at this point. The town among you need to start acting like town. Scum keep doing what you're doing. Kthx.)

(Super-amused by "On ooba, was he even around to avoid the

Emo

wagon?")

[mith]

I find your lack of DGB votes disturbing.

(Will be checking frequently as deadline approaches, and will move my vote if the town continues to lack the good sense to vote for obvscum DGB. Strong preference for an ooba lynch over Plumegranate.)

[mith]

Can it be? Has Kmd finally come to his senses?

[mith]

You're voting DGB. It's progress. We can work on "Why mith/DGB is the worst idea to come out of a Mafia game since the scum mason." tomorrow.

[mith]

I don't believe this claim... DGB's "woe is me, my lynch is inevitable, here let me post some crappy analysis so you can think of me when I'm gone" routine doesn't fit with having things to claim. Kmd's hinting was about as obvious as a bat to the face, so DGB sheeping that isn't much in the way of evidence. I don't think I've ever played as a Tracker, but my instinct there would be to track someone middle-of-the-pack, rather than a top suspect, and getting a "no-action" on said top suspect wouldn't cause me to completely back off that player.

Meh. We're letting scum off the hook, and in exchange it looks like we're lynching someone who has little chance of being scum. mith no likey.

I'm going to try to get back to sleep (I need to stop waking up at 4, it's annoying). I'll be back in a little while to re-read ooba and Plumegranate and figure out what to do. I'd rather just lynch scumDGB, though. We need a scum flip, and the ways we can "prove" she's lying all involve outing another power role or two.

Deadline is in about 12 hours, yes?

[mith]

Ooh, scum back on the hook. Die scum die.

[mith]

Unofficial count:

DrippingGoofball (6) -- mith, iamausername, Plumegranate, SpyreX, Rhinox, Seraphim
Plumegranate (6) -- HackerHuck, ooba, AdumbroDeus, PokerFace, Fate, Kmd4390
ooba (2) -- Ellibereth, DrippingGoofball

[mith]

DrippingGoofball, Ellibereth, PokerFace, HackerHuck. Too easy?

[mith]

Entertaining as always, DGB...

Goodnight, all.

[mith]

Hm.

I'll be voting for Ellibereth, HackerHuck, or PokerFace today. (I don't have a particularly strong gut preference at the moment... all three have started out today with scummy posts.) Out of town this weekend, so I doubt I'll finish rereading yesterday's happenings until Monday... a lot of DGB's posting is almost certainly of the "I dare you to try to figure out who I'm scum with" WIFOM variety, so that will be fun to try to sort out.

As always: Speculating on the night events and possible roles in this game is a bad idea. Scum know what our remaining power role is, and such speculation is going to help them narrow down who it might be. Don't talk about it, unless it is a key element in your case against someone - and even then, you probably should just make the case without reference to night actions.

[mith]

That's L-1, actually. If someone hammers before I have time to figure this game out, I am going to be annoyed.

(Still suspicious of HackerHuck, despite the speed of this wagon - SpyreX and Seraphim jumping on isn't a surprise, and if HackerHuck is scum there's almost certainly a bus in the mix somewhere. I think I'd rather lynch PokerFace at the moment, but the difference between them on gut-read is pretty small.)

[mith]

(The last line of AdumbroDeus' post is super-scummy, btw. At the moment, my list looks like this:

Want to lynch immediately, if only we had a quadruple-lynch option: PokerFace, AdumbroDeus, HackerHuck, Ellibereth
Not today, but wouldn't be surprised if one of these were scum: Fate, SpyreX, ooba
No interest in lynching anytime soon, and possibly not ever: Plumegranate, Seraphim, iamausername, Kmd4390)

[mith]

Things I learned today: Wanting to catch the scums in this game does not qualify as a "hardship" with regards to jury duty.

I'm less inclined to push for PokerFace after remembering that he's the current incarnation of My Milked Eek; MME's clueless post discussing the hider claim day 1 coupled with the DGB flip makes me a little hesitant. Doesn't completely clear him (and I'm additionally hesitant to apply ignorance-tells at all after the zoraster lynch), but it's a point in his favor. (The main thing that bothers me about PokerFace is his stance toward yesterday's lynch - his analysis of the DGB gambit; the "I'm just going to vote for whoever has the most" which always strikes me as scum trying to avoid responsibility, but then he followed that with not actually voting for DGB despite twice posting when she was the leader among other players. Made me think he was setting up to finish off Plumegranate, but then when the tide turned he waited to see if DGB could get out of it.)

AdumbroDeus: "I can't be legit concerned that maybe we're looking at the possibility that we're looking at another two PR claims?" - Not really, no. To believe Kmd is scum, one has to believe that he took a chance on Elmo being a Vig, with little to no gain even if he's right (with the Janitor gone, he gets caught eventually when the real power roles are dead). I can't even see paranoia coming into play here, because if you'd put any thought into it you could no doubt come up with several reasons why scum may not have killed Kmd.

"Nothing I said forces a PR to claim..." - Forces? No. But it could be fishing.

HackerHuck's 1530 looks bad to me right now - sort of a soft defense of DGB against a case that was actually itself a defense of DGB (PokerFace's gambit analysis) rather than an attack. (I have a hesitation on him - well, VasudeVa - similar to the one on PokerFace, however; I'm not ready to discuss yet since it involves speculation on the night results.)

Ellibereth's 1528 is worse, though. It's been one thing if he'd been strongly on ooba (or Plumegranate, or both) and/or strongly against a DGB lynch. But he said very little about DGB apart from listing her among his town reads (of which there were many, including both ooba and Plumegranate initially), and ooba was a town read pretty much until Ellibereth voted for him.

(I also kinda feel like Ellibereth-town should have been asking the questions about DGB's wagon analysis that I was later asking. And his Kmd town reads line of questions feels more like a frame-job than genuine scumhunting.)

Current ordering: Ellibereth > AdumbroDeus > PokerFace > HackerHuck

[mith]

Ellibereth: Why would you need to read it after it was over to figure out that you thought DGB was town?

As for the questions on wagon analysis, post 1460. Here's what bothers me (as it specifically relates to you):

You've played with DGB many times, and she has posted wagon analysis with her various scoring systems at least a few times in those games. You've helped her with that process, whether as a separate player or as part of a hydra with her. In this game, she posted a simplistic (not just based on my "standard" as a math geek, but by comparison with her own past methods) analysis, focusing solely on who was on various large wagons, not long after you pointed out who was off the zoraster wagon (with the implication that someone off-wagon should be scum, but you weren't seeing it). Your initial reaction to her post was to link two of her suspects to populartajo's suspicions (the problem being that ekiM was only 5th on DGB's list, and Plumegranate wasn't really mentioned by populartajo); that feels like a reach, but it also seems to me that you, having more experience with DGB's analysis methods, should have been the first to say "hey, wait a minute, this doesn't look like the sort of thing you've posted in previous games, and there's also several errors, and...".

Your most-of-game stance on DGB as reading town doesn't bother me a whole lot, really - it's a small point against you, but innocents are wrong about alignment all the time, and scum don't always post that their scumbuddies are town. It does, however, bother me that you didn't really question or elaborate on that, despite numerous points being made against her, and despite her being the vote leader for a portion of early day 3 (until the rise of CAPITALISM, basically). You were certainly involved in pushing attention away from her and toward ooba and Plumegranate - perhaps opportunistic in light of Fate's entrance into the game. You discarded her wagon as viable as we neared deadline, despite her being tied with ooba (who you were voting for).

(And, unrelated to DGB, we have iamausername's points against you in 1256 and 1259.)

---

Fate: You having a serious meta on someone means very little to me. I currently have no reason to believe you are any good at reading people, nor any reason to believe Ellibereth is more or less likely to bus a scumbuddy than call them town, nor any reason to believe Ellibereth wouldn't change up his play in this game knowing many players may be familiar with his meta. I am not opposed to an AdumbroDeus lynch, but I have every intention of looking at other players before any lynch happens.

Similar response to AdumbroDeus's post. If you want to invoke meta with me, you're going to have to present examples of the relevant play; I don't have time to search for games (certainly not on other sites), much less read enough games to establish a meta. (And even if you do so, you are probably wasting your time - I use meta for certain things, but I am far more interested in your play in this game, and whether I believe you are telling the truth.)

[mith]

AdumbroDeus' "I was trying to look like a power role" claim is... weird. Not that the strategy itself is bad or scummy, but he quoted two posts as attempts at looking like a power role, and neither of them really look like he was giving much of an effort at it if that's what he was really doing. (The first is just quoting and reiterating what others had already said, the second... doesn't look like something that would come from a power role.) On the other hand, it would be an odd thing for scum to claim (unless he was searching for a better explanation for the Kmd comment, I guess). Meh.

Fate: At the moment, I would rather lynch you than ooba.

VOTE: Ellibereth

[mith]

AdumbroDeus: It's certainly possible you were laying groundwork for a power role claim, but changed tactics after DGB's claim outed Rhinox, or after discussing it with your scumbuddies when the bandwagon on you formed, or, as Kmd suggests, after you realized that fakeclaiming power role would be suicide.

That said, I'm not all that persuaded by Kmd's theory; I'm far more inclined to think it wasn't an attempt to look like a power role at all, and you retconned it when asked for a claim/after I brought up the scumminess of your Kmd suspicions. For example:

"Look at context though, I brought it up well after the fact" - I might be persuaded by this if it were true. That post was 1414, iamausername's post was 1396, and I QFT'd it myself in 1410. You want me to believe that you wanted to look like a power role by bringing up power role safety "well after the fact", and carried this out by waiting a whole four posts?

[mith]

...the discussion seemed closed, after SpyreX asked about the kills in 1404 and Fate speculated on the kills in 1406?

[mith]

UNVOTE: Ellibereth
VOTE: AdumbroDeus

[mith]

Ugh.

Ok, I am going to make the following statement:

Either I am a (Vanilla) Townsperson, or I am the Vig and think there is enough of a chance that I can get two shots off to warrant my staying hidden.

If the above applies to you, repeat the statement in your first post; if you are scum or if you are the Vig and feel it is in the town's best interest for you to claim now, claim. (We have an odd number of players remaining; the only balance-advantage a hidden Vig gives us right now is if the Vig can get off two kills - this gains a town-controlled kill. Otherwise, we are better off with the Vig out. If everyone makes the above statement, the scum have gained no information; if not, either a scum fake claimed and can be killed by the Vig, or the Vig has decided to claim.)

I'm holding my vote until this is done.

[mith]

Ok, that's everyone except Plumegranate (already claimed) and Seraphim (MIA). Moving on...

I return to post 1328. What initially caught my eye on this post was the "mith is still alive, maybe he's scum" implication (yuck, but especially odd at that point in the game since the scum had two very good reasons for leaving me alive - I was under lynch pressure from a confirmed innocent, and there were two power roles outed night 2 for them to target instead). But what stuck with me was that, as VasudeVa was making that argument, he made the assumption that the night 2 scum kill was Herodotus. Why would a townie assume that, particularly in making the argument he was making? (The argument falls apart entirely if the scum kill was instead Elmo, a Vig.) So, I see two possibilities:

1. Either he was the Vig, and killed Elmo... but killing Elmo means he also killed tajo, in which case he shouldn't assume tajo was the night 1 scumkill. (Further, I think HackerHuck would have claimed - given the pressure he's been under, he has no reason to think he will survive two days.)
2. VasudeVa (and thus HackerHuck) is scum, and knew the scumkill was Herodotus.

I was hesitant on this yesterday - obviously, I won't say whether this is because I'm a VT (and thought it most likely there was only one Vig, in which case that post couldn't be a slip, and was in fact a town-tell since VV-scum would have to be awfully subtle to posit a Herodotus scumkill knowing the scum killed Elmo) or because I'm the Vig (and have been playing a variety of WIFOM mindgames with the scum to keep them off me). But now we have public confirmation of a two-Vig setup, and I think this is a pretty damning slip on the part of VV.

(tl;dr: SpyreX and Seraphim were right all along.)

PokerFace is my number two (I've talked myself out of the MME-ignorance argument - it occurs that MME could have been aware that a fake claim was happening without being aware that DGB was going to retract it), and I think HackerHuck's vote is likely distancing (if he's not distancing from PokerFace, he's probably distancing from Plumegranate, which would make me sad). Somewhat busy this week, but hoping to have time to sit down, read, and think about this game - can't shake the feeling that I'm missing something.

VOTE: HackerHuck

[mith]

I don't expect you to respond, Mr. Huck, I expect you to die.

(I'm not voting for you solely because of a VV-slip; as pointed out yesterday, I find you suspicious for your stance on DGB - 1530, in particular - and I think AdumbroDeus made a valid point in twilight. But yes, it's unfortunate for you that VV's play factors heavily... though that doesn't make you any less scum.)

...I'm not really sure what your point is on your wagon. Which type of wagon do you think is more likely to dissipate, a town-HH wagon or a scum-HH wagon? Likely scenario - scum-HH gets some heat, either legitimate or bus-heat from one or both of his scumbuddies, gets to L-1 from wagon momentum, it dissipates when Fate decides to go rogue and the confirmed innocent joins him (possibly giving scum an opportunity to get off the wagon - PokerFace or SpyreX).

[mith]

Happy with vote, agree that we need to hear from ooba and CTD (and more from everyone else) before anyone gets hammer-happy.

1791 makes me feel a bit better about PokerFace. I don't think it's such an obvious point that it would occur to scum-trying-to-look-town (as opposed to actually scumhunting and thinking about the game). I still don't feel great about PokerFace's play, but that particular post looks quite town.

I want to go through the possible scum groups, rule some out, see what's left, but I'm not sure when I'm going to have time for that. Bleh @ this week.

[mith]

Fate: You're doing it wrong again. But FWIW, if your point is "ooba knows HH is going to flip scum, they're scum together", I think it's a good one. "Overall, pretty weak reasons for setting up my lynch tomorrow" doesn't look very good either (though to be fair he does make that one conditional with a "what if HH is town?" add-on).

(Still prefer HackerHuck lynch. But I'd vote ooba over anyone else, now.)

I think at this point I'm going to be more suspicious of SpyreX if HackerHuck flips scum than if he flips town. His switch to AdumbroDeus yesterday is icky, and Hoopla made a similar point against him back in her self-hammer reveal (too quick to compromise). It all feels a bit too "Look at me! I'm voting VV/HH! Don't forget it when one of us dies!".

(Of course, the same applies to Fate and his ooba thing. But I don't think HackerHuck/ooba/Fate is likely.)

PokerFace at least looks like he's trying to figure this game out right now.

At the moment, I can't see myself voting for any of the others until we're down to the last scum (if then). Most confident of Plumegranate's innocence, of course.

[mith]

ooba: If you haven't come through on this re-read post in the next 24 hours, my vote will be moving to you. (It may move there anyway. Fate's argument is pretty persuasive.)

Hoping to have some free time this afternoon to look at possible scumgroups. Having two active wagons is helpful on that front.

[mith]

ooba: Seriously? You quoted part of a post which Fate immediately responded to, in the very next post. He has then spent most of this page arguing why you are overall a better choice than HackerHuck. It should be pretty obvious what I'm talking about when I say Fate is being persuasive (his recent posts, not the point I thought he was making when I posted 1820).

Right now, a scumteam of HackerHuck/ooba/[as yet uncaught third member] seems very likely. If HackerHuck is scum and ooba is town, I would have a hard time going outside the group of (SpyreX, PokerFace, Fate), in that order. If HackerHuck is town and ooba is scum, SpyreX and Fate look better and I'd have to reconsider Seraphim and iamausername. If they're both town, I've lost my mind.

Still prefer HackerHuck for now, because case 2 is more likely than case 3 - townHH/scumooba is hard to reconcile with the rest of my reads. But on an individual-scumminess basis, ooba is gaining every time I read the thread.

[mith]

L-1...

UNVOTE: HackerHuck
VOTE: ooba

[mith]

Off to a wedding, and I won't be back until late. ooba needs to claim, but we should give CTD some time to finish catching up before anyone hammers.

[mith]

What Fate said in 1864. Minus the yelling and seizures.

Nothing new on the scumdar, but I haven't read anything this weekend so that's no surprise. Should be back to normal(ish) this week.

[mith]

Fate: A wise man once said, "Fair enough, I'll tone it down given the nature of the /invitationals and the fact Patrick didn't ask if me replacing in was ok." (Then he apparently went mad?)

I'm pretty confident that CTD is town; scumCTD would have little reason to rock the "mith is obvtown" boat, and his thoughts on the game read genuine (if misguided with respect to me).

CTD: I'm not going to rehash the argument with Kmd again (though I will add that the football analogy is especially powerful at the moment, with the Bears unexpectedly leading the NFC North), but if you have any specific questions for me, ask away.

[Re: The massclaim discussion... Knowing the setup now, I think I still would end up arguing against massclaim. Out of curiosity, I ran some numbers on an Open 4:16 2 Vig 2 Tracker setup, with a basic strategy of "Scum don't fake claim, Vigs announce their kills at the end of day and shoot every night until they die, Trackers split the town between them and choose someone at random from among the non-Vig targets, Mafia kill the Vigs first and then the Trackers". EV = 33.7%. A bit higher than I expected, but not enough for me to give away the opportunity for lots of extra town-controlled kills (for comparison, 4:16 Vanilla Double Day is 32.4%). It's clear that in this game we haven't gotten the benefit out of the power roles staying hidden to justify no-massclaim... but we have had a combination of questionable power role play (Kmd outing Elmo, Rhinox basically outing himself rather than just agreeing with my post as justification for his vote, Kmd tracking obvtown Rhinox), inaccurate shooting, and (depending on what happened night 2) terrible luck.]

I was going to say that there's no point unvoting ooba - someone hammering before we're ready would be obvscum - but reading Town of Suspicion to check on CTD's play there reminded me that oobascum could self-hammer to end the day early. My vote will go back on him tomorrow night.

UNVOTE: ooba

[mith]

Well, that was an interesting way to end the day...

[mith]

That whole sequence from 1938 to 1944 is icky. SpyreX looks worst, but I don't like that Fate goaded him into switching. On the other hand, what does scumFate gain from going so hard after scumooba? Maybe he thought HH would go down anyway (which is what happened, but it didn't seem likely until the very end; if HH had voted ooba instead of throwing himself on his sword in an endgame maybe we lynch ooba and go some way toward clearing HH).

I need to review iamausername. And the end of day 3 again; we had two scum in the mix and came close to lynching Plumegranate instead.

Gut ranking of possible scumgroups:

PokerFace-SpyreX
PokerFace-iamausername
SpyreX-Fate
PokerFace-Fate
SpyreX-iamausername
iamausername-Fate

[mith]

CTD absolutely goaded him; both of you. Of course, CTD presented a lengthy reread with a case implicating VV/HH - it's clear what his motive was in goading you two.

What's not clear is why you would rail all day how ooba is obvscum, how ooba is scum regardless of HH's alignment but, oh btw, VV/HH is town (as late as posts 1927/1928), and then turn around and suggest you and SpyreX switch to HH "JUST FOR KICKS?". If you're town, anyway. Pretty obvious why you would do that as scum.

(I also can't read post 1943 without imagining Fate cackling to himself in the middle of it.)

[mith]

Fate: 1955, "I begged and BEGGGGGGGED for a goddman Ooba hammer yesterday, it never came. He was at L-2, HH was at L-1. SO WHAT THE FUCK WHY NOT?" - This is nonsense. The ooba hammer "never" came because we were waiting on a CTD catchup; a mere 38 minutes passed between the completion of that catchup and your "JUST FOR KICKS?" post. At the time, ooba was at L-2, but I had made clear that I was waiting on CTD and would put my vote back on that night - effectively, they were tied, with HH as the deciding vote. Further, while HH was at L-1,

you apparently weren't aware of that when you made the post

("Holy shit HH IS at L-2.").

You aren't currently my top suspect; but the sudden switch from "oobascum oobascum oobascum HAMMAR OMG" to "hey, let's just lynch HH, teehee" smells. No amount of yelling is going to prevent me from looking carefully at your posts.

---

PokerFace's 1557 catches my eye as the odd man out from day 3. Scroll up to look at the previous vote count - everyone else still alive in the game was voting for DGB or ooba (as was the case at the time of the Plumegranate claim, actually).

In PokerFace's previous post (1524), he dismisses the ooba wagon with some odd reasoning, then gives a lengthy analysis of the DGB gambit (leaving out the obvious counter: "DGB-scum would gambit even where it doesn't provide any concrete scum advantage; she would do it just becauses DGB-town gambits") to rule her out as well. In 1557, he gives some vague suspicion on Plumegranate (contrast the lenghty, if flawed, DGB gambit analysis in the previous post), then tacks on the lame "I think they have the most votes" and votes for them... despite the 4-4-4 vote count having just been posted, and ignoring the Plumegranate claim, with confirmed-innocent Kmd (in his one moment of lucidity in this game) making a good argument for their innocence.

So: PokerFace is the obvious choice here. That said, one of you was bussing in that vote count (two if PokerFace is somehow innocent), and I can see cases for all three. iamausername pushed hard with me on DGB, but initially wanted to go for Rhinox instead (and was perhaps intending to push Rhinox again after a DGB lynch, if not for Rhinox being the second Tracker); he also went HH over ooba. SpyreX was on both DGB and ooba day 3, and ooba yesterday, but his vote switches the entire game have felt odd; he hasn't shown a willingness to lynch scum so much as a willingness to lynch anyone who happens to be a leading candidate. Fate's DGB votes feel a little forced (the first was just following Kmd, the hammer was pretty over-the-top in the "look at me, I control who lives and dies" sense), and while he pushed ooba hard, see above end-of-day-5 shenanigans.

[mith]

Well, that's makes some sense, at least. (Other than the "I knew VV/HH was town the whole damn time" part - that doesn't fit with your posts later in the day.)

I

want

to believe you're town (if you are), because it would make things so much easier. If we can hit the Roleblocker, or if they're out of blocks, or if they miss their block, we'd have three shots for three suspects. I'm just not there yet.

[mith]

I like how SpyreX-on-

moonbeams

painkillers thinks that he can bold parts of two different posts and suggest that the first is "equating to" the second, as though nothing happened in between the two posts. Obviously something happened between "SpyreX and Fate look better" and "SpyreX looks worst [among participants in aforementioned icky sequence]" - about 100 posts were made, including 1942. I guess it's

possible

a pro-town player to think ooba is obvscum and the more likely of the two to be the Roleblocker (whose death potentially earns the town an extra kill)... and then switch back to the HH-wagon for "giggles" (I can't rule anything out, after some of the town play in this game). But possible != likely in this case.

Nothing much stands out on iamausername ISO. His initial scumlist could be telling - MME (PokerFace) as third-most-innocent (after Kmd and Plumegranate), and of course the Rhinox-DGB pairing previously mentioned. But other than that, and being on HH yesterday (for which I can hardly blame him, I was convinced HH was scum myself), there's not really anything that sticks out as scummy. His posts (and Papa Zito's before him) read genuine (and given the amount of detail in some of them, that would be pretty difficult to fake). He

could

be scum playing a really solid game, but I think it's PokerFace/SpyreX.

[mith]

BOOM indeed.

I'm going to read all that again when my brain is functioning better, but I'm pretty much sold on PokerFace/SpyreX.

[mith]

I was in the middle of typing up an analysis of the possibilities remaining, but I had a "wait, what?" moment. I'll go ahead and post the analysis as well, but:

Fate, 2039: "2. I fear that if we lynch Spyscum today, and I die tonight,

the vig won't have the balls to shoot mith

and then mith will manipulate the rest of you sheeples away from himself tomorrow."

Fate, 2040: "I AM THE VIGILANTE."

---

Case 1: Fate is the Vigilante, and wins a Scummie for being the biggest idiot in the history of mafiascum. Seriously, what part of "a Vigilante kill tonight is a free kill for the town, the Vigilante needs to stay hidden and unblocked" didn't get through? If he's the Vigilante, believes he has fooled the scum, and believes I am one of the scum, he should have just shot me tonight; at least that would leave some hope of town pulling this out after I come up town.

If Fate is town, it's PokerFace/SpyreX (with a slight chance of other scum just playing an awesome game, in which case congrats in advance).

Case 2: Fate is scum, trying to out the real Vigilante, or even anticipate who the real Vigilante is so that when the real Vig counters he has a chance at a mislynch and instant-win.

PokerFace/Fate is more likely here, followed by SpyreX/Fate. If it were either of the others, there's no reason whatsoever for Fate to try to out the Vigilante, because the team wouldn't fear the extra kill.

PokerFace/Fate = PokerFace is headed toward a lynching, and is the Roleblocker. Early in the day, Fate is ok with getting me to rule him out as a possibility, because then the Vig kill and tomorrow's lynch drop on SpyreX and iamausername in some order and he wins. After iamausername's massive re-read and Plumegranate and I both expressing confidence in his innocence, Fate's fate (ha) is not so clear after a PokerFace lynch. On the other hand, if Fate pushes through a mislynch, win, and if he at least outs the real Vig he gives PokerFace a fighting chance.

SpyreX/Fate = The only reason to fake claim here is if the scum haven't narrowed down the possibile Vigilante candidates through previous blocks. If they've ruled out two of us, they let the PokerFace mislynch proceed and either PokerFace is the Vig, or after the mislynch they know who the Vig is and block that player for the win. Otherwise, they have either a 1/2 or 1/3 chance of blocking the Vig after a mislynch for the win, so a fake claim means he doesn't think he'd be able to push through a mislynch tomorrow if the Vig kill gets through, and he's confident enough that either [I'm the Vig and he can get a mislynch on me] or [PokerFace will be lynched instead of SpyreX tomorrow after Fate sacrifices himself to out the Vig] to beat those odds.

---

Between the slip and the "I don't think Fate is that much of an idiot", I think Fate is lying scum. I'm not going to counter-claim, whatever my role is, because I think Fate is trying to out the real Vig, and I'd rather have two chances to figure out whether his buddy is PokerFace or SpyreX than just one. (In the event that Fate guessed wrong and someone else is the Vig, up to you whether you think it's more important to be sure the Fate lynch goes through or stay hidden to shoot his scumbuddy in the face after we lynch him.)

VOTE: Fate

[mith]

(2010-2014 are out of order because of a timestamp issue discussed elsewhere - the server time was 5 hours off for part of yesterday.)

SpyreX: "You're saying 1942 (which sure wasn't there in the 'icky' post)" - "That whole sequence from 1938 to 1944 is icky." Er... last I checked 1942 was in the sequence from 1938 to 1944.

As for the rest, the thinking is that if you were town and thought they were both scum, you wouldn't move away from the one you thought was the Roleblocker, because a dead Roleblocker = increased likelihood of an extra shot gained through the Vig shooting twice. Even with HH/ooba both being scum, there would be one scum left, and lynching HH first means that if ooba really is the Roleblocker he has a chance to block the Vig that night (and after we lynch ooba, we only have two chances to hit the last scum, rather than the three we have if ooba is lynched, HH is Vig'd, and the scum don't kill the Vig).

[mith]

Argh! I was convinced you were the Vig after my reread, iam (the Ellibereth kill, the possibilty that you would shoot Rhinox because of your Rhinox/DGB theory even though it seemed obvious to me that Rhinox was softcountering), I was trying to keep things in doubt. I'm not the Vig, just a Townsperson.

Why lynching an uncountered Vig claim was a good idea: I thought you were the Vig before his claim, but initially had some doubt after the claim... then I saw what appeared to be a major slip (why would Fate be concerned with the Vig not shooting me, if he were the Vig?) and ran with it. If Fate were lying scum trying to out the Vig, getting him lynched without more claims gives us two shots at his buddy instead of just one (in particular: it seemed likely he thought

I

was the Vig, and his buddy would shoot me instead of you).

iamausername is pretty much confirmed innocent now - as scum, he could have just followed Fate for the win. Plumegranate have already claimed, and PokerFace and SpyreX basically ruled themselves out, so Fate is confirmed as well (and a moron).

It's PokerFace/SpyreX.

UNVOTE: Fate

[mith]

PokerFace is the more likely Roleblocker, with the SpyreX-Janitor link Fate pointed out earlier, so I'm voting that way in hopes of getting an extra shot despite Fate's ill-timed claim.

(Given that Fate thinks it's SpyreX/mith, that's probably just going to confirm his suspicions, but there's not much I can do about that with my vote. I'll respond to his post later, have to run an errand now.)

VOTE: PokerFace

[mith]

Fate: There's a lot of confirmation bias here; you've basically started with the assumption I'm scum and tried to put motivation to all my actions in the game. Where applicable, I'll point out where you're wrong, either in your premises or in the belief that scummith would act as you suggest; otherwise, I'll give my actual pro-town motivation and thought process.

Calling SpyreX scum but making no moves beside, "hey did anyone else see how scummy SpyreX is? Is it time to bus him?" - Or... mith is trying to figure out the game, and gives SpyreX a chance to explain an apparently scummy statement. His response follows in the next post, and was enough to rule out "slip" (even now that I am pretty much certain he is scum, mistypings like that happen to town - I've got a history of leaving off "n't" and ending up with "would" instead of "wouldn't").

"Mith's voting Zor RIGHT when his wagon was dying to get a claim." - Er... his wagon was dying? No. His wagon was at L-2 (had been L-1, but Herodotus moved to make sure we weren't neglecting other suspects), it was time for a claim. Had I not voted zoraster, I have little doubt someone else would have demanded a claim soon after - that wagon dissolved temporarily only because of Kmd's insane "mith couldn't believe that" case, not because of anything town zoraster did.

The ooba stuff - I had a town read on ooba for much of the game, and I'm not big on "hai guys we're going to lynch this player without giving any reasoning". I saw a wagon pop up on someone I wasn't suspicious of, and wanted an explanation, both to see if there was something to it, and to get Papa Zito posting more substance to better read

him

.

"The bolded comes a few ISO posts

[and two claims, a softclaim, a scum lynch, and a nightkill]

AFTER MITH SAYS:" - Fixed that for you.

"First Ooba is #2 candidate, then he'd rather lynch ME over a nulltell lurker?" - ooba wasn't #2 candidate; ooba was second out of the three viable lynches day 3 (DGB, ooba, Plumegranate). Day 4, I look back and see Fate trying to push things away from DGB, then coming out with a vauge Ellibereth-town meta; in the moment, DGB/Ellibereth/Fate looked well worth considering.

"Notice mith's interactions with SpyreX occilate between setting him up for a bus and defending based on what the situation calls for. Definitely not consistent." - Or: mith is town and trying to figure out the game. As my suspicions change, my posts follow.

"I also never noticed the point where he switched from me being more lynch worthy than Ooba to me making decent points on Ooba." - Ellibereth came up town, for one; to start the day, HH/Fate seemed quite possible. Then ooba posted, and I saw a strong HH/ooba link. Moving to ooba was about his posting day 5, not your argument; the argument of yours I found persuasive was the "ooba is scum regardless of HH's alignment" stuff based on that posting.

"I already explained how useless this was." - It was admittedly subtle; I had spotted the apparent VV slip two days previous (see: 1410, "Note to self: 1328.") but with only one kill after the DGB lynch it looked like Elmo killed Herodotus and it couldn't be a slip (1684: "I have a hesitation on him - well, VasudeVa - similar to the one on PokerFace, however; I'm not ready to discuss yet since it involves speculation on the night results."). When it became clear that there were two Vigs, he jumped back to the top, but I wanted to avoid running him up, getting a fake Vig claim from him (which couldn't be ruled out by the slip) and outing the real Vig on counterclaim. Thus, the apparently useless statement - I was pretty confident that HH, being a top suspect from the previous day, could not make that statement if he were the Vig - so either he would claim Vig (no loss, since he would have been run up to a claim anyway, with the added benefit of a fake claim being extremely unlikely pre-wagon) or he wouldn't and I'd call him out on the slip, having ruled out the HH-Vig possibility.

"He had been holding this UNTIL it became 100% CLEAR that there were two Vigs to

him

." - Fixed.

If it's not obvious from this game, it should be obvious from my participation in Mafia Discussion that I think about power role interactions

a lot

. I put together a spreadsheet to calculate the EV of a 2 Vig, 2 Tracker massclaim

out of curiosity

. The VV post caught my eye initially because he was using a very scummy "mith is still alive so he must be scum" argument, or I might not have noticed that he was assuming a Herodotus nightkill, but once I spotted that of course I took the time to think about

why

he would think that.

(This is probably unreadable, but here's a copy of the spreadsheet, in case anyone is thinking that whole EV thing was BS.)

Code: Select all

			Lynch 1		Night 1		Lynch 2		Night 2		Lynch 3		Night 3		Lynch 4		Night 4			
1	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.028571429	1:12:3	0.076923077	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000549451	1	0.000549451
2	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.028571429	1:12:3	0.923076923	1:11:3	0.083333333	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000549451	1	0.000549451
3	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.028571429	1:12:3	0.923076923	1:11:3	0.152777778	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001007326	1	0.001007326
4	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.028571429	1:12:3	0.923076923	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000457875	1	0.000457875
5	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.028571429	1:12:3	0.923076923	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000457875	1	0.000457875
6	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.028571429	1:12:3	0.923076923	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000412088	1	0.000412088
7	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.028571429	1:12:3	0.923076923	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003708791	0.593650794	0.002201727
8	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.083333333	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001098901	1	0.001098901
9	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.152777778	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.002014652	1	0.002014652
10	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000915751	1	0.000915751
11	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000915751	1	0.000915751
12	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000824176	1	0.000824176
13	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.007417582	0.593650794	0.004403454
14	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001098901	1	0.001098901
15	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001098901	1	0.001098901
16	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000989011	1	0.000989011
17	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.008901099	0.593650794	0.005284144
18	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001007326	1	0.001007326
19	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000906593	1	0.000906593
20	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.008159341	0.593650794	0.004843799
21	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000915751	1	0.000915751
22	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000824176	1	0.000824176
23	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.007417582	0.593650794	0.004403454
24	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.004120879	0.593650794	0.002446363
25	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.007417582	0.593650794	0.004403454
26	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.342857143	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.02967033	0.298412698	0.008854003
27	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000340136	1	0.000340136
28	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000340136	1	0.000340136
29	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000306122	1	0.000306122
30	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002755102	0.593650794	0.001635569
31	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000311791	1	0.000311791
32	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000280612	1	0.000280612
33	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00252551	0.593650794	0.001499271
34	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000283447	1	0.000283447
35	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000255102	1	0.000255102
36	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002295918	0.593650794	0.001362974
37	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00127551	0.593650794	0.000757208
38	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002295918	0.593650794	0.001362974
39	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.089795918	3*:10:3	1	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.009183673	0.298412698	0.002740525
40	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000470958	1	0.000470958
41	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000470958	1	0.000470958
42	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000423862	1	0.000423862
43	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003814757	0.593650794	0.002264633
44	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000431711	1	0.000431711
45	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.00038854	1	0.00038854
46	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00349686	0.593650794	0.002075914
47	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000392465	1	0.000392465
48	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000353218	1	0.000353218
49	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003178964	0.593650794	0.001887194
50	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001766091	0.593650794	0.001048441
51	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003178964	0.593650794	0.001887194
52	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.012715856	0.298412698	0.003794573
53	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000470958	1	0.000470958
54	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000423862	1	0.000423862
55	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003814757	0.593650794	0.002264633
56	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002119309	0.593650794	0.00125813
57	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003814757	0.593650794	0.002264633
58	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.015259027	0.298412698	0.004553487
59	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001295133	0.593650794	0.000768857
60	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00233124	0.593650794	0.001383943
61	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.009324961	0.298412698	0.002782687
62	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001766091	0.593650794	0.001048441
63	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003178964	0.593650794	0.001887194
64	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.012715856	0.298412698	0.003794573
65	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.1	3*:7:1	1	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.004709576	0.298412698	0.001405397
66	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.3	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.012715856	0.298412698	0.003794573
67	4:12:4	0.25	3:12:4	0.53877551	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.7	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.02967033	0.114285714	0.003390895
68	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.083333333	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000549451	1	0.000549451
69	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.152777778	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001007326	1	0.001007326
70	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000457875	1	0.000457875
71	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000457875	1	0.000457875
72	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000412088	1	0.000412088
73	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.153846154	1:11:3	0.763888889	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003708791	0.593650794	0.002201727
74	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000549451	1	0.000549451
75	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000549451	1	0.000549451
76	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000494505	1	0.000494505
77	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.004450549	0.593650794	0.002642072
78	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000503663	1	0.000503663
79	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000453297	1	0.000453297
80	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00407967	0.593650794	0.0024219
81	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000457875	1	0.000457875
82	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000412088	1	0.000412088
83	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003708791	0.593650794	0.002201727
84	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00206044	0.593650794	0.001223182
85	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003708791	0.593650794	0.002201727
86	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.057142857	2:11:3	0.846153846	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.014835165	0.298412698	0.004427002
87	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.090909091	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001098901	1	0.001098901
88	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001098901	1	0.001098901
89	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000989011	1	0.000989011
90	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.166666667	1:10:2	0.909090909	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.008901099	0.593650794	0.005284144
91	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001007326	1	0.001007326
92	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000906593	1	0.000906593
93	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.138888889	2*:9:2	1	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.008159341	0.593650794	0.004843799
94	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000915751	1	0.000915751
95	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000824176	1	0.000824176
96	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.007417582	0.593650794	0.004403454
97	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.004120879	0.593650794	0.002446363
98	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.007417582	0.593650794	0.004403454
99	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.230769231	2:10:3	0.694444444	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.02967033	0.298412698	0.008854003
100	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.001098901	1	0.001098901
101	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000989011	1	0.000989011
102	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.008901099	0.593650794	0.005284144
103	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.004945055	0.593650794	0.002935636
104	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.008901099	0.593650794	0.005284144
105	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.035604396	0.298412698	0.010624804
106	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003021978	0.593650794	0.001794
107	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00543956	0.593650794	0.003229199
108	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.021758242	0.298412698	0.006492936
109	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.004120879	0.593650794	0.002446363
110	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.007417582	0.593650794	0.004403454
111	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.02967033	0.298412698	0.008854003
112	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.1	3*:7:1	1	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.010989011	0.298412698	0.00327926
113	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.3	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.02967033	0.298412698	0.008854003
114	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.419047619	3:10:3	0.769230769	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.7	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.069230769	0.114285714	0.007912088
115	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000255102	1	0.000255102
116	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000229592	1	0.000229592
117	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002066327	0.593650794	0.001226676
118	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001147959	0.593650794	0.000681487
119	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002066327	0.593650794	0.001226676
120	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.008265306	0.298412698	0.002466472
121	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.000701531	0.593650794	0.000416464
122	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001262755	0.593650794	0.000749636
123	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.00505102	0.298412698	0.001507289
124	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.000956633	0.593650794	0.000567906
125	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001721939	0.593650794	0.00102223
126	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.006887755	0.298412698	0.002055394
127	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.1	3*:7:1	1	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.00255102	0.298412698	0.000761257
128	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.3	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.006887755	0.298412698	0.002055394
129	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.074829932	4*:9:3	1	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.7	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.016071429	0.114285714	0.001836735
130	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000470958	1	0.000470958
131	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.1	WIN	1	WIN	0.000423862	1	0.000423862
132	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.181818182	1:9:2	0.9	1:9:1	0.9	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003814757	0.593650794	0.002264633
133	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002119309	0.593650794	0.00125813
134	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003814757	0.593650794	0.002264633
135	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.25	2:9:2	0.818181818	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.015259027	0.298412698	0.004553487
136	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001295133	0.593650794	0.000768857
137	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.00233124	0.593650794	0.001383943
138	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.125	3*:8:2	1	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.009324961	0.298412698	0.002782687
139	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.001766091	0.593650794	0.001048441
140	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003178964	0.593650794	0.001887194
141	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.012715856	0.298412698	0.003794573
142	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.1	3*:7:1	1	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.004709576	0.298412698	0.001405397
143	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.3	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.012715856	0.298412698	0.003794573
144	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.307692308	3:9:3	0.625	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.7	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.02967033	0.114285714	0.003390895
145	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.333333333	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.1	2*:8:1	1	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.002119309	0.593650794	0.00125813
146	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.333333333	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.2	1:8:1	1	1:8	0.003814757	0.593650794	0.002264633
147	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.333333333	3:8:2	0.272727273	2:8:2	0.9	2:8:1	0.8	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.015259027	0.298412698	0.004553487
148	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.333333333	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.1	3*:7:1	1	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.005651491	0.298412698	0.001686477
149	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.333333333	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.3	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.015259027	0.298412698	0.004553487
150	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.333333333	3:8:2	0.727272727	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.7	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.035604396	0.114285714	0.004069074
151	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.111111111	4*:7:2	1	3:7:2	0.1	3*:7:1	1	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.002590267	0.298412698	0.000772969
152	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.111111111	4*:7:2	1	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.3	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.006993721	0.298412698	0.002087015
153	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.111111111	4*:7:2	1	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.7	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.016318681	0.114285714	0.001864992
154	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.555555556	4:7:2	0.363636364	3:7:2	0.1	3*:7:1	1	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.004709576	0.298412698	0.001405397
155	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.555555556	4:7:2	0.363636364	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.3	2:7:1	1	2:7	0.012715856	0.298412698	0.003794573
156	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.555555556	4:7:2	0.363636364	3:7:2	0.9	3:7:1	0.7	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.02967033	0.114285714	0.003390895
157	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.555555556	4:7:2	0.636363636	4:6:2	0.1	4*:6:1	1	3:6:1	1	3:6	0.008241758	0.114285714	0.000941915
158	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.555555556	4:7:2	0.636363636	4:6:2	0.9	4:6:1	0.4	3:6:1	1	2:7	0.02967033	0.298412698	0.008854003
159	4:12:4	0.75	4:11:4	0.448979592	4:9:3	0.692307692	4:8:3	0.555555556	4:7:2	0.636363636	4:6:2	0.9	4:6:1	0.6	4:5:1	1	4:5	0.044505495	0.025396825	0.001130298
																		1		0.337102165

"What an arbitrary list." - Not really. Deliberately vague to see what reactions I would get to it, but even my gut has some underlying logic. It's a bit WIFOMish either way, but I felt at the time that if you were scum, SpyreX made the most sense as your scumbuddy; who would ever suspect that the two of you with your capital letters and your erratic play were both scum together? Like I said, the end of day 5 was icky. Otherwise, PokerFace was my clear top suspect, and I didn't like iamausername-Fate in large part because I'd had town reads on both of you and it would mean both PokerFace and SpyreX were town, which was unacceptable to my worldview.

"Mith is one that catches scum, strings them up, and nails the rest of the scumteam while they take their dying breaths." - Ah, another classic Crap Logic(tm) argument to pair with VV's "mith is still alive, OMG!".

I think I'm pretty good at catching scum in the end, but that doesn't mean my suspicions always pan out early in the game. (Treestump is a great example - after coming in as a replacement and an obvscum day 1 lynch, I managed to lead the town to four straight stumpings... but in the process found enough - 2 - players I was certain were innocent to ensure the scum were caught by process of elimination.)

It's not even a good argument in this game, though. Let's go through the lynches...

Day 1: I was on Hoopla pretty much all day, trying to provoke responses and get more solid read on her... and I did get a more solid (scum) read on her, because she gave up half way through and decided to play Jester and draw the Janitor out.

Day 2: I was on DGB most of the day, until the zoraster lynch looked inevitable. Then I moved there because zoraster's play was terrible. (zoraster: "Simple explanation: I'm an idiot.") Then I moved back to DGB, and DGB moved to me, and at one point the vote count was zoraster 4, DGB 3, mith 3... why would DGB and I do this if we were scum together? (Hint: It doesn't make sense as bussing, because confirmed innocent Kmd was convinced at that point that we were scum together, and lynching one of us would have just made him push harder for the other!) Then I switched back to zoraster because I ran out of time to lynch DGB.

Day 3: DGB all day. I made a strong argument for why her claim was fake, in a situation where people buying into that argument would have resulted in a DGB lynch without outing the Tracker (if I were scum with DGB and knew she was trying to out the Tracker, I wouldn't make that post).

Day 4: Initially Ellibereth, then switch to AdumbroDeus after catching an apparent contradiction in his defense. (AdumbroDeus: "Obviously I'm just going insane...").

Day 5: Initially HackerHuck after another apparent slip, then switched to oobascum. Was not voting at the end of the day, but I would have been voting for ooba had the day not ended prematurely.

So... two scum, two VIs, and a Jester. Plus I nailed the remaining scumgroup in my first post today. I'd say that's a pretty good job.

Nightkills:

scummith would never ever allow a no-kill N1. (But scummith would never have given the town two Vigs in the first place. Vigs rule out suspects and give the town extra kills.)

Herodotus was pretty obvious town; I would've killed him as scum.

Rhinox was pretty obvious Tracker; I would've killed him as scum.

I don't think I would have killed Kmd as scum; I would have been more concerned with neutralizing the second Vig, using both the kill and the block.

CTD was pretty obvious town; I would've killed him as scum, if I thought there was a chance he was the Vig.

"I want to have all the credit for a mithscum lynch, because then I will have enough political power to demand mith slap the SCUMMIES moderator and put me on the "Best New Player" like I have been nommed for SEVERAL TIMES, and fucking QUALIFY for." - Sucks to be you, then. If I am lynched, the blame for the town's loss will fall entirely on you; I, Plumegranate, and iamausername all correctly named the remaining scum, and even if you were 100% certain I'm scum, correct play was to stay hidden and shoot me tonight.

[mith]

Fate: Correct play isn't to get me dead,

because I'm not scum

. As for claiming, I doubt they had it narrowed down all the way to you, but I guess I can see you thinking it likely; "Fate is a moron" withdrawn on that count (but still your fault if we lose).

Why would scummith find CCing not viable? More WIFOM/"NOT ME", but I would have no hesitation about going head-to-head with you.

Why SpyreX is scum: The main thing from my point of view is process of elimination. I'm not, Plumegranate isn't, you aren't, iamausername isn't... that leaves SpyreX and PokerFace.

But from a outside point of view:

Hoopla: "I'm slightly suspicious of SpyreX's vote too. He uses a weak justifcation like 'I'm avoiding questions', well after this had been an established fact. This was not a new thing I was doing - I'd been called on this before much earlier in the game. It looks to me as if SpyreX is searching for something to use to jump on my wagon at that particular time. Especially worrying when you consider he acknowledges he has other higher suspects, which seems to serve an out, as if he is slightly less responsible for a townie death, because it wasn't his first choice. Honestly, I think it was a little early for compromises, but I know Spy is like me, in the sense he likes to get things done nice and quick. Still, slightly suspicious."

mith: "(Strongest agreements, in case I am killed: Elmo, VasudeVa, and zoraster are probably town; DGB, Herodotus, and SpyreX are suspect.)" - That's 3/3 on town, 2/3 on scum. (And 2/4 in my initial suspicions, with DGB and MME; I should stick with my day 1 reads, I guess.)

Rhinox: "If we're going to lynch based on the "VV is town" assumption, spyrex is a much better lynch. He hasn't really been too assertive in pushing the lynch which tells me he wants it to happen but he doesn't want to lead the charge. He also would have been all over my wagon in a heartbeat had anyone decided to go that route, based on comments from yesterday and my opposition to the VV lynch. Spy actually hasn't been scumhunting much at all. He's made some suggestions especially during D1, but he's been unwilling to follow them up with votes. His vote was on VV yesterday until he switched to the other easy lynch in hoopla, and has done nothing but camp on his VV vote today. He strikes me as not wanting to stick his neck out and lead this game, and town-spy loves to lead IME."

The initial reaction to Kmd's day 2 info (joining DGB in the "why aren't we blindly following the Tracker?" campaign, later backing off when no one else joined).

The end-of-day-5 hammer, but more generally the fact that he went VV/HH every single day (without doing much to convince people they were scum, other than "OMG WHY ISN'T HE DEAD?" type posts), yet jumping to another wagon each time, often for unclear or scummy reasons (the Hoopla lynch, discussed above; the move to Elmo day 2, zoraster later but with the deadline and zoraster's play I can't find fault with that; day 3 bussing with little reasoning; the switch to AdumbroDeus makes

no

sense from townSpyreX, given that HH was ahead at that point - pure "hey, look, a free mislynch, nomnomnom", he has no town reason to move from the lynch he has been pushing for four days just on Fate's say-so; and then the switch to ooba for distancing plus switch back for the hammer which wins the game if the Vig keeps shooting innocents).

I think that just about sums it up.

Why PokerFace is scum: Read the end of day 3. Then read day 5. There's not much content from that playerslot, but what's there is obvscum.

[mith]

SpyreX: When I say "1938 to 1944", in a context of "SpyreX looks worst", I'm obviously talking there about posts made by SpyreX in 1938-1944 (1942 and the hammer that follows in 1944).

Huh? I was "trying to appease Fate"... but "went after Fate when it sure looked like Fate was prepping up a storm on me"? That doesn't compute.

"So, would I swing at the one I didn't think was RB? Hell yes. Not, for any small measure, because I sure as hell could be wrong about which is the RB." <- "If I were town, I would think PokerFace is the better lynch, but with Fate going after mith, hell yeah I'll take a mislynch for the win! Now how can I justify that..."

[mith]

...yes, after I commented on your part in it, I commented on Fate's part. I then went into why scumFate doesn't necessarily make sense, and posted a scumlist with you in my top pairing while keeping an eye on Fate in case I was being fooled by his charm. I am well aware of what I posted. You're right, I didn't explicitly mention 1942 until later. Drats, you've caught me in a big fat... er... nothing, really.

Apparently quoting posts with no comment is how we explain what we're talking about, now? Trying to rule out Fate so that I can be confident in a town win != trying to appease Fate. And why would scummith go after Fate if he were gearing up to attack you? Me trying to figure Fate out makes sense, since I'm town. I guess if we were scum together it would make sense, but we both know that isn't the case. Otherwise? No.

[Never mind on the last part; I read that as "So would I swing at the one (mith) I didn't think was a RB (PokerFace)?" (which might as well be SpyreX claiming scum with PokerFace), since I do think PokerFace is the Roleblocker (but with JanitorX). If he's claiming to think I'm the Roleblocker, he's still lying scum, but that statement isn't strong evidence of anything.]

[mith]

Huh. Good catch. In that case, it doesn't really matter. I'd rather not be lynched, but we'll still win unless iam or Plum are scum, and I'm confident they aren't. Just don't screw it up when I'm dead, Fate, and eat your crow when I turn up town.

FWIW, I missed the first post (explaining the fragmentation). I've already explained why I voted for you, thinking you were lying scum. (And the analysis was what followed after the break.)

[mith]

Ok, something about this game makes townies lose their minds.

It absolutely matters - we do still have to lynch scum. I'm not scum. I should not post so soon after going to the gym.

Fate: I won't blame you in the slightest if you shoot me tonight, but you need to lynch PokerFace or SpyreX. They are the scum.

[mith]

SpyreX wouldn't willingly go along with a mith lynch if we were scum together - it's a certain loss, with Fate's catch about the Roleblocker. PokerFace must be scum, even if you aren't sure whether it's me or SpyreX with him. Lynch PokerFace, shoot me if you need to, lynch SpyreX. Go.

Was in the middle of a response to Fate's post, but if you don't want one that's fine. Plumegranante and iamausername, if you'd like me to clarify anything, go for it. Apart from my momentary excitement thinking we were ok even if Fate managed to push a mislynch on me, I think I've been pretty clearly town.

[mith]

Why would

I

be ok with you lynching me if I were scum? It's ironic that I thought something so idiotic after the way this game has gone, but that's all it was. But yes, I realized that me being lynched = town loss while I was shoot hoops outside.

SpyreX not being scum with me doesn't clear him from being scum. He's scum with PokerFace. I guess you can't completely rule out me being scum with iamausername or Plumegranate, so I guess it's not 100% certain from an outside point of view that PokerFace is scum. But from my point of view as a townie, PokerFace/SpyreX is the only remaining possibility.

[mith]

Fate: One of us is actually down for a PokerFace lynch. The other is saying "Oh, suuuure, I would lynch PokerFace" while barely containing his excitement about the possibility of a mislynch on me and a scum win.

(Btw, I think you've now ruled out SpyreX/mith

and

PokerFace/mith. That's progress.)

[mith]

Fate: (2096) It's funny that I am so certain of PokerFace/SpyreX, after listing them as my top group in the first post of the day and then eventually ruling everyone else out as possible scum? Yeah, that's hilarous...

You seem to be suggesting that I thought you might be the Vig (and wanted you to claim, if so) but elsewhere that scum likely

knew

you were the Vig (in which case, if I were scum, I wouldn't care if you claimed or not, and I wouldn't have any motivation for questioning you). These things don't fit together.

"WHY ARENT YOU DOING EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO STOP THIS LYNCH?" - I certainly haven't shut up, and I'm certainly trying to not get mislynched. But at the moment, it seems that you are stuck in confirmation-bias mode, and going back and forth with walls seems pointless if the other innocents don't need clarification on what I felt was clear in the first place.

"YOU STILL HAVENT TOLD ME WHY POKER/SPY ARE SCUM" - Er... yeah, I have. 2069.

---

SpyreX: (2104) You can't be seriously suggesting that if I were scum, Roleblocker or otherwise, I wouldn't know whether the Roleblocker could block and kill in the same night, can you?

[mith]

Plum:

I doubt there's a thread where I specifically talk about the strength of the Vig relative to the other power roles in this game (becausee I don't think I've talked about any of them much), and I'm not sure if there's a thread where I talk about the power of the Vig directly. I know it's implicit in some of my postings, though - for example, there was a thread discussing whether a Vig should shoot night 0 or not (probably started by Pie?) in which I discuss why Vig kills are good for the town (extra town "lynches", basically; Vig kills lower the number of Mafia kills, and generally take out top suspects - even when they hit town, they are removing lynchbait and making it easier to find the scums).

I think the only setups I have done numbers for are Vanilla-type and some small ones with a Cop, until CTD's comment tickled my curiosity. EVs are difficult to do with power roles, and it happens that 2 Vigs/2 Trackers massclaim is relatively easy compared to the other possibilities. Even so, the EV jump from 4:16 Vanilla (17%) to 4 Named Townies (i.e. massclaim and then the power roles get shot without taking any action - 19%) to 2 Vigs/2 Trackers massclaim (33%) demonstrates the strength of the Vigs (primarily - the Trackers play a small role in that bump), even outed.

Massclaim isn't a good strategy for most other setups we might have here (aside from the broken ones - 2 Weak Doctors or 2 Hiders) - the only one I could see being better than 33% is 2 Vigs/1 Weak Doctor/?, where the Weak Doctor gets an extra Vig kill or two by protecting the Vigs. So I couldn't draw much from that even if the other setups were doable (the Jailkeeper setups in particular would be very difficult to treat analytically). That said, it's obvious to me that any setup without the Vigs is worse for the town:

The Vig can potentially kill scum, and can eliminate top suspects. The Tracker has a very low chance of catching scum (and may out other power roles, as seen here). The Jailkeeper has a small chance of preventing scumkills, and may catch scum (same rate as Tracker) but usually WIFOM applies to whether it was a protection or a block. The Hider can confirm a townie or two, but is an extra town death waiting to happen. The Weak Doctor is similar, and can keep other outed power roles alive, but needs them outed to do so; and, like the the Hider, is an extra town death waiting to happen. And neither of the latter two can be absolutely certain of their confirmations if there is a blocker (Mafia or Jailkeeper).

For clarification on the VV slip:

Day 3, I saw the slip, but at this point it wasn't clear whether we had one Vig or two, so I waited for more information. (To think I caught something like that as scum is to give me too much credit. If I had known Herodotus was the scumkill by virtue of being part of the scumteam, I don't think VV's comment about Herodotus being killed would have even registered as something odd.)

Day 4, we only had one kill. At this point, to my townie eyes, it looks like we only have one Vig. If that is the case, Elmo shot Herodotus, which means the VV thing couldn't have been a scumslip - the slip argument is based on VV thinking scum shot Herodotus because they actually did shoot Herodotus, which could only be the case if there are two Vigs (and either VV knew they shot Herodotus because he's scum, or VV knew they shot Herodotus because he's the Vig). This seems to be where Fate is confused - I didn't come out with the slip day 4 because it didn't make any sense as a slip day 4, when I was assuming one Vig (and in fact then felt like a towntell, because if the scum killed Elmo, scumVV probably wouldn't assume otherwise in his posting).

Day 5, it was clear we had two Vigs, and I went with it after ruling out VV-Vig.

Re: No kill; again, I doubt I have made any explicit arguments on this, but have discussed setup balance in terms of number of Mafia kills vs. number of Town kills (lynches and Vigs). Not killing as scum usually just extends the game for the town - there's a reason 2:10 Vanilla is difficult for the town, while 4:8 Nightless is considered a viable setup. I can't think of many non-endgame situations where I would no-kill as Mafia.

Re: PR direction, I certainly wasn't assuming there were two Vigs. Herodotus brought that up. I didn't think scum would give us

one

Vig, much less two, so it didn't occur to me as something worth discussing, but after Herodotus mentioned the possibility I realized that there were two Vig cases where the second Vig shouldn't shoot Elmo (namely, if the second Vig shot Amished) - and since my initial plan wasn't clear on that (and I could definitely see a Vig not thinking it through and realizing Elmo couldn't be scum in that case).

Note that if I were scum and we shot tajo, I couldn't know whether the Vig shot Amished or tajo or no one - both kills would be accounted for - and I would be better off as scum just ignoring Herodotus' comment and hoping that if the Vig shot Amished they wouldn't think it through and would kill Elmo anyway. (I can't imagine that I would have argued in favor of shooting tajo

or

Amished, but that's way too deep into WIFOM land.)

Re: Thinking my lynch would be fine. - Obviously stupid on my part, but stupid regardless of alignment; to believe I posted that as scum, you have to either believe that I decided it would be in the scumteam's best interest for me to die

and then changed direction again nine minutes later

, or that I was trying some bizarre "fake a brainfart" gambit (why?). I don't know how my brain ended up with "oh, we'll get three shots no matter what" out of that (stress, probably), but I made that post because I was momentarily convinced that we, the town, were going to win no matter what (I absolutely would not make that post as scum thinking I would lose no matter what - I've turned around too many lost causes for me to give up in a bleak situation).

---

On to PokerFace's post...

When I started writing the post in which I voted for Fate, the bottom line was going to be "Fate could be scum, but if so then the real Vig will shoot him tonight" - i.e., the argument I made for Elmo. Then I saw what appeared to be a damning slip, and was convinced that Fate was lying scum; at that level of certainty, correct play appeared to be "get Fate lynched and keep the Vig hidden so we have two shots at Fate's buddy". (Of course, if I had known the Roleblocker couldn't kill and block at the same time, I would have realized that neither play was correct - if Fate was lying, the real Vig should have countered and by lynching Fate we ensure the Vig can't be both killed and blocked, whether Fate is the blocker or not.)

If I thought I could pull off a fake Vig counterclaim, why would I then back off of it based on iamausername's post?? It seems that iamausername would have believed a counter coming from me.

---

2117 from Fate is on the right track. And "I, (and maybe you), ALONE ARE THE ONES THAT BELIEVE IN MITHSCUM." - then why is PokerFace voting for me? (Hint: Because if I am lynched, he and SpyreX win the game.)

"So what am I missing?" - PokerFace/SpyreX, apparently. Your town read on SpyreX is dead wrong.

"Why can't Iaun's post in reference to mith be one of "Well mith would never vote a vig as a Vanilla Townie, so mith must be vig" as I way to reinforce a mith fakeclaim route?" - This would be especially bizarre on my part; I set up a fakeclaim, my buddy comes out to reinforce it, and then I immediately change directions? Why on earth would anyone do that? Your scummith theories are getting more and more farfetched.

PokerFace's

[mith]

Bleh, misclick.

PokerFace's hope here is to push a mislynch on me for the win. He is apparently more sure SpyreX is scum, but put me at L-1? (And even as he says he is more sure of SpyreX, he soft-defends his scumbuddy.)

How did you get this so badly wrong, Fate?

[mith]

Actually, some of my setups do indicate how I feel about the strength of the Vig relative to other power roles.

/in-Vitational Game 4 - possible roles included a 1-shot Vig, 2-shot Jailkeeper, 2-success Tracker, and Restless Hider. The Vig is the most limited, because it is the most powerful as a full power role.

8 Player Setup - similar; One-shot Vig, Full Tracker, Full Jailkeeper.

Flayming Man Game 5 - 12 Players, 3 Mafia, town power roles are Vig and Roleblocker. (Roleblocker was helpful in this game, but there's no way this is a balanced setup with Weak Doctor/Hider/Jailkeeper/Tracker in place of the Vig.)

And here's the Pie thread.

[mith]

"You realize he has just ruled Iam/Plum, SpyreX/Iam, SpyreX/Plum as impossible scumteams, and considerably narrowed his options." - If you're giving out gold stars for narrowing options, I've already narrowed it down to one. But it's irrelevant. PokerFace can rule out all the scumgroups he likes; he only needs one mislynch.

"SO WHO IZ YOU SCUM WITH MITH?" - No one, that's the point. You've got a blindspot for PokerFace/SpyreX for no apparent reason other than that you've decided I must be scum because if you start with the assumption that I'm scum and potentially capable of all sorts of twisted evil genius machinations, you arrive at the conclusion that I

could

have done many of the things in this game as scum. I try to figure out the game and question assumptions ("Does DGB as a Tracker make any sense whatsoever based on her play? No?"), you see hidden information. I can't really argue with that sort of thing other than to say you're wrong and explain my thought processes. I provide evidence of things I absolutely 100% would not have done as scum, you stick your fingers in your ears and say "I'm not going to have that clear him in anyway.".

The thing is, confirmation bias can only take you to "OMG mith could be scum, I wanna lynch him now that would be so coooool." But if I were scum, I would have a partner, and there is no partner that makes any sense. PokerFace? Pretty much guaranteed that one of us dies today, and if it's me there's no way PokerFace survives two more kills, and if it's him I've ruled out every possibility but PokerFace/SpyreX and couldn't survive after SpyreX turned up innocent (I also probably would have counter-claimed you, if that were the cae). SpyreX? What purpose would faking a "I think Fate's lying and iamausername is the Vig, let's see if I can get him lynched without counterclaiming!" strategy serve? I could safely just not counter and likely get PokerFace lynched. iamausername or Plum? Even more ridiculous - PokerFace lynch, or a counterclaim and solid play from my partner either gets you lynched or has you killing PokerFace and SpyreX. You have been through these or similar arguments yourself - you know that these groupings don't make sense. And yet you stick with "but mith must be scum" and ignore the obvious and correct alternative of PokerFace/SpyreX.

I've shown you why PokerFace is scum. I've shown you why SpyreX is scum (and linked it after you ignored it the first time). Aside from the stuff in that post, remember SpyreX flopping about with "but Faaaate, mith said I looked better, and then he called me scum, heeelp" when all the innocents in the town were getting ready to lynch him and his scumbuddy PokerFace?

[mith]

Some of these points are weaker/more speculative than I would normally bother with, but I have the luxury of knowing SpyreX/PokerFace is the scum pairing (I'd be dead by now otherwise), and I was inspired this afternoon to "find the scum motivation" and see how Fate's approach works with SpyreX... I could see SpyreX posting some of these things as town, but since I know he's not...

ISO 0 (and following) - Who argued hardest for the Janitor, then put Hoopla at L-1 as the Janitor was used?

ISO 5 - Who said he'd give 2 Trackers and 2 Vigs (the actual setup) or 2 Trackers, 1 Vig, and 1 Hider (just before his scumbuddy fakeclaimgambited Hider)?

ISO 16 - Fate covered this, but soft-defense of DGB ("Hate... but she had a

method

!").

ISO 22 - "Look at these obvious scum over here! I'm going to put Rhinox and Herodotus in pretty colors so they stand out. Oh, btw, vote Hoopla."

ISO 23 - This is a good sequence... calls out the Kmd wagon, with: "I got three responses to the KMD wagon - 2 from people on it, 1 from someone not. The one off of it says its a clear counterwagon and lets it go. The other two go, "Ohh SpyreX there are reaaasons" and give me a little head pat." ...

ISO 24 - "But now I will switch to VV and not explain myself. Even though Rhinox and Herodotus are still obvious scum, and Hoopla hasn't done anything since my vote, I'd rather not be on the lynch wagon when I janitorize her."

ISO 27 - Chances are high that the Janitor will be used? Perhaps because scum had already decided to use it day 1? (WIFOM note: As scum with a Janitor power, I would have urged the Janitor to save the power until scum were about to be lynched - a lot of players struggle with scumhunting until they have a scum flip to work with.)

ISO 31 - Looking back, I'm not sure what persuaded me that this was a valid response, apart from my quest to get DGB deaded. The original apparently incorrect version is worse, but it's still not a particularly town thing to say (and not something he needed to follow through with as scum, knowing a VV flip would be town).

ISO 34 - Curious to mention DGB here; of the six on the list, four are dead and innocent, one is Plum, and the other is DGBscum. Perhaps setting up to hammer on the lurkers later on and getting DGB out of the line of fire (this would especially make sense if the N1 scumkill was tajo, with the goal of confirming tajo to go after those tajo suspected).

ISO 35 - Now he has VV as obvscum (reasons posted so far... VV defending himself with meta?) and Rhinox and zoraster looking scummy...

ISO 36 - ...but goes back to Hoopla with the L-1 so he can Janitor her. That sounds fun.

ISO 41 - Day 2, and after a brief stay on VV (with no reasoning), let's go to Elmo the Vig. "But there's a Tracker result on him, we've got to lynch him!".

ISO 43 - I can imagine the daytalk here... "Uh... SpyreX... we're not going to be able to push a Elmo lynch through, abandon ship." His argument here doesn't make sense, either - he lists Kmd/DGB/VV as "If you'd shot one of them, we'd be cool" has no coherent logic to it. VV would be a "VV is obvscum, obv" sort of thing, but Elmo wasn't suspicious of VV so it doesn't make sense to talk about Elmo shooting him. Kmd is the opposite, with SpyreX giving the 'ole "WTF?" at the Kmd wagon, but Elmo voting him earlier in the day. At least those two had wagons, though; DGB had no wagon on her day 1, wasn't an Elmo suspect, and wasn't on SpyreX's radar at all. Throwing her in makes perfect sense as distancing, though.

ISO 49 - His response to Rhinox's excellent point is to whine about how he's been calling VV scum (but can't show where he has "[led] the charge", because he has posted little reasoning for his VV hate and has instead been bickering with Elmo in a nonsensical fashion).

ISO 51 - I didn't notice the vote count for this one. SpyreX has been on VV all day, and a zoraster lynch looks likely without his help... but then it falls apart because Kmd comes up with a wacky theory about mith. Now VV and zoraster are tied... and SpyreX switches to zoraster? This (and the AdumbroDeus switch) says SpyreX wants to look like he's going after VV, but knows that as soon as VV is actually lynched, he's going to have to explain himself, so when opportunity presents itself he switches to another lynch and shakes his fist at VV getting away yet again.

ISO 56 - Maybe I'm missing something, but I still haven't seen SpyreX go into much detail as to what this consistent scummy behaviour is (aside from VV bringing up meta... which is kinda circular, really).

ISO 60 - Again throws DGB in despite saying

nothing

about her. Gee, I wonder why he might do that...

ISO 66 - Pretty classic distancing scumlist. Scumbuddies not listed right at the top, but close enough that he can claim credit for suspecting them if they are lynched. Then linkages with little information (and VV town = heat death, Rhinox town = nothing changes says "I don't want to rule anything out if either is lynched").

ISO 68 - Prepping to clear MMEbuddy if DGB is lynched? (Hard to say, since it's not clear what his point is when he doesn't explain what he's talking about.)

ISO 69 - Fate clears SpyreX and DGB, so he gets a heart (again, he keeps throwing DGB in randomly to his posts, but otherwise says little about her and agrees when someone suggests she's town). Fate suspects Seraphim, VV, and Saint Kerrigan (= MME/PokerFace)... SpyreX comments on two of those.

ISO 71 - And... off the VV wagon again. For someone certain VV is scum, he sure is easily swayed. Easy to see the scum motivation, though: "Sure, I'll go along with whatever, and if it happens to be on my scumbuddy, great, distancing!"

ISO 73 - Not opposed to Plum? I'm shocked. He's pretty sure there's a scum in ooba/MME (but earlier suggests MME scum clears ooba for no apparent reason - distancing while setting up to defend one if the other goes down?). And of course the quote from DGB which has been mentioned.

ISO 77 - And now the switch to DGB, after having said little to express suspicion of her... His words say "I'd rather lynch ooba", but his eyes say "How is this Plumegranate mislynch not going through?". Not that he can join the entire rest of the scumteam on Plumegranate, there's some distancing to be done.

(An aside, for PokerFace's brilliant Dur... can I get a vote count? I'm not sure whether to bus or not..)

ISO 81 - The scummiest switch of all. His top suspect for four days is

ahead in the vote count

, and he switches to AdumbroDeus for absolutely no reason other than Fate's say-so. Townies don't do things like this.

ISO 84/85 - "Ok Fate, we lynched your townie, now let's lynch mine."

ISO 87 - "I don't want to lynch my scumbuddy, but I don't want to defend him either... I know, I'll try begging!"

ISO 88 - Soft defense of PokerFace.

ISO 89 - Picturing SpyreX screaming daytalk at ooba trying to get him to post something so he can get HH lynched.

ISO 93 - Surprise... another switch off HH. After the pattern he's put up, he can't very well stay off a wagon just because it's on a scumbuddy, so he'll have to settle for bussing.

ISO 106 - A lot of samey "could they be scum together?" stuff until here, where he soft defends PokerFace

again

and proposes Plumscum of all things (again, knowing he'll never need to mess with that proposed scumgroup, since HH will flip town).

ISO 108 - The "giggles" post. "We should lynch ooba... but for no good reason I'll switch back to the townie mislynch. Maybe that will clear me, since CTD thinks we're scumbuddies."

And we're to the present day. That's an awful lot of scummy, I'd say.

[mith]

EBWOP: "apart from my quest to get

DGB

Hoopla deaded" (thought that was from day 2).

[mith]

Fate, if by some chance the scum have used all their blocks, you owe it to me to shoot scum tonight. Otherwise, congrats, scum. Fate's Vig claim and attack came during a very stressful week, and I was badly off my game yesterday.

[mith]

Plum was awesome. Really the only time I came close to suspecting her was near the end of day 3, with some paranoia about Plum getting lynched and turning up scum, and DGB turning the tables on me. I was about to speculate on that paranoia at some point either day 4 or 5 (...and probably not act on it, since I had way too much love for the sisters), but managed to come up with the very same argument PokerFace posted later (Plum claiming VT and

then

DGB claiming Tracker to out Rhinox didn't make sense - why not cut out the middle-Goofball and have Plum out Rhinox? But it makes sense in the context of town buying the VT claim, all three possible lynches being scum, and Plum being the RB). And then after the ooba flip? Unbelievable that we had three scum to choose from day 3. (This is the second game I've played with Plum, and I've gotten it badly wrong both times... I guess this is payback for lynching her in Lovers that time.)

Hoopla gets a gold star for scumhunting. Still not sure about the kamikaze approach to neutralizing the Janitor in theory, but in practice it worked great.

I nearly replaced out of this game day 3, actually. Kmd was driving me crazy at a time where the stress/anxiety in my life was really starting to ramp up... and then Fate replaced in. Oi. Anyway, I stayed in because a. I don't replace out of games and b. this game had too many replacements without me helping.

Fate shouldn't have outed himself as the Vig, obviously.

Killing Ellibereth after defending him... meh.

[edit]Never mind, I see he explained the shot, and it makes sense now.[/edit] But as for his case on me... he was impressively wrong, but we were all wrong about SpyreX's buddy. (We should have just lynched SpyreX; but at first I was caught up with the Roleblocker thing which didn't matter, and then lynching PokerFace seemed best chance at survival.) Props for being right about ooba so early... I wonder how this game goes if he sends an ooba kill night 3.

I'll read the quicktopic properly later, but on a quick skim for things I'm curious about... Props to SpyreX for being ballsy and telling the truth about his power role choices. Interesting to see that the scum didn't come up with the Hider/Weak Doctor claim thing breaking the game open if they gave us two, awesome of Troll to think of that. Amused by "I can back out of it after if needed." from DGB (she was right, though). DGB's line of thinking in 125 is more how I would've handled the Janitor. As I said in defense, I wouldn't have no-killed (and so it never occurred to me that anyone else would), but I wouldn't have given the town two Vigs either, and I understand what they were going for there. Aha! "A PlumPom lynch would mean an easy mith lynch tomorrow." Paranoia justified. No big surprises the rest of the way... pretty funny that as many times as they discussed killing me, I ended up being the final lynch.

Good game, all.

[mith]

When day 6 started I was expecting a (mith, iamausername, Plumepomeporuaywstgr) endgame with a scum win. Scum really didn't know who the vig was until Fate claimed, apparently for no reason, but I don't think it changed the result, only delayed it. Endgames have surprised me before, though. Would mith or iamasusername have reconsidered if that happened?

Would scum have shot Fate without being sure he was the vig? I don't think we could have gotten to that endgame. If we had... I can be annoyingly cautious in a three player endgame, and I did have a very strong town read on iam. It would've been tough, though.

Fate-mith-Plum would've been buckets of fun, though. With Plum already claimed, it's a no-brainer to vote for her - I wouldn't have bought a "I was the Vig all along" claim at that point. My immediate defense would be "if I were scum, I would have counterclaimed Vig rather than go head-to-head with Plum, who everyone and their mother thought was innocent", and then it would've been a slugfest if Fate didn't make a snap decision.

[mith]

Fate: I was thinking more "you don't out yourself, PokerFace gets lynched, and then you kill SpyreX while scum kill and block iamausername". But you probably would've shot me instead.

PokerFace's posting style kinda drives me crazy, so that didn't help. I nearly ruled him out as scum

twice

(the MME post, after the DGB scum flip, and the comment he made about Plum claiming VT), but he kept doing terrible (to me) things like "I'll vote for whoever has the most". Anyway, by day 6 I was pretty convinced of PokerFace-SpyreX; I had town reads on the rest of you. ~shrug~

[mith]

SpyreX has you so whipped...

[mith]

Thanks, SpyreX. I don't think it affected my play apart from yesterday's "Oh, well lynch me then" nonsense. (And possibly being a little more annoyed at the capslock stuff than I would otherwise have been. Fate replaced in at a

really

bad time.) But in between... Mafia is pretty relaxing when you are basically unlynchable.

(What's going on with me isn't private - it's posted on facebook - but not something I want to discuss on the forums.)

[mith]

Hey guys, I know this is going to sound crazy, but... WHAT IF PLUM IS SCUM?

OMG THAT RHYMES.