Mini 624 - Game Over!

[Litral]

/confirm

[Litral]

vote: Inspector Godot

Only scum would confirm with punctuation! Dieeeee!

[Litral]

Trying to pronounce it makes me dizzy. :/

[Litral]

I think we've thoroughly mastered the art of random voting...

[Litral]

Sorry, we simul-posted.

[Litral]

vote: Tom

[Litral]

Yes.

Because Tom suggested that we kill Godot, and yet he did not put on a vote himself, or give reasons. I want to know why he did that.

Or maybe I'm lacking a sense of humour?

[Litral]

I agree that Tom's vote was a joke, and I also enjoy the new information it's giving us. I'm going to try to find scum from another angle this time.

I thought I unvoted.

unvote

I want some more input from chenhsi.

I'd like to ask DWS why he felt it was necessary to unvote when he judged the random voting stage to be over. Just a question.

[Litral]

I'd like to ask DWS why he felt it was necessary to unvote when he judged the random voting stage to be over. Just a question.

I played a game of forum mafia where i forgot to unvote from the random voting stage, and then mine was the majority that got the cop lynched day one.

Pretty careful about leaving my votes sticking around on forums after that

Ouch. Well, at least there's no chance of that happening to ya this time.

Still... to pose a question to Litral on the basis of that... any reason why you wouldn't drop a random vote once you judge the game's progressed?

Depends. If I think my vote has generated enough reactions such that putting it there is no longer useful, I would unvote. Because the vote was made for that purpose anyway. Keep in mind that I'm not disagreeing with DWS, just wanting to hear him explain it.

[Litral]

There is a lot going on that's very interesting to analyze here, but there is also a lot going on in my life. So I'll be posting a much more thorough analysis within 48 hours.

But for now,

vote: Wumbo

by this principle: anyone vanilla townie who has claimed is completely useless to the town, and should be lynched, unless there is a far better candidate. If you disagree with/don't understand my application of this logic, say so, and I'll try to explain in my next more thorough post.

[Litral]

unvote

Lots of pretty interesting posts we have here.

but lurking isn't always necessarily a mafia thing to do. sometimes you just don't know what to say.

Who are you trying to protect?

FoS - maxwellhouse

Isn't it better to see for yourself who he is trying to protect? If suspicion is to be based on this, then at least equal suspicion should be given to the lurkers at that time, which you didn't seem to identify.

Ok, I am saying something now...

Sorry, kind of forgot that this was here...

So currently, from what I understand, the current argument is around lurking? I don't really have anything to contribute about lurking, me not being experienced enough to know whether that is good or bad...

There isn't much to talk about is there?

Lurking is bad as it denies the town information. Sure, all the mafia can fake town, but there's always a difference between how genuine they are. I think there is much to talk about.

Out of chenhsi and wumbo, wumbo's certainly coming off the scummier.

Its day one however, I cant say that lurking because there isnt anything to talk about is really a great offence. But he's coming off scummy, so chances are i'll vote if he doesnt come up with a decent defence in the next say.. 12 hours or so.

Why the tunnel vision?

my aforementioned status is that way because even if I die, the town still has a chance to win. Information is also crucial for them to win.

Information doesn't particularly help the town if it means people claiming vanilla townie when there are only a couple of votes on them, to help the mafia narrow down who the power roles are.

Information in the way of posts discussing, challenging, arguing, making a case against someone, pointing out noteworthy reactions, etc. and so on, is useful, but for someone who (rightly) claims 'information is crucial for [town] to win', you weren't exactly contributing much along those lines earlier.

Also, I'm slightly intrigued by your phrasing: "...even if I die, the town still has a chance to win. Information is also crucial for

them

to win," (my highlight) rather than "...for

us

to win."

IGMEOY

. A sudden discussion of theory seems to be avoiding the issue of whether to lynch Wumbo or not, or whether to look at any of the people who voted him, and it seems to be rather out of the blue if we take it in context. Your vote was on Wumbo at that time. Slightly bad feeling about this.

vote: chenhsi

. I don't like how he's lurking so much and getting off so easily for this. I feel that Day One, scum usually do the lurk thing and avoid the big noisy discussion (it's easy). By this principle I think my vote is better.

I get town vibes out of Wumbo's final defenses after careful reading, which is why I don't feel like lynching him any more. But for future reference, if anyone else claims blue out of the blue (cough), I'll consider him anti-town...

I don't get enough scum vibes from DWS to justify a vote.

[Litral]

Imaginality, it's not, well, entirely out of context, it just seems that a discussion of theory felt a bit off at that point. Just an IGMEOY.

[Litral]

Although I'm attentive, I'm not going to bother with this discussion.

[Litral]

What's the gut feeling?

Meh, it's just a gut feeling based off of nothing. I get them sometimes and they're usually wrong but it was enough for me to list you. To be honest I don't think you're as suspicious as the other two I listed though.

The explanation why I'm not voting DWS and is happy with voting Mr. Chen is because I find it far more useful, in the long run, to lynch someone who will not participate, since they'll have to be lynched at some point anyway, and relatively, lynching DWS will deny us information. The other reason is that the entire case seems to be a matter of technicality - while DWS did seem to misinterpret and misspeak at times, those misinterpretations are not meant to be malicious or anti-town, and to me, not intentional.

[Litral]

Worth mentioning: Litral's post 121:

But for now, vote: Wumbo by this principle: anyone vanilla townie who has claimed is completely useless to the town, and should be lynched, unless there is a far better candidate.

This post got overlooked in the switch to Dark wingstalker, but I disagree with the idea that "anyone vanilla townie who has claimed should be lynched unless there's a far better candidate," and even with the idea that "anyone who has claimed vanilla townie should be lynched unless there's a far better candidate," (if that's what he was trying to say. Particularly I disagree with using that logic to vote Wumbo at that point, because quick-lynching Wumbo would not have given us time to find a 'far better candidate'.

It's a good principle. If you are townie and you claim it, the scum will never bother with killing you, but you're still a suspect in the eyes of the town, generally. Not a good vote though, I admit, since I didn't have much time to read the thread at that point.

Litral's most recent post also rings untrue for me:

The explanation why I'm not voting DWS and is happy with voting Mr. Chen is because I find it far more useful, in the long run, to lynch someone who will not participate, since they'll have to be lynched at some point anyway, and relatively, lynching DWS will deny us information.

While I agree that more participation is a good thing, it's not true that we'd have to lynch chenhsi anyhow if he continued to minimally participate (e.g. a cop may get an inno on him), and also we would arguably gain more information from a DWS lynch than a policy lynch of a lurker, even if the trade-off is losing a player who participates more.

It's not true we have to lynch chenhsi, sure, but it becomes more likely. We would gain information right now if we lynch DWS, but not any more than that. I'm not actually using this as an argument saying "we shouldn't lynch any scummy player who talks", just that I myself would rather not, while also considering how I don't see DWS being scum as more likely than chenhsi being scum.

[Litral]

You hope to give pressure without the threat of lynching?

[Litral]

You hope to give pressure without the threat of lynching?

There's a difference, Litral. If we went after every single lurker and lynched them, scum would win.

And there's a huge difference between what you're saying my strategy is and what my strategy really is.

[Litral]

Explain then.

You're saying my strategy is to lynch every lurker. First of all, it's pretty sad if there are enough lurkers to lynch all the way to endgame, and second of all, I'm saying that we should lynch (or at least vote) chenhsi, who while suspicious (suggesting that there is nothing at all to talk about and nothing questionable at all), has the added benefit for lynching of being a lurker. I'm pretty sure my argument was something to this effect previously.

Until he brings up good points for me to read, I'm happy with my vote.

[Litral]

Tom informs me that he is unable to play. He cannot access mafiascum (thought it was down before) and can only do so through a public computer, and thus needs replacing.

[Litral]

Ack, I did a little research on chenhsi, and it turns out Mr. Chen is kinda like this every game.

I reviewed the DWS case, but I still think chenhsi would be a more productive lynch. Plus, his half-lurkiness seems to be relatively more suspicious in this game.

[Litral]

On the other hand: if you're going to claim, claim doc. Then the scum can kill you if we don't.

Not any more they will.

[Litral]

Gah...

unvote

26th July is the deadline. Reading more tomorrow.

[Litral]

I give you two long posts. The first one on imaginality's arguments and the second one on who I think should be lynched.

Reading Litral's posts, the following things stood out to me:

36. Voted Tom, no reason given
38. After Stranger Coug voted him (post 37), gave a reason for his vote:

Because Tom suggested that we kill Godot, and yet he did not put on a vote himself, or give reasons.

If Litral thinks not giving a reason for a vote is suspicious, why didn't he give a reason for his vote? Seems more likely he thought of this as a justification for his vote after the fact.

Nope. I thought it was fairly obvious why I was voting Tom; I did so right after the post where he pushed us to kill Godot. Of course, lacking a sense of humour, I did not understand that he was joking; if you imagine that he was not, it was more than sufficiently scummy to deserve a vote.

There is no reason for scum to tend to vote without giving a reason.

121. votes Wumbo (back up to L-2) because:

anyone vanilla townie who has claimed is completely useless to the town, and should be lynched, unless there is a far better candidate.

Aside from whether this is a good argument, I think it's pretty interesting that he made absolutely no comment on the Dark wingstalker L-1 vote shenanigans, which was breaking news at the time he posted. Instead he tried to keep the Wumbo wagon alive with his vote.

My post showed clearly that at that point I had only barely read the posts leading up to it, so my vote was based off only a simple principle in my mind; I didn't actually remember DWS being at L-1 by the time I voted.

137. Here Litral unvotes Wumbo and votes chenhsi, saying:

I get town vibes out of Wumbo's final defenses after careful reading, which is why I don't feel like lynching him any more.

Yet Litral was happy to vote Wumbo in post 121, and Wumbo hadn't posted since then. It seems more likely to me that Litral realised the Wumbo wagon had run out of steam, so he claimed to have changed your views after a careful reread of his posts. (And if he

is

telling the truth, then shouldn't he have read Wumbo's posts carefully

before

voting him to L-2?)

Again, my post showed that at that time I had not been attentive, and I did promise to read the whole thing later. That I did, and that's the unvote post. I think that the fact that I did not have time

at that particular moment

must be stressed; it explains the situation surrounding those two posts in a logical way.

183. Litral drops in to say:

Although I'm attentive, I'm not going to bother with this discussion.

I find this pretty interesting because it heightens my suspicion that

both

Dark wingstalker

and

Litral may be scum together. In post 121 Litral ignored the attacks on DWS's vote, in post 137 he only questioned him slightly ("Why the tunnel vision?"), and now he stays clear of the fray completely. I think this makes a lot of sense if DWS is Litral's scum buddy and Litral wants to avoid facing the dilemma of either obviously defending DWS (which could put him under suspicion if DWS is outed as scum later), or adding to the attack him (which at that point could have led to a DWS lynch).

Since you did not explain why my arguments saying that DWS was not scum to me are bad, I cannot argue with this.

I'll also say I'm very wary of him latching onto the chenhsi bandwagon the way he did, but before that I didn't think he was scum.

203. Defends DWS's mistakes as unintentional:

while DWS did seem to misinterpret and misspeak at times, those misinterpretations are not meant to be malicious or anti-town, and to me, not intentional.

And? You mean to say he made those mistakes on purpose. I see no scum-benefit in that.

206, 209, 212, 216. Defends his argument that lynching lurkers is a good strategy. Worth noting though, in 216 Litral says:

You're saying my strategy is to lynch every lurker. First of all, it's pretty sad if there are enough lurkers to lynch all the way to endgame, and second of all, I'm saying that we should lynch (or at least vote) chenhsi, who while suspicious (suggesting that there is nothing at all to talk about and nothing questionable at all), has the added benefit for lynching of being a lurker.

But he used the same argument to push for a lynch on Wumbo, so it does seem that the lurkiness is the reason for Litral targeting them, not an 'added benefit'.

That's not my argument for voting Wumbo.

246. Not sure why but this post also seems slightly off, maybe because of its WIFOMish flavour:

On the other hand: if you're going to claim, claim doc. Then the scum can kill you if we don't.

Not any more they will.

Umm... it makes sense. I'm not happy with Cass bringing up the point out loud, thus denying chenhsi that strategy if he had it.

[Litral]

whoops, my quote just voted myself.

Unvote

Also, the case on litral?? I dont think it really stands up, but i did attack him somewhat during my bandwagon. While i was being attacked, litral brought wumbo to l-2. I'll fig up the post: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 92#1149292

I dont have a great deal else to say on the matter, He's coming off as scummy, but as i've since been proven to be totally new at this sort of thing, I'm not trusting my gut at the moment.

Now you're just commenting on the side of every scumhunting process that's taking place. Make up your mind, what do you think of me?

@Litral: What strategy? The strategy to make himself a guaranteed nightkill? And do you honestly think Chenhsi has a strategy?

That strategy. I don't know if he had it or not, but your vote nullified the entire possibility of him using it.

After re-reading, I'm very tempted to vote for kenfucius, but it'd be like kicking someone when they're down. Let's review my suspicions then.

List of Suspicions:
Imaginality - Not considering it right now, as lynching someone who's contributing so much on Day 1 is bad.
StrangerCoug - Bit of a tendency to latch onto bandwagons. Brought up a new case against nhat, which was quickly disregarded. Looks fine to me. Same as imaginality, not considering voting him right now.
Geraintm - clean and good. I like post 80, and I recall some further goodposting from him.
Cass - I still don't like the "claim doc" comment on his part, not that it did a lot of damage, but the brain that would motivate such a comment seemed to be that of scum.
Godot - I don't like post 33, saying that he wanted to get serious. Post 55, he says we'd get clues, but never mentioned those clues. Quite suspicious of his uncomfortable uncertainty between chenhsi and Wumbo.
Kenfucius - Too much theory in the first two posts, and not enough suspicions. Lurking thereafter.
Wumbo - Stop being silly. >.<
nhat- Began with a strange FOS in post 82, which I attacked earlier, and backtracked at 84. Aggressive player.
DWS - Too much leering on the side and not enough creative contribution. I'll be honest why I still think he's town. Because I felt that his comments about not being careful and needing to play better were genuine. I don't like telling other people of my towntells, but I'd get loads of pressure if I don't explain. I'm very eager to see him contribute better - or at least to flip town so I don't get mislynched...
chenhsi - k.
Max - Very conflicted views. Seems that he doesn't like lurkers - thus voting chenhsi - and yet suggests lurking is not scummy. And he's sticking a lot to DWS, but I don't see a vote from him on DWS...

vote: Godot

, hoping to see answers to those questions:

I'm willing to accept that it was a joke vote, but it could very well have given us a few clues.

Those clues being?

Well, that's just for you to find out now isn't it.

Oh, don't worry, at the moment I think you're pro-town. It's just that the move wasn't thought through too much. Either that or you're an evil genius that has planned this to a T.

Why the unnecessary remainder of doubt placed on Wumbo? Do you consider that last possibility to be valid or not? Because the sentence seems weirdly unnecessary.

Gah, I had a birthday to attend and I was away for a few days. I thought I posted that I was going to be absent in this thread but I guess it slipped my mind. Anyway, DWS seems a bit suspicious as do Chenhsi and Wumbo.

You listed everyone the people talked about... and also contradicted yourself on Wumbo. Why the sudden change of heart?

We have dudes on here now talking about their gut feelings, so we'll see how far that gets us in the game.

I wouldn't vote off a gut feeling unless there was evidence that the person was scum.

Can you give an example of such evidence? To me, all mafia votes are gut feelings explained in a logical manner. Mafia isn't a game of debating.

Gah, this is where my inexperience annoys me. I guess I'll

Unvote Chenhsi

but I'd really like to see you pick up the pace. We have six days left until we reach the deadline. I guess it's time for a reread.

Those results being?

[Litral]

Better clarify a bit on some "innnovative" ideas before people ask.

Cass - I still don't like the "claim doc" comment on his part, not that it did a lot of damage, but the brain that would motivate such a comment seemed to be that of scum.

It is known that Cass thought of this strategy and considered it to be fairly powerful if not expected by the scum.

If he were town, it would benefit the entire town to hide the strategy from the scum, and if necessary to later hint that the real doc need not counter claim. It is clear that if the scum knows of this strategy, then the strategy becomes less valid.

If he were scum, he considered that chenhsi would adopt this strategy, and would be annoyed at the situation of WIFOM it presented him; he would like to say it earlier to discourage chenhsi from using this strategy.

"Giving the scum WIFOM" is not a good explanation, because he is also giving the town a lot of WIFOM (Should we lynch him for claiming doc or not? If not now, when? Should the doc counter-claim?), and plus, now that the scum knows, his claim would affect the scum as much as me saying this: I am the vigilante and I'm lying about being the vigilante. It would affect the scum not at all.

I'm aware that MoS pulled a similar strategy in a newbie game, but the intentions are entirely different; that was to provoke reactions and this is a near-lynch final claim.

Godot - I don't like post 33, saying that he wanted to get serious.

DWS, Wumbo and Godot all said something amounting to "serious time nao", and I really don't understand it. Why would anyone say that? Is a clear and direct transaction necessarily better for the town?

[Litral]

Im not playing the newbie card, I'm playing the "I'd like more evidence before i vote litral because my gut may not be 100%" card.

I don't even know where you began to change your mind about me. Right after imaginality's post, mayhaps?

i'm not really sure of litral's "list of suspicions." it seems to eliminate yourself as scum and put yourself as a powerful part of town, when in reality no one is cleared yet.

Sorry, eliminate myself or DWS? If you're saying "myself", well, I don't know how to respond, because I'm simply offering the entirety of my suspicions in great detail. Perhaps that was not wise?

[Litral]

Litral's responses to my case against him are inadequate. His explanation of why he voted Wumbo (121) and then switched to chenhsi (137) is basically that he "only barely read the posts" when he cast his vote on Wumbo, and switched votes after "careful reading" of the same posts.

First of all, it's not actually an explanation after the event, seemingly made to cover myself, because I said it right when I voted Wumbo. If the explanation made no sense, then it seems that your attacks could have been made then. Nevertheless I will address your points.

The problems with this explanation:

(a) He's saying he voted Wumbo (to L-2) after 'barely reading' the recent posts: it seems unacceptable to cast a vote so lightly, why not hold off voting until he'd had a chance to read?

Is that necessary? I realized I was going to be accused of lurking if I didn't show up; I skimmed through the topic, knew that Wumbo was nowhere near being lynched, found his claim suspicious, and stuck my vote there... only for one day.

(b) it didn't take much attention to see that Dark wingstalker was in the hot seat; I still find his lack of comment suspicious, when combined with his attempt to stay clear of that debate later (183)

My lack of commenting on DWS... equivalent to my attempt to stay clear of the debate... has been explained. I actually did comment after re-reading, saying that I didn't get enough scum vibes to justify a vote.

(c) saying "I get town vibes out of Wumbo's final defenses" (137) is a conveniently vague get-out clause for switching his vote; what were those townie vibes that stood out clearly after a reread but not when he cast his vote?

I don't think Wumbo is the sort of person who'd go "look at these guys after I die, and then these guys, and you should do this and do that, take care town! *sob*" as scum - after careful reconsideration. Of course, not going to use this from now on.

(d)In explaining his "not going to bother with this discussion" post (183), Litral says, "Since you did not explain why my arguments saying that DWS was not scum to me are bad, I cannot argue with this." - but at that point, he hadn't given any reasons for thinking DWS was not scum, so this doesn't answer my point at all.

A misunderstanding; sorry. In response to that post you said that it makes sense if DWS and I are scum together. My sentence was meant to say "You're linking DWS and I together because I'm defending him, but I'm defending him with reason, which you did not question."

while DWS did seem to misinterpret and misspeak at times, those misinterpretations are not meant to be malicious or anti-town, and to me, not intentional.

And? You mean to say he made those mistakes on purpose. I see no scum-benefit in that.

No benefit in 'accidentally' voting someone to L-1 without good reason? I think there's a clear benefit for scum to do that: the chance that someone else might then hammer that player. And there's also benefit in misinterpretations when you're scum, if you hope you can thereby confuse the case being made against you or hope to shift the focus away from your actions and on to semantics.

"accidentally voting someone to L-1 in the hopes that someone hammers" does not feel like scum strategy. If you do not believe that DWS can be truly careless enough to vote someone to L-1 without reconsidering, how can you believe that there would be a player who actually carelessly hammers? And if such a player is not expected to exist, then the strategy is useless. The rest of the town can unvote, too.

[Litral]

*sigh*

If he flips town, the town suffers.
If he flips scum, I suffer.

Lose-lose to me.

[Litral]

Your analysis is incorrect, and although it's entirely off-topic, I'll respond

If DWS flips scum, I will very likely be lynched. It is already a given that DWS will be lynched (I presume), so if I didn't argue against it, we'd get another lynch tomorrow; since I did, I'm getting mislynched. The goal of this game is not to survive, but forcing the town to mislynch you is pretty bad for a win.

If DWS flips town, it's bad for the entire town, because we did a mislynch. And there are still very good reasons for why scum would protect a townie so much. My actions may even look worse in hindsight.

[Litral]

I basically said mine in the list of suspicions over there, but it's Godot first, Max second, and Cass third - but I was only really looking for one person, because I'm not bothering to analyze the people who post a lot - imaginality and Coug.

[Litral]

And welcome again, Battousai

[Litral]

Oh yeah, chenhsi shouldn't be asked to say his suspects. Scum might kill who he's investigating.

[Litral]

I do have 1 suspect. And another back-up suspect, in case my first one is lynched.

And it kind of is both, imaginality. No idea how, but it is both.

Ah, we really don't mind not knowing.

[Litral]

Chenhsi would've been lynched without a claim, and now that he has no effective safe claim... let's move on.

vote: chenhsi

[Litral]

Heck...

I, for one, cannot believe there can be two actual cops. Vigs are probably some of the weakest of the roles, and one-shot vigs are even weaker, so having two of them could work out. Suppose there actually are two cops, the mafia must be horribly powerful - or large. What are the chances we would be so screwed as to out both of them day one?

Max, chenhsi died as the "town cop". Is there something about your role we should know about?

[Litral]

I think imaginality was just killed because he was active and likely to look at things deeply. Not good for scum.

I had this big post earlier but I lost it... what I wanted to say was that, yes, Battousai, I still think Godot is a good lynch scumtell-wise, although Dark may be good in terms of strategy. Godot's tunnelling post gives me the same bad feeling - that he is limiting our choices to those that can both be bad for us.

[Litral]

Didn't notice we had four votes on DWS already...

I just realized that we probably shouldn't be directing max's investigation. Scum could have some sort of power that messes with investigations (e.g. framing max to make him look guilty even though he is real cop) or something that kills whomever is being targeted, etc. If max investigates someone else and also gets a guilty, we could have a pair of guilties or a pair of innocents; if it's an innocent, we can start deciding who to lynch among those two. Assuming DWS isn't lynched today.

But if Max is an unhelpful cop he is confirmed town. As long as he keeps posting there is absolutely no way we should lynch him.

How do you know max is confirmed town?

[Litral]

I disagree with a no lynch. If we're not lynching DWS we should be scumhunting.

[Litral]

I think there is a serious problem with investigating yourself.

Why do we trust someone to "investigate themselves" and bring back a true report? It just doesn't make sense for us to keep the ball in max's court. Telling him to investigate himself gives him too much power to do what he wishes, even if he is town. I don't know, there could be sanity issues, but he could be lying. So even if he posts a guilty report on himself, it doesn't mean he's insane/paranoid.

DWS has 4 votes so let's talk this out some more. DWS, you're on the chopping block mate.

Good post here. Another concern about "investigating oneself". He's already suspected, he'll definitely give us some sort of pleasing investigation if he is scum. All sorts of things can screw us up if we try to outguess the mod. Let's just have max investigate whomever he wants to. This will also free up DWS for a lynch.

[Litral]

Sorry about the whole DWS defense. It'll bite me in the ass later.

Lucky I got the Godot thing right

vote: Inspector Godot

[Litral]

Nhat, is it possible from your role that Godot isn't scum? For example, did you receive two names, or would you have received two names?

Sorry about the whole DWS defense. It'll bite me in the ass later.

And you are still concerned about this because?

I don't see why not?

[Litral]

cougar, that was an insanely quick vote, before anyone had chance to come in with their night results, unless you know something, either through a action or scumminess

24 minutes seems plenty enough for one to visit the thread, realize that the cop died and to come up with something new.

The case we have here is that at least one of Godot and nhat is scum. I think we should be focusing on this for now.

[Litral]

I'm not familiar with forensic investigations... nhat, can you also get who killed max and subsequently every other player?

[Litral]

I think we are at L-1.

nhat, Litral, Battousai, Cass on Godot.

[Litral]

I think so.

[Litral]

Three questions. First of all, why the claim? You know that will only get you killed.

Second of all, I confirm that I did not submit a night choice, but would like to ask why you chose me.

Third of all, if they have a roleblocker, they must have thought the chances of them blocking the doc was quite high when they managed to kill a cop Night 2. As scum, I would attempt to block the same guy again if I wanted to kill another claimed power role Night 3. Any rational explanation to this?

[Litral]

I want the last cop claim. I hope there is one.

[Litral]

Actually, we should discuss if the last cop should claim.

[Litral]

Four cops, a tracker, a forensic investigator and a town roleblocker against only at most four (and probably three) scum? I find that very difficult to believe.

Cass, is that a bid for a massclaim? Coug is right, I didn't visit anyone. I'm not a fourth cop or a roleblocker.

I have an idea I want to bring out - no lynch. We have two claimed roles, and at least one of them will live tomorrow. We have apparently one group of killers, and pretty standard roles. Even if we nolynch we'll get two lynches if there are three scum and one lynch if there are four (although I find it hard to believe). I'm not sure if it'll screw over the town though, so let's just put it there...

[Litral]

Battousai, I believe trackers also receive the name of who they visited, so if max visited a dead guy that would look pretty bad for him. Although admittedly he could just claim he investigated imaginality, which makes the investigation only limited in usefulness...

I read Battousai's posts and his defense of max convinces me fairly well that he is a third cop.

But what about this, in Day 2?

maxwellhouse, I have a question: If you investigated Dark wingstalker and he came back as guilty, then why are you worrying about sanity rather than voting him?

FoS: maxwellhouse

[Litral]

Okay, no, I don't think Coug's claim corresponds to what he posted earlier. But his role seems too useful to lynch, especially this early.

I want to hear if geraintm has a role...

[Litral]

I'm not willing to believe SC because it is less sensible for the scum to block him only for Night 2 and not Night 3; they should've thought they managed to block the doc. But I'm not willing to lynch a possible tracker this early, either.

I think Wumbo fits the bill. I don't think geraintm is scum. Wumbo, however, has been posting little content ever since we let him off the hook.

[Litral]

If our tracker is real he'll almost 100% be killed in the night. So let's wait for that.

[Litral]

I've re-considered the situation and my thoughts are still the same. Scumtell wise I would lynch Coug, but strategy wise I would lynch Wumbo. I prefer my strategic choice here; not so confident in my scumhunting abilities after I defended DWS... I've considered no-lynching, but I don't think there is any scenario under which I wouldn't just lynch Wumbo the day after.

So yeah, I feel like voting right now, but I want to see a vote count first.

[Litral]

I don't think DWS was bussing Wumbo too hard. He was just voting Wumbo for very little reason and then retracted his vote immediately.

Ah, but then again, wouldn't he have checked to see if he would've lynched his buddy? Because he really was ignorant of how many votes there were on Wumbo.

[Litral]

That's a remarkably weak devil's advocate

I'm going to suggest no lynch again. Suppose Coug is scum, he won't die, and he must tell us someone is town, which would confirm another one of us - preferably either Wumbo or Cass. That would make things much easier since we still have 2 lynches.

[Litral]

SC promise not to check Battousai.

[Litral]

Oh and Battousai claims first, then SC, just in case SC did check Battousai, assuming both are alive.

[Litral]

I am not the cop, so I can't directly prove one's guilt.

Yes you can, if a blue visited someone who died, the blue is scummy scum.

[Litral]

unvote, vote: No lynch

[Litral]

Well, geraintm was close to winning He would've won if I were in Battousai's place.

This game tells me not to depend on "town-tells" I imagine I picked up. Also, not to defend anyone unless really necessary. Almost got me lynched.

Geraintm, why didn't you try to kill at six left?

Out of the five lynches we actually had we did four good lynches. That's pretty nice.