Newbie 655: Zeroville. (Game Over!)

[JonMW]

I got mine. Looking forward to this.

[JonMW]

Well now, you seem to have a good understanding of how a mob member thinks!

Vote: WhereIsTony

[JonMW]

Not to mention the fact that you threw down your vote on someone who hasn't said anything yet. Almost as if you know who your friends are, eh?

[JonMW]

I'm not certain that you think that "chainsaw defense" means the same thing that I think it does.

[JonMW]

what is a chainswa defense?

According to the wiki, a chainsaw defense is when you claim to be a Miller, or some other pro-town role that investigates as guilty, allowing you to defend yourself without counterattacking the person that investigates you.
However, there are no Millers in this game, and nobody has done any claiming yet... so I don't see how I could have done a chainsaw defense.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to keep track of who's voting for whom. I'm gonna have to draw a freaking diagram or something.

[JonMW]

While a list certainly contains all the information, a flowchart-like diagram can more easily show any large-scale division of opinion in the players. Show the two fronts of the war more easily, kind of thing.

[JonMW]

Well, I'd say that both WhereIsTony and Tiara have some kind of scummy stench hanging over their heads. However, I think I'll switch the way my vote swings.

Oh, who am I kidding? The only reason I voted for Tony in the first place was because he was the only one that stood out to me.

Unvote

The Pope's Tiara

Don't be nervous, Pope!

The innocent have nothing to fear.

[JonMW]

Oh, crudmuffins. I

meant

to say:

Vote: The Pope's Tiara

[JonMW]

M4yhem, if voting for this (extremely suspicious, in my opinion) character will only get your vote pointed at me, then I'll change it.

Unvote

I used to play Cry Wolf - an online version of mafia that used a chat window rather than a forum. It was a lot more fast-paced and less thinky. It's probably taught me some bad playing habits.

So now, the question remains. Who do I vote for? My opinion, however, is the same. Tiara is the most suspicious one around. When I get the time this afternoon, I'll go over the entire thread and see if my theories hold together.

Vote: No Lynch

This vote will change when someone else sticks their head out.

[JonMW]

Well, I'd say that both WhereIsTony and Tiara have some kind of scummy stench hanging over their heads. However, I think I'll switch the way my vote swings.

I don't like the look of this post. voting someone because of a "scummy stench" and being flaky when placing a vote just seems to suspicious to me.

Vote: JonMW

Be serious. Do you have enough reason to eliminate a single person in this town from your suspicions?
I switched my vote because Tiara, through his tactics (attempting to repel more votes by claiming to be cop) became more suspicious than Tony was to me at the beginning (which was a vote based on practically nothing).
Then, Tiara's most recent post apparently convinced M4yhem that he was, in fact, Townie. M4yhem begins to protect Tiara by moving his vote onto me.
I don't currently have enough "evidence" to suspect that Tiara and M4yhem are the mafia. So, In order to "prove" to M4yhem that I'm not out to get Tiara at all costs, I remove my vote.

That's all the justification I can give. You, however, have a lot of justifying to do.

[JonMW]

OK, I just looked over the thread again and something's stood out to me. That thing is Syphen.
He's lurking - one post to confirm his playing, and one vote for WhereIsTony. Apart from that, total silence.
By Michel's logic, lurking in thie manner is starving us of information and he's obstructing justice. That's one black mark.
Next black mark is that he voted for Tony just when he already had two votes against him, and the most voted-for citizen. So it looks that instead of justifying his actions, he just directed his vote in the hopes of helping Tony get lynched. Removing a person - almost any person will do, in the eyes of the mafia - and the most likely person to be lynched at that point was Tony.

Vote: Syphen

[JonMW]

My grammar wasn't the most clear in that last post. Let's see that I can restate it.

Tony had already collected two votes against himself at that point. He had become the most voted-for citizen, and therefore the most likely to be lynched. Syphen, (assuming that he is mafia) also voted for Tony for this reason, and this reason alone. Because it's working in his favour to lynch anyone who isn't mafia.

I think that improved the clarity of my statement.

[JonMW]

Maybe it is early, but I have to act on someone... I don't want to risk this day going by without a lynch.

In any case, I changed my avatar to reflect my feelings on having attracted two votes.

[JonMW]

M4yhem, about my survival: I feel that this is how we are supposed to play. In a way, this game is a kind of semi-roleplay. Although each member cares about their side, I do not think it is expected of us to (willingly, completely) throw away our own safety in the search for the mafia unless it is absolutely required.

More to come later, maybe. I think I've jumped boats too often over the past few days.

[JonMW]

OK, I understand the strategy of keeping your vote on me now, and I can't blame you for that. I guess that I have been jumping quickly from accusation to accusation - that's just because each time I've looked back over the thread, or someone has changed (or communicated) their stance on a certain topic, my personal opinion of who has acted "most strangely" has altered each time.
I keep on second-guessing because I have nothing concrete at this point. I don't think that any of us will have much useful information at all by the time that someone is lynched. As far as I can tell, useful information begins tomorrow (or tonight, in the case of a cop's investigation, which is possible).
I'm not saying that we're not getting ANY information today, but we won't be able to make much use of it until tomorrow comes.

But now, you've put me in a difficult position.

Why did you allow Pope to buy your trust so easily in one go? He answers all your little questions and you roll over for him, turning on anyone that voted for him in the first place.

My vote will stay on Syphen until I've looked over things again. I'm still not sure that I believe him. He claims that his vote was "random" but I feel that my most-likely-to-be-lynched theory still holds.

[JonMW]

I looked over the thread again, but I don't feel that I learned much.
M4yhem, you are an exceedingly cagey player. I feel that you're playing chess and I'm playing whack-a-mole (to borrow the comparison from Achewood).

[JonMW]

I wouldn't say you were in that difficult a position.

I misspoke... I do believe that I am in a difficult position, but it's partially my fault (of course).
I suspect Pope rather strongly, but jumping my vote back to him at this stage - while we have still not received any further answer from Syphen - seems like I'm just pandering to get you to take your vote off me.

[JonMW]

Jon- If you're town, stop thinking about what I will think and follow your instincts.

Why do you suspect Pope's? What did you think of the post which was the reason I unvoted him?

I think that that post seemed very open and self-critical. However, I can't forget some of the earlier tactics he used in an attempt to dispel the suspicion that he attracted even then. Perhaps they are explainable by his simply being a nervous newbie, unaware of what statements will earn him the wrong kind of attention, but it still all rubs me the wrong way.

I'll let my suspicions move away from him for now, but I definitely won't forget.

[JonMW]

You realise that you and him acted quite similarally under pressure?
Both changed your vote, both went for lurkers, both voted no lynch. What do you make of that?

As I iterated before, I changed my vote under pressure because I thought that that was how we were supposed to play, even as Vanilla Townies. Or are you trying to ignore what I said?
We did not both "go for lurkers"... he wanted to vote out someone who had not posted at all. I wanted to vote for someone who was starving us of information. There's a difference, and well you know it.
Voting No Lynch... He did it entirely for dramatic reasons, as he said before. Don't you remember how he put on the resigned martyr act? I voted No Lynch purely as a placeholder until I could identify a new suspicious player and vote for them.

If you want to play the Inquisitor so badly, then I'll tell you what put me over the edge on him. I'm sure you remember what that was, because you were there. You reacted to it specifically. Even WhereIsTony can recall:

Right now my vote is just an indicator of my suspicion based on the fact that he claimed cop

And you spell it "similarly".

[JonMW]

And seriously, what the hell is with people coming back to the third vote that I placed on Pope? Let's take another look at how this all played out, from the top until the third post and maybe a little bit after.

WhereIsTony votes for The Pope's Tiara. No reason.
I vote for WhereIsTony. I didn't really have any good reason for this at all, I admit. Back then, it was all so offhanded and based on so little. I was putting attention on him. Again, this is because I used to play Cry Wolf - it was all very back-stabbing, mob-mentality gameplay. Very little thinking went on at all - because the games (played in a chat window rather than a forum) were so short, there was no time for long-term strategy. All you could hope for was to hope that the actual Wolves would choke, and behave in an unusual fashion - either not talking, or talking too much, pointing too many fingers.
Tiara votes for Tony, seemingly in retaliation. Pope now claims that his accusaion of Tony at this point was mostly sarcastic.
M4yhem votes for Tiara, claiming that this is motivated by the "random voting" stage in the game. Take note that Michel - who may have more or less experience than M4yhem (wiki turned up nothing on him) - disagrees with him on this point. Perhaps M4yhem was lying to us? Perhaps Michel was. MAybe one of them is simply wrong, or maybe one of them is taking advantage on us being newbies - we do not know how the game is played.
Syphen puts a third vote on Tony. He claims that this was random, and I do not believe him.
Tony posts a little disclaimer - he admits that he has no concrete evidence on Pope.
M4yhem - in a single-line post - asks Pope to defend himself, or at least respond.
Pope responds by hinting that he might be cop. He tries to get others to vote for hohum.
M4yhem points out the flaws in Pope's reasoning.
Pope claims at this point that he tried to divert attention onto hohum simply to survive another day. Possibly, he believes that a non-playing player would be easier to lynch, since they cannot defend themselves. His actual reasoning isn't very clear, however. He seemed desperate to grab at any argument that would take votes away from himself.
I admit that I do the same thing. I still feel that personal survival should be a motivating factor for every player, not merely an extention of the belief that the town should not waste a single lynch. If one allows the town to lynch oneself, then they have allowed the town to waste a day and are not trying to win.
Even after Pope's (meager) defense, Tony simply declares the he is not moving his vote. He rejects Pope's defense.
This is the crucial point. I declared, even then, that my initial vote on Tony was based on practically nothing. I should have used the FoS or maybe the HoS on Tony, and saved my vote for later. I felt that Pope has attempted to defend his own vote with some very shaky logic - so shaky, in fact, that it worsened my opinion of him. This changed my opinion of the "most suspicious" citizen. So I voted for Pope.
Michel follows suit - he points out the flaws in Pope's reasoning. Really, he's just riding on M4yhem's coat-tails.
Even Yuu takes note that Pope's acting a bit suss.
Pope puts on the Martyr act. He votes No Lynch.
J_Slr tries to comfort Pope, reassuring him.
M4yhem

NOW

asks pope to supply more information. He gives Pope another go at defending himself.
Pope makes his second "defense" - really, he just answers M4yhem's questions.
M4yhem drops the attack on Pope, and votes for me.

Now, here's what I've seen of the situation.
This is what really happened:
Pope acts suspiciously. He collects two votes.
Pope attempts to defend himself. This defense goes very badly.
I vote for Pope, because of his shaky (and I believe, unsubstantiated and false) argument.
M4yhem now asks Pope to defend himself a

second

time.
Pope answers the questions.
M4yhem turns onto me. This seems to be the point where I started to stand out more prominently to other players.

However, this is what others seem to think happened:
Pope acts suspiciously.
Pope is asked to defend himself.
I vote for pope.
Pope defends himself.
Suspicion moves onto me.

Frankly, I feel that the mafia - or perhaps just well-meaning Townies - have muddled the facts and attempted to build an argument against me based on events that

never happened

.

[JonMW]

Jon, a post like this does very little to clear you of any suspicion. Michel mentioned in his analysis that you argue with feelings and this is a very good example of that. The only thing this post tells me is that you are getting very flustered and defensive over only 1 vote, when it's 5 to lynch. You need to use more calm, thought driven arguments because otherwise all you will do is draw suspicion onto yourself.

I'm prefectly capable of using logic. However, I do not feel that there is any amount of logic that can lead a person to correctly, reliably, allow a vanilla townie to distinguish the mafia from his friends during Day 1. We're all (excepting the mafia, obviously) in the same boat here - we must try to assemble coherent attacks on other players based upon what they say, what they do, how they assemble their arguments, and how they defend themselves. The crucial point is that nobody wants to identify themselves clearly either way, so there is going to be little or no usable information that can be gleaned from the posts on Day 1.
Nobody wants to clearly identify themselves wither way - someone who appears to be mafia is going to be lynched. Someone who is accepted as a townie is sure to be NKed, because they increases the chance that a townie will be lynched on all following days.

[JonMW]

What’s wrong with simply unvoting, as a placeholder?

I simply did not occur to me that such a move was available. Again, bad habit from Cry Wolf. It wasn't until soon afterwards (page 3) that J_Slr indicated that this was a possible action.

[JonMW]

It's been 48 hours since something actually happened. Looks like we're stuck at a deadlock.

Any game is better than no game, so I'll kick this along a bit, repercussions be damned. Can it simply be understood that this action is not motivated by trying to find scum, just to further the game itself?

Sure, maybe Il'l try to justify this vote later - right now, I'm too busy to actually come to my own solid opinion of Tony. Even assuming that two of his current votes are from mafia, that still leaves one townie who seriously thinks that he should be lynched, and one more that needs to change his/her vote.
So, I guess I'm trusting in the lynch mob.

Unvote
Vote: WhereisTony

[JonMW]

After reviewing my own actions, I think that I was too hasty.

Unvote

[JonMW]

I've re-read the thread for what feels like the umpteenth time, and I'm completely stymied. How on earth does anyone keep the players clear in their heads in the big games?
The only way that I can make any progress is by focussing on one person at a time and seeing who voiced a like or dislike for that person over the course of the game.

Who sets off my scum-o-meter?
Let's see...
- WhereIsTony
- The Pope's Tiara
- Syphen
- somedamnkid

This consists of the three other people who have been voted for (clearly) and sdk (who seems to switch tack less logically than even I do). My deepest suspicion is on the top two, but it's hard to discern any allegiance between them at all. Throughout the entire game they've been hard at work to denounce the other.
Of course, it could very easily be put on, but this is one heck of an act.

[JonMW]

Ah, I'd better put those names in

order

then...

The Pope's Tiara
Syphen
WhereIsTony
somedamnkid
M4yhem
MichelSableHeart
J_Slr
Yuu

[JonMW]

Hm. If that's true, then he's basically secured his own position for those 8 days - assuming, of course, that we're not going to waste our lynch on an idler.

Still, kinda annoying.

[JonMW]

Jon_MW- What's the worst thing that could happen in this game? If you had a scumbuddy and they came under attack, would you defend them, attack them or just ignore the whole thing?

The worst thing? That would be if I was lynched, and the town lost as a direct result of that - whether that's from wasting a lynch, or removing the point of view of a townie, and so on and so forth.
I mean, sure, it would be pretty bad if I got

nightkilled

instead, but that's just par for the course. It's almost a point in my favour, an indicator that I was a thorn in the mob's side, likely to sniff them out through their computer monitors all the way from across the planet.

The second question is much tricker though, because I haven't been in that situation. Putting myself into such a complex hypothetical situation will take me a few minutes...
Ok, done. Well, speaking freely and purely tactically, I would not want to come to their aid directly, because that would only increase suspicion. I think that I would simply refuse to acknowledge that they had acted particularly untownieish, and declare that some other, town-aligned person seems more scummy in comparison.
Attacking your own teammate just seems to risky. If they start to accumulate votes, either you shoot your own team in the foot or you break the attack right when a lynch looks probable for that person - neither of those situations seems to be a good game-winning strategy, in my opinion.
I understand misdirection and doublethink as well as the next guy, but I don't think that it's such a good idea when it involves halving your own strength.
Perhaps the odds would be worth it in one situation that I can think of... if you came to the aid of your teammate, made your allegiance to them clear enough, and then nightkilled them.
Although it costs you an all-important NK, it might just buy you enough trust from the townsfolk to survive.

[JonMW]

Nobody wants to clearly identify themselves wither way - someone who appears to be mafia is going to be lynched. Someone who is accepted as a townie is sure to be NKed, because they increases the chance that a townie will be lynched on all following days.

Sorry, but I believe this is incorrect. Townies should always try to appear as townie as possible. Sure, that means you'll risk being nightkilled, however, the mafia is going to try to nightkill a townie anyway. If all townies try to act in a way that's best for town, is a lot more difficult for mafia to further their own interest without being detected.

We're assuming that it's not easy to act townie, here. Just look at how the votes have been madly jumping about from person to person in this game!

In the impossible best-case scenario, the mafia should believe that you are acting suspiciously enough to be a possible lynch target (and therefore will not spend a NK on you)

but

to not stand out so much that you are lynched.
If there is a single person who is clearly pro-town, then they are in no danger of being lynched. If you assume that a person is chosen semi-randomly from the remaining populace, then the probability of a mafia member being lynched is

increased

while the openly pro-town person is still alive.
Hence, the mafia can and should NK that person as soon as possible without necessarily drawing attention to themselves.

---

And about my previous post - with the doublethink strategy - I forgot that roles are revealed upon death. That changes things.

[JonMW]

The second question is much tricker though, because I haven't been in that situation.

Putting myself into such a complex hypothetical situation

will take me a few minutes...
Ok, done. Well, speaking freely and purely tactically, I would not want to come to their aid directly, because that would only increase suspicion. I think that I would simply refuse to acknowledge that they had acted particularly untownieish, and declare that some other, town-aligned person seems more scummy in comparison.
Attacking your own teammate just seems to risky. If they start to accumulate votes, either you shoot your own team in the foot or you break the attack right when a lynch looks probable for that person - neither of those situations seems to be a good game-winning strategy, in my opinion.
I understand misdirection and doublethink as well as the next guy, but I don't think that it's such a good idea when it involves halving your own strength.
Perhaps the odds would be worth it in one situation that I can think of... if you came to the aid of your teammate, made your allegiance to them clear enough, and then nightkilled them.
Although it costs you an all-important NK, it might just buy you enough trust from the townsfolk to survive.

I would like to point out to you that the underlined section is decidedly dodgy to my mind. M4yhem asked a question, and your response was to strongly reinforce the fact that your answer is all just speculation, almost as if you have a guilty conscience.....

As for the rest, you lost me in your (hypothetical) tactics..... could you please clarify them? The first bit about distancing yourself makes sense, but could you explain the attacking you own team mates bit??? And the whole NK your friend bit?

Or am I just completely misunderstanding you here?

Oh, come on... it wouldn't do to look like I can just jump into the mindset of a mafia member, now would it? Be serious.
NKing your friend would only work in a game when roles are not revealed upon death. I forgot that when I wrote my post.

Attacking your teammate prevents the townsfolk from realising that you're working together. How simple can this get?

[JonMW]

tumescence, to answer your question... M4yhem basically just summed it up nicely. To my mind, the cop should avoid being identified to the very best of his/her ability. Actually roleclaiming cop, or even hinting that you might be cop (because that is what it seemed like to me at the time) should only be an absolute last resort.

...and welcome to the game, tume.

[JonMW]

There is no contradiction. I am trying to communicate to you that a clever player never identifies himself as cop if he wants to avoid being NKed. However, this is exactly what Pope did. Conclusion: Pope did not make a very good play at that point.

Next... the distinction between a hint, and a mention of a possibility... I don't think that there's much distinction at all. It's all there in text with no nuance, no whispering. Why would he bring up such a point unless he was attempting to make others think of him as a

potential

cop?
If a real cop made the exact same indication - but with stronger, no-doubt-about-it language... for example heading and ending all his posts with

"I AM A COP"

then the townies still cannot trust him, because all he has is words. It could easily be a mafia member, duping them into lynching one townie after another.
So townies cannot take any indication of cop as more than a

potential

truth - and that is what pope did.
So if the end situation is exactly the same for all degrees of roleclaiming cop, for all parts of the spectrum - from possibility, to suggestion, to hint, to outright claim - then all degrees of the action are perfectly equable to my mind.

[JonMW]

Oh, and my reading on Yuu?
Seems like stereotypical movie character of the innocent, sweet type. Then my cynical side kicks in and tells me that she's probably mafia because it would be so wonderfully ironic.

Would be nice if she posted more. Knowing more about a person always helps.

[JonMW]

Well, I can't justify my logic any better than that. The reason that I hang onto this point so savagely is because it's all I have. You, in comparison, seem to have even less - your attention is focused on what I'm doing, and you seem to be spending all your energy on attacking me.

That makes two counts against the same "character" - one from Pope, and one from you.

Vote: tumescence

You think I'm wrong? Well then, who

should

I be voting for?

[JonMW]

That being said I do not want people to stop looking at tumescence, keep watching him, but also look at Jon, he really really wants tumescenced lynched and I for one can not really see why?

To be frank... I just got really tired of the way he threw me in a bad light.

Again, the only reason I've been sitting on the suggestion/hint/claim thing is because it's all I have. Everything else... is just this mess of sound, garbled information, and obtuse behaviour.
Plus my memory/willpower isn't very good, either. I tend to lose interest in holding an attack.
So yeah... Syphen

was

acting suspicious but that was, like, totally, last week. Omigaw, guh?

Mind's all over the place. KoL, EVE-online, DRoD, WaDF, Knytt Stories, Dwarf Fortress, these things all take my interest. Plus there's this little thing called an "engineering degree" that I'm apparently doing in my spare time.

In a few hours I'll try to re-evaluate my "most lynchable" top three.

[JonMW]

Looks like it... we may not require an imposed deadline after all.

[JonMW]

Well.... looking at how all my efforts were for naught, I guess an apology is in order. Or something. Amazing that after all this time, Pope's most memorable argument has been proved to have some merit, if only circumstantial.

Looking back at how the game progressed yesterday, J_Slr seemed to go against everyone else's grain, not joining any "side" of an argument, preferring to strike out on his own. Sadly, this means that I certainly can't deduce anything by his being the NK victim.... he didn't seem to be threatening anyone particularly hard, and even if he

was

then killing him would only draw suspicion onto his target.
While the rest of us were looking at Tony, tumescence, (and me, in the earlier days) he broke away and nudged Yuu for information.
Surely, we are much poorer for this loss. Perhaps the scum saw that he would only provide the rest of us with so much more information.

It seems like very little useful information can be gleaned from J_Slr's death. We're practically back at the situation we had in Day 1 - nothing to go on but conjecture, wild guesses, fabricated evidence, mountains out of molehills, random acts of aggression and right stirring.

So, let's make with the making of mountains out of molehills!

J_Slr, to me, would not have been an obvious target - I think in simpler terms, go straight for the goal, kind of thing. In the scum's shoes, I'd try to remove people that were an actual threat to me.
Now, it would be too obvious to NK a guy who's dogged me from the start. I would try to identify people that were actually dangerous. Those with power roles... and those with experience. Think - an experienced player is much more likely to be able to put pressure on the right people, to ask the right questions, and get information before it's needed. The ICs, to me, would look like big fat targets that should be removed from play sooner rather than later.

So... why is it that this nigh-harmless player was NKed, and yet the more dangerous ones were left with another attempt to rat out the scums?

M4yhem! Populartajo!

Why are you still alive?

Actually, scratch that. This really isn't how I play games. I love silliness.

M4yhem! Populartajo!

It was you, wasn't it?

[JonMW]

You guys may have the chessboard out, but I'm playing whack-a-mole.

Mallet of Maybe-Justice: M4yhem
Whomping Shovel of Vigilanteism: populartajo

[JonMW]

what does everyone think of Popular? he was the one that hammered tum. in his first post. anyone else find this a little anti-town.

I wouldn't trust populartajo as far as I can throw him. Which is, incidentally, not very far (I throw like a girl).

I'm looking at his last post. Suddenly, he's all hugs and kisses for me, and trying to eliminate the #2 on the big lynch-list that we compiled yesterday. Popular, I expected better from an IC. You obviously don't have what it takes to fill michel's shoes. Then again, few people have michel's particular skill at avoiding suspicion. Have we all read his "famous" game where he won as scum?
I know that just because he is capable of doing this again doesn't automatically make him guilty. Just bear with me a moment.

So, let's assume that he

is

scum. He's wasting no time on getting rid of the next easiest target, and attempting to make peace with me. Then, I would outright predict that I am going to be NKed tonight.
His reasoning is a bit like this: "Obviously, someone who is friends with a townie is a townie himself."
Casting me in a good light, and then going to act all surprised when my body's found tomorrow.

Vote: populartajo

However.... if I'm actually right, then I don't have a clue who his partner would be.

[JonMW]

Whoops, I didn't mean "last post". I actually meant post #268

[JonMW]

Just in case someone asks me for a little more justification:

I know that I played the first day badly. I was top of the vote-list at one point. I'm still on just about everybody's scum-radar. My point is that I shouldn't be able to suddenly get out of my bad standings by suddenly growing a sense of confidence. Right now, getting close to me is

more

suspicious than a vote.
Incidentally, just because someone is an IC doesn't mean that they are always right, and they definitely can't be trusted. Remember how M4yhem and michel disagreed right at the start? Not to mention that either one of them could be scum.

I wonder if a better newbie game would be one with just newbies. Perhaps there could be one non-playing IC person assigned to the thread to make comments, maybe the mod could fill that role.
But if it's expected that the newbies should follow the lead of the ICs like sheep, then that trust can be very easily abused for the sake of winning the game.

[JonMW]

For the record, my suspicions are not actually motivated by populartajo's lynch-vote. Sure, it's another little point against him, but it's definitely not the main force behind my argument.

[JonMW]

A game!

I'll

play your game, M4yhem.

If I was a cop, I would have investigated

populartajo

. He came up

guilty

.

Oh, wait.

I am a cop.

M4yhem, your actions right now have been extremely suspicious. I think that this technique of yours would only work if everyone played the game. If I was guaranteed another night of investigation, you'd be it.
Anyhow, your rules are incomplete. I can't very well say that I got an innocent result in anyone, now can I?

Yesterday, my play was flawed because I was trying too hard to survive. Now do you see why?

[JonMW]

Now that I've set the ball rolling, I'm content just to sit and watch the storm. To back up my argument, I'll just give my (meager) reasons why I investigated popular. It's written in my mindset at the end of Day 1.
1. The same reasoning as I gave earlier - he's IC, and therefore more dangerous. Need to check him.
2. (just another version of reason #1) Taking up michel's place, who has proven his ability to avoid suspicion. Can't rely on anyone else spotting him if he

is

scum.
3. michel's ever-so-slightly more suspicious than M4yhem. Someone else suspected him, can't remember who right now. Written down somewhere.

Next, there's Tony. Why not investigate him? Frankly, it's because he's #2, most likely to be lynched on Day 2. If I investigate him and he comes up innocent, I doubt I'll be able to save him. If I try, I'll put myself in a bad spot and an investigation is as good as wasted.

Apart from that.... nobody else really stood out to me.


Also: If we really do (still) have a doctor, then we are guaranteed to have a mafia roleblocker. So, at most, I have a 50% chance of getting another investigation tonight - that's if popular here is a roleblocker.
But, when you count up everything that could go wrong for me at this point:
1. No doctor
2. Townies lynch me today
3. The roleblocker is still alive after the lynch

Then my chances of surviving are pretty low, and my chances of getting another investigation are about half that.
Strangely enough, I find the number-crunching to be a lot more comforting than the tangled web of lies that we had yesterday.

[JonMW]

I split my vote between M4yhem and popular cause I was trying to have it all - get tajo lynched, M4yhem still alive, and myself still not positive identified. Then, M4yhem gave the whole situation a shove and I decided to lay it all out on the line.

Besides, I figured something out. Populartajo could have easily counterclaimed cop - even give a perfect act, since he knows who's scum and who's townie. However, he might get a request to investigate his partner. However, if people believe that he's the doctor, he can pretend to protect someone very easily, while NKing otherwise unrelated townies with ease.
However, there's the problem that he himself would not be NKed.... might just try to justify that he doesn't necessarily have to be removed quickly from the game.
Hmm, no. That strategy would only be worth something in a longer game with more players - but this will be just about wrapped up tomorrow or the day after.

[JonMW]

Yuu, that is pretty accurately what "a stretch" means in this case. Yay, learning!

I'd imagine that Tony is still not 100% sure of his vote because I've (to be entirely fair) acted pretty suspiciously throughout most of the game.

[JonMW]

I'm in the same boat... the game's finally going somewhere! This is a lot more fun.

[JonMW]

Tony, please tell me that you have a time limit where you'll just vote without SDK's input...

[JonMW]

OK, since you apparently can't lean the necessary information?

1. Too obvious. I hammer you, I might just come off as a naive (sp?) scum, or a cop. Remember, at that point I was trying for a perfect operation. It would be worth so much to find both scums through investigation. As you may have realised by this point, I've given up on that and settling for getting you removed.
2. I am, indeed, a newbie. I've previously mentioned that I played Cry Wolf, but I've quickly learned that what I picked up there is worth almost nothing and will get me killed.
3. People don't need to ask for me to volunteer information. That's how a townie works - providing information, because that's their only weapon. As I said before - Tony was #2, much too prominently scummy, far too high a chance of him being lynched today, to risk protecting him if innocent, or to not get all of the potential usefulness out of an investigation.
3.5. Townies need to avoid being lynched (and to an extent, NKed if they feel that they are better equipped to rat out the scum when compared to other townies). The way to do that is to predict what other townies, and scum, will think about their actions. If a townie allows themselves to be lynched, then they've wasted that day's lynch.
4. We've talked earlier about michel's masterful scum win in an earlier game. It's a cop play - I need to know if the ICs are townie or scum before anybody else.

[JonMW]

can't glean* the necessary information...

Oh well, who am I to refuse the "Docotor's" orders?

[JonMW]

(Hurray! We didn't have to wait 72 hours!)

Oh no! M4yhem!

OK... my investigation last night, then.
I found someone who's innocent, and it wasn't M4yhem. Considering that M4yhem also wasn't the doctor, this is about as good as it could have gone - excluding the "perfect" situation where the second scum's identified.

Now then... obviously, I shouldn't reveal who the confirmed innocent

is

unless absolutely necessary. So here's how today will work:

No hammering until I say so!

Here's why. If you start to vote for the innocent, then I won't say anything.... until he reaches L-1. Then I will say whether he/she's the innocent, or unknown, and we'll proceed from there, most likely with the lynch. I might not personally think that they are scum, but I won't say that they're innocent unless I've investigated them.


If we have a doctor-claim by scum and you are the doctor yourself, speak up. That will guarantee that we will catch the scum (and win) today or tomorrow.

That just about sums it up. Personally, I think that we're in a very good position to win. I'm just a little disheartened that I didn't pick right last night.

[JonMW]

Oh yeah, I forgot that one. I thought of the no-lynch thing earlier too...

But I think we only get the (effective) extra day if the scum doesn't NK the doc?

[JonMW]

Hang on, I'm just going to play this through on paper. Make sure.

[JonMW]

I mis-remembered. We only get the extra day if we no-lynch twice, and I still don't get the extra investigation (compared to the normal game) if the scum doesn't NK the doc tonight.
So that's a 1/3 chance. Risky!

FoS: afatchic

[JonMW]

I still get one, but if he NKs the guy that I investigate, then I think we still don't have the info for a perfect lynch?

[JonMW]

Yeah, all the branches of the game are mind-boggling... but I still won't act unless I'm sure.

[JonMW]

I figured it out... we

will

win this. Let me walk you through.

Currently, I have 1 known innocent.

We play normally, but NO HAMMERING until I say so. If you guys select the townie that I investigated, I'll say so, and then we randomly pick another person to lynch. We go through with it.

Tonight - I get another investigation. However, the scum can only remove one of the two I.D'd townies at this point.

Tomorrow: three players left. I'll have either investigated the scum on the previous night, or have enough information to win:
There will be myself, the scum, and a townie that I have confirmed as innocent.
Game over!

[JonMW]

So, are we going to have a forfeit, or are we going to watch the whole thing unfold with wonderful, horrible inevitability?

[JonMW]

Of course, if you're the doctor and we're about to lynch you,

speak up

.

[JonMW]

If you're not the doctor and also not the townie that I investigated... well, that's a bit of sad luck for you. But you'll have to take this one for the team.

[JonMW]

Yeah... I'm kinda assuming that everyone has accepted that I'm cop at this point?

If I am scum, doing what I did yesterday would have basically shot the team right in the foot, the ass, and then also stabbed it in the back. michel/populartajo was basically probably the most capable of staying under the radar. Wasn't on anyone's scumlist at the end of day 1.

[JonMW]

Everyone except myself and the guy I investigated is possible scum. I even suspect Yuu, and I mentioned this much earlier... somewhere around page 4?

Populartajo mentioned that my new play is vastly different to Day 1, asking if I was faking newbieness. Pointing out how I was running behind M4yhem before, and then moving against him. I wasn't faking, but I learn pretty quick.

[JonMW]

By the way, this isn't going to go anywhere until everyone starts throwing votes - or at least FoSs - around.

[JonMW]

I don't think I'll participate in this round of accusations - maybe just for actual hammering. So that I don't send any mixed messages (as a vote and a feigned attack may be misconstrued as a hammer approval) I won't say yay or nay about anyone until it's clear that their life is on the line.

Similarly, we can't lynch anyone unless they're had a chance to defend themselves. I hope nobody's gone lurking or AWOL.
Maybe they expected that it won't go to Day 3 until the full 72 hours are up...

[JonMW]

I guess that at this point it doesn't actually matter - but I still don't want to expose the innocent guy/girl unless I have to. Principle of the thing. Also, I'd like to see how people act when they don't know who their friends are.

[JonMW]

Guys, I'm really hoping that you've read the strategy I detailed in previous posts. We can't lose as long as we follow it.
Tony, you shouldn't even be considering what happens if we lynch the guy/girl I investigated! If he/she reaches.... say, L-1 or L-2, I'll speak up then.

[JonMW]

Ah.
But as long as we didn't lynch the doctor, then I'll still get an investigation tonight, and the scum can only kill one of the two people I've investigated. Guaranteed enough information for tomorrow.

[JonMW]

Well, I guess I've got to keep true to my word on this one.
I did not investigate afatchic last night.

So, while I do think he's acting a little strangely, and I've got a FoS on him, I still won't hammer. One of you other guys can do that.

[JonMW]

Good game, everybody!
Bad luck, Yuu... we'd probably have been stuffed if I hadn't investigated populartajo. I'm still not sure if I would have actually carried through with an attack on you. Probably would have gotten suspicious by, say... the last day, if I was still alive.
Still, that's a classy exit.

Vote: Yuu.

GAME OVER
CONTINUE?

[JonMW]

By the way: the one I investigated on N2 was somedamnkid!

[JonMW]

Again, good game. Who was the doctor?

[JonMW]

Oh, one last thing - I'll bet that populartajo NKed J_Slr to put me in a bad spot. On the previous day, he pointed out how J_Slr suspected me.