Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over

[Netlava]

/confirm

[Netlava]

I think that's everyone, so

Vote: Dattebayo

Saying hi is a scumtell.

[Netlava]

Somehow, I think going vanilla hands the advantage over to scum and kinda defeats the purpose of the game, but I guess I'll be fine with it if everyone else agrees. I'm trying to think of a way to make good use of the roles.

[Netlava]

Vanilla + 3 masons vs scum is a slight advantage for scum, I believe. I'm willing to go along with things in this game because everyone has to follow the strategy for it to work. Anyways, here's my suggestion. Masons claim. Town chooses 3 towniest to protect them, the next 3 protect them, and 3 scummiest protect them. Any quacks discovered using this method will have to protect each other or lynched.

[Netlava]

If we can weed out both quacks, it will be a great boon and also we'll be looking to prevent the mafia from faking quack, thus restricting their kill choices.

In this plan, the mafia are expected to lie and claim doc.

[Netlava]

Vote: Riceballtail

Obvscum

Btw, I simmed through my idea and it doesn't work the way I intend to (by the time the quacks are outed, the scum would have won).

Another possibility is that everyone agrees to target the scummiest player each night and if he doesn't die then we lynch. But this is probably more akin to a less effective vig. Perhaps it could loosely keep track of how many quacks are remaining.

[Netlava]

holy crap springlullaby thank you for making it so obvious you are clammy's scumpartner.

Please explain.

Were you serious with that vote?

Yes, for missing the idea that shortening the number of days may be justifiable if it ends positively for town.

Pacman's plan would make sense if it were to work. I'm curious why springlullaby and rice see it as such a major fail.

Also, one point that I forgot to consider earlier is that quacks will know that they are quacks if they end up killing someone, if protections are assigned correctly. I'm still trying to figure out a good way of making use of this, if it's possible to do so. (else we go vanilla and stick to it unless we hit lylo or something)

[Netlava]

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

I missed this post the first time around but, yeah, this is pretty scummy.

Unvote, vote: springlullaby

[Netlava]

There are a few things that I don't like about that. First of all, your accusation on riceballtail is more like a defense from his accusation than it is justification for your vote on him. Second, because your accusation is like a defense instead of a valid scum tell, your vote looks like OMGUS.

There's nothing wrong with that. I didn't think his vote was fair, so I voted him. I'll elaborate on my reasoning. When I try to put out various ideas, I do so to promote set-up discussion, which I think is worthwhile in this type of game. The ideas themselves sometimes contain flaws, but hopefully as a group it may be easier to work them out and think of a good idea. But not at least exploring the use of the roles seems like a potential waste, and when essentially every plan involving the use of quacks/docs entails "shortening the number of days," voting me for that is unfair and short-sighted. I don't like it when people shoot down ideas without bothering to consider the options.

And, Netlava, could you elaborate on your reasoning in this post:

It is a contradiction. From spring's explanation, it seems that the reasons are both the same, but in her case she added clammy's reaction to her fos. I do not see how they are fundamentally different.

And second, voting for both sides in an argument is a bit strange, seeing how that would mean that spring would have to consider both clammy and rofl on the same team, but her reasons do not seem to give forth this line of thought.

[Netlava]

Clammy's unwillingness to describe his plan is strange, but not necessarily scummy. I agree that he should just describe it now, if it's that brilliant it'll be a shame, but it's necessary in the current situation. I'll have to go back and read through his other posts tomorrow in depth, but I don't recall anything in particular.

Also, by lynching d1, we are basically deciding to go vanilla for now, which is fine, but no lynch is an option too, using the vig thingy or other complex plans, if people are still willing.

anyways, it's late now so more later

[Netlava]

I agree with the plan and if I am doctor, I am targeting SL tonight. I just had a chance to reread SL's posts in isolation and I still find SL the most suspicious. The quote:

This is inaccurate and a misrepresentation, let me ask you, is it intentional?

I don't see where the misrep claim comes from. Clammy's general description of what happened is not misleading.

Clammy, I have a neutral read on - what he's mainly done so far is make a plan and refuse to explain it. I don't even know if that's scummy, just weird, because I can't see the motivation for not explaining himself for town or for scum. Either way, I prefer a SL lynch (or a no lynch + some complex plan I thought of), but I suppose the quack thing may work just as well.

[Netlava]

Trying to reduce the number of days possible is a very bad idea for the town. I totally disapprove.

/facepalm

I don't find anyone that suspicious atm, i will look through the thread and see what i can find

[Netlava]

Or if we lynch the quack, we have doctors to protect at night. Two doctors can still give us the advantage.

That's what my plan would have solved had people followed it. Without lynching the quack, since that's not necessary since they are role revealed upon death.

I am not a fan of everyone making a list of who they think it scummy. The top one or 2 is fine but not everyone. That gives scum too much information to start mislynching people.

Actually, I've found that scum often just go one suspect a day at a time as to remain flexible.

[Netlava]

Roflcopter is a scummy because he seems to exaggerate how scummy he finds other people. With clammy earlier in the game, it was ok since it was coming out of random stage, but now his posts continue to follow this same trend, which I don't like. From my experience, I've found that scum tend to exaggerate people's guilt and throw out words like "malicious" etc.

Vote: roflcopter

[Netlava]

Meh, Something about ignoring an accusation and a vote on day 2 just does not sit right with me.

I believe I addressed Datte's accusation already, but I guess I'll go back to it. Not sure what you mean by vote on day 2 though.

If you think it hands the advantage over to the scum then you should not just go along with it if everyone else agrees.

Well, I don't think the concession is big enough.

[Netlava]

Well, if there's something you think I've missed, feel free to ask.

This day is starting to drag on. I have not had time to reread and come up with someone worth lynching today, stupid college.

This post seems off. I don't like the comment on how the day is dragging on without offering his opinions thus far. It feels like he is trying to rush us to a consensus before he commits.

[Netlava]

Sun, do you need to quadruple-post? that's annoying.
Me confused

Pacman, thoughts on game?

Netlava - tone and anti-town plan

riceballtail - overdefensiveness calling everyone he disagrees with scum and scumbuddies

How is my "tone" scummy? Also, the "anti-town plan" isn't anti-town. And even then, "anti-town" =/= scummy. I think set-up speculation was useful earlier in the game given the unique set-up, and that people were too keen on shooting down plans rather than building upon them, which may have potentially resulted in sub-optimal play.

Also, you never mentioned this d1.

how convenient that you raise an issue now with my treatment of clammy, but had nothing to say about it when it actually happened. something fishy is going on here.

Roflcopter is a scummy because he seems to exaggerate how scummy he finds other people.

With clammy earlier in the game, it was ok since it was coming out of random stage, but now his posts continue to follow this same trend, which I don't like.

From my experience, I've found that scum tend to exaggerate people's guilt and throw out words like "malicious" etc.

[Netlava]

Also, overdefensiveness is not a valid scumtell.

[Netlava]

@Netlava: Why is not overdefensiveness a valid scum tell?

Because townies are expected to defend themselves when accused.

But there was no need for speculation, because the entirety of the roles were given to us by the mod.

Speculation as in ways to make use of the roles.

This is interesting because Raider and militant have seemed the least scummy to me so far.

Not sure where you got the read on raider from when he's hardly posted. Seems like an arbitrary decision to me rather than an actual read.

Unvote, vote: Sun Tzu

Anyway, Hello Jazz, fellow replacement Smile

Hello, militant.

Saying hi is a scumtell (buddying up). In this case, it reflects worse on militant.

[Netlava]

Btw, sun, you didn't answer how my tone was scummy.

[Netlava]

Whoops, missed sun's post. Now that I've seen it, it seems like backpedaling to me.

With the saying "hi" part, I've found that fairly reliable in the past, so it's something to always keep in mind, as trivial as it may seem. Reason being that I never have any urges to say hi when I'm town, whereas as scum it's more useful.

At this point, I'm leaning scum on sun and raider. Leaning neutral on rofl, not sure if it's just his play style or whatnot.

As for raider, voting someone because the "day is dragging on" suggests a lack of attention to actual scum-hunting. And I wouldn't really classify the game as dragging on at this point in the game.

[Netlava]

Pacman, who are your suspects in this game?

[Netlava]

Not much to add here. I think people who aren't voting should vote.

In short the pressure was what I wanted and I wanted to use that to see how you and other react and see what I can make out of that. Out of the people I was thinking about doing that with you were the one that gave out scummy vibes.

Do you still find militant scummy after the "pressure" vote?

[Netlava]

Why, are you also trying to speed up today for some reason?

Having people give opinions =/= speeding up the day

[Netlava]

Well, I wasn't trying to speed up the day. Obviously L-1 would be a different scenario. It seems like militant is strawmanning with his last post.

Fos: militant

Also, prod sun tzu.

[Netlava]

Picked up prod, will post sry

[Netlava]

Crap, sorry for taking so long to post. No mason claim please.

Pacman's targetting of Dattebayo seems like a desperate gambit. First of all, violating the plan = no good. And if he's somehow actually a quack, then we can use the doc protects.

Vote: pacman

[Netlava]

Pacman, what is your reasoning for targetting Dattebayo in particular? Were you aware of violating the plan?

The thing that bothers me is that there was only one kill last night. With two, I may be more inclined to believe pacman's claim. Looking at pacman's play from a risk/reward standpoint, the main reason for which he would pull of the gambit as scum would to lure the docs and remaining quack to protect. As town, he would have to have a lot of faith in his protecting, and ignore the town's wishes to follow the plan.

@Pacman I want you to hammer

Why pacman in particular?

Pacman has gone for a week until the 9th. I am the only one who can lynch Rofl (other than Net but he is already voting somebody else and he doesn't frequent this thread a great deal evidently) which gives you (Rice and Raider) time to answer all my questions.

Sorry, I haven't been posting in any of my games recently but that will change.

As for rofl, I didn't find him particularly scummy, but I don't like how he's lurking now at L-1, which I've found to be a useful scumtell.

Prod rofl

[Netlava]

@raider

Why pacman in particular?

[Netlava]

I still think pacman is the correct lynch for today.

[Netlava]

Meh, pacman's last post is shady with his legacy thing.

At this point, I think it is either Netlava or you.

What makes you think I'm scum?

Still like my pacman vote.

[Netlava]

Why is it you did not believe his claim? Also who do you think it the second person that is scum?

I'm not comfortable with the fact that pacman claimed quack on the only night kill. Plus, I don't think a townie would deviate like that.

My 2nd suspect would be you.

[Netlava]

Pacman's still my top suspect. I don't think a townie would go ahead and protect and violate the plan. Plus, looking through pacman's posts, he says:

At the end of the game, a doc protection/quack fail would be catastrophic and might be the definitive move.

Rofl flipping scum does not change my assessment of pacman.

Plus, pacman really doesn't vote anyone throughout the game. With rofl, though, he leaves his "legacy."

Vote: pacman

[Netlava]

Vote: Porochaz

[Netlava]

I think a mass claim can wait. If the scum miss a mason, then it's an automatic win tomorrow if a mislynch occurs.

I'm curious about Porochaz's thoughts on the game so far. He hasn't said much.

[Netlava]

Eh, Militant's last post just pinged my scumdar.

There was a connection between myself and Rofl because we agreed. I am relatively new but Rofl isn't. Do you think if we were scum together we would have made our connection so damn obvious in the thread?

Having any connections is scummy - usually, town try to avoid that and scum try to establish connections. Your post seems to imply that your connection with rofl was partly your own doing with the way it is worded.

[Netlava]

Net, why are you voting Porochaz?

I think he's the last scum, but he has given me a pro-town vibe since he replaced in...

I can see the logic behind a mass claim, but I don't think it's the best option atm.

[Netlava]

Hmm... I like the idea of scum not knowing who the masons are and missing the last scum if a mislynch occurs. Scum pulling a fake claim on the final day is harder.

[Netlava]

Why not? Please explain.

The advantage of a mass claim is that the masons are definitely verified. The disadvantage is that the scum know who the masons are. I think the advantage of the scum not knowing who the masons are outweighs the definite verification since a mason fake claim on the final day does not seem advantageous for the scum.

[Netlava]

I meant missing a mason.

[Netlava]

So, why did you say "missing the last scum"?

Because I made a mistake.

[Netlava]

Oh, wow. I guess that makes Jazz the final scum, not Porochaz. I am the third mason.

Vote: Jazzmyn

Porochaz, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

[Netlava]

Jazzmyn is scum. Vote jazz!!

[Netlava]

I'm kinda busy (and sick) atm, but I will post later.

[Netlava]

I guess this kinda sucks because it puts the town in a bad position, but raider, riceballtail, and I planned to throw some cursory suspicions onto each other to mislead the scum. It worked pretty well for the most part, and I figured it was enough to mislead the last scum (which I thought was Porochaz at the time) into NKing Jazz, who seemed to me the most likely NK target.

RBT for the most part was pretty insistent on lynching militant, which gave me some doubts at some point, but I stuck with my reads.

What bothers me most now looking through Jazz's posts is her labeling me as "confirmed town." It strikes me as mason fishing so that she could decide who to NK.

Though Jazz claims to have been on both scum wagons, she has been on every wagon thus far.

I also don't like how Jazz immediately votes me on Lylo. In every game I've played, only scum have voted like that. This is a pretty reliable "meta" for a because town, no matter how sure they are (plus the fact that they tend to have lingering doubts), always leave some room. Plus, it is suboptimal play for town. I've seen it most often when scum figure they have the upper hand and do it to force an immediate subpar conclusion for the town.

And so-called "slips" are never valid scumtells because both town and scum are both equally likely to make them.

Anyways, apologies for certain gaps of inactivity. For the record, though, I was (unfortunately) unable to post at those times in all my games. It was more circumstantial than a "scum tell."

They were all dead set against Netlava's ridiculous "plan" to out the masons, and they were all dead set against Clammy's plan that would involve outing the masons the next day, as well.

This doesn't prove anything. Most people didn't want to out the masons period, but I wanted to join the game to try something new.

Then, Netlava used very weak reasons to vote for and keep his vote on Pacman/Porochaz as an excuse to avoid lynching roflcopter. No wonder, knowing that his second scum partner was going down, too, and the best he could hope for was to stay under the radar yet again.

This is not weak. Even looking through pacman's posts now, I'm still a bit surprised that he's not scum. Plus, describing my suspicions of pacman as a means to avoid voting rofl is a foregone conclusion.

Heck, he even postulated in his post #37 that it would be harder for scum to fake claim on the final day if we didn't massclaim on the previous day, which is complete BS, of course. Then, ta dah, in his first post on the final day, he tries to fake claim mason

I never said that, but nice try. I said that the benefits of a non massclaim (scum still not knowing who the masons are) outweigh the benefits of a massclaim, since I didn't think the scum would claim mason.

[Netlava]

Uh huh, you "wanted to join the game to try something new" by suggesting a plan that would out the masons on Day 1 and have the quacks target each other or be lynched, leaving only scum and doctors unrevealed, and you expect anyone to now believe that you are a mason? Unreal.

Actually, that was my intention before coming into the game.

Hmm... I like the idea of scum not knowing who the masons are and missing the last scum if a mislynch occurs. Scum pulling a fake claim on the final day is harder.

Nowhere did I mention that's it's harder to fake claim on the final day than on the previous day. I clarified my post that one benefit outweighed another.

Heck, he even postulated in his post #37 that it would be harder for scum to fake claim on the final day if we didn't massclaim on the previous day, which is complete BS, of course.

Again, this is a lie. For me to make such a claim would make no sense in the first place, and suddenly out of nowhere you are accusing me of such.

When did I say pulling a fake claim is harder

[Netlava]

EDBWOP: Ignore the "When did I say pulling a fake claim is harder..." bit.

[Netlava]

Lol, typical cheapshots from scum. I guess it becomes obvious when you argue with scum because they pull every trick from the book.

Again, I must say that I never said said pulling a fake claim is harder on the final day than on the previous one. It is OBVIOUSLY not harder to fake claim on the final day when the previous day has another mason to back you up.

The advantage of a mass claim is that the masons are definitely verified. The disadvantage is that the scum know who the masons are. I think the advantage of the scum not knowing who the masons are outweighs the definite verification since a mason fake claim on the final day does not seem advantageous for the scum.

There ya go, that should explain what I meant.

[Netlava]

post