Mini 696 ~ Scum o' the Sea ~ Game Over

[Erratus Apathos]

Vote: Militant

[Erratus Apathos]

Unvote

Wow, that was a little unnecessary.

FoS

Jebus and EA. Bandwagoning in the RVS isn't good.

Unvote, Vote: ClockworkRuse

What was so bad about Militant having more than one vote?

[Erratus Apathos]

Being almost halfway to a lynch with the first... six or seven posts of the game?

Are you honestly okay with that?

Yes. It's L-4. What's so bad about L-4?

I'm more interested in why you FoSed Jebus for putting on the second vote, though.

what reason could you possibly have for band wagoning so early?

People don't react to the votes being evenly spread out. Wagons get reactions.

[Erratus Apathos]

Because it essentially opened him up for the wagon you joined, are you telling me it's scummy to be suspicious of a wagon starting like that?

Starting like

what

? You're not saying anything about why you think Jebus's and my votes are scummy, you're just saying that they were. That rhetoric is unhelpful.

People don't react to the votes being evenly spread out. Wagons get reactions.

I'm with you matey.

unvote, vote: erratus apathos

React please.

I see what you did there.

Yer off ta a fine start, me mateys! I almost fergots ta tell ye... come hair nor high water, this watch'll end on Sunday, November 15th, at 15:00 MST (GMT-7).

An if me shipmates be too lily-libbered teh lynch by then, then what, Capn?

[Erratus Apathos]

I don't like the fact that you put the third vote on someone, which is just about halfway to a lynch with six posts. Granted the chances of someone getting lynched like that are small, I don't see any positive reasoning for it. You might say to get reactions, but I personally have never liked that excuse.

Well if you don't think I voted militant to get reactions, then what do you think my reason for voting militant was?

[Erratus Apathos]

Vote: Potates

[Erratus Apathos]

Sorry if this is really obvious but why are you guys voting Potates and Crywolf?

The only reason I can fathom is that because not a lot of discussion went on on D1 and not a lot was learnt from the night kills, you are random voting until someone does something which is warrants discussion in which case you will unvote and re vote appropiatly.

It wasn't random (I specifically picked Potates because he only posted once), but that's the gist of it.

[Erratus Apathos]

Unvote, Vote: crywolf20084

Why aren't you scumhunting?

[Erratus Apathos]

Unvote, Vote: crywolf20084

Why aren't you scumhunting?

I am thank you very much.

How have you been scumhunting?

I haven't seen you post a whole lot either.

I've been distracted and haven't been posting much in any of my games over the past few days. That's over now.

But EA, that last post... The same should be said about you, why haven't you been hunting?

I have been hunting. Both of my votes today were to try and get reactions, particularly out of players who need to be contributing more.

If you mean to ask me "why haven't you been hunting

well

?" well it's impossible with this game being as big a lurkerfest as it is. In fact, I've had enough of it.

I will push for a lynch today of any of the following players if they don't start contributing, or get replaced by someone who does: crywolf20084, humscunter, militant, PlaysWithSquirrels, Potates.

I realize the modkill stifled discussion, but that's no excuse not to try to start it up again.

This game annoys me. I wish I could strike to death everyone who has posted to say that they had nothing to say. I wish I had multiple votes right now.

I want a vote from everybody right now.

I second this motion.

And @ EA's last post, EA now is an attractive wagon.

unvote, bote: EA

Why don't you say more about that?

[Erratus Apathos]

Although I agree with most of what you've said (except for the part about lynching the following players (followed by a list of half the players), you seem very pissed off at it. Calm down, it's a game

Have you ever heard the saying, "the best weapon is one you never have to fire"? That's exactly what Lynch all Lurkers is - a great weapon, except when you actually use it. When used properly, the threat of Lynch all Lurkers gets people talking without actually being the basis for a lynch.

Calm down? That's no talk for a pirate.

Why did I think you're an attractive wagon? 'Cause you asked someone to do something you weren't doing, really.

I've been trying to scumhunt. See the Potates vote, which in retrospect didn't go anywhere because he flaked, but obviously I didn't know that when I voted him. Or the crywolf vote, or the Lynch all Lurkers threat. I admit I'm bad at scumhunting in situations where half the town isn't playing, but it's not fair to say I haven't been doing it.

[Erratus Apathos]

More votes for crywolf please.

[Erratus Apathos]

Post.

This is rediculous.

I think that PlaysWithSquirrels "post" was his way to avoid another prod, which I kinda find dumb.

Then what was this?

I'm here, but I have nothing to say at this moment.

[Erratus Apathos]

Yeah, I get what you're getting at, but Squirrel's "post" was redicouls because it seems as though that's all he's gonna say. At least I said I had nothing to comment on. He didn't say anything towards the game.

Take that Kettle, you are SOOOO black!

[Erratus Apathos]

Just a reminder, there are no deadline lynches.

Unvote, Vote: Gremwell

[Erratus Apathos]

@ Erratus Apathos: Why are you voting for Gremwell?

We have to lynch before the deadline, and

THE DEADLINE IS TOMORROW

. I wanted to lynch crywolf, but now is not the time to be uncompromising.

Gremwell: You're only at L-2 (six to lynch), but that's even worse because it makes a no lynch more probable. If you want people to react to your claim, you better hurry it the hell up.

[Erratus Apathos]

I believe crywolf's pseudo-counterclaim thing - I don't even know what to call it, but it's not a trade scum would likely take just to force the mislynch on a practically-already-lynched Gremwell.

I also note that Jebus jumped off the Gremwell wagon for springlullaby, a highly unlikely play if they were scumbuddies.

I don't buy the way Goatrevolt attacked me for voting Gremwell. Feels like he was trying to set me up.

Vote: Goatrevolt

[Erratus Apathos]

At the moment Clockwork, Crywolf and EA are looking the scummiest, particularly in the way they rushed the lynch after Goatrevolt seemed to be thinking about taking his vote off Gremwell.

Waiting until the absolute last minute to lynch is just stupid. I've seen town lose a game because

one

player missed a deadline by

nine

minutes. There's no good reason to put anything off until then.

Maybe he just didn't want to be associated with the lynch of someone he knew was a townie?

He didn't have to vote SL to jump off Gremwell. Crywolf and myself were both at one vote apiece at the time. Why would he make his scumbuddy the competing wagon?

And his vote was only the second on SL; she wasn't in any danger.

There was only a one-vote difference between SL's wagon and Gremwell's after Jebus switched to SL.

And if two votes that close to deadline isn't any danger, why did you later insist on voting an empty wagon?

We have to lynch before the deadline, and THE DEADLINE IS TOMORROW. I wanted to lynch crywolf, but now is not the time to be uncompromising.

Is this your

only

reason! It might be acceptable just before the deadline but you voted for Gremwell more than two days before. You must have had more reasons than this?

No, that was it.

[Erratus Apathos]

I don't buy the way Goatrevolt attacked me for voting Gremwell. Feels like he was trying to set me up.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I found your vote suspicious, and said that I would review you. I ended up not getting around to it immediately, and the lynch happened in the meantime. I read through your posts anyway, and didn't really find anything conclusive either way. Nothing strong enough to want to lynch you over, at least.

However, you do need to back up your assertion that I was trying to "set you up." I have no idea what you're trying to imply with this.

It looked like you were trying to implicate me for Gremwell's lynch before he turned up town.

As for today, I'm going to start with reading back through Jebus' posts and work from there. I disagree with clearing springlullaby based on her getting voted by Jebus.

Well no, not cleared, since it does nothing to prevent her from being on a different scumteam. But Jebus's vote is probably not an attempt to distance from a buddy, since with the deadline there was almost no room for him to turn back if people joined him.

I'd also like EA to claim early; I still want to know why voting for someone you apparently have no suspicion of, a full two days before a deadline, can be considered pro-town.

So since two days before the deadline is apparently too early, when does it become okay?

And if two votes that close to deadline isn't any danger, why did you later insist on voting an empty wagon?

I voted for the one I found I found most suspicious at the time. With a day to go before the deadline there was still plenty of time for me to change my vote if necessary but it seems Clockwork didn't want to give people time to react to Crywolf's objection to Gremwell's claim.

What I mean is what did you hope to accomplish by voting Crywolf?

[Erratus Apathos]

I

support massclaim

and prefer Goatrevolt goes first.

Huntress restarted the wagon on crywolf with two days until deadline, and says she thought she thought she could have achieved a crywolf lynch. But when I pushed the idea that Jebus's vote on springlullaby was probably not a distancing attempt, Huntress countered by calling Jebus's vote not threatening. Jebus was the second vote for springlullaby, and cast it before her vote on crywolf - so if Huntress thought a crywolf lynch was plausible, why did she decry my position on springlullaby on the basis of a springlullaby lynch not being plausible?

FoS: Huntress

Goatrevolt's 275 makes me happy with lynching him today. "We feel the same way about massclaim, so how can you find me scummy?" That's pure craplogic. I can not see Goatrevolt-town coming to the conclusion that springlullaby-town should give him and Huntress free passes for opposing massclaim.

Confirm vote: Goatrevolt

[Erratus Apathos]

EA, can you expose your full case on Goatrevolt please? Your confirm vote here strikes me as peculiar.

The main point I have against Goatrevolt is that he cast suspicion on me D2 for my vote on Gremwell, but when I challenged on this point today, he took the path of least resistance.

I don't buy the way Goatrevolt attacked me for voting Gremwell. Feels like he was trying to set me up.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I found your vote suspicious, and said that I would review you. I ended up not getting around to it immediately, and the lynch happened in the meantime. I read through your posts anyway, and didn't really find anything conclusive either way. Nothing strong enough to want to lynch you over, at least.

Notice the wording of that last sentence: it implies he found something against me, but not convincingly so. Yet rather than question me about it or come out with it at all or even talk about why he found my vote suspicious in the first place, he just said he didn't want to lynch me. He's trying to avoid a fight with me.

I also think his recent attacks on springlullaby are full of scum logic. More on this further down.

Goatrevolt's 275 makes me happy with lynching him today. "We feel the same way about massclaim, so how can you find me scummy?" That's pure craplogic. I can not see Goatrevolt-town coming to the conclusion that springlullaby-town should give him and Huntress free passes for opposing massclaim.

Confirm vote: Goatrevolt

Nice strawman. I've given reasons why springlullaby's logic is poor.

I never said or suggested that Huntress or myself deserve free passes for opposing massclaim, which is where you strawman me. I think the fact that Springlullaby's only source of suspicion on me is the fact that I agreed with her stance is an extraordinarily weak case to push, especially if you look at her own post 195 in respect to me. I'm also suspicious of the mindset of a player who is pushing for the people who agree with her rather than the people who disagree with her. That speaks of lack of conviction in her beliefs.

I'm not letting you back out of what you said. Quoting your 275:

In other words, you think mass claiming is anti-town, thus the idea of opposing a mass claim would be pro-town. So why do you want the two people who agree with you that we should not mass claim to claim first? These are the two players who are supporting pro-town behavior based on your position.

The implication you're making here is,

beyond all reasonable doubt

, that springlullaby should only be suspicious of people who support massclaim.

The rest of your post is also scummy. You attack springlullaby for pushing "an extraordinarily weak case" but then turn around and attack her for a "lack of conviction in her beliefs". So you expect a townie pushing an extraordinarily weak case to have more conviction than normal? Yeah right, you're just pushing a shit case.

[Erratus Apathos]

The main point I have against Goatrevolt is that he cast suspicion on me D2 for my vote on Gremwell, but when I challenged on this point today, he took the path of least resistance.

Would you rather I lied and said I wanted to lynch you? I thought your vote was scummy because it was purely a deadline lynch with 2 days to go. You gave no opinion on Gremwell at all, and merely voted him to make a lynch. I reviewed your play and decided that was not enough to want to lynch you over.

You say that like your only options were to push for my lynch or drop it altogether.

Notice the wording of that last sentence: it implies he found something against me, but not convincingly so. Yet rather than question me about it or come out with it at all or even talk about why he found my vote suspicious in the first place, he just said he didn't want to lynch me. He's trying to avoid a fight with me.

I didn't find anything against you other than finding your vote suspicious. I didn't find anything pro-town about your play either. Other than your attack on me today, you've done very little all game, and I find you a tough player to read as is. I thought you were town in Pick a player until process of elimination + roleclaim nailed you. I'm not trying to avoid a fight with you, I simply have nothing to fight about.

Your case is that I'm scummy for not finding you scummy enough to pressure, which is ridiculous.

So you saw something suspicious about me, looked back and found me hard to read, and then decided it would be best to just drop the subject? That's 200% preposterous. How do you expect to get a read on me by dropping the subject?

And no, it isn't ridiculous. A townie who has a hard time reading me would absolutely want to hear more about my vote.

The implication you're making here is,

beyond all reasonable doubt

, that springlullaby should only be suspicious of people who support massclaim.

Wrong. More strawman. Springlullaby can be suspicious of people who support mass claim, but needs to have a better reason then "they agreed with me." I also want to know her stance on people who support mass claim. Do you not find it suspicious that springlullaby is opposed to mass claim, but she wants the two people who agree with her to go first? If she truly was firm in her opinion that mass claiming is anti-town, then why is she basing her suspicion on me strictly off of me following what is, in her opinion, a pro-town plan. The "copy-cat" explanation is pure nonsense. Players copy-cat constantly. Hell, she voted Gremwell based on nothing more than my case on day 2. That's just as much if not more copy-catting than what she's accusing me of.

I'm entirely justified in finding this suspicious and pushing for more information from this. What specifically about me copy-catting her makes her suspicious while she ignores every other time it happens during the game? These are questions it's worth getting the answer to.

That's a lot of important details about your suspicion on springlullaby that you conveniently left out of 275. Not the kind you'd accidentally omit, unless you regularly forget half your case.

The rest of your post is also scummy. You attack springlullaby for pushing "an extraordinarily weak case" but then turn around and attack her for a "lack of conviction in her beliefs". So you expect a townie pushing an extraordinarily weak case to have more conviction than normal? Yeah right, you're just pushing a shit case.

This is crap logic. The extraordinarily weak case applies to her attack on me. Lack of conviction in her beliefs applies to the mindset behind why she would attack me regarding the mass claim issue. Weak case = push on me. Lack of conviction = mass claim. Those are two completely separate things. Attempting to tie them together to paint me as scummy is just bad logic. Lack of conviction in her beliefs

regarding mass claim

is my best guess as to why she would push a case on me, which was weak. Do you see how one precedes the other, and how you can't pair these together like you've tried?

Fair enough.

The 2nd part of your paragraph doesn't make any sense. Your assumption is that Springlullaby knew she was making a weak case on me, and thus didn't have much conviction in it. Why would springlullaby push a case she knows is exceptionally weak? The answer is that she wouldn't (unless she is scum). So the logical assumption is that springlullaby didn't think her case was weak. The "exceptionally weak" part is my words describing the logical backing to her case. Your paragraph rips that out of context and uses it as her own mindset when constructing it. Logic fail.

Wrong. Weak case != crap case. She can think her case isn't all that strong but still find it has enough merit to bring up. I do believe that that's what happened here: she only pushed the copycat thing to the extent of saying you were her second choice for first-to-claim, but in 278 she said your reaction to it was telling.

I'm not sure what to think about your push on me. I think you had a reasonable original point (about me "setting you up." I can see how you could jump to that conclusion), but your attempts to bolster your case with bad logic and strawman arguments raises an eyebrow.

"Raises an eyebrow"?

[Erratus Apathos]

Firstly, how could I

re-start

a wagon which never existed in the first place? As far as I can see there has never been more than one vote on her at any time.

Both of us were trying to start crywolf wagons, you after me, thus you restarted. Is there even a point to this question or are you just looking for something to nitpick?

Secondly, I didn't say a Springlullaby lynch wasn't plausible, I said she wasn't in danger

...and the difference is what exactly?

[Erratus Apathos]

Why are we planning on mass claiming? I don't think it's a very good idea.

1. We haven't outed any power roles yet. Mass claiming will be sure to do that for us.

And then the doc knows who to protect. I'm willing to bet there's a doc, given last night's kill.

2. The flavor is obscured enough that we won't be able to catch anyone on flavor. Crywolf tried to call Gremwell out as lying about his vanilla claim based on flavor, and was wrong. What's to say mass claiming won't just cause us to mislynch a couple vanilla townies based on the idea that their vanilla flavor is wrong?

The point of massclaiming is to confirm town/scum based on role actions. I don't remember anyone supporting massclaim for flavor lynching.

[Erratus Apathos]

And then the doc knows who to protect. I'm willing to bet there's a doc, given last night's kill.

If indeed there was a doc protect last night then I guess the doc already knows who to protect. By exposing other possible targets aren't you making it more difficult for the doc to know who to protect and easier for the scum to avoid the doc-protect?

The doc doesn't know whether scum will target the same person tonight as last night. Protecting a power role is almost always better than trying to outguess the scum.

I don't remember anyone supporting massclaim for flavor lynching.

How about these?

I like the idea of a mass claim because you can catch someone with the flavor.

I think we may just be able to work out who is scum based solely on flavour.

Crywolf, Militant: do you still think flavor lynching is a good idea, given that it got a false positive on Gremwell? Would you support massclaim without flavor lynching?

Why are we planning on mass claiming? I don't think it's a very good idea.

1. We haven't outed any power roles yet. Mass claiming will be sure to do that for us.

And then the doc knows who to protect. I'm willing to bet there's a doc, given last night's kill.

If this were in any sense true, then town would mass claim day 1 in every single game. There are reasons this doesn't happen.

Yeah, because the town doesn't know if there's a doc D1.

The reason this is completely flawed is that a single mafia roleblocker can completely invalidate absolutely everything you just said. They block the doc and kill whomever the doc should be protecting. Even if the mafia don't have a roleblocker, they can kill the doc and then kill the other power roles later on.

Then massclaim where doc claims vanilla.

Erratus Apathos: your defense of me is starting to ping my scumdar, as your avoidance of restating your case on Goat.

I still don't see any good reason to believe Jebus would switch his vote onto you if you were scum with him. How have I avoided stating my case on Goat? That's pretty much all I've talked about today before massclaim came up. Also I've argued clearly for massclaim.

[Erratus Apathos]

Well we don't really have time to massclaim today. We need to focus on today's lynch.

I'm still happy with Goat lynch but will change over to Huntress if necessary.

[Erratus Apathos]

Why would you switch to Huntress?

I'm not sold by her explanation for Jebus's vote on you yesterday not being dangerous.

Right now I'm reading that Huntress, Clockwork, Crywolf, and Militant are town, and I don't want to lynch any of those.

Springlullaby I'm iffy on. I really want to hear her response to the questions I posed to her, and not the continued dodging. Either way, I'm not confident enough here to want to lynch her today, and I'd only vote to do so if it came down to her against one of the people I have as town.

That leaves Erratus and Random Gem. I'm willing at this point to lynch either of those.

I think Erratus' jump on me early in the day made sense, but since then he has used some pretty poor logic to stretch his case into more than it was. I also think his logic for wanting to mass claim is really poor. I would expect a better logical argument from him, which leads me to believe that he is supporting mass claim either because it benefits scum or it allows him to easily fit in with the town, not because of the logical merits of doing so.

Lynching RandomGem kind of sucks because he has provided us with nothing all game (as either player), so we don't have much to go off of from his lynch specifically. However, he needs to be lynched for lurking at some point, as he is a huge liability to town in endgame regardless of his alignment. I think there's a decent shot he's scum as well, simply based on process of elimination. I'll wait and see what happens with the replacement first, though.

Vote Erratus Apathos

People, Goat is definitely scum. He begins by calling everyone who might vote for him town. RG is AWOL and I'm definitely voting for Goat, but everyone else could potentially vote for him - so he calls them all townies. He even calls springlullaby a bad lynch, despite nothing changing since his day-long attack on her. Clear attempt to buddy up.

Goat calls spring a bad lynch because he's not convinced and wants to hear more from her. Basically, he just wants to put off her lynch. That makes some sense - until you realize that it'd make a lot more sense to put off a lynch of RG for the same reasons. With nothing on him and an impending replacement, it's nonsense that he'd cast aside his springlullaby case for "continued dodging" but support a flaker lynch today.

And his case against me is pretty much just the phrase "poor logic" written over and over. For someone talking about poor logic that much, he conveniently avoids showing any flaws in it. That's not just poor logic, that's scum logic.

[Erratus Apathos]

Unvote, Vote: Huntress

[Erratus Apathos]

Unvote, Vote: Goatrevolt

Also,

Guys this is pathetic.

[Erratus Apathos]

Vote: Goatrevolt

I'm a tracker (boatswain). Goat targeted Jebus night 2.

Huntress targeted nobody last night, and I investigated her predecessor on the first night but did not get a result.

[Erratus Apathos]

Erratus is lying. Before you hammer me, take one second to consider the game. Does EA's play make sense from the perspective of him being a tracker? If he legitimately had a result on me killing Jebus, why the hell would he not claim it yesterday? Instead, he pushed a weak case on me, resulting in a no lynch. Is that pro-town in any sense of the word? Why would Erratus catch the Serial Killer as a tracker, AND THEN LET HIM LIVE?

Can any of you honestly say that you, as a tracker, would catch the Serial Killer and then do nothing about it? Unless that answer is yes (in which case I would ask that you re-examine your playstyle), then Erratus is obviously scum.

I was gunning for Goat early and constantly D2. Apart from a short vote on Huntress, I can't even remember NOT gunning for Goat D2. I don't see how Goat can forget this easily.

One thing I don't get is why he would throw himself away to lynch me, unless he is part of a scum group that wins from doing this. I think it is imperative that we lynch him today, because most assuredly he wouldn't pull a move like this unless he wins otherwise.

How could the scum group win with the serial killer still alive? This only makes sense if you're the serial killer.

I haven't gone through everything yet, but these two posts alone from yesterday should be enough to prove that EA is lying.

Keep in mind this is from the perspective that he's a tracker who caught a serial killer. He first holds back from mass claiming because we ran out of time. That's mistake number 1. If he was telling the truth, he would either push to get a claim out of me, or claim himself to get a lynch yesterday on me.

That's not a mistake, that's being realistic. In 646, it took bloody forever for five players with one lurker to massclaim. Eight players with three lurkers (before xtoxm replaced one) massclaiming in four days is impossible, much less picking out a lynch afterwards.

Secondly, he has powerful evidence to believe that I'm the serial killer...and yet he's willing to swap over to vote Huntress if necessary? Because that makes sense...

Powerful evidence or not, keeping my vote on an implausible lynch close to deadline is stupid. (Gee, this argument sounds familiar )

If you were a pro-town tracker, and you tracked a player who targeted dead scum, wouldn't you assume they were the vigilante? If he's pro-town here, he has no indication that the mafia don't control a kill or that there is even a SK in the game.

Why would you come into the thread and immediately vote for someone you tracked performing the pro-town action of killing scum? That makes absolutely no sense. Erratus continues to push his case on me throughout the day, despite having tracked me shoot scum.

If you were the vig, it would not make sense for you to kill Jebus. You attacked the lurkers (lurkers at the time being humscunter, crywolf, militant, and PlaysWithSquirrels), and later decided to keep your eye on militant, springlullaby, and me. But you never once mentioned Jebus. That is decidedly not how vigs play.

EA, why did you sit on this investigation?

I thought I could get Goat lynched without claiming.

[Erratus Apathos]

I was gunning for Goat early and constantly D2. Apart from a short vote on Huntress, I can't even remember NOT gunning for Goat D2. I don't see how Goat can forget this easily.

Forget what? Yes, you were gunning for me, but not in any way that makes sense.

You claimed to see me target Jebus, who was scum and died that night. Despite this, you pushed for me as scum. I've explained already why this does not fit the mentality of a pro-town player. If you are town, there has been only 1 kill per night. The natural assumption is simple: There is a scum group who has been killing every night. When you see a member of that scum group die, and a player target them, you assume it's a vig who shot them. Why would you assume there is a serial killer with only 1 kill per night? That isn't logical.

If you're having any doubts that Goat is scum, just look at this shit. He's trying to argue that it's illogical to assume there's more than one scum group,

after a night when the only killed player was scum

! Can anyone here say, when you read Jebus's deathscene, that you didn't consider the possibility of another scumgroup?

I'm going to go out of my way here. I'm going to give you the ridiculous benefit of the doubt and assume that you ACTUALLY would believe me to be a serial killer, despite how absurd that actually is. If that were the case, why would you switch votes to Huntress AFTER Clockwork claimed information that would fit your idea of me as a serial killer? No, sir. You've just been given information to fit your idea of me as a serial killer, so you swap votes to someone else? Bullshit.

No shit I wanted to lynch you more than Huntress! I made it clear that I was only switching to Huntress out of necessity, with three days to deadline and nobody joining me on your wagon.

Say there are 3 scum alive. You get a mislynch today, and the serial killer shoots a townie. You win.

Say the serial killer even shoots scum. You still make out fine. You got rid of me, at the cost of yourself, who was probably going to be high on the list of players to lynch after I came up town, anyway.

If you turned up town, the SK would keep the game alive by killing me. This is nonsensical fearmongering.

Nice misdirect. So why didn't you claim your information yourself? Or why didn't you suggest you had role related reasons to extract a claim from me? Lurkers being unable to mass claim completely skirts the question, which is why didn't you personally claim your information?

And then I either die or get roleblocked for the rest of the game, great idea! If I thought a 1 for 1 trade was optimal, I would've claimed first thing, not at the last minute.

If you were the vig, it would not make sense for you to kill Jebus. You attacked the lurkers (lurkers at the time being humscunter, crywolf, militant, and PlaysWithSquirrels), and later decided to keep your eye on militant, springlullaby, and me. But you never once mentioned Jebus. That is decidedly not how vigs play.

That is exactly how vigs play. Vigs oftentimes shoot under the radar players who they have difficulty getting a read on.

Sure there are times when you just gotta say "Fuck it, I'm shooting k7" but this wasn't one. Jebus wasn't even under the radar; militant, humscunter, and crywolf were.

But I guess I gotta admit you have a point, I mean, I know when I'm a vig, my first instinct is this: "So there are nine other players alive today. I think what I'll do is I'll accuse seven of them to varying degrees over the course of the day, then I'll use my vig kill on one of the other two."

[Erratus Apathos]

With me last breath, I swear on the Jolly Roger that yer all wenches!

Unvote
Vote: EA