Mini 739 ~ Mafia Jailbreak, Game Over

[Huntress]

/confirm

Randomly deciding not to vote yet.

[Huntress]

Randomly deciding not to vote yet.

This is different from deciding not to random vote yet, right? Did you use a dice or something where one side was "no vote yet"?

No, it was just random as in "without reason or purpose".

[Huntress]

hmmm... those are 2 options for sparking serious discussion. Another option is random votes, which huntress has not done.

Yet my non-vote has caused more discussion so far than any vote.

And a question: Why are you not mentioning My Milked Eek, who also posted without voting?

[Huntress]

he confirmed, he didn't post. don't think he knows the game started

He did post. Are you suggesting he posted without reading the dozen posts already in the thread? What makes you think he doesn't know the game had started?

Yet my non-vote has caused more discussion so far than any vote.

I agree... but, there can be good discussion and bad discussion.

Any discussion at this stage is grist to the mill. Whether it's good or bad can be information in itself.

Would it be good discussion if I thought you were scum for refusing to RV, if you were actually town? Would that make me scum if I thought refusing to RV was a scum tell?

That's drawing conclusions, not discussing.

Also, what are you learning from this conversation?

It's too soon to say.

Well, I never said everyone has to RV in their very first post, I just think its better if everyone does it. MME only confirmed, so who knows what he's planning on doing once he starts talking about the game. You actually said you weren't random voting, so thats the difference.

No, I said I wasn't voting

yet

. MME didn't say that, but the result was the same, no vote.

Huntress: Why don't you want to random vote?

What makes you think I don't want to random vote?

[Huntress]

You sort of avoided the question... obviously, there would be discussion to follow if I came to a conclusion that you were scum for not random voting. I'll rephrase my question: Would discussion about you being scum for not random voting be helpful to the town, assuming you're town? Would you be able to draw any conclusion about your attacker, assuming he felt that not random voting was a scumtell?

Yes it would be helpful as it would tell us something about the person doing the attacking, and the reactions of those who joined in, or who didn't join in, could also be useful. Although I might have to do a meta read as well before drawing any conclusions.

So... suppose I laid out a good case to lynch Player Y and voted. Player X comes along immediately after me and votes Player Y "for what Rhinox said". Player Y is then lynched. Are you saying that my vote and Player X's vote mean exactly the same thing and should be understood and analyzed exactly the same way, since the same result was reached (both players voting for a player that was lynched)?

Yes, I think they should both be looked at in the same way, i.e. in context, but the conclusions drawn from them might well be different.

Huntress is being an annoying hairsplitter right now. "i never said i don't

want

to random vote, i just didn't. I never said I

won't

random vote, just not right now". Look, Huntress, cheetah thing, i dunno if you're town or scum, but if you keep the conversation around hairsplits i'm going to get confused and screw up the game. I don't know about anyone else's capacities for nonsense, i don't have much. So please, stop it.

Ah, I get it. You don't want anyone looking too closely at what you say in case they catch you out
Oh, by the way, if you are going to put people's words in quotes, make sure it really

is

what they said, not just your interpretation of it. Or at least make it clear that it's not an actual quote.

I don't like how multiple people jumped to the defense of MME. First pops, now Rhinox; I smell connections.

And I smell something else. (Makes a note for later).

Huntress is being an annoying hairsplitter right now. "i never said i don't want to random vote, i just didn't. I never said I won't random vote, just not right now”.

Where did this first hairsplitter take place? I didn’t read it that way. Maybe Huntress can elaborate on how random her decisions have been so far because this:

Yet my non-vote has caused more discussion so far than any vote.

She acknowledges the power of not random voting in creating discussion, which sound to me like something she knew about going into the game. So was this in fact a reason? Her initial claim to not random vote was not about reason or purpose according to her.

What makes you think I don't want to random vote?

I wonder if this can even be accomplished before long because we are moving to serious discussion and a random/joke action could try to impede that.

The initial non-vote was without reason, although after I decided to do it I will admit to a little curiosity as to what the responses to it would be. I agree that the time for random voting is now past.

Here's a question, Rhinox: if someone posts, and keeps posting, without (randomly) voting yet also without explicitly stating the decision not to vote, would you start questioning them?

Yes, I would.

Does this still apply even though we are out of the RVS?

RC is saying that we should assume the worst until better is proven. Ok, sure. The way he discusses it though is

not as curt it should be

though, which gives me a slight scum vibe. I've decided to read this player mostly on meta, because when i read him just like everyone else he consistently slips by, so i might be using poorly explained reasons some this game,

i'll try to be glass man like Korts

as much as possible though.

Can you clarify what mean by the bits I've bolded please? I see Rhinox has already asked about the "poorly explained reasons" so I needn't repeat that.


I don't like the way RedCoyote kicked off the discussion about self-voting then just let it run without commenting further. I also didn't like his buddying up to me in post 51. (I apologise if it was a genuine compliment but I'm wary of such in these games and that one seemed a bit overdone. )

[Huntress]

I've got a bit behind with this over the last couple of days. I'm re-reading and will post something tomorrow. At the moment RedCoyote is looking like a good prospect for a vote but that may change as I continue reading.

[Huntress]

Question(s) for Huntress, MME, Rishi, Rhinox and OGML:

If you were forced to vote for one player right now, who would it be and why?

If I were forced to vote for one player right now it would be RedCoyote as I indicated in my last post. I've just caught up with the reading and am in the middle of putting a post together but I thought I might as well answer this one now.

[Huntress]

Now I was going to be the bigger man and drop this entire SK thing because it seemed to have run its course, but I will gladly continue to talk about why I think it serves the town much better to assume that there is an additional scum (e.g. Serial Killer) than not, Day one or no.

So you continued to discuss it even though you thought it was better not to?

If you are going to tell me with a straight face, based on those role possibilities, that we should assume there isn't an SK, then I absolutely have to snicker.

I'm pretty sure no-one did.

Lest you think I am starting some big player-Mod WIFOM, there is a perfectly good reason why we should, why every player should, assume there is an SK before we end this day, or any day, until proven otherwise: night actions.

On day one night actions only concern those who have them. Do I see some subtle role-fishing here?

There's no reason why we should be naive about the situation. I think it's very safe to say that it's probable there is an SK, and every townie should play like there is another scum out there.

There's a big difference between being naive about a situation, and wanting to keep quiet about it. As we have been told all possible roles, and as there are no newbies in this game, I think your comments are unnecessary, to say the least.

Putting things in quote tags = actual quote.
Putting things in quotation marks = paraphrase.

That's the way I tend to work it.

The trouble with that is, not everyone reads it that way. To me quote tags and quotation marks both mean exactly the same thing, they show what someone actually said.

The first bold is me saying he didn't answer his questions as curtly as he could. It's suspicious, especially in terms of his meta. See, there you go Rhinox, i was warning you there might be questions about the way i evaluate RC and there's already been some.

I'm gonna need to see some sources cited on this meta. Can you show that he tends to answer things more curtly when he's town than when he's scum?

I'd like to see this too.

That isn't my problem with Huntress, though. The vote (or absence thereof) doesn't matter, its the fact that the vote itself really appears to be acting as a shield from entering into the discussion.. AND, of course, the fact that Huntress was quick to call out MME for doing the "same thing".

How was it a shield? And where did I call out MME? I used him as an example to question Rhinox and later I followed up a comment that pops made about him but I never accused MME of anything.

But on D1, there's no reason for us to make any calculations about how many scum there are.

I flatout disagree. I mean, you might as well make the argument that "well, we can't lose on D1 regardless... let's just lynch on page 1".

The more scum there are, the more connections we have to be on the watch for. I don't have to tell you that people interact with each other differently based on knowledge they have.

If that's the case, then wouldn't you think contrasting, say, a discussion between Player A and Player B Day 1 and a discussion between the same two players Day 2 could aid the town in figuring out if one of them knows something that we don't?

For me, yeah, it is important that this town is willing to say that it's probable there is an SK around so I know that the town will be on the look out for this sort of interaction.

If we don't realize this as soon as possible (e.g.

Day 1

), then we're already at a disadvantage.

How does this put us at a disadvantage? All interactions are recorded in the thread to be re-read once we have more information. Why is it so important to you that the town actually says it's probable?

Essentially, it's my opinion that forcing the town to talk about the SK may help the mafia, but in general I think it's good practice to talk about all roles and their implications to the game regardless of what day it is.

That's always pertinent to the game itself and it always helps us poke one another for theories about what is taking place. You tie this in with night actions, all of a sudden you see a couple of strange kills for Day 2.

All I can see from this is that you're helping the mafia and/or SK choose the most profitable victims to NK. Later in the game, I can see it may well be helpful for the town to discuss roles, but I don't see that right now.

Maybe I just have a narrow view right now, but all i'm getting out of our back and forth is you saying, "its stupid to assume there isn't an sk", followed by me saying "thats not what I'm assuming, but how does assuming there is one help us?", followed by you responding with "its stupid to assume there isn't an sk."

I think that's a fair summary.

Vote: RedCoyote

[Huntress]

@Huntress: What in your post 161 would you count against Coyote that supports your vote on him?

Mainly it was what looked like attempts at role-fishing; his statement re: night actions in post 108, and his comment about it being good practice to talk about all roles in post 126. It was also the way he tried to make out that others were assuming that there wasn't an SK. Those were in addition to the points I made earlier at the end of post 101:

I don't like the way RedCoyote kicked off the discussion about self-voting then just let it run without commenting further. I also didn't like his buddying up to me in post 51.

---

The implication is what counts.

Then who implied that we should assume there isn't an SK?

I was pushed into saying it. I was content with leaving it at a disagreement over whether or not setup discussion was good for the town on Day 1, but Rhinox and Rishi both insisted that I give them a reason as to why having multiple killing parties makes a determining factor in this game. This forced my hand into talking about things I would rather not have talked about. I'm wondering why you're pressuring me because of this, and not Rhinox or Rishi.

Hell, Rhinox said it himself that it was an insult to think that townies couldn't come to that judgment on their own. If it really was such an insult, why did he push me so hard to say it Huntress? Specifically after I made it clear my intention that I was no longer interested in talking about it.

You said that you would gladly continue to talk about it. That doesn't sound like your hand was forced, or that you would rather not talk about it, or that you were no longer interested in talking about it.

I accept that there is a difference. On the same token, is it not unnecessary to push one player who happens to have a disagreement of opinion to keep talking about it?

I think that's legitimate scum-hunting. The fact that you responded to it in the way you did is telling.

Let me put it another way. If I had stopped talking about the SK altogether, you would've been just as interested in pushing me for ignoring arguments now wouldn't you?

Not necessarily.

Because I feel comfortable knowing the town isn't taking the game lightly.
Why would you not think that?

Because I take it on trust that everyone will play their role to the best of their ability in accordance with the site rule to play to win.

Suppose, hypothetically, that one kill happens every night based on whatever circumstances for the first 3 nights. On Day 4 then, would you still make the argument that it is advantageous for the town not to discuss the possibility of an SK and therefore the interation from one player to another?

By a later day we will have more information, however many kills there are, so the circumstances will be different. I can't predict at this stage how soon that will happen.

No, sorry, I don't accept that. Circumstances beyond one player's control necessarily affect the outcome of each night and consequently cause the game to take on different forms. To then say, despite this, that discussing the setup never helps the town is naive at best, dodgy at worst.

I don't think anyone has said that we should

never

discuss the setup, only that it's too soon to do it today.

It's unfortunate that her vote is based on "stating the obvious" as her primary tell, which I continue to think is an ancillary tell that should have some deeper connection behind it.

This is not true. What is your justification for claiming this? And why are you are seeking to discredit my vote by claiming that it is based on a non-tell like this?


More to come, but this is already long enough for one post.

[Huntress]

How is it a shield? Your non-vote was a focal point of your first 5 of 8 posts. 2 others were short posts indicating a Red Coyote vote, and the last is the post in which you ask me this. So yes, from my eyes the non-vote has been used as a basis for the majority of your posts in the game as a shield from actual contribution.

My first post was the actual non-vote.
Second post was a reply to Jahudo.
Third post was a response to Rhinox together with a question designed to discover how genuine and/or impartial his comments to me were, and the fourth post was mainly a follow-up to that. I was satisfied with his responses there but found pops reactions to the initial question, where he jumped in before Rhinox had the chance to reply, and to my fourth post, interesting.
In the fifth post I replied to and/or commented on five different players, including mentioning my first suspicions of RC.
I fail to see how you can describe this as not contributing.

As this was in reference to Rhinox not liking your absence of random voting, this IS a callout. This is, "Why are you after me for X, when Y is ALSO doing X". At minimum you are calling him a lurker, at best you are saying Rhinox is a hypocrite for attacking you and not him for it.

I think your definition of "call out" may be different from mine. If I was calling out MME, i.e challenging him, I would have addressed him directly, or said something like "calling out MME for ...". What I was actually doing was using him to try to discover Rhinox's true intentions.


But all this reminds me of something I should have asked earlier:

@ Pops: Why did you intervene on my question to Rhinox (post 29) before he had a chance to answer?

[Huntress]

Welcome CF Riot!

Not that you're question actually has a statement within it, set off by commas. I believed the statement to be incorrect (it stemmed from us having different meanings of "post"), and i think correcting false statements holds enough weight for me to intervene.

The problem with that is that by responding to a question directed to another player, it looks like you may be trying to help that player in some way.

Then who implied that we should assume there isn't an SK?

The implication that "we don't know what the mod does, cannot assume there is an SK". Do you want that post?

Not assuming there is an SK =/= Assuming there is not an SK.

I'm sure this has been said over and over.

Exactly. So no RC, I don't want that one. I want the post, if it exists, where someone implied that we should assume there

isn't

an SK.

You're now talking about two different things. The SK discussion and discussing roles in general.

I can't tell if you are doing this on purpose or not.

It was all part of the same discussion.

I think that's legitimate scum-hunting. The fact that you responded to it in the way you did is telling.

Ok, so then you do think the town should discuss the roles in the setup. I'll rememeber that for later.

No I don't. Not at this stage of the game anyway. Putting pressure on you is legitimate scum-hunting. You did not have to give in to that pressure.

Not necessarily.

Perhaps, but I contend you would have.

For you to fault me in this instance is questionable.

So you're calling me into question for something I haven't done on the grounds that I

might

do it?

I think RC is trying to tie himself to me actually. Defending me, but not addressing any accusations i make against him (addressing everyone else's instead). And then the awkward turtle FoS he made that one time, that was weird.

I don't know how relevant that thought is, but i'd like to have it on file. Does anyone else get this impression?

Yes, I had noticed. It's interesting that you're nervous about it.

Then there is a discussion over self-voting, which I had no idea was such a thorn in the community's side (no wonder Huntress hassled me about it).

I wasn't hassling you about the self-voting issue as such; just the fact that you asked a question, created a lot of discussion, but never showed any interest in the responses. The subject itself was irrelevant. (And to call it hassling is an exaggeration. I just made a point about it.)

Moreover, pops was only addressing me to begin with because Rhinox

asked

him to. Is he setting pops up for certain circumstances?

The trouble with this is that I can't imagine that Rhinox would deliberately set up anyone like this because he would be bound to get called on it.

[Huntress]

It was all part of the same discussion.

No it wasn't.

I will gladly continue to talk

about why

I think it serves the town much

better to assume that there is an additional scum (e.g. Serial Killer)

than not, Day one or no.

You're trying to equate this statement with the idea that I wanted to talk about night actions and role possibilities.

Although that sort of discussion does not carry the same stigma with me, that is a far cry from talking about whether or not we should assume there is an SK today.

Looking back at post 108 I don't see how you can claim it wasn't part of the same discussion.

No I don't. Not at this stage of the game anyway. Putting pressure on you is legitimate scum-hunting.

Again, it's a matter of ignoring questions directed to me.

I contend that you (or another player) would've hated my ignorance of questions directed at me at least as much as my answers.

Unless you make the claim that it is not scummy for one player to ignore another.

I will always pursue unanswered questions; especially if I see cracks opening up in someone's arguements.

It wasn't the fact that you answered but the

way

you answered that we're picking up on.

Yes, I had noticed. It's interesting that you're nervous about it.

How is being comfortable with lynching someone "tying themselves" to them? Both you and OGML brought this up, and I flatly disagree.

I'm waiting to hear more from Pops before replying to this one.

I wasn't hassling you about the self-voting issue as such; just the fact that you asked a question, created a lot of discussion, but never showed any interest in the responses.

Mostly because Rhinox didn't say what I wanted him to say. I happen to agree with him in the sense that voting yourself draws unnecessary attention to yourself and unnecessarily away from the game.

I don't think it's enough to vote someone without regard to the context of the game, but I certainly can't say he's wrong. Basically I wanted to hear him say, "There's nothing wrong with self-voting, as long as you vote!" or something along those lines.

Post 108 was written

after

I made that point, in post 101, so does not negate it, if that is what you're trying to do by quoting it here.

In general I'm very disappointed in the response (or lack thereof) to the case I created yesterday. I'm disappointed especially in Spy and Huntress for outright dismissing it.

In Huntress' case I can only assume that she's not willing to hear other arguments, and in Spy's case I knew that he was the one more interested in seeing an official case on Rhinox, yet he didn't so much as acknowledge that in this quote here.

But

I hold out hope in Jahudo, Rishi, CF Riot, username, and MME to give the argument a fair shake before letting this lynch go through.

I had already given my opinion on the random vote episode in post 192. You already know my position on the theory discussions. I responded to one or two of the points you made in my last post. And the rest of your case seems to be that he is defensive and he uses WIFOM a lot, which means he should be watched, as should everyone, but doesn't amount to enough for a vote. I am perfectly willing to hear all the arguments, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just accept them, and your attempt to put me in a bad light here just reflects back on you.

[Huntress]

Sorry about the lack of posting the last couple of days; I haven't been feeling too good and wasn't able to concentrate well enough to respond to the long posts. I hope to be able to write something tomorrow.

[Huntress]

Hi, Moriarty!

How is being comfortable with lynching someone "tying themselves" to them? Both you and OGML brought this up, and I flatly disagree.

I'm waiting to hear more from Pops before replying to this one.

Harrumph, i don't recall any questions from huntress, but i found this. I guess she just wants me to talk about the RC tying himself thing? I've never seen something like this before. Yes it makes me nervous, and if he's scum it's a pretty good tactic because i'm at that medium level of suspicion that the tie would get me D2 lynched pretty easily based on connection. So without precedent about what to do about that sort of thing, i decided to call it out. I hope you guys realize how strange his reaction to my calling it out was, if iirc, he started talking about his strong suspicions on me that he had supposedly had for a long time (i don't remember hearing about them) and somewhat forcedly talking about how much he'd like to see me burn.

So, is RC-scum bussing scum-partner Pops, maybe to give him townie points if RC is lynched or to shift the wagon off himself, or is he pretending to bus an innocent Pops? I think the former is more likely but both are possibilities. (Yes, I know there are two other possibilities but I think they are even less likely.) The way Pops explains it here seems a bit odd but I need to do a meta on him to be sure.

Rhinox, you seem less scummy to me right now. But i can't clearly decide if i feel that way because of your massive AtE or because of actual evidence you've shown. So now i have to lynch you. Do you see how that

lurks

works?

Huh?

As for the other two players, Huntress' worse offense in my eyes is tunnelvision, and Rishi's biggest offense is likely jumping on my bandwagon with little to no independent reasons for doing so.

I haven't actually been tunnelling on you, although it may seem like that from my posts, but I've been weighing up everything that's been said and have suspicions on at least three others (Pops, Spyrex and CF Riot). Now that I've caught up again I'll be able to go back and look at my notes to see if there's enough to make a case on any of them yet.


Out of Rishi and Pops I see Pops as more probably scum at the moment.

[Huntress]

Trying to catch up again but you guys post far too much

I'm up to post 349 and stopping for now as the words are starting to swim in front of my eyes. I'll do the rest in the morning and post my comments then. I should have more time available from now on so hopefully I won't get behind again.

[Huntress]

Maybe I just have a narrow view right now, but all i'm getting out of our back and forth is you saying, "its stupid to assume there isn't an sk", followed by me saying "thats not what I'm assuming, but how does assuming there is one help us?", followed by you responding with "its stupid to assume there isn't an sk."

I think that's a fair summary.

Vote: RedCoyote

This is when her vote joined the wagon. Again, I read it and read it, but I'm not seeing how this = RC is scum.

But what did you read? Are you saying here that you think my case against RC is only this quote from Rhinox? What about the points I made? See post 191 for a summary.

I haven't seen anything, not ONE THING, in any of this posts even predending to show reasons why CFR or I are scummy.

Actually there was one thing, abouts Korts, but, as I implied in the bit you quoted, I haven't put much in writing yet.

In addition, any reference to pops being scum from huntress comes with the conditional pops AND RC are scum and RC is distancing from pops.

Why does this bother me? Well, when RC is lynched and comes up town...well, guess that means pops is all good, rite?

That was a reference to RC rather than Pops and in that scenario I said that Pops could be scum or town. Nowhere have I said or implied that RC turning up town would in any way mean that Pops couldn't independently be scum.

It's interesting that you say "when RC is lynched and comes up town". What makes you so sure? Was that a slip?

Am I also tying myself to Rhinox by calling him scum? Am I also tying myself to bionic/Spy by calling them both town?

Possibly. But they didn't seem nervous about it like Pops did.

As for Huntress's claim about RC bussing pops, I wonder if equally well she thinks that pops is bussing RC at the same time?

It's possible.


Most of the points raised over the last few pages seem to be thoroughly thrashed out so I'm not going to comment on them now unless anyone has a particular question for me on any of them. I may well come back to them later when looking at individual players though.

I'm still fine with my vote on RC but SpyreX is rising up my list so I'll probably be taking a closer look at him next.

[Huntress]

Not the only person. I still haven't seen it. I'll probably get round to it someday.

[Huntress]

Huntress what is your opinion of Rhinox? Do you think the case on him is valid? If you were the only one suspicious of RC today, who would you be voting for?

I'm ambivalent about Rhinox at the moment. The only thing I'm reasonably sure about is that he is not partners with RC. My second choice for a vote would probably be SpyreX.

@ SpyreX: I think you overlooked the questions I raised at the beginning of post 402.

[Huntress]

Ok, I think I pulled everything relevant.

So, lets break it down:

Why RC is scum via 191:

1.) Because of rolefishing in 108.
2.) Assuming that others were assuming there wasn't an SK.
3.) Talk of role setup in 126.
4.) Buddying up with you.
5.) Starting a discussion on self-voting then leaving.
6.) Constant SK discussion this early in the game.

Am I missing any?

So, sans the fact that (keep in mind I am not rereading to make 100% sure) minus 4 and 5 (which, really, are filler compared to the other issues) multiple people had commented and voted for him based on this at that point I'll give you there was some pre-case on him.

This begs the question: Why was it the summation of something Rhinox said (that wasn't even an indictment of scum from Rhinox) that you voted after

and not your own case

?

But, yes, I will concede it is there.

You've rather minimised the case there but that's the bare bones of it. It was also more to do with the

way

he tried to justify what he was doing, and claiming others were responsible for some of his actions. One example of this is the extract from his 465 quoted below. As for the vote, I usually put a vote at or near the bottom of the post. Or at least after all the comments relating to the person I'm voting for. What is so strange about that?

So you've said I'm your #2. Anything at all in writing yet? On CFR or I? Even baseline suspicions?

No, I'm still in the information gathering stage. I was waiting for your replies to my questions.

So, lets have a few postulates.

1.) You believe RC is scum (hence your vote).
2.) You said that there are two scenarios:
a.) RC is bussing pops (i.e. they are both scum).
b.) RC is "pretending" to bus pops (i.e. pops is town.)
3.) You said the former is more likely (2.a.).
4.) You have shown no real suspicion of pops as independently being scum.

Now, keep in mind I do believe both you and pops to be scummy - and I wouldn't be surprised one whit if you were scum together. So, like I said in that post: when RC turns up town (like I think he is), then pops is, of course, not going to be a subject of pushing.

If this is wrong, it really lies on #4. Show me somewhere, anywhere, where you've shown suspicion of pops on his own and I'll have to rethink this. Of course, I'd also like to see actual suspicion on the other people you've said you are suspicious of (sans RC, who we covered).

Have I missed anything else?

What is your point here? You know perfectly well that I haven't given any details of my suspicions of Pops yet, apart from the fact that he is not one of my top two suspects, so what are you trying to prove with this?

It's unfortunate that Rishi, Huntress, and username have really put this game on the back burner, because it forces me into a very awkward position.

It's basically forcing me to put all my chips on Rhinox, a person who I do think is scum. Rhinox has claimed multiple times that he doesn't see me as scum, so I think he'd be hardpressed to vote me at L-2 if pops is going to be at L-1 on Thursday (assuming CF Riot, Jahudo, and OGML's opinions have not changed, and given that Rishi, Huntress, and username are all wild cards).

That being said, I'm putting the farm on the pops wagon. As you can tell, I'm foregoing the claim I promised I would make, mainly because, and I agree with pops on this point, neither Huntress nor Rishi have made their positions clear like bionic, Jahudo, Spy, or CF Riot.

A few things wrong with this. First is the baseless claim that I and others have "put this game on the back burner". Then the claim that this is "forcing" him to rely on Rhinox, despite the fact he thinks Rhinox is scum. And then the claim that I have not made my position clear. What is not clear about saying that I'm "fine with my vote on RC"?

Why would you bother to post this and not reference pops at all?

I was replying to CF Riot's question. Pops didn't come into it.

[Huntress]

I'll reply to 483 and 484 a bit later, short of time at the moment, but I just wanted to say that in view of the counterclaim I'm sticking with my vote on RC. The only other player I'd be happy voting for today would be SpyreX who does not seem to be in the running.

RC's breadcrumb, quoted in 495, looks very multi-purpose to me. How does it point to jailer rather than almost any other role?

I shall be around and able to check in most of the evening.

[Huntress]

What's an even better explanation for odd killage like this is scum avoiding dead-ending. When you yourself, the scum, has publicly fingered someone as town, you know it will be hard to lynch that person since they can't help that lynch along.

Good point.

And the fact that multiple people have said "oh spyrex is scummy" in passing without saying why (maybe that was just one person but it's still fishy) makes me suspicious of him, quite possibly they are scumpartners. Worst-case-scenario their townie guts are agreeing with me.

Would this make you more suspicious of SpyreX or of the people who said it?

Vi has given us too much information. While moriarty and Rishi can be scum, they were not responsible for last night's death. Same goes for OGML who was jailed last night - unless I was blocked.

I'm assuming from this that BC actually did block OGML. It would be risky to claim it if OGML wasn't blocked last night. But did he do it as jailer or roleblocker? And I can't see a townie roleblocker counter-claiming a jailer.

In theory this leaves 7 suspects for last night's kill (including myself). As I said, the others can all be scum, but did not kill last night.

Unless you have a scum-buddy who blocked OGML I'm willing to accept that you did not make the kill.

1.) Bio.
I really don't know what to make of this. Bio's play has not been scummy, however I really have a hard time buying two Jailers. But, why would a scum out themselves day 1 to bag a jailer? It doesn't add up.

It's a risky play but if believed could be a good cover for a roleblocker. But I agree that Bio's play has not seemed scummy so far.

2.) Vi's note on Mo and Rishi.
Chances are, yes, that both of these two are town because of this mess. However, do not accept it as a 100% truth. They could still be scum that simply went awol and a partner sent in a kill. Or we have an SK and the mafia didn't take actions, etc, etc.

Or if one or both had a shared night action with a second or third player they might have thought that Vi's PM request didn't apply to them. In other words it's a null tell rather than a town tell.

I'm going to do a re-read but for the moment I'm sticking with my highest remaining suspect from day one.

vote: SpyreX

[Huntress]

It really, really isn't. SpyreX was getting along just fine pushing the underdog pops wagon yesterday, so why would Rhinox's survival change that today? Either the suspicion of Rhinox from yesterday would be enough to get him lynched today without scumSpyreX's help, or the growing support for the pops agon towards the end of the day would continue enough to get him lynched today. From the position that pops is claiming to hold, that's a town lynch either way, and a strong likelihood of one where SpyreX doesn't get his hands dirty by being part of it, so why would he think scumSpyreX would want to avoid that situation?

I was assuming Pops was looking further ahead than just the next round and was thinking of a possible lylo situation, but I guess he wasn't as he seemed to retract it after you wrote this.

Huntress: Why do you think Spyrex is scum?

In general it's an overall feeling I got from his posts, and in particular post 303, which implied he knew RC was town, and post 497, where he does an about turn and votes for RC, despite saying throughout the game that he was sure RC was town.

If we're not done trying to interpret the kill, i think it might have been a stir-the-pot so that we ignore lurkers.

Right now i think the kill was a sort of lurker smokescreen.

Can you explain these a bit more please. How does the kill act as a lurker smokescreen?

And the fact that multiple people have said "oh spyrex is scummy" in passing without saying why (maybe that was just one person but it's still fishy) makes me suspicious of him, quite possibly they are scumpartners. Worst-case-scenario their townie guts are agreeing with me.

Would this make you more suspicious of SpyreX or of the people who said it?

I think you missed replying to this.

[Huntress]

In general it's an overall feeling I got from his posts, and in particular post 303, which implied he knew RC was town, and post 497, where he does an about turn and votes for RC, despite saying throughout the game that he was sure RC was town.

Considering you said you thought I was scummy before 303 and, yet, 303 is the only concrete "evidence" you've given for this feeling well.

When I first mentioned you in post 301 I said I was suspicious of you but I would need to go back and look at my notes to see if there was enough to make a case with. At that point it wasn't much more than a niggle.

As for the latter - I made it abundantly clear that a.) I thought RC and Rhinox were town AND b.) that I would lynch them regardless to stop a nolynch. This, of course, is because a.) a lynch is better than a no lynch AND b.) I could have been wrong (of course I wasn't, but.).

Of course, there was also the kink of the double claim. Which, in that situation, didn't make sense for Bio (if he was scum) to counter because with the time involved the chances of a wagon shifting under the guise of the claim were marginal at best. And rereading the OP leaves the number of roles present up to interpretation.

So, yea, I lynched RC and I was very sure he was going to flip town (up until the double claim which I was only marginally sure because the counter by nature didn't make as much sense from scum Bio as from town Bio - although by nature it does make Bio a bit more suspicious).

It wasn't so much the fact that you voted for the lynch, it was the words you used:

Well, hells bells, I was as wrong as you can be about RC I guess.

This doesn't seem to bear out what you are saying now.

As for Huntress, I'm still not sure how that's a valid case on SpyreX. It seems extremely contrived that him thinking that RC and Rhinox might *both* be town (shock! awe!) when they both have wagons on them is necessarily a scumtell in any way, shape or form. As for the final vote, lynch > no lynch, etc. Would like to see some more reasoning from you, if that is at all possible.

That wasn't intended to be a full case, just a quick summary as I haven't finished my re-read yet. I never said that thinking that RC and Rhinox might both be town was a scumtell; it was the implication in post 303 that he

knew

RC was town that I was picking up on.

Everyone starts talking about the kill interpretations, then quickly points a finger at someone who actually *talked* yesterday. Then we start focussing on that person they defend themselves and the lurkers get to say "oh me too". And we ignore the lurkers.
This is a concern because if that was the intent, it looks like it's getting fulfilled.

This seems a bit far-fetched as a reason for a NK. But looking back I see that it was

you

that started doing what you describe here. Was that because you wanted to turn the discussion away from the direction that the first two to comment, OGML and Rishi, were starting to look?

[Huntress]

I've nearly finished my re-read, should be finished later today or tomorrow.

[Huntress]

Sorry I haven't been around. Something came up so I didn't get the time I thought I would have to finish my re-read. I should be able to get on with it this evening though.

[Huntress]

She won't post today.

Did you say that just to get me to post

I'll make a proper post as soon as I can but for some reason my brain is out of sync with the game at the moment. I'm working on it though.

[Huntress]

Sorry for still not having written up anything yet. With a certain project going on longer than expected plus the spring weather getting me outdoors more I haven't been able to concentrate on this as much as I would have liked. However, that project finished yesterday so I'm free for a bit now.

Briefly I'm not seeing the case on Pops and am a bit suspicious of the bandwagon on him. I would be happy to switch my vote to Rishi or Trumpet of Doom but probably not anyone else at the moment.

More later today.

[Huntress]

That

was

my opinion. Why are you trying to make out it wasn't? Is it because you want it to seem less valid?

[Huntress]

I'm going to have to think some more about the lynch/no lynch choice although at the moment I'm favouring no lynch based on the numbers. I can see advantages to both but I haven't really thought it through yet.

Is it too soon to talk about a mass claim?

[Huntress]

Happy Birthday Vi

Wishy-washiness, thy name is Huntress.

I'm not going to make a decision without thinking it through first, and I was too tired to do that then.

Is it too soon to talk about a mass claim?

Not if you're scum, but for the rest of us, yes.

I wondered who was going to be first to try and make something of that.

Actually I don't think it's too early to talk about it if we really are in lylo, which we more or less are if we have a group of three scum, but perhaps you know otherwise? Why don't you think it's a good idea? When do you think would be a better time?


Having thought about a No lynch I've come to the conclusion that the ones who have most to gain from it are the scum, especially if one or more of them have been attracting attention. Or maybe it's just seeing that my two top suspects are the first to vote for it that is putting me off for the moment.

Huntress, weren't you going to make a post yesterday? Or were you reading just to catch up?

Yes, I was going to post something about SpyreX, Rishi and a couple of others, but I didn't get it finished in time. I'll do it when I've checked back to see if the last two reveals affect my views at all.

[Huntress]

Having thought about a No lynch I've come to the conclusion that the ones who have most to gain from it are the scum.

Elaborate.

I meant that if scum had come under a lot of suspicion yesterday it would be most to their benefit to avoid a lynch today.

Having thought about a No lynch I've come to the conclusion that the ones who have most to gain from it are the scum, especially if one or more of them have been attracting attention. Or maybe it's just seeing that my two top suspects are the first to vote for it that is putting me off for the moment.

We'll leave aside the fact you still haven't given this "case" on me, but - how does no lynching today alter any suspicion anyone has?

It probably doesn't. But it gives the scum the chance to remove a threat to them before facing a possible lynch.

The only negative(s) there are is 1.) the fact there is a 0% chance of hanging scum today and 2.) the possibility the NK is a power role.

Those are real positives to scum.

Actually I don't think it's too early to talk about it if we really are in lylo, which we more or less are if we have a group of three scum, but perhaps you know otherwise? Why don't you think it's a good idea? When do you think would be a better time?

If we're talking about No Lynch (which I still think is the best option), a mass claim is a horrible idea. The scum shouldn't know where the power roles are.

I agree. But I wasn't supporting a no lynch and if we had decided against a no lynch then a mass claim might have been worth discussing.

As for massclaiming today, that is a terrible idea. ESPECIALLY if we are voting no lynch. We really do not need scum targeting all the power roles this early on if it can be avoided.

Agreed. But see above. And when would you consider it a good idea?

This is why I am suspicious of the call to massclaim from Huntress.

Where did I make a call to massclaim? I was thinking of it as a possible alternative to no lynch, or for a later day. Nowhere did I suggest combining it with a no lynch.

I can see the advantages of massclaim in some games, but I can't see how it would help in a game where all roles are listed on the front page and the number of each role is unknown.

Thanks. That makes sense.

I'm ready for night.

Why now? Moriarty just said (s)he needs some time to reread, and I have a question pending for Huntress. I actually would like to let the discussion continue as long as there are actual opinions out there people would like to share. There were 5 posts Wednesday and 4 today. Vi is just being dramatic.

This.

And Iaun hammers again. Interesting parallel with yesterday when Jahudo prompted for a hammer and Iaun supplied it.

[Huntress]

With two known plus one claimed protective/blocking roles I think a second killing role is quite likely. If there is only one one then looking at the possible roles it would make more sense if Bio was a roleblocker rather than a jailer, and a townie roleblocker would not have counterclaimed as he did so that points at him being mafia.

If we massclaim I'd like Rishi or Spyrex to go first.

[Huntress]

Looks like we're just waiting for Moriarty and Rishi.

[Huntress]

I'm vanilla.

Yes, I

was

waiting for you to go first.

[Huntress]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to spend much time on this over the last few days but I will catch up this afternoon (if my family stop distracting me!).

[Huntress]

Here's more Huntress case: The Huntress vs. Spyrex Deluxe Edition.

What I think:
-She rarely gave a reason for finding him first noteworthy, then a #2 suspect, then the top suspect.
-She retroactively gave reasons that don't ideally match up with the time line of her increased suspicions.
-She didn't have a problem with Spyrex voting RC on day 1, only minutes after he did so, but she made it a major point of her case against him day 2.

The Timeline:

Post 301 : She had suspicions on Spyrex (and CFR) but couldn’t explain them until she read what they were, and even then they might not be enough for a case. It turns out (from post 559) that she didn’t have enough to make a case.

My original suspicion of Spyrex was because of small things, such as his assumption in post 62 that someone had self-voted, which showed a willingness to accuse without checking facts, and some of his comments in post 119, part of which I referred to in post 161. At that point all my suspicions were low apart from RC.

Post 402 : She says her suspicions on Spyrex are increasing but she doesn’t explain how and why. She says she needs to look closer, which sounds an awful lot like “checking her notes” from post 301. It feels like she hasn’t read into her notes since before post 301, or else she might be more specific about her rising suspicion.
@Huntress: Are there any parts of 402 that you felt, at the time of writing them, were tells against Spyrex, or were you just gathering information?

One thing that increased my suspicion of him was his "Lynch whomever" comment in post 367.

Yes, I thought that the fact that he seemed to be ignoring my case against RC, just quoting a comment I made at the end and implying that was all I had said to back up my vote, was a tell. Also his statement "when RC is lynched and comes up town", which could indicate that he knew RC's status.

Post 459 : Spyrex becomes her #2 vote choice. No reason provided.

I named Spyrex in response to CFR's question as to who I would vote if RC wasn't likely to be lynched. My suspicion of him still wasn't that great.

Post 482 : She admits that she hasn’t given any reasons for suspecting her #2 lynch candidate (and that she hasn’t given a detailed account of her suspicions on Pops, her #3 candidate) even though she has already considered having a back-up vote.

I was still concentrating on RC at the time, he was the only one I strongly suspected.

Post 500 : Admits that she would switch her vote to her #2 lynch candidate, Spyrex, even though she has not provided any reason to find him suspicious.

That was just a quick note following the claims to confirm I was keeping my vote on RC and implying I was not prepared to switch to Rhinox or Pops.

Post 552 : Finally gives a reason why she thinks Spyrex is scummy, not at the request of Spyrex but from pops. Her reasons are Spyrex’s post 303 where he said RC was town, and post 497, where he votes RC. Regardless of whether these posts as tells (I don’t think so), Spyrex didn’t vote for RC until after Huntress was willing to switch her vote to him. And in Huntress’s post directly after Spyrex voted for RC, mere minutes apart, she does not bat an eye at this vote change. She vaguely says she could vote for him but not why. If she felt that way then, about his stance on RC, she should have said something.

Post 497 was the one that really raised my suspicion of Spyrex. I was too short of time to say anything when I wrote post 500 and I didn't expand on it in my reply to Pops because I was planning on following up with a proper case when I finished my re-read. Unfortunately March was a bad month for me and I was unable to concentrate well enough to do it.

Post 559 : Huntress explains that in post 301 Spyrex had done something to peak her interest but in retrospect it was not enough for a case.
@Huntress: What had he done?

See above.

On the count of Spyrex changing his vote to RC, Huntress has a problem with his quote “Well, hells bells, I was as wrong as you can be about RC I guess”.
@Huntress: Why does that quote make any difference? Did his believe that two jailers were doubtful look truthful, and was it a reasonable reason to vote one of the two jailers because of that doubt?

It just seemed to be too much of a U-turn for him to assume that RC was lying when he had previously been so sure that he was town (see post 419). Particularly while saying that he had been expecting that RC would more likely than not claim jailer. It was too melodramatic and didn't ring true.

[Huntress]

Every bit of that is from Day 1. After that... nothing.

That's because I was replying to Jahudo's post, when I reached the end of that it was too late at night to write any more. It isn't the whole case and I know there are other questions I haven't answered yet. But if you are not scum then your vote might well cost us the game as we're in lylo.

I've got to go out now but when I get back I should have a bit of time for this.

[Huntress]

I'm going to do a deeper review, but if I was throwing my vote down right now it would be Huntress. The play has been suspicious but culminated in the wanting a massclaim yesterday AND wanting to lynch versus the no lynch. The waiting around for what Rishi claimed business today also strikes an odd chord.

You are misrepresenting the facts here when you claim that I wanted a mass claim AND a lynch. I did not. As for the waiting, at that point neither Moriarty nor Rishi had posted to comment on the mass claim and I had already stated that I wanted to see Rishi claim early so why should waiting for them strike an "odd chord"?

Logistically, the play yesterday in regards to the lynch REALLY bother me as well.

What really bothers you about it?

Yep, I hadn't caught up.. but accused? Accused who of what?

I didn't say "accused"; I said "willingness to accuse without checking facts". You said that the game had started with a self-vote which it hadn't.

Thats the only reference you made to anything I had said. Interestingly enough, it was about you.

So, assuming my 62 actually contained an accusation.. it'd be of you.
And 161 references me... in regards to you.

I don't follow this at all.

Notice my "lynch whomever" statement

contextually

isn't "anyone" ...

I never said it was.

Huntress has latched on to that "case" on me

and that is all she has done this game

. Not a vote, nothing since eearly day 2. Its been riding the wave, as it were.

First, I haven't made a "case" on you until now. Second, the part you put in italics is quite clearly not true. Third, I admit I was mostly absent during day two for reasons not related to this game but you can hardly claim I did nothing on day three when you have used what I said then against me.


Following on from post 784 I think that post and this one cover everything I have on Spyrex. My vote on him at the beginning of day two was in response to post 497. It was the most I had on anyone at the time so I acted on it. Add to that the things mentioned above and it confirms his position as one of my top suspects.

Need to do a quick peer through everything on D1 and D2 again, but I'm not entirely sure why Huntress had such horrible tunnel-vision on SpyreX. Spy was never at any danger of being lynched (he pretty much seemed and still seems one of the most pro-town people here), so why all the posts suspecting him and having little evidence?

What makes you think I have tunnel-vision on Spyrex?


I still have to reply to posts 754 and 785 and write up my thoughts on Rishi and others.

[Huntress]

Well, I guess that clears Rishi from being one of a three scum group.

I'm thinking that there can't be a scum group of three as the game would be over by now, unless the three are Jahudo, Spyrex and Bio, or two of them and Moriarty or CFR. In fact, looking at the timings I'd say Spyrex, Bio and Moriarty look a very likely group. Moriarty said he'd be back today so Bio's vote gives me a bad feeling about him.

If there are only two scum, or two factions one of which is a pair, then Moriarty and Rishi are unlikely to be a pair as neither of them sent in an action N1.

[Huntress]

Why exactly? You thought pops was scummy day 1 but you never told us why because he wasn’t in your top two. Now you don’t find him scummy and we never knew how confident you were day 1. You never committed and now you’re safely backing off.

You really ignored OGML day 1. Why would you vote for ToD now when he hasn’t said anything content-wise? You had Rishi as listed lower on your scumlist than pops day 1. Why has he jumped up so high now?

@Huntress: Why did you downgrade your suspicion of pops from day 1 to day 2 and why did you upgrade your suspicion of ToD/OGML from day 1 to day 2?

I had been a bit suspicious of Pops but by the end of day one I was getting more of a town read from him. As for ToD/OGML I'm not quite sure, I think it must have been a reaction to post 669. On day one I hadn't really got much on Rishi but after my day two re-read he was looking more like scum to me. I need to go into more detail there but his not hammering me is making me think again.

@Huntress: Any specific reason you distrust Bio's claim? How do you think he pulled it off?

I don't know. He may have gambled on there not being a watcher or just overlooked the difference between the way a watcher sees a jailed player as opposed to a roleblocked player. I was thinking he was more likely to be town but I can't see a townie putting an L-1 vote on like that in lylo without more of a comment.

I don't mind waiting and seeing what Moriarty does.

If Moriarty hammers me and there are three mafia then it's game over.

[Huntress]

Also wanting to ask Huntress, what do you distrust about BC's claim? I understand your tunnelling on SpyreX as being...tunnelling on SpyreX, but I'm not seeing either of your other two cases. Not to mention why you don't suspect Rishi at all, apparently.

I didn't completely distrust the claim, I was just keeping an open mind about it until there was more evidence either way, and, as I said in my last post, I was of the opinion he was probably town but his last two posts are making me doubt that now. Also there is the fact that he is still alive. The doctor could not protect the same player on consecutive nights, or from more than one attack. Come to think of it, his still being alive probably reduces the likelihood of there being two two-man mafia groups unless he is in one of them.

I have not been tunnelling on Spy but I can see it might look like that this round due to my responses to Jahudo's questions relating to him, and the consequent responses to Spy. In fact, looking back I can see where Jahudo has been directing things a bit (see the last line of post 728 for a point I made earlier about this) which reminds me of his play in another game in which he was mafia, although I thought he was town at the time.

I did suspect Rishi but now I'm having second thoughts on that. I don't think he's the lynch for today.

I'm thinking that if there is a three man team it must be Jahudo, Spyrex and Bio as any of the other three could have hammered by now. I don't agree with the suggestion that the possibility of a third party might prevent them hammering. The first-mentioned three may have voted early to avoid having to hammer if they knew there was another faction around, and I think if there was one they must know by now by analysing the night actions.

At the moment I'm prepared to lynch either Jahudo or Spyrex, or possibly Bio.

[Huntress]

EBYOP: That last line is assuming there's a group of three, which is the immediate concern. I'm still thinking about possible pairings if this is not the case.