/in-Vitational Game 5, Simon Mafia 2: Game Over before 832

[Goatrevolt]

Vote SpyreX

Based on your reasoning I am a confirmed innocent. You did not acknowledge my confirmed status. Resistance to confirming innocents is scummy. Therefore you are scum. Die scum. Die.

[Goatrevolt]

I missed you

I missed you too. *sniff*

I beg your forgiveness.

Rejected. I cannot forgive so grievous an error.

Of course in the future if you don't want that to happen you should make sure to caps your R. Sheesh.

So you're blaming me for your mistake?

I can only read so closely you know.

And then suggesting you can't be bothered to read closely?

Ladies and Gentlemen, obvious scum has been detected. You know what to do.

[Goatrevolt]

(yea thats right cross-game props for that performance)

Thanks.

But if we successfully lynched him then we wouldn't be able to lynch the other scum!

True that. We need Flay to out his info first, then lynch him afterward. Patience, patience.

[Goatrevolt]

Unvote, Vote Zazie

The push against DDD is really weak and Zazie is the worst on that wagon.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat- Why is ZazieR the worse?

I'm not going to elaborate on this yet.

Zazie: Can you explain why you voted DDD?

[Goatrevolt]

LG and Llamafluff- I'm waiting on more play before I place my vote down again. Right now everyone I fos'd has done the same thing, so I'm going to wait for them to become more active.

They didn't do the same thing. Llama started the wagon. Zazie hopped aboard without comment. And LG jumped on with a "screw the RVS, let's just blatantly bandwagon" vote. Does reasoning, timing, the nature of the vote not factor in to your opinions at all?

[Goatrevolt]

I have a feeling this is going to be a slow game...

[Goatrevolt]

I agree that Battosou is scummy. I disagree with your 2nd point, but you're absolutely correct about the quicklynch thing. I've never seen anyone quicklynched day 1 in any game of mafia I've ever played. Using that as a basis behind attacking someone is exceptionally weak. I also think his 3 FoS's while claiming they all "did the same thing" is sketchy, considering they didn't do the same thing, and he's made no effort to distinguish between them.

Don't know if he's scummier than Zazie, though. That'll depend on a few factors.

I haven't thought much about the setup. I'll look at it.

[Goatrevolt]

What advantages does the use of a bellhop have?

I can see some definite advantages.

The floor system makes it entirely possible to "protect" a slew of players, with the caveat that they can still be killed by another person on their floor. A death on a locked floor means that someone on that floor has killing abilities, barring the intervention of a bellhop.

I think your caveat is wrong. Check out Special Rule 4. Anyone on the floor is protected from actions and prevented from being able to use actions. People on the locked floor truly are protected from kills.

Does anyone else see a town use for the bellhop? The role seems like a game-convoluting nuisance. There's a faint possibility that the bellhop could secret the target of a NK off to a locked floor as pseudo-protection, but that also injects another player into the controlled atmosphere of sealed floors.

I think your faint possibility is actually not possible. The bellhop role says it makes the swap the next morning, so you can't actually whisk someone away to prevent a NK.

------------

Here is a way to use the bellhop to potentially break the game. We pick a floor. Every single night the bellhop moves a player to that floor. Every day we lock that floor. Eventually we will have half+ the game on that floor, and they will be immune to kills. We will lock the scum out of kills (by moving them onto the floor thus roleblocking them) or at the very worst, we can narrow down who is making kills and likewise limit who the scum can actually kill. Let's say there are only 3 players left not on that floor. The scum would be forced to kill one of those 3, which could be suboptimal, and then we would know one of the remaining two were scum. By doing this, I think we limit scum options significantly.

This would require us to all color claim, though. And that might not be a bad idea, at any rate. Rather than have which floor we lock down be random, I say we make an educated choice based on full knowledge of what floor everyone is on.

Let's say there are 3 really pro-town seeming players on the same floor. We might want to lock that one down to keep them all alive. Or maybe there are a bunch of scummy players on the same floor. We can lock that floor down to limit scum options by roleblocking them.

------

To sum. I think we should color claim. I think we should pick a designated "floor to lock" based on what things look like post-color claim. Every night the bellhop should move players into that floor (either scummy players to prevent them from using abilities, or pro-town players to keep them from being NKed). Eventually we lock the scum out of kills entirely, or force them into making really sub-optimal kills.

One con to this plan is that we also potentially screw pro-town power roles out of using their ability. However, I think removing the scum NK or preventing them from using it effectively is worth the possible downside.

[Goatrevolt]

Why do you think Nuwen is scummy?

[Goatrevolt]

Bellhops can be any alignment. This would be problematic for our plans, ne?

Hmm...yeah. A scum bellhop would wreck the plan. We could use the plan to determine whether or not we have a scum bellhop, but at that point it's probably not really worth it.

I dislike the fact that Patrick's exposition only came AFTER his two word vote post, but for now his voting reason, while I disagree with it, is solid enough for this stage of the game...

I'm curious why you have a problem with this, yet you don't have a problem with my vote on Zazie?

If they think they can get away with it. It buys time to come up with a good explanation if it's let past. Also can give time for someone to screw up and supply you with a good explanation.

Eh, this doesn't really work. If your explanation is something that hadn't occurred yet when you voted then you can't use it.

----

Hmm...I think I understand your logic and lean towards agreement with it.

I don't see any protown benefit. I'm giving Goat the benefit of the doubt though because I'm not sure if he caught the alignment thing.

What changed?

----

The search is down, but I saw Zazie posting in other games last night yet ignoring this one. Tsk tsk.

[Goatrevolt]

Are you talking about post 86? I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest with it. Looking at the Bellhlp PM, two bellhops would only cancel each other out if they try to target the same player.

And actually, now that I think about it, the fact that the mod expressly noted that in the PM is a pretty strong hint that there is a bellhop for each alignment (or more than 1 bellhop in the game).

[Goatrevolt]

How will we know which bellhop is which? If we want to confirm a bellhop, we can just have them claim today. Either the scum bellhop counterclaims, and we have a 1-1 or nobody counterclaims, and we've found our confirmed town bellhop.

There are some definite issues with the above, though, because it assumes the setup is 1 town bellhop and 1 scum bellhop. And although that seems to make the most sense based on the wording of the bellhop PM, it would be a bad idea to act off of pure conjecture. If there are 2 town bellhops, for example, we would out them both and then lynch them both. That would be total failure.

I think my plan is no longer viable with the idea of a scum bellhop. I will keep thinking about it, though. I guarantee there is a way to use the setup to our advantage.

[Goatrevolt]

Why do we have to force anything? If we just colourclaim and start moving people, that'll work. If it fails, the Bellhop claims. No counterclaim, we have a confirmed unkillable, counterclaim, we have 50/50 of confirmed unkillable or 1-1.

This is a good point. I'm back to thinking we should do this. Even if there is a scum bellhop, we still are able to learn exactly what we're going against and then possibly confirm a town bellhop/protect them indefinitely. Having a confirmed/unkillable player is gamebreaking.

[Goatrevolt]

So if things work out, nobody will have to claim and we'll thwart the scum killing potential. If things don't work out, then the bellhop(s) can claim and we can either find ourselves in a counterclaim situation or end up with a confirmed bellhop.

And even if the confirmed bellhop gets moved around by a scum bellhop, we can always just lock whichever floor they end up on each day. So they will always be protected.

[Goatrevolt]

Ok, here is my opinion on trying to break the game: it wont work.

I think it's definitely possible. Maybe not "break" the game persay, but I think the game can be tilted in our favor based on good use of the setup.

The best thing we can do is most likely going to be just to wait untill we are ready to lynch, have the person we are going to lynch color claim then just do a 1d3 on the other colors to see what floor to lock up (this assumes that we are distributed equally). It will RB/protect four players, scum will not know who is NK immune, it basically makes more of the setup hidden to scum, protecting up to four random players. I would rather make four unknown players immune, then make one known immune.

I agree that this probably is a stronger move for today if we're thinking only about what we can gain tonight and not thinking about the game as a whole. I think the other plan is better in the long run. We give up the possible random kill stop factor today in favor of making it tougher for the scum to kill in successive nights.

If we leave things random each day, then the amount of information and value of information we learn will also be random.

Also, if we are going to lynch scum, they can simply lie about where they are located and it will throw us off.

[Goatrevolt]

Any bellhop claiming right now sounds like a bad plan. There is no incentive for a scum-aligned bellhop to counterclaim on Day 1, and a town-aligned bellhop that outs him or herself today will be biting the night kill if a scum-aligned bellhop exists. That play is combined mod guessing and a coin flip.

This actually isn't true. We can protect a town-aligned bellhop every single night, even if a scum bellhop is moving them around.

[Goatrevolt]

Any bellhop claiming right now sounds like a bad plan. There is no incentive for a scum-aligned bellhop to counterclaim on Day 1, and a town-aligned bellhop that outs him or herself today will be biting the night kill if a scum-aligned bellhop exists. That play is combined mod guessing and a coin flip.

This actually isn't true. We can protect a town-aligned bellhop every single night, even if a scum bellhop is moving them around.

How? I'm under the impression that bellhops can't self-target to negate another hop's actions ("Doing this will allow you to change the information in the Hotel computer such that it will order a

guest

to be transferred onto another floor the following morning"). Even if we lock a claimed bellhop on a floor, he or she can be pulled out again if another is present.

They don't get pulled out until morning. So the following day, we can just lock down the floor the confirmed town bellhop got swapped to.

[Goatrevolt]

Eh, maybe I'm being thick, but I still don't see how the plan suggested covers us against the possibility of there only being a scum bellhop. If we get only one bellhop claim, we're going to treat that player as confirmed? Also, if we have two town bellhops, it seems like we'll end up lynching them both under this plan when they counterclaim each other.

Right, I brought this issue up in post 92, but LG had a good response in the following post.

The way to figure this out is to go with the plan I suggested in post 76. If there are two town bellhops, then we should see two players a night being transported to the safe room. If there is only 1 scum bellhop, then we might see nobody being transferred to the safe room.

By carrying through with that plan, we will get a picture of what we are looking at in terms of bellhops. If some people are getting transferred to the safe floor, and some are getting transferred off of it, then we can assume we're dealing with both scum and town bellhops. Then if we get Bellhops to claim, we'll either find ourselves in a counterclaim scenario, or just the town bellhop will claim and we'll have a confirmed townie.

-------------------

If we get everyone to color claim and then choose to lock the floor with the most pro-town players and start shuffling off more players to that floor we can force scum to play our game. If it doesn't work, then we've learned what we're dealing with in terms of scum abilities. As it stands now, things are essentially chaotic and random, and there is absolutely nothing stopping scum from lying about things after the fact to throw things off. Also we have no information to determine whether someone is a scum or town bellhop. If things are random and Johnny Q. Sample gets moved from the Red floor to the Green floor we have absolutely no way of knowing if it was done by a scum or town bellhop. By forcing the bellhops into using their abilities toward a pro-town end (locking scum out of kills entirely), we can corral a scum bellhop into having to either use his ability in a way that is anti-scum or give up on ever being able to claim it. And in the latter case, that opens the door for a town bellhop to claim his role and become a confirmed/unkillable townie.

-------

Zazie was posting in at least one game on Saturday, but hasn't posted in here since Thursday...

I wish the search wasn't down right now, but it looks as though he's avoiding this game.

[Goatrevolt]

What about my vote, though?

[Goatrevolt]

goat- Do you not think that Zazie's vote reasoning was the same as what she quoted?

Sure, but I want him to explain it more. There is a specific reason why I find his vote ultra-scummy and I want to see how he fields my questions. Of course, fielding questions requires posting in the thread, a feat Zazie has failed to accomplish as of late.

So yeah...where is Zazie?

-------

SpyreX: What do you think about waiting a day to get bellhop claims, trying out my plan of shifting people to a safe floor in order to determine the nature of the bellhops we find ourselves up against, and then doing bellhop claims later?

So, if multiple people are being shuffled to the safe floor, then we don't need to out the bellhops as they are both acting pro-town. If nobody is being shuffled, or if people are being shuffled randomly, then we should get bellhop claims, and we would then know that we're probably dealing with 1 town 1 scum, or just 1 scum, or what have you.

Basically, it's what you suggested with the idea that first we determine the type of bellhoppery we find ourselves up against, and then afterward get bellhop claims.

[Goatrevolt]

Llama, this isn't "solve the puzzle, while ignoring scumhunting". Doing this will just allow us to supplement scumhunting with puzzle pieces, as opposed to doing nothing and supplementing scumhunting with...also nothing...

Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice your idealized mafia game if it will give us a greater chance of winning. If bending the setup in our favor is going to help the town win, I don't see how you can possibly justify not doing it.

[Goatrevolt]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide names with quotes (or at least make it clear who you are quoting).

[Goatrevolt]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide names with quotes (or at least make it clear who you are quoting).

That's a pain in the ass. I'd rather not. If you aren't paying enough attention to know who I'm quoting, then you aren't paying enough attention.

Meh. It takes 3 seconds, and while I know who you're quoting now, it's a pain in the ass down the line if I'm trying to read you in isolation and have no clue who you're going back and forth with. I have a good memory, sometimes freakishly good, but I can't remember every single post made in a game. It's just an extra unnecessary hassle.

Anyway, it's not ultimately a huge deal, just a pet peeve of mine. This is the last I'll say about it.

[Goatrevolt]

I need to go back to work, but it would be a good idea to analyze forbiddan's reactions to the ideas of claiming to see if it makes sense from a town-bellhop point of view. I'll do it later if nobody wants to step up and handle it in the meantime.

[Goatrevolt]

My vote on Zazie is pretty mad in it's realness as well. The madness is in fact so real, I'm about to kick Zazie into a well.

[Goatrevolt]

Did I just blow your mind?

That. Just. Happened. But yes, I'm right with you. Zazie, then Battousia, then probably some random players that are ignoring Zazie and Bat (TDC off the top of my head? Maybe Llama) is where I'm at in terms of early scum pickage.

My vote on Zazie is pretty mad in it's realness as well. The madness is in fact so real, I'm about to kick Zazie into a well.

that'd be one hell of a prod.

Truly Spartan in nature... Oh and thanks for the name quoting. It makes me feel like an individual and not just a wall of emotionless text. Touching.

Lock: Green

[Goatrevolt]

DDD is my strongest town read.

[Goatrevolt]

The reaction to SpyreX is definitely over the top and unnecessary, but I don't see why it's scummy.

Gurgi, why is it scummy?

As for why I believe DDD to be town:

1.

It is now Pre-Game. Roles that can night-talk can talk with each other during this time. The game will begin on August 10.

DDD was absent from the game and wasn't aware that it had begun. Considering the scum were allowed to night-talk with each other during that period, I think this is a definite town tell.

2. Post 30

and more recently:

3. Post 201

[Goatrevolt]

GR:
So basically, DDD is town for something that can easily be faked and because Zazie and Batt are scum?

Sure, it's possible for him to fake that, but it's simpler and more likely to assume that he isn't.

And yeah, if my top two scum picks are both pushing the same wagon I feel pretty comfortable in saying it's not going to hit scum.

[Goatrevolt]

I understand that and it would be decent argument if they were dead scum.
Where I can't follow is how you're so sure about them both being scum that you base your read on another player on it and want to stop the wagon on him.

I will often dynamically base my reads on players based on what I expect other players alignments to be. I'm not sure that Zazie or Batt are scum, but until I have reason to think otherwise, I'm going to not want to lynch anyone that they are both pressuring.

Do you think your argument would still make sense if only one of Zazie/Batt was scum?

I do. I don't think either Zazie or Batt fit well as scum with DDD.

Why would Zazie jump start the wagon on her scum buddy that early when there was no reason to do so?

Why would Batt throw himself out there early to slow down the DDD wagon, but then start pressuring DDD himself later when the wagon resurfaces?

[Goatrevolt]

Gurgi: Your crossing intangible lines metaphor is lost on me. Can only scum cross this "intangible" line in how they react? I still don't get how it's scummy.

[Goatrevolt]

Only scum cross this proposed line?

[Goatrevolt]

I'm not sure what element of our exchange was confusing.

The part that reads like this: "you didn't want to color claim before the bellhop claim because FL was green lock floor claim actually after the color claim voted you for it was actually before FL's claim but color claim bad actually color claim good if people don't know what I'm talking about but you didn't know so it makes it no longer good FL claimed bellhop lock green."

In other words, I'm confused out of my mind by that interaction as well. It sounds like you voted TDC, but he refuted your vote, but then you had some double nested gambit that makes your vote still viable, etc. A clear and concise summary of events would be excellent.

----------------

At this point, I'm still waiting on Zazie. I want him to explain why he voted DDD. When you voted him, what made you think he was a lurker and worth your vote?

[Goatrevolt]

Do we all agree that if there's an unclaimed town bellhop, he needs to move fl to green?

The Bellhop Role PM says "If more than one person tries to move a particular guest to a new floor on the same night, the computer will disregard those commands, the guest will remain unmoved". So, um, no.

That's the point. If a scum bellhop tries to move FL from the green room, she won't be moved based on that rule, while she can simultaneously move other into the green room. Since we'll almost certainly just be locking whatever floor FL is on each day, this will ensure it stays the green floor, and if FL is succeeding at moving people over, then the scum will start to run out of options for who they can kill as more and more people accumulate on that floor.

[Goatrevolt]

Alright, I understand it now. I also agree that we should have done an early color claim to lock the scum down into colors early.

[Goatrevolt]

Gotta run now, but I lay it out in posts 210-214.

[Goatrevolt]

As there hadn't been anything scummy yet, I went with the bandwagon of a player who at least had shown anti-town behaviour.

What anti-town behavior?

[Goatrevolt]

You didn't seem to have a problem with Gurgi's shameless bandwagon vote on DDD earlier.

[Goatrevolt]

LG has a STANCE. Bandwagons for the of bandwagons is up there with "lol, reactions" voting.

I meant on page 2. Post 34.

LG was basically bandwagoning for the sake of bandwagoning and later clarified his vote as a "lol, reactions" vote. You posted immediately afterward but didn't attack it.

[Goatrevolt]

Huh. I absolutely missed that.

Where does he lol, reactions define it? I saw the quote from above - is there also the other?

You missed it???? You posted numerous times on that page. I find that hard to believe.

He doesn't definite it precisely as "lol, reactions" but he calls it useful in seeing who will rise to DDD's valiant defense, which can basically be translated as "I want to see how people react to this".

Goat, you know as well as I do that on page two, random bandwagoning and lol reactions is the pinnacle of scumhunting. If someone doesn't do it, we sit around in a circle staring attentively at eachother's faces. I've since provided more explanation. I'm not sure if you're calling me out for something I did, or if you're attacking SpyreX, and the ambiguity bothers me.

I don't see how it's ambiguous. I'm attacking SpyreX over his inconsistent application of scum tells.

I agree with you. If I had a problem with your vote there, I would have pursued it at the time instead of going after Zazie, and calling him the worst on that wagon.

Nuwen is also lurking. I don't think it means anything, since I've never known her to lurk, ever.

I've played one game with her, she got replaced, she was scum. Hardly conclusive, but now that it's been brought up it bothers me.

I played one game with her, she lurked and got replaced and was town. I don't think it can be considered a tell at this stage.

[Goatrevolt]

You find it hard to believe I didn't really pay close attention to page 2?

Yes. Are you in the habit of ignoring stuff that happens on page 2?

This post suggests that you were aware of the DDD wagon, else why acknowledge Batt's defense of it?

Lol, reactions isn't just about doing something for reactions. Its more when you do something that people go "huh" and your response is some form of lol, reactions.

Ok, fair point, and I agree. There is a difference between doing something for reactions and using "lol, reactions" as a defense for something that wasn't done for reactions.

And you can call it inconsistent but something is to be said for you trying to apply consistency to LG's vote and subsequent play and Zaz's vote / lurk / explanation of vote.

Since they're not the same.

You called shameless bandwagoning scummy, but LG's vote on DDD was like the poster boy for shameless bangwagoning.

I'm not making the argument that Gurgi's vote and Zazie's vote were the same thing and should be evaluated as the same. I harassed Batt about that point earlier. My argument was that Gurgi's vote looked the same as what you had labeled Zazie's vote as, and you had voted Zazie for it while not voting Gurgi earlier.

Had you not missed Gurgi's vote, would you have pressured him over it at the time?

[Goatrevolt]

Zazie needs to post or die.

The last game we played in, he lurked for a long period and was scum. Once/If search is back up, I want to compare his posting frequency in this game with that of him in other games.

We should move pro-town players to green, not scummy players.

There are at least 3 Mafia Members.

People are aware when they get room-swapped. If one mafia member gets room swapped, then one of the others will make the kill. It will take a while to prevent the mafia from killing by following this idea, and in the meantime we are leaving pro-town players as vulnerable kill choices. By moving pro-town players, we limit the mafia kill options as early as possible and will honestly stop them from being able to make kills just as quickly.

---------

Town hunting and scum hunting are 2 sides to the same coin. If you find enough townies, you've found the scum. I think it's a valid strategy in any game, including this one.

[Goatrevolt]

Howeeeeever, putting scummy players on lockdown (combined with lynching) will result in faster and more direct scumhunting than protecting pro-town players. While I agree that an experienced scumhunter is a powerful town tool, the mechanics of this game allow us to restrict and control mafia kills. We should take advantage of that offensively, not by defensively moving pro-town players.

There are 2 problems with this.

1. It will take us probably 2 days minimum to get all the scum over to green, and this is a "best case scenario" kind of play. Realistically, it could and probably will take longer. In that period, we are giving scum free reign to kill anyone not moved over, which in this case is a group of pro-town players.

2. If we are moving scummy players to green, we will also want to lynch those scummy players. If we lynch someone we move over, then we effectively wasted the ability. By moving pro-town players, we quickly limit the scum killing ability because we will both be transporting likely townies to green as well as lynching players not in green as that is where the scummy players will be residing. That will effectively count as "2 moves" a day.

[Goatrevolt]

Zazie: Jumped on a bad bandwagon, my problem is different than goat’s though. I don’t have a huge problem with an “lol reactions” bandwagon, but Zazie supplied evidence actually pushing the argument the bandwagon was based on. Added to the fact that we’ve not seen anything remotely useful or helpful from him and he’s my number one suspect far and away.

My reasons for voting Zazie are closer to yours than you might expect. I want to see how he answers my questioning before I reveal them though.

Gotta love when it's page 15, and you still haven't gotten an answer to a simple question from page 2. Damn, do I love me some lurking.

Has Battasai said anything of value in the last 5-10 pages? I can't honestly remember a post of any interest he's made in a while.

[Goatrevolt]

You seem pretty enthusiastic about that vote.

[Goatrevolt]

Also Elmo is on V/LA. Let's give him a chance to get back before burning him at the stake. There are better lurkers to fry.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm basically just glazing over the walls on this page. The one thing I really want to know is how TDC feels about Llama.

In terms of color claiming, an early claim would have helped us. I doubt scum are going to lie if pushed into color claiming on like page 5. At this point, though, they can lie about being on green, and invalidate, or at best throw serious doubt on any conclusions we would have been able to draw from NKs.

Right now, I don't think a color claim helps us for that fact, but it was definitely the play early on. Locking people into claims is more beneficial than random chances of stopping kills if lucky.

[Goatrevolt]

LlamaFluff, what do you think of Zazie?

[Goatrevolt]

This is my main issue with Zazie, and I wanted to milk information out of him before jumping on this, because there was definite possibility he would slip, but I seriously doubt he is going to be back and provide anything relevant before the deadline.

He voted DDD only 1 minute after his previous post in the thread, suggesting he didn't take a lot of time deciding to place that vote, yet he both claims DDD exhibited anti-town behavior (How in the hell would he have a chance to evaluate that in 1 minute?) and later provides evidence to support this after Llama suggests that DDD had been active on the site but not posting in this thread. The way Zazie goes about providing that information later is deceptive, and suggests the idea that Zazie was using that as a basis for his vote, despite the fact that there is no way Zazie could have possibly evaluated all that information in the short period of time he used to vote DDD.

I don't think Zazie bothered to actually look into whether DDD was lurking or not, and the de post facto rationale for his earlier vote is shady as hell. I don't buy the explanation that he voted DDD for "anti-town behavior."

[Goatrevolt]

Whether or not your vote was scummy, you were on the wagon. I felt the wagon was scummy, so you kinda have to be included since you were on the wagon.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. This is basically the same point I called you out on earlier. You are applying a blanket "everyone is scummy on this wagon" statement and making no effort to differentiate what is what. You can't honestly tell me that you found a random vote on DDD to be at the same level of scumminess as Zazie or Gurgi or Llama's vote?

The idea that a wagon is scummy, thus everyone on it gets "scum points" is absurd.

[Goatrevolt]

Note:

My vote on Zaz isn't just pure lurking. The wagon as a whole is. I am stopping this whole "what do you mean you had reasons!" business before it starts.

What do you mean by this? I don't think lurking is the driving factor behind anyone's vote on that wagon.

[Goatrevolt]

Mod: Can we get a prod on Elmo

[Goatrevolt]

Gurgi: How does deadline voting for pressure make any sense? How can deadline voting be anything other than to achieve a lynch?

[Goatrevolt]

You misunderstand. Spyrex's vote was random and not scummy. Then the wagon started and the 3 votes on the "lurker scum" wagon are scummy. Spyrex didn't unvote once this happened, thus he perpetuated the wagon.

Ok. I have no problem with this. I looked back and he did post numerous times but didn't jump off the wagon, so you have a valid point.

This isn't the impression at all I get from you saying "I kind of had to include you" though. Why would you say that if you actually did think he was scummy for sticking on the wagon rather than jumping off? Wouldn't you want to include him?

[Goatrevolt]

Goat: Umm, because I like people to defend themselves. Sometimes people are too apathetic to do so until it's really close to deadline.

Would you have pressured him if it wasn't close to deadline?

[Goatrevolt]

I didn't have a specific answer I was looking for when I asked that question. I simply wanted to understand how much the deadline factored into your pressure on zazie. Was it the sole reason you pressured him? Was he a suspect of yours and the looming deadline was simply the final straw that pushed you into action?

It matters because it's important to understand why people do the things they do. Having that information makes it easier to evaluate if people are consistent or inconsistent in their play when you measure them up later in the game.

[Goatrevolt]

I would actually go for an Elmo lynch before a Zazie lynch at deadline. I have had multiple bad experiences lynching zazie for being a lurker, although I can not remember a game with him where he was scum. I can point to two games where he did disappear (but not get replaced) though as town.

My experience is him doing it as scum. I don't think him disappearing is a tell, since collectively we've seen him do it as both alignments, but if he's been posting elsewhere but not here, then that is a definite tell. I caught him doing it that one night, but I don't know if that's been a trend or a 1-time deal.

In terms of Elmo v. Zazie, they are scummy for two different reasons. Zazie has been directly scummy (exaggerated reasons for voting DDD, shady mannerisms around that wagon) whereas Elmo has been indirectly scummy (lack of meaningful opinions, weak stance on DDD).

My preference is definitely Zazie, because his actions are something actively scummy whereas Elmo's are passively scummy (aka, could be explained by him not closely following the game) but I would not shed tears if Elmo was lynched.

I will say this much. If either of you are town, do us a favor and get replaced (or genuinely stop lurking). Seriously. If you know you're not going to actually play the game, get out now and let someone who will get in. Responding to prods but then following it up with doing nothing is destructive.

[Goatrevolt]

@LF: Well, generally if a scumbag's getting wagoned, their buddies tend to try and start a wagon on someone else, especially early on when wagons don't need much to get started, but no-one really seemed interested in trying. (My reasoning here is kinda like JDodge's in Open 55.) But for example, if Zaz and Danny happen to be scum (with 3 scum total), the single leftover mafioso isn't going to have much influence on the voting patterns. So the more it looks like no-one would be wagoning regardless of alignment, the harder it is (or less reliable) to tell why scum aren't wagoning.

..I think this makes sense.

This is a lot of words but not much is actually said. First you say the lack of a counterwagon suggests DDD is town, but then you say it could be because the scum don't have much influence on voting patterns. That's a long way of saying "they could be scum or town."

I want to know what you personally think about DDD and Zazie.

[Goatrevolt]

I just don't see how what you point out that is definitively scummy doesn't apply to ZazieR. The rest is flimsy conjecture.

The thing is, we don't have enough data from Zazie. I'd prefer he be replaced, because from what I'm reading it's his active lurking you are lynching him for. A.K.A, a passive tell versus Elmo's active tells.

It's entirely the opposite of this. Zazie's push on DDD was actively scummy. Elmo's lack of meaningful contribution is passively scummy.

What do you think of my reasons for finding Zazie scummy?

Active Lurking is one of THE biggest tells, IMO.

It depends on how you define it. Active lurking defined as "following along with the thread but not posting" is a huge tell. Active lurking defined as "posting every 3 days but not saying anything and not keeping up with the thread" is less scummy.

As an aside: I'm going to be ultra-pissed if we don't get an actual majority lynch. Seriously angry. As in if someone is awesome enough to not help push a real wagon as we get close or, god forbid, not be voting I will vote for them every day I'm alive.

I don't understand why this matters. Is there a huge difference between a lynch wagon of 4 votes, and a lynch wagon of 7 votes where the last 3 votes are just people piling on for the purpose of achieving a lynch?

[Goatrevolt]

Answer my question about alignment splicing other players, please. If you think Elmo is scum, name his suspected partners. Can you? If not, is that really the best informational lynch possible?

Who is lynching for information? This is completely irrelevant to whether or not Elmo is scum and completely irrelevant to whether or not we should lynch him.

"Meh, don't care, should stop posting" screams exasperated and bored town.

That post had such a complete lack of emotion that I don't see how it could possibly "scream" anything.

I'm not reading Elmo as scummy, but in the same vein I hate Nuwen's defense of him. The "who are partners" reason is a complete non-issue as to whether or not Elmo should be lynched, and the complete ignorance of the equally sized Zazie wagon is bothersome. Her play isn't "stop wagon's on lurkers/non contributors" as she claims, but rather "stop wagon on Elmo".

Nuwen: Your thoughts on Zazie? Do you have an alternative choice to the lynches today? You've stepped up to defend Elmo, but you're ignoring the equal sized wagon on Zazie completely. Why is one wagon on a non-contributor worth your efforts to stop but not the other?

-----------------------

Anyway, here is an actually valid reason as to why we should not be lynching Elmo today and should be lynching Zazie or Batt instead.

Batt FoS'd Zazie early on in the game, yet he joined the Elmo wagon just now, and why? It's strictly an "inactive" lynch. There are two huge problems with that.

1. Elmo is more active than Zazie.
2. Zazie is an inactive who Batt has already expressed suspicion on this game. Why the hell would he go for the other inactive, who is less inactive, when he was already "suspicious" of the first?

It's a blatant attempt to save Zazie.

[Goatrevolt]

Actually this gives me the heebie jeebies overall. This reeks of Nu-scum defending Elmo-town.

I'm in full agreement.

[Goatrevolt]

Ok. I believe Battousai. That makes sense based on how he worded his Elmo vote.

Damn, that line of thought felt so good, though.

[Goatrevolt]

So why did you folk only wake up when Goat told you? This is way too sheepy.

It only makes sense for sheep (and a llama...close enough) to follow a goat.

Why would Nuwen-scum defend Elmo from what was basically a random lynch? That was the most townie thing I've seen this whole game.

Why is Nuwen focusing exclusively on Elmo while ignoring Zazie? Why is Nuwen basically using irrelevant arguments to defend Elmo?

Scum defend town who are going to get lynched to look good all the time. The key is the validity of arguments here, and the idea that we wouldn't learn much information from lynching Elmo if he's scum so we shouldn't lynch him is horrible. That has no bearing on whether or not he is scum and that's the only real importance.

The defense of Elmo was hyperfocused and completely ignored the equal sized Zazie wagon, yet Nuwen's stated rationale was to avoid lynching a lurker/non-contributor, which should have applied to both.

[Goatrevolt]

Patrick: His scumhunting has seemed genuine all game. His willingness to re-evaluate Elmo in context of your Elmo-defense speaks to a pro-town change of mindset based on the presentation of new information.

TDC: My gut says his reactions to LlamaFluff seemed real. My logical side says the recent lurking, the lack of any kind of scumhunting presence whatsoever, and still no vote on page 22 is awful, though. Neutral, leaning town.

Forbiddan: I don't see that claim coming from scum. The lack of counterclaim means if she is a scum bellhop she's the only one (there can BE only one). I guess it's possible there is a town bellhop waiting to CC, but that seems less likely. I'm fairly confident she's town.

Everyone building a bloody case on Zaz should have called for his replacement ages ago to pull information out of the role slot, if gaining information is your goal.

Does yesterday count as ages ago?

I will say this much. If either of you are town, do us a favor and get replaced (or genuinely stop lurking). Seriously. If you know you're not going to actually play the game, get out now and let someone who will get in. Responding to prods but then following it up with doing nothing is destructive.

----------------

Waiting on you to address my points.

[Goatrevolt]

I don't like Goat's reaction to his Battousi questioning. Goat is already on the record for not liking "lol reactions" wagons and that appears to me to be Batt's explanation for his vote. For Goat to accept such an explanation doesn't sit right with me.

I never said that. I'm on the record for not liking SpyreX's inconsistency between the pressure on Zazie/Gurgi, and I'm also on the record for not liking when people use "lol reactions" as a defense for a vote that wasn't actually for reactions.

I have no problem with actually voting for reactions though. I do it. I had no issue when Gurgi did it early in the game, and have no issue with Battousai doing it now. I actually feel better about Batt after that.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat: Then I guess I'm just bothered by the fact that it looks like you uncritically took Batt at his word. Maybe he is telling the truth, but his response is also the most convenient backdoor possible and for you to, what looks like, simply accept him at his word rubs me the wrong way.

I didn't uncritically take him at his word, it's just clearly the most likely explanation for the vote. He said this when he voted Elmo:

I think two wagons that are close together can provide us with information on how people decide to vote.

which heavily hints at the idea that he's voting Elmo to see how people react.

It's far more likely that he did it for reactions, based on that comment and him making that claim, then the alternative, which is that he didn't do it for reactions and happened to just luckily have a comment that would support the lying "reaction" claim. The first is far simpler and far more likely the truth.

I think it was good play. It's the first time I've seen Batt do anything this game that seemed to come from the perspective of trying to catch scum or gather info.

[Goatrevolt]

I was mainly looking at LG and Nuwen concerning Elmo. If one of these two were buddying up to a townie lynch, my money would be on Nuwen. LG's stance seemed to be based on lack of enough scummy actions, whereas Nuwen's is based on defending the actions others have found scummy.

I don't see how your conclusion follows your evidence at all. You need to explain why defending actions others find scummy is more of a scum play than simply saying there isn't enough scummy actions.

[Goatrevolt]

?

My conclusion is that if one of Nuwen or LG were buddying up, it would most likely be Nuwen.

Evidence-

LG's stance seemed to be that Elmo didn't do enough scummy actions.
Nuwen's stance seemed to be based on defending actions that others have found scummy.

I think that scum would be more likely to defend a townie they think is about to be lynched, and Nuwen's stance seemed to be the most likely way of doing it.

You need to back this up. You're simply saying Nuwen's stance is more likely to come from scum, but I want reasons

why

it's more likely to come from scum. Saying it "seems" the most likely isn't good enough.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm sure you've played many many games. That sort of behaviour shuts me out. You actively repelling me is not conducive to scumhunting. Stop it.

This makes no sense. If he's town, shutting you out from pressuring him IS conducive to scum hunting, because the idea of scum hunting is to pressure scum, not town.

[Goatrevolt]

TDC on everyone except Zazie

I don't think so. I don't remember saying anything about Zazie's alignment.
I remember commenting on fl, Gurgi and Fluff, though.

So can you comment on everyone else then?

[Goatrevolt]

Geez. Sorry to hear about that Llama. Good luck getting that all sorted out.

[Goatrevolt]

Lock Green

This game is last on my priorities right now. Sorry.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm back from being gone this weekend and should have more time to dedicate here.

I'm pro-NK speculation. I hate when I peg scum and get killed and people just brush it aside. It's useful to try to figure out the most plausible reason someone was killed. I've never understood the argument that you shouldn't discuss the NK and that it's anti-town to do so. Why? Scum kill for a reason, can we not try to figure out that reason?

In this case, I think that reason is simply that Patrick looked pro-town and not that he was killed to get off someone's back. By the end of the day he had semi-backed off Elmo, who was really the only player he pushed with any vigor during the day.

[Goatrevolt]

Oh, I think you do know.

Forbiddan is cult leader. She and her bellhop buddies gather late at night in dark meeting places to discuss all kinds of secretive information. They also do a superb job helping you transport your luggage to and from your room. It's a dirty operation.

Vote Nuwen

Where are you?

[Goatrevolt]

Damn, the deadline is in two days... I'm going to catch up on what I've missed.

[Goatrevolt]

Same. but nonetheless,

Vote: LlamaFluff

. Not voting at the end of the day is scummy.

Context doesn't matter at all?

[Goatrevolt]

SpyreX / Goatrevolt: What specifically do you dislike about Nuwen's play?

The arguments she used while defending you where irrelevant to whether or not you were a good lynch. Defending you wasn't scummy, else I would have jumped on Gurgi for the same thing. Defending you with reasons like "What information would we learn

if

Elmo is town" has no bearing on whether or not you're town or whether or not you'd be a good lynch. Most townie lynches suck for info. The best info is from lynching scum, so regardless if a lynch of you generated 0 information if you are town, it's still the right play if you are the best scum suspect.

Townies have legit reasons to want to avoid a lynch. I don't buy that "who are partners to Elmo" and "what would we learn from lynching Elmo if he's town" are legit reasons to avoid lynching someone. Neither of them have any bearing on the lynch at hand, and whether or not the lynchee is scum, which is of ultimate importance.

The defense of Elmo was hyperfocused and completely ignored the equal sized Zazie wagon, yet Nuwen's stated rationale was to avoid lynching a lurker/non-contributor, which should have applied to both.

In particular, this is not what I got out of her posting. I think there is a fairly obvious difference between someone who is pure-lurking and someone who says "yes, I'm here, I don't have much to contribute", and that she referenced that e.g. in 496. I haven't found a stated argument from you two, but I guess it revolves around TownNuwen not having sufficient confidence to defend me like that? I'd like to know, anyway.

Nah, it has nothing to do with her not having enough confidence to defend you like that. If she had said something like "I'm pretty sure Elmo is town based on gut" and then pushed an alternative suspect, I wouldn't have had any issue there. To push against your lynch with irrelevant reasoning and then ignore the other lynch option is just scummy. If her intention was to save you, she would have voted Zazie. If her intention was to stop a lynch on an inactive/lurker, she would have pushed people to vote elsewhere. Neither of those happened.

The point is that, at least in my mind, Nuwen identified some set of behaviour, hypothesised about my alignment and then acted on it. Gurgi's posting didn't seem to be affected by or really reference my alignment. Now, it may be personal bias on his part because we're friends, but I'd nonetheless think an average townie is less likely to defend someone without a read of some kind. It's also notable that Gurgi's comments were more low-key and therefore probably got the best of both worlds, in that it didn't reduce the chance I'd be lynched. So I am having a hard time seeing an objective argument why Nuwen is worse than Gurgi.

Gurgi was voting Zazie, was mindful of both competing wagons and selected one over the other. Nuwen ignored the Zazie wagon, pushed strongly against the Elmo wagon in words, but did nothing in terms of actions (votes, suggestion to lynch elsewhere) to stop it.

[Goatrevolt]

A townie should be trying to convince people off their wagon

I'm sure you've played many many games. That sort of behaviour shuts me out. You actively repelling me is not conducive to scumhunting. Stop it.

What is the difference here. End of day 1 (quote 2) you tell Llama to stop trying to repel you off his wagon, and here you are calling him scummy for not trying to repel you off his wagon. Eh?

[Goatrevolt]

I'm pretty sure TDC is town. His method of defense employs a style that I have personally seen come from town vastly more often than scum, and that is his assertions that he's town, and he thinks he appears town, and that he hopes his "townieness shines through" etc. Psychologically, I think that must just be easier for a townie to say than scum, because I rarely see scum employ it (actually, I vaguely recall debating this with Elmo in mafia discussion at some point, though I could be wrong).

I'm disappointed Nuwen hasn't joined us at all. I'm not fully sold on her being scum, and would love to hear her actually address my complaints against her. The mod saying "I won't disclose whether or not she has picked up the prod" basically suggests that she has (also I think she's been posting in GD, but don't quote me on that), which is lame if true. I just finished a game where she was town a week or so ago. There are similarities and differences between her play here and there, enough to where I'm uncomfortable drawing a strict meta call off of it alone. I can see her making the Elmo defense as town, but it's more likely a scum play on the basis of the lack of valid rationale backing it up. In that other game, she pulled a similar play day 1, but never resorted to using irrational arguments to back it up.

There is one thing that is bothering me to no end about Nuwen is the complete lack of a counterpush. If Nuwen is scum, her buddies are not worried about letting her die. Nobody is seriously pushing elsewhere. Gurgi is calling for Llama's head, but is doing nothing to actually get people on board. Elmo is pushing at TDC, but again not actually trying to drive that lynch. Nobody seems too worried about Nuwen being lynched, which is worrisome. This would suggest that her buddies are on board with the bus (at this point, Batt would be the most likely suspect here, based on his lack of commitment to the wagon, yet touting it as his preferred lynch nonetheless) or that she is town and the scum are content to sit back and do nothing while she gets canned via deadline. I'm going to come back to that more tomorrow after I have a chance to think it over, but that is a definite concern.

This game has not been easy to peg scum. I'm not sure why exactly, but when I'm town I can generally get a pretty good feel by day 2 and here I don't have that. I've found that I'm typically better at pegging town than pegging scum, so that is the angle I'm going to try to approach it. I think the following are town:

TDC
DDD
ForbiddanLight
Elmo

I'm in favor of lynching someone who is not on that list. Apologies if my post flows really poorly and is tough to follow, I'm tired and out of it right now. More tomorrow after work...

[Goatrevolt]

Nuwen has posted in GD and been on AIM, I think. Not reading anything into that, personally.

I'm not reading much into it either, although I'm not comfortable allowing her to skate into endgame if she continues to play at the same rate she has been. If she has no intention of being replaced or actually stepping up her play, then I see no reason to not just lynch her now. If I don't have a chance to get a read on her alignment then I want her dead, especially in a game like this where scum are able to easily hide.

Battousai should probably also be on the town list fwiw.

Not sold enough to put him there yet. His play at the end of yesterday + the NK speculation strikes me as pro-town, but he hasn't exhibited any of the stronger town tells the other 4 on my list have.

The case against Nuwen is interesting

Interesting meaning...?

I'm pretty curious why I'm on the list, to be honest.

Because you seem to legitimately care about who we lynch, and seem legitimately interested in finding scum. When like half the game or more is either completely lurking or actively lurking, there isn't any incentive as scum to be active and try to pressure people.

I'm clearing DDD for a similar reason. Vote swapping based on new information, and actively pressuring players when scum have incentive to lurk.

Elmo: Why would you put yourself at slightly scummy? What about your play so far do you think others would find scummy?

[Goatrevolt]

I don't think I've ever had someone I think is town argue with me that I shouldn't think they are town...It boggles the mind. I think you felt town at the end of day 1. I think your play today has felt town, and for the reason that you seem to be the only player actively doing anything.

You are welcome to convince me otherwise, though.

I didn't think your lack of anything end of day 1 was you trying not to tie yourself to scum buddies. Your wagon and Zazie's were the same size, and Zazie always looked the more likely lynch based on public opinion. Then again, I'm speculating on why you did something, when you could simply explain it yourself. I mean, was not trying to tie yourself to scum buddies your reason for nothing end of day 1?

It seems as though you are trying to say that I should believe that is the reason you didn't provide anything at the end of day 1. But if that is not the real reason, then why should I have believed that it was? If it wasn't the real rationale behind your actions, then doesn't it stand to reason that we as a town should be able to determine that it wasn't your real reason? You're speculating poorly on why you think others should find you scummy and then wondering why I don't believe said speculation?

People are bad at self-evaluation. I think I look town every game I play, but yet my last game as town I had to fight tooth and nail to not get lynched despite a cop investigation pegging someone else as scum. I thought it was obvious that I was town, but it wasn't obvious to anyone else.

I would actually have found it strange if Nuwen had voted Zazie while trying to save Elmo from a lurker lynch. That would've been a blatant double standard?

Omission of anything regarding Zazie can basically be called that same double standard.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm seriously confused with the Goat / Elmo discussion because to my eyes it reads:

G: I think you're town.
E: There's no reason to think that!
G: Well, this is why I think that. I find this weird.
E: Presents case why I could be scum.

.....

Is that a fair summation?

That is a fair summation, and it blows my mind as well. At some point, I anticipate him building a strong enough case on himself and me being forced to simply agree with it and wagon on it.

Actually, here is probably a more accurate summation:

Goat: I think when you did X it looked pro-town.
Elmo: Why would you think that? X was scummy. I did it specifically to look pro-town.
Goat: Uh, ok? I guess...um...I guess I'll take that assessment back? Still, I don't think you're that scummy.
Elmo: Well you should. Here is a list of reasons why. Oh, and my scum team isn't going to kill you tonight, because you're dumb enough to think I'm town.
Goat: Well...alright. I guess that's good. Thanks, I suppose.

[Goatrevolt]

At least I'm not the only one on drugs then.

I'm not on drugs. You must be the only one. Sorry, dude.

[Goatrevolt]

Actually, while we're on the topic, what do you think about Elmo, Spyre? Does flabbergasting mean townish or scumish?

[Goatrevolt]

I don't feel bad about the Nuwen or Zazie lynches either. I'm all for clearing out people I have no/scummy read on.

At this point, my list of people I'm interested in pursuing is:

Gurgi
Fluff
Spyre
Batt

I'm thinking at least 2 scum out of that group of 4. Gurgi + Fluff are probably not scum together, although I'm loath to rule it out completely based on Gurgi not doing anything besides saying "Fluff is scum" to try to get Llama lynched. Still, that's less likely than 1 town 1 scum. or possibly 2 town.

Whoever was on green last night should claim it. If it's one player, they are confirmed as pro-town. If it's two players, one of the two is guaranteed town. This, of course, is assuming that the scum didn't no kill to set up someone as confirmed town (unlikely, but thoughts of Advertising mafia comes to mind), or the scum were really dumb and tried to kill FL, which is even less likely.

There's pretty much no downside to the above, considering that player is presumably still on green and thus protected tonight. Lower the lynch pool, increase the chance of lynching scum. Big money, Big prizes, I

love

it.

I'm going to reread those 4 players, but that's not going to happen until into the week, as I'm busy this weekend.

Lock Green

[Goatrevolt]

Correction: Nobody has died from green. We're probably looking at 2 from green, assuming each floor had an equivalent 3 to begin with.

I'd say scratch the green claim in that case.

[Goatrevolt]

My issue is that you're saying Fluff is scum but not doing anything to convince anyone else or make an effort to ensure his death.

[Goatrevolt]

Clearly you day vig him...

I feel like your level of attempt to get him lynched is disproportionate to your stated belief of his likelihood to be scum.

[Goatrevolt]

My flawed suggestion wasn't even relevant to Spyre in the first place, considering I was only talking about people already on green, since bellhops don't move until morning.

[Goatrevolt]

Baaaaaaaaaaahhhhh.

Hoping to get a start on that read tonight. Going to be gone for a while though, so no guarantees.

[Goatrevolt]

I ended up being out all night. Tomorrow it is.

[Goatrevolt]

Ugh, sorry was out again tonight.

This is going to be a busy weekend. I'm going to try to set aside time tomorrow otherwise I don't see myself getting around to this thread until Sunday.

[Goatrevolt]

Going to start the read through right now....

[Goatrevolt]

DDD is the only one saying anything of value at all today.

Elmo: Do you seriously have no scum suspects? Finding Nuwen mildly town means you would certainly rather lynch someone else, even if you don't have a strong read on them, because they are more scummy than "mildly town". Am I wrong? Even if you don't bother to push a lynch, I find it hard to believe you see no value in even putting a vote down?

TDC: You had no problem voting in Advertising Mafia. What is the difference? What makes you think I'm scum? Furthermore, why are you making no effort whatsoever to commit to it if this is what you truly believe?

LF: Why did I move up on your scum list? I am interested in hearing those reasons.

- - - -

The idea that Spyre or myself or FL or Batt being on both townie mislynches makes us more likely to be scum is foolish. If anything else, I'm considering it a slight town tell. In a game where the town is content to sit back and do nothing, I see no reason why scum would have any need to push lynches whatsoever. Batt putting Nuwen at the 4 necessary for a deadline lynch strikes me as pro-town. I can see the scum in that scenario easily sitting on their lack of a vote or a meaningless vote while no lynch happens, and then Nuwen gets lynched the following day. That would have been a complete waste of a day.

Anyway

Vote LlamaFluff

This is nothing like the town play I remember from Llama at all. I've never seen him content to sit back and do relatively nothing while lynch after lynch goes through.

The way things look now, TDC will be the lynch. Two on his wagon, a few outliers willing to vote him if necessary. Can anyone say deadline lynch with less than the majority on board? I don't think both TDC and Llama are scum. I think Llama is scum, not TDC. I think TDC is more likely to be lynched right now.

I want everyone in the game to take a stance on both of those players. I would like to see votes as well. And if you would prefer we didn't lynch either, then how about a vote elsewhere and a reason why we shouldn't? That would be terrific. Thanks.

[Goatrevolt]

I've been pretty sick lately. My will to play mafia is sapped, so I will keep this short. I think Fluff is scum. I've never seen him as town content to sit by and do nothing. He is always pressuring players and generating reads. Early on, sure, the setup speculation was in the way of scumhunting, etc. but it's day 3...

I'm going to stick by my town read of TDC at this point. His play has been lackluster to the extreme, but his defenses yesterday struck me as very much pro-town. Unless I have strong reason to believe otherwise, I'm sticking by my gut here.

And now to sweet sweet bed...

[Goatrevolt]

Calling Fluff + Gurgi scum team right now, with a side of Spyrex/Batt, who both seem to want dead TDC. Gurgi is expressing surprise at the Llama wagon and hasn't yet jumped on board? Well, shucks. Call me surprised. Seems a bit odd, no, considering his earlier stances where he kept wondering why nobody was voting Llama?

Just skimmed through TDC's posts...still think he's town. Feels sincere. Defenses feel +town.

Where are FL and DDD? Still need stances from them on Fluff/TDC. Also, Gurgi???

Fluff-Gurgi-Spyre/Batt for scum 2009. Join the campaign.

[Goatrevolt]

Elmo has been less prominent today compared to yesterday. Might be big depending on the results of today's lynch. Something to keep in mind.

[Goatrevolt]

Mod: Prod FL please

[Goatrevolt]

Are you going to change your vote then, or do you find SpyreX scummiest and rather have a no lynch over LF/TDC?

There's still two days left until deadline, plenty of time for me to

move

cast my vote as needed.

Hmm, I wonder...

Seriously, I want a guy lynched, I'm still wondering why it emerged after no serious change. I don't know why it would be scum-driven, I'd still like a satisfying explanation about

something

. Lucky for me it looks like my vote might actually

matter

. Good leverage. I like that DDD is thinking similarly.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

What is this "something" you want explained?

[Goatrevolt]

GoatRevolt could easily be scum here and tbh the people who seem to believe otherwise scare me. I figured I'd say that since no-one is talking much about him. (Honestly, I'm reconsidering my conspiracy theory from Day 1 with Goat + FLight as scum while telling myself it makes no sense.)

Anyone could be scum. Do you have reason to believe I'm scum? If so, I'm more than willing to clear up any misconceptions now. I feel like my play this game has been pro-town, so I'm not really seeing the reason people are including me in their scum lists, or are so anxious about dispelling other players town reads of me. Elmo, you seem mighty interested in removing the idea that I'm town from everyone's mind, yet you have not brought anything up against me. Nobody has presented any reasons why I might be scum beyond...gut...or POE, giving me essentially nothing to defend myself against, and likewise no room for me to really question those reads to determine validity.

I really don't like you pushing to try to get people away from reading me as town while likewise not actually presenting any points against me yourself. It feels like I'm being set up.

This is irritating because I have like one single tiny towntell on most people and I'm chasing my tail trying to decide which to follow. I should really have checked in earlier and decided what to do, I think it's fairly inevitable that fluffy gets lynched at this point. Derp.

This reads as your disappointment in LlamaFluff being the likely lynch. This is a bit interesting considering your current vote on LlamaFluff...

I'm still holding to Goat being town although it seems that the apathy monster has devoured him as well.

Day 2, I was absent most of the day, due to a combination of factors. I did come back near deadline and try to do something meaningful, but meh. Today I've made an effort to remain as active as I can despite having a bad flu since Monday. I don't think you can look at any of my posts and say I've been apathetic. I've tried today to get people to take stances and arrive at a lynch that isn't a weak deadline deal. Far from apathy.

Meh, I really hope I'm not fucking the game up here, but I think I have to

Unvote

Gurgi doesn't want to join his wagon on Fluff. Elmo doesn't seem "happy" about the Fluff lynch but is again doing a grand total of nothing to stop it and even has his vote on Llama. Llama's not even making an attempt to self-preservation vote. As much as Llama feels like scum, this wagon feels worse...

I don't really think DDD is scum. I'm really second guessing my earlier town call on Elmo. I really don't like his stance on Fluff + push on me. Maybe LG/Elmo/Spyre or Batt?? This is driving me nuts...

[Goatrevolt]

Anyone could be scum. Do you have reason to believe I'm scum?

I meant exactly what I said, that you could easily be scum, not that I have any particular reason to think that you are. People like SpyreX are discounting the possibility, and I don't like that. I'm not attacking you, just

- it's too damn easy for one person to look helpful and slip through

Ok, sure...

I really don't like you pushing to try to get people away from reading me as town while likewise not actually presenting any points against me yourself. It feels like I'm being set up.

How exactly would I be setting you up?

My feeling of being setup is that by trying to remove the notion that I am town you are sowing seeds of suspicion on me. Then some sort of a catalyst, like say I lead a mislynch on Llama, and those seeds bloom tomorrow and I get mislynched afterward. Both your play and Gurgi's play gave me this feeling, in how you reacted to the Fluff wagon.

I don't see how. It's irritating because my read on him isn't significantly different from my read on most other people, my original vote was bandwagoning, and I meant to check in between then and now but I don't think I did.

You don't see how that post reads as you expressing disappointment with the LlamaFluff lynch?

I'm also not a fan of how the wagon's going; I actually considering unvoting and voting SpyreX in that post, but like I said, it looked/looks fairly inevitable, though, so meh.

No, this is not an excuse. If you unvote, TDC and Fluff will be tied in votes. If you voted SpyreX he would also be tied in votes. I refuse to accept this as valid.

Elmo, you seem mighty interested in removing the idea that I'm town from everyone's mind

Why am I "mighty interested"? I think I said pretty much one sentence in one post, thus far.

You pushed SpyreX on it earlier today, and then brought it up again today. Looking at how many relevant posts you've made today, it's been a fairly prevalent topic for you.

[Goatrevolt]

[egorub]I notice that LF is voting for the other person I have primarily suspected in the long term out of self-interest.[/egorub] At the same time, Goat is dropping off the wagon and saying it's not a self-preservation vote. Please explain, Goat, how a vote on a non-candidate isn't self-preservation. Please explain why you got on the wagon in the first place, because I can't think of any aspects of your complaint that have changed since you got on.

Do I really need to explain why a vote on a non-candidate isn't self-preservation? Self-preservation means you are acting in a way strictly for the purpose of surviving. Voting someone who is unlikely to be lynched, making it more likely that you get lynched yourself is the opposite of self-preservation. What about this doesn't make sense?

This is why I voted Fluff:

This is nothing like the town play I remember from Llama at all. I've never seen him content to sit back and do relatively nothing while lynch after lynch goes through.

Nothing has changed between my vote on him and the subsequent unvote in terms of Llama's play itself. What has changed is my perception of other players interactions with him and my feel that he is probably not scum based on the way the wagon built up. Finding scum is not a strict "he did, he did not do" equation. I always factor in the rest of the game and how they interact as well.

Now that I think about it,

Vote: DDD

. Don't grow this wagon quickly. If the people who join this wagon are who I predict they will be, I'll have a threesome all nicely sorted.

I don't like this kind of shenanigans close to deadline. Isn't expressing that you will know who is scum based on who joins the wagon counterproductive to determining who those scum are? Is DDD one of those scum, or are you voting him as bait? I'm not content to allow this vote to stand in this fashion at this point in the game.

[Goatrevolt]

Voting a non-candidate IS self-preservation. That you don't understand it is why he did it. Why would he explicitly vote out of self-preservation when TDC was bit for it? So then he votes for a non-candidate for either townie points or a new wagon. Win-Win.

Eh, this is what I assumed you meant. Sure, it's possible this is the reason he did it. I still think scum in that situation (gun put to their head) are going to look for the more concrete solution, and not try the tricky backdoor way out of their lynch. So yes, this is possible, but I argue less likely.

So the reason you got off the wagon is because of other people's reasoning for getting on it... The same reason I never got on it. It seems like I did what you did, but more clever.

No, actually this is not true. It wasn't other player's reasoning for getting on it, but rather you and Elmo's stance in regards to it. You pushing the wagon for a long time, but then not wanting to commit to it, and Elmo expressing both disappointment with the wagon but doing nothing to change the status quo and leaving his vote on gives the impression that Fluff is a mislynch.

Wait you are asking me to explain an explanation for a vote that may or may not already be invalidated then asking questions that would almost certainly invalidate it, following telling me it's silly. Why? Don't you think there's a conflict?

No. I don't care for trickery 2 days from deadline, especially since it seems like you defeated your own purpose by declaring the exact type of trickery you were going for.

Do you honestly think there is enough time for you to learn anything meaningful from this? Can you at least answer this question: "Is DDD who you want to lynch most and why?"

[Goatrevolt]

I wasn't arguing Fluff is incompetent, just suggesting the likelihood of making that play is stronger than making the "backdoor" play. I don't see how competence plays a part. I consider myself competent and I would be much more likely in that situation to vote for TDC out of self-preservation than vote elsewhere and hope to convince people off my wagon.

Unreasonable? Not sure. Very odd? Definitely. It suggests that you were not nearly as confident in your read of Fluff as you tried to portray in earlier days. When I'm as confident someone is scum as you made it out to be, I want them lynched despite the way the wagon progresses, and just assume bad votes are probably busing. Rather than this, you backed off at the first sign of an unreasoned vote, despite you begging people to vote him the day before. I don't know exactly what to make of it, but it's bothersome.

I'm trying to undermine it, because we're sitting at deadline and I have no patience for mind games. If it's a pointless move, why shouldn't I be trying to undermine it? You are maintaining subterfuge because you haven't expressed exactly why you are voting DDD and specifically what you hope to learn. You also exposed this by giving a framework of what you expect to learn. It can be both at the same time.

My suggestion for a better way to spend the time is trying to convince us to lynch DDD if you truly think he is scum, not play games with him 2 days out. I was doing exactly that with Fluff until I changed my opinion on him.

Right now, I'm trying to determine where my vote should be and try to nail scum today. If you have a case, present it. I really have no patience for cloak and dagger at this point, and you will excuse me if I don't necessarily buy your explanation that you will "peg all 3 scum" with this play.

[Goatrevolt]

Gurgi, I feel like crap and don't have the desire or patience to go back and forth with you endlessly, but I'm not being inconsistent at all. I've said it 9 times already. Voting someone for undisclosed reasons at deadline is complete bullshit. It's not helpful to anyone. I really could care less what kind of trickery you are trying to pull. I just want to know why you are voting DDD and whether you want him lynched or not.

This isn't ridiculous. This isn't contradictory to anything I've said to Elmo. I'm getting aggressive because I'm frustrated.

@Spyre: I did derail the Fluff wagon. I also argue that I got it going in the first place. Meh. The deadline bit sucks a lot. I know I am personally guilty of it as well, although today I made a conscious effort to try to start pushing wagons long before the deadline (Fluff-wagon). It just turns out that everything happened with it (FL, Elmo, Gurgi) close to deadline anyway. The only way I can see this changing is if members of the town start acting more pro-active (as I have tried today) thus forcing scum to be more pro-active, and we can start deciding things earlier.

What do you think of my reasons for abandoning my vote on Fluff?

[Goatrevolt]

Elmo: The nature of asking that question to Spyre suggests that you don't believe that I am town. As a general trend, people don't challenge other players on a stance they also hold. You asking it a second time as a general statement after Spyre gave his answer suggests again that you don't believe it to be true and are worried about the fact that others do. You wouldn't be worried about people thinking I'm town unless you don't think I'm town yourself. If you are worried about people thinking I am town, you would want to dispel that idea. I'm just playing connect-the-dots.

I am generally fairly good at picking up changes in people's stance on me, and I've detected you changing to more of a scum read on me today (why not ask those questions yesterday?). I simply want to know why. What has caused you to change your opinion?

[Goatrevolt]

And then, of all people, it's GR who disassembles the Fluff wagon. With the reasoning that Gurgi isn't joining it (wasn't that the reason to think they were BOTH scum just a few posts ago?) and that Elmo has a bad feeling about it but isn't doing anything against it (isn't that exactly what Gurgi has been doing to give GR the idea of them being scum together?).

Multiple reasons. One is that there were two people content to let the wagon go while not being happy about it. Screams mislynch. Originally I thought Gurgi and Fluff were scum together, but Gurgi wasn't pushing in another direction, and Fluff's lynch become almost inevitable. If Gurgi/Fluff were scum together, Gurgi would jump on board for the bus, if he wasn't going to push elsewhere. The combination of that and Elmo's statement, which was kind of like an "oh well, guess we'll lynch Llama" and the Llama wagon started to look pretty poor. I also felt like both Gurgi and Elmo were sowing the seeds of a future mislynch on me as well. Gurgi with his "I'm not sure if this is scum driven or not" and Elmo with repeatedly wondering why people considered me town.

I personally think it's, because those that are trying to derail the Fluff wagon can't convincingly sell voting me.
GR certainly couldn't. Not sure about Gurgi, think if he wanted to, he could do it and not take too much flak.
So yeah, Fluff-scum would look bad for GR, as far as I'm concerned.

This paragraph assumes I'm scum. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Numerous players in this game keep asserting or suggesting that I'm scum or "could be scum" (same thing, really) but are unwilling or unable to provide any reasons behind it.

Why would Fluff being scum look bad for me? Why do you even assume I want to sell voting for you when I have spent a few posts today trying to suggest that people

don't

vote you. This is getting absurd.

TDC: I assume you want Llama to be lynched then? You didn't really say much but left your vote on. Originally this was a self-preservation vote, what is it now?

I would like to lynch either Gurgi or Elmo today. They are the two with the worst stances in regards to Llama, who I think is more likely town than scum at this point. I would like everyone to weigh in on whether or not you are willing to support either of these candidates.

As it stands now, I will vote Fluff over either of the other two players with votes, but there is time to wagon elsewhere.

Also, I want to see what Gurgi has to say about his DDD vote.

[Goatrevolt]

Okay so first you think Fluff is scum.
Then you think Gurgi is his buddy because he's not joining the wagon despite being suspicious of him.
Then you think they can't be scum together, because Gurgi would jump on when Fluff's lynch seems to go through.
And then you conclude that Fluff is probably town and Gurgi is probably scum.

Do you see what happened here? You added something to Fluff-scum, removed it again, and come out with Fluff-town and Gurgi-scum.
I'm really not getting it.

Here's the timeline...

1. I think Fluff is scum.
2. I think Gurgi is a scum buddy for pushing him repeatedly on days when Fluff wasn't under scrutiny by others and then making no move to get on when Fluff finally does come under pressure.

Intercession: Fluff moves from 2 votes to 4 votes.

3. At this point Gurgi has made no move to make an alternate push or attempt to cash home on the Llama wagon. If he is scum, I expect one of the two to occur. Otherwise, he completely throws away any credibility he attempted to create by pushing Fluff in the first place. This right here suggests they are not scum together.

4. Unrelated to 1-3, I think Fluff is town. This is brought about by my look around the town. I see Gurgi unwilling to jump on the wagon he tried to build for 2 days. I see Elmo express at the

very least

a neutral attitude toward lynching Llama but keep his vote on anyway. He later suggests that he is "not a fan" of how the Llama wagon is going, but keeps his vote on regardless. He has kept that vote on despite suggesting a flawed "inevitability" theory that was shot down and stated dislike of the wagon.

This does not give me a good feeling about hitting scum. Is this wrong? Am I stupid? I'm simply playing off of what I see.

I'll try to make this clearer:
You can't save Fluff by voting me, it would completely contradict your earlier play (we seem to agree on this).
You can save him, by voting someone who isn't me.
Like, uhh.. DDD. Conveniently, Fluff, instead of voting me (whom he suspected all along and is suddenly very unsure about), starts a wagon on DDD.
Fast forward to deadline, and you can easily vote DDD over Fluff.
Of course, all that only makes sense if Fluff is scum.

STOP. STOP. STOPPPPPPP.

This is like some sort of circle of fallacy. You say it in the last sentence, but seriously...

You are using me jumping off the Fluff wagon (the Fluff wagon falling apart) to suggest that Fluff is scum. You are using your newfound stance that Fluff is scum to suggest that I am scum with him, because I jumped off the Fluff wagon. Therefore I am scum because I jumped off of the Fluff wagon, making him scum, making me scum.

If anything is a fallacy, this is it. I'm too tired to decide what it is, but it kind of strikes me as a "using the conclusion to prove the conclusion" kind of a fallacy.

You've completely reversed your reads, and all at the last minute, because of what other people are doing at the last minute. I just can't help but see all this as hypocrisy. You're starting a new direction the day before deadline, because you say other people are starting in new directions at the last minute. How simply can I say it?

This is not true. It has nothing to do with new directions. It has entirely to do with how people interacted with Llama.

Reversing my reads because of how other people are acting? Well, fuck me. Isn't that how we're supposed to play this game?

-------

I'm not voting DDD. I've already said this.

[Goatrevolt]

One is that there were two people content to let the wagon go while not being happy about it. Screams mislynch.

If one of these is me, this is wrong and pretty much in direct opposition to what I posted.

Elmo:

SpyreX, why do you want to hammer?

Questioning the hammer is not how someone acts toward a wagon they are fine with.

Llama, can you give any reasoning behind any of the reads? Like, one of LG and TDC being scum. I just want to hear what you're thinking, really.

Questioning Llama for reads, suggests that you are not sold to the wagon.

I think it's fairly inevitable that fluffy gets lynched at this point. Derp.

Calling a wagon "fairly inevitable" suggests a mentality that you are unhappy with the wagon. If you liked the Llama wagon and it was fairly inevitable, then that is a good thing, not something to bring up at the end of a "woe is me, I have no reads" paragraph.

I'm also not a fan of how the wagon's going; I actually considering unvoting and voting SpyreX in that post, but like I said, it looked/looks fairly inevitable, though, so meh.

Self-explanatory. Really.

No, this is not an excuse. If you unvote, TDC and Fluff will be tied in votes. If you voted SpyreX he would also be tied in votes. I refuse to accept this as valid.

I thought he was on four, and I don't/didn't expect anyone to show up and care before deadline. Shrug.

I present you with the information that Llama's lynch is NOT inevitable, and in fact that your vote by itself could cause a tie or even someone else to be the vote leader, and you simply explain your earlier stance, yet still make no move off of Fluff.

-------------

I don't think it is far-fetched at all to suggest the idea that Elmo is not enthralled with the Fluff wagon, but yet has remained on board.

[Goatrevolt]

GR: Of Gurgi and Elmo, which would you prefer to lynch? Why?

Honestly, I don't know. I'd really be fine just lynching either.

Do you think you can possibly start a wagon in the few hours left?

Nobody seemed too enthusiastic about it when I suggested the idea a day or so ago.

At this point, I think it is unlikely that I can do anything to change the lynch away from Llama. I hope you all are right, and hope that you remember what I said today in the case that I am right.

And what do you think about DDD? I assume you have some sort of town read on him?

This is correct.

[Goatrevolt]

Vote Lord Gurgi

[Goatrevolt]

Too bad it didn't matter...that was at the precise last possible minute...

Here's a hope Llama was bluffing.

[Goatrevolt]

That is awfully convenient. Incredibly so.

Yes. The convenience is truly unnatural. I dodged the thread carefully for many hours as I patiently tapped the F5 key to the rhythm of my music. Watching. Refreshing. Calculating. Refreshing. Waiting. For the right time...


...To Pounce! To place that 2nd vote on Lord Gurgi. The clock grazed 9:59 PM CDT and I knew the time was right. I carefully slid my mouse over with the deftness only a true master can possess, and depressed the mouse button over the submit key, and my request was made. Mafiascum responded, near instantly, with confirmation that I had succeeded in my task.


I had done it. The unthinkable. I had sat on my ass for hour after hour at my computer doing absolutely nothing as I waited for that ripe moment to spring my vote on Gurgi. And that moment came. And like that wound tiger I was, I tore into it with deadly accuracy.


Or, it would have been deadly had it not been actually 1 vote shy of achieving lynch. Shit.

---------

But seriously, what is convenient about my vote? Do explain. Are you actually trying to suggest that I camped my computer and timed it so I could put a vote on at exactly deadline or some BS like that? What could I even be attempting to gain with a play like that? Ahahahaha.

[Goatrevolt]

Massclaim is definitely in order.

I'm highly skeptical of the bellhop shenanigans. I'll echo TDC's question: Has anyone been moved besides SpyreX and FL? I have not.

[Goatrevolt]

There is also the possibility that I was targetted N1.

This is true, although I would find it quite odd for a scum bellhop to try to move you N1, and then not try again N2 when you would certainly not be targeting yourself, considering the backlash when you announced it day 2. If there is a scum bellhop deadset on moving you from green, N2 would have been the perfect night to succeed.

[Goatrevolt]

I didn't announce that I did it N1. I actually left that up to speculation. Of course, if they tried to move me they WOULD know what I did.

There is that. I also found it fairly obvious what happened, whether it was left to speculation or not.

What made you think Elmo was town?

[Goatrevolt]

Along with mass claim, everyone should claim their original floor and their current floor.

[Goatrevolt]

What is this list you speak of?

[Goatrevolt]

What is this list you speak of?

This list.

How does that list handle Llamafluff being dead and town?

[Goatrevolt]

Was on Blue, now on Green (oddly enough, I thought I started on Red. Weeeirrdd)

VT up in the house.

If this is true, that's pretty odd. 4 of the dead townies were on Blue. You would be the 5th on that floor. That means we either have very odd initial floor placements, or there is another bellhop who moved one of those now deceased to blue.

Considering FL claimed to have moved Elmo, yet Elmo did not show up as green when he got killed, that means if any of the deceased were moved to blue, they would have known in advance of their death and would have had to choose not to announce as such. It would make no sense to

NOT

announce as such because nobody should be moving players to blue, in other words, that would be proof of a scum bellhop. Based on that, I can conclude the 4 dead on blue where not moved there but started there.

This means we started with at least 4 players on Blue, 5 if SpyreX is truthful. That's definitely not what I expected.


Also, at this point, we have proof of a scum bellhop, be it FL or someone else who moved her to Blue. We should be mindful of this.

[Goatrevolt]

VT started on red and still on red.

Same.

Gurgi, TDC, and ... DDD need to claim. I think that's all.

[Goatrevolt]

So you think scum are faking their claims then? Why wouldn't SpyreX claim blue? I don't see how this is a town-tell at all.

[Goatrevolt]

If he was greenscum, or even bluescum, there is more motivation to claim something other than blue, than there would be if he was bluetown. That makes it a town tell, if not very much so.

Enlighten me. I don't see the downside of scum claiming blue, or why SpyreX as scum would have incentive to claim something else.

[Goatrevolt]

At the start of the game:

Red:
ZazieR
Battousai
Goatrevolt

Yellow:
The ghost of Christmas Past

Blue:
Patrick
Nuwen
LlamaFluff
Elmo
SpyreX

Green:
DDD
TDC
LG
FL

Current:

Red:
Battousai
Goatrevolt

Blue:
FL

Green:
LG
DDD
TDC
SpyreX

Conclusions:

Battousai and myself are the only players capable of having made the kill on Elmo last night

assuming

that everyone is telling the truth about their current locations. Based on my read of Battousai being probable town and my knowledge that I'm town, I'm going to guess that this assumption is flawed. With proof of a scum bellhop, and at least two nights of unclaimed activity, I'm guessing that one of our friends on the Green floor was moved off to be able to make kills or that one of the players claiming to be originally on green is simply lying.

[Goatrevolt]

2. Has anyone, besides me and fl, started out on green?

I'm taking that as a claim that TDC started on green.

Why would claiming blue as an initial location make SpyreX stick out? He has no reason to lie about where he initially was located considering he claimed he was moved N2 to green. I fail to see this as meaningful in any way.

[Goatrevolt]

They are not contradictory positions at all. 5th blue is weird, odd, against what I perceived to be the setup. In no way does that mean he who claims 5th blue must therefore be town, and I don't see why that is the case at all. It's easier to claim the truth than to lie, even as scum. There's no downside to him claiming 5th blue as scum. Thus I don't see why it's a town-tell. Simple as that.

I don't think scum-SpyreX would lie about his initial location because I don't see what scum-SpyreX would have to gain by lying about his initial location. Unless his initial location was green (in which case he would be lying when he said he got moved to green) I don't see why he would be hesitant at all to just claim whatever room he started in truthfully.

[Goatrevolt]

If FL is town, I have to assume that the scum bellhop waited on all night actions until now to keep themselves hidden OR that they were moving scum around for ???.

Moving scum off of green secretly would allow scum to be able to submit kills without anyone being aware of who is making them. There is incentive for scum to do this, and in fact, I consider this to be an extremely likely situation (the alternative in my eyes is that Batt is scum). If FL is scum, N1 when "she moved herself" could have been her moving a scum buddy off of green. If there is another scum bellhop, N1 or N2 could have been moving a scum buddy off of green to allow for easy access to kills. It's also possible that nobody was moved off of green and someone is simply lying about being on green.

@TDC: I'm working under the assumption that dead town players would have informed us if they were moved, because it would be an obvious sign of a scum bellhop, and there would be no reason not to report it.


At this point, I seriously need to reevaluate. Elmo being dead town means I am wrongly clearing someone as town, but the question is who...TDC? FL? DDD?

[Goatrevolt]

Wow, so few posts this weekend.

Lock Red

I'm not sure if the lack of hammer on TDC is the nail in the coffin yet, considering we have seen nothing from FL or DDD in the meantime. Either way, he is most likely going to be lynched today, either from scum hammering home a lynch on a townie TDC, or by everyone checking in and the realization that he has to be scum. I'm starting to think it's the latter.

Can we at least lock down a floor in the meantime?

I guess the alternative is that both Batt and Spyre are scum, but I find that unlikely.

Mod: can we get a prod on FL and DDD? It's been almost 3 days

[Goatrevolt]

Also, TDC is at L-2. Meaning it's not likely he'd be quickhammered.

Not if he's scum. If he's town, Batt and Spyre would both need to be scum for quick hammering to not be a possibility.

[Goatrevolt]

I think it's more likely that TDC is scum than both Battousai and SpyreX, as I said. How is that not a real stance?

[Goatrevolt]

I don't have an amazing or elaborate case. I've thought TDC is town for much of the game, but I know that I can't be right about all of my town reads, and I think it's less likely that SpyreX and Battousai are both scum. I find Battousai alone more townish than TDC.

It is possible that one of the votes on TDC is scum even if TDC is scum. That is a possibility you overlooked. If TDC is scum, I highly doubt both of his voters are scum, because that would simply be dumb play. Not only would they be pushing a scum buddy in Lylo, but they would be manufacturing a scenario where he looks more and more like scum the longer he sits at L-2 without being lynched. If TDC is indeed scum, you can't simply write off both players on his wagon as being town.

[Goatrevolt]

Goat: How strongly do you believe that, anyway, now that I have you here.

Fairly. The alternative is both Spyre/Batt being scum, and although I can see Spyre as scum, I really don't think Batt is.

Now that Red is locked down, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote TDC

[Goatrevolt]

Why would scum push a buddy at this point? Even if it's just one guy on the wagon, why?

It's highly doubtful Battousai is scum. Being the first to push the wagon would be foolish. I could see Spyre, though. He is definitely more likely town for being on board, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

Scum would push a buddy at this point to avoid having the entire house of cards fall down if one gets caught. If TDC is lynched and only townies are on the wagon, that could be game over.

Anyway, I can see TDC/you/and one of Spyre/FL/DDD being scum fairly easily.

[Goatrevolt]

Alright, I guess we wait and watch at this point.

[Goatrevolt]

This was a fairly scum-dominated game. I never felt threatened at all, and there were never any real pushes on Batt or LG either. The majority of the town was content to sit back and do relatively nothing, which game us plenty of opportunity to take control of the game.

I wasn't sure whether I made the right move or not when I jumped in to oppose the LlamaFluff lynch after helping to drive it into lynch range. I was a bit worried that leading 3 consecutive mislynches in a row would make me quite a nice lynch on Day 4, and it ended up working out really well as Llama got lynched anyway but I didn't have to field any of the blame.

In terms of the setup, I think it was fairly balanced, to be honest. The floor locking mechanic was entirely town-centric and functioned at about the power level of a couple of power roles. The "doc save" on DDD night 2 was especially annoying, as that forced us to go an entire extra day and get an extra mislynch to win. Generally scum need 3 mislynches in a 12 person game, but we needed 4. The fact that they happened in succession makes the game appear to be anti-town but I really don't think that is true at all.

Ironically enough, the plan I originally proposed, which involved everyone claiming their color on day 1 would have worked out best for the town. It would have caused us to realize that there were 5 players on blue day 1 (we expected 3-3-3-3 symmetry, even on the final day we had no clue) lock down blue and FL could have secretly pushed people to the blue floor. This would have kept 5 players, all town, off of being able to be killed, and would have forced Batt and Gurgi to start shoveling people off of blue, which would have made FL confirmed town when she claimed bellhop eventually. That, or it would have forced Batt to counterclaim, pitting them in a 1-1 situation.

[Goatrevolt]

The town really needed someone to step up and lead.

[Goatrevolt]

Oddly enough it felt genuine that you didn't realize Elmo was dead (which apparently is true) which meant, to me, that you were town.

Well done.

I was using that as a base point to call him town on the final day. It was one of those "tells" that was legitimate enough to use without issue.

Elmo: I feel the scum had control of the game because the town sure didn't. Nobody took control or really tried to push for a lynch. Nobody had enough conviction to try to actively push someone to get lynched, which allowed us to get 3 consecutive deadline lynches at less than majority on townies. The town really needed someone to step up and lead.

PJ: I think the game was well-balanced. I think opinions are skewed based on the outcome of this game, but the truth of the matter is 4 consecutive townies were lynched without scum being hit at all and a night kill was soaked up which gave town that extra mislynch before the loss. Even despite us being in complete control of the game (the day LF was lynched, prior to the last minute Gurgi wagon, the 4 wagons were all on townies) we still could have seen the entire game crumble on the last day if Gurgi was lynched. The red floor was locked down, ironically enough because Batt and myself were the towniest players, but if Gurgi was killed, we would have been unable to make a kill with both remaining scum on lock down and we would have likely lost. If nothing else, it would have taken quite some convincing to talk our way out of that one.

I kept expecting Gurgi to vote TDC when we were both online, but I guess he was waiting for me to do the same. We kind of went back and forth unnecessarily for a while until I realized "Duh!" he's waiting for me.

[Goatrevolt]

Next time I'm in a game with goat I swear the minute I go "Ohh that is TOTALLY town" I'm lynching the hell out of him.

Next time you're in a game with me, I will actually be town, and will be playing my town game, and you will want to lynch me. That is how it generally works .

[Goatrevolt]

And people thinking Goat was town is just depressing, literally. I just give up.

People kept arguing that I shouldn't be considered town but not a single person presented even 1 reason to consider me scum. Complaining about people considering me town but not actually considering me scum or doing anything at all to push for my lynch is pretty meaningless.

Elmo: I feel the scum had control of the game because the town sure didn't.

Eh, that's pretty weird reasoning. I don't think either side had much control. Town was apathetic and you had influence over, like, SpyreX or so.

It's not weird reasoning at all. Any game where not a single scum player is under threat of being lynched at any point during the game is fairly scum-dominated and scum controlled. Town apathy means the town doesn't bother to take control means the scum are in control. Any game where the town is lost and "apathetic" and weak willed the scum are in control.

As for the apathy argument, I argue some or most of the apathy was a result of the town not having a clue. I think my scum buddies both played a good game and made it difficult to easily peg them. When finding scum is hard, apathy is the path of least resistance. If finding scum were easy, I doubt the town would have been so apathetic.

I argue the town was apathetic because it wasn't easy and because there weren't any roles to play follow the role on. I don't think apathy caused the lack of scumhunting, rather I think the lack of effective scum hunting caused apathy.

[Goatrevolt]

Complaining about people considering me town but not actually considering me scum or doing anything at all to push for my lynch is pretty meaningless.

"People" was me, as far as I can remember. I'm not sure what point you're making here - believing you were town was really bad. I agree it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome if everyone was neutral on you, if that's what you mean, but it's a bugbear of mine. It just mystifies me how people can get it that wrong - there is literally nothing you did that it remotely townish.

Eh, this really sounds like a hindsight thing to be honest. You say there is nothing I did this game that was remotely townish. If that were true, I would have been lynched. If that were true, why wouldn't you vote me and never let go? I wasn't exactly a pinnacle of townieness but I feel like I played above the level of the majority of the town, which was good enough to get by. Is there any reason to play above that level? Playing more townie than that just helps the town too much. The only real point anyone raised against me the entire game was that I was scum IF Llama was scum.

So in a hypothetical game where scum have no influence over the lynch beyond their own votes, but they're under no threat of being lynched, they have control of the game? How does that work? You can pretty much define control as being able to dictate what happens, and they can't do that.

Scum absolutely have control of that game. Scum win by not being lynched. If scum aren't in danger of being lynched, they are in the driver seat. They don't have to be actively creating mislynches or actively influencing how townies are acting to be in control. Simply being considered town is sufficient control. Being in control of a game means you are actively affecting how the game is going to end, and if you have no threat of being lynched, you are affecting the outcome, even if it's in less outright manipulative ways.

Town started getting apathetic like a week into the game. It was effectively lost maybe a couple of days before Night 1. Your scumbuddies played competently, which was sufficient to outplay the town, that's about it. I don't think they played a good game; I just don't see what you think the scum did that brought them the win. Again, we had 1-2-3 lurker lynches, it's not like the scum actually needed to do anything.

I think you are underselling the value of how well the scum played. Whether or not the game was 1-2-3 lurker lynches (Llama really wasn't a "lurker" lynch, and neither was TDC, but that's beside the point), the fact is that not a single town player at any point in this game had any kind of a good lead on who was scum. That right there pretty much says it all. What exactly could the scum have done differently to play a "good" game as opposed to a perfect win where the town had absolutely no clue whatsoever? What is good scum play as opposed to what happened in this game? The scum generated mislynches, avoided taking the blame for them, and got townies lynched. This was done in an invitational game against quality players.

Yes, there was a lot of apathy, and no real pushes made by town players, but even the weak pushes were on other townies.

This isn't sour grapes, I do think the scum outplayed the town, and I do think the side that played the best won, and I'd be the first to say so if I thought you guys played really well, but the town pretty much rolled over for you here. I probably contributed to that by being absent for a good part of Day 1, which was caused by stuff coming up unexpectedly - which is pretty much bad luck in itself. (shrug)

The town did fail and shoot itself in the foot. I just don't understand what the criteria is for what constitutes a good scum game and an average scum game. What were suboptimal plays the scum made and why didn't the town jump on them?

[Goatrevolt]

I can't say I've been a part of an apathetic town before, but then again I generally try to generate reads and information when I'm town, and I try to push home lynches. So I suppose this is alien to me. It's not "gotta win win win" but rather, "why the hell am I playing this game if I don't even care who wins and I'm not trying?" Also, I definitely don't think the scum deserved a scummy for this game. I think we played well, and I think much credit should go to the scum for the victory (as opposed to simply blaming town on the loss) but it clearly wasn't an award-worthy performance by any stretch. I simply object to the sentiment "you didn't play well, we just played worse" because I think the scum did play well.

[Goatrevolt]

I enjoyed it less than other games I've played, definitely.

I have explained why the scum played well. Nobody in the town had any clue, and perfect win. While some of that can obviously be blamed on poor town play, you can't simply say it's all poor town play. On the flip side, what did the scum do this game that made them play only an average game as opposed to a good game? What were some moves that could have made this exceptional scum play? Is there any scum play that could possibly have happened in this game you would consider good, or does poor town play automatically mean that the scum get a "you played ok" regardless of whether that is actually true or not? I feel like the town playing poorly means the scum automatically get knocked down two notches on how well they played as well, whether that is true or false.