Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[charlatan]

Evening, folks.

I'm happy to have replaced in here; several players I'd hoped to play with again are here. Seems like the ball is already rolling, and it's late, so I'll probably get all caught up and in the mix tomorrow.

[charlatan]

Thanks for the welcome. I'm going to try and dive right in (so this post will be large), but forgive me if I'm slow to get started. Even when I reread a few times the game never seems to really solidify in my head until I've been in the mix for a little bit.

Who are you?

I never really know.

I'm going to wait until ekiM's replacement before really doing much more, because that's where my first suspicion lies.

That's me. How can I help you?

Thoughts:

On the SC bandwagon: I am all for early game bandwagoning, and it seemed very likely that Zito was hoping to see an early bandwagon form on SC to watch who jumped on/stayed off, etc. My experience has been that this play works best when the one encouraging the bandwagon does

not

give good, solid reasons for wanting to do so, especially as doing so is likely impossible. I find the fact that Amished indicated "seeing what Vito was possibly on to" (paraphrased) to be slightly suspicious, as I doubted very much that Vito had anything up his sleeve. The supposition that SC might be setting up an opportunity to fish out an inappropriate claim down the road seems a stretch. Oddin's assertion that PZ did something to plant that idea seems pulled from the blue as well:

So yes, PZ, you pretty much lied - at any rate, you've created a very wrong impression.

ODDin: Can you explain to me how you figure he lied? That's a pretty strong accusation, and I honestly don't see where it's coming from. Creating a bandwagon in the early game is its own justification.

On the same topic, the ongoing VP/PZ clash is a bit of a mystery to me. Help me if I summarize poorly: Zito is claiming it's inappropriate for VP to dismiss "joking" behavior. VP is claiming that it's questionable for Zito to argue this when, in fact, Zito's reasoning for the bandwagon was pretty much null. If this is accurate, I agree with Zito, but I find neither of them to be more scummy for the whole argument. In fact, it feels vaguely personal. Is there an elephant in the room that I don't know about? Do you by chance have some prior annoyance with each other? I get that vibe a little, and I think it will help me get a better read as we go on if I know.

Sando pings my scumdar the most at the moment. Rasko's 144 is spot on, and only once he's pressed around there is when Sando says anything worthy of note. Before then, it's mostly excuses to not be participating (dismissing meta). This quote stood out:

Amished constantly asking for reads from everyone gets on my nerves, and I personally find it quite scummy outside of newbie games.

Why is this scummy? Worthy of note is that Amished was not the only person inviting reads from other players (and even more interesting is that Rasko did it in the post immediately before.) In his early posts, Sando seems to be defending the right to participate at a minimal level.

Now Sando's on a growing bandwagon, and I do not get the sense that he's taking his accusers seriously. This bothers me, as the accusations are completely legitimate. If he truly does not understand where they are coming from, then we're looking at a communication breakdown, and in that case it would be in his best interest to try and understand so as to better resolve the situation. Instead, he seems to be dismissing these issues outright.

In general, I feel that, while this game is already very dense, there's very little to sink my teeth into. There's a lot of theory debate and playstyle discussion, and I'm finding it largely unhelpful. I am mostly looking for players who are not scumhunting or those who may be fabricating reasons to

Unvote: AGar

Vote: Sando

[charlatan]

EBWOP: Excuse me, I don't know why the end of that last sentence was last. That's supposed to read "fabricating reasons to attack others."

[charlatan]

Err, lost, not last. Triple post right off the bat!

[charlatan]

Now Sando's on a growing bandwagon

I'm the only person voting for Amished as far as I'm aware, if someone else has voted him, it was after me...

Yeah you're just making stuff up, good on you for that. Didn't take you long, I'll give you that.

I mistyped. I meant that a bandwagon is growing on you, not that you're on a growing bandwagon. You'll note that you being on a growing bandwagon not only would not make sense, but would be totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Charlatan's vote on me is the first to strike me as scummy. He's obviously read through fairly extensively, yet has either missed or chosen to ignore my post saying that while I can see peoples point yet disagree, constantly arguing about it is pretty pointless at this stage. Quoting the very first post I made regarding this and then ignoring every post subsequent to that is extremely dodgy.

Sando - simply saying you understand but disagree doesn't mean either is the case. You mischaracterized simply being asked for a solid opinion as useless pleading to get you to post some unhelpful and vague "xxx is scummy" generalizations, some run-downs, etc. Your logic in all of this has been questionable at best:

What's the difference between saying "The people I find scummy are XYZ", and "The people I find scummy are XYZ and the people I find town are ABC"? Not a lot really.

Firstly, the two are not very similar at all, since the vast majority of reads will fall between "scummy" and "town" and will more accurately be closer to neutral, if we're being honest. Even so, nobody had asked you even for anything in that format (and you seem to be raging mostly about format). You were asked for comments, most of which have been defending yourself or OMGUS-style snapping at the people criticizing you. It seems jumpy and irritable, if nothing else. But, like I said, I'm looking to vote initially for players who don't scumhunt and players who fabricate problems with other players. It took you 12 posts to do the former (your communication with SC is the first time you stop talking about yourself), and most of your problems with other players have basically been in one way or another about how they're criticizing you and how that is so very problematic.

Charlatan: Perhaps "lying" is a somewhat strong word indeed. A wrong impression was created regarding PZ's reason for voting SC. The impression was that he was voting based on a case. The truth (if we are to believe PZ) is that he was "serious" only in choosing to create a bandwagon - the reasons for chosing the candidate at hand weren't really serious (although I'd point you to SC's post 284, which nicely points out that even this interpretation is to be doubted).

That's a good point. I wonder: is it possible to be serious about wanting a bandwagon to grow and not really serious with who the target is? To expect a seriously productive outcome from something only slightly more than random? That does help clarify where those criticisms are coming from.

[charlatan]

It took you 12 posts to do the former (your communication with SC is the first time you stop talking about yourself), and most of your problems with other players have basically been in one way or another about how they're criticizing you and how that is so very problematic.

So on the one hand you think I didn't talk enough about other people and only defended myself, on the other hand you think I'm not taking my accusers seriously?

No. I'll clarify for you. On one hand, until SC, you do not talk about other players except to accuse them of misrepping or lying about you with poor justification. You do not do anything that could be construed as scumhunting. The reason I say I don't believe you take your accusers seriously is because really you don't address the issues people level against you -- you address the issues you make believe they're leveling against you. (See: your flippant response that I've quoted.)

[charlatan]

That's a good point. I wonder: is it possible to be serious about wanting a bandwagon to grow and not really serious with who the target is? To expect a seriously productive outcome from something only slightly more than random? That does help clarify where those criticisms are coming from.

IMO, it's possible, but you'd need to at least vaguely fake a reason. It seems like there was a weak reason, but the case itself wasn't the point.

I can understand where you're coming from. I think it's mostly a strategy question; I can see instances in which all varying levels of reasoning for a bandwagon could be useful, depending on the intended goal. Intentionally weak cases might draw out people looking for an easy bandwagon, no case at all may cause reactions to gauge, etc. Either way, since it's a theory and tactics kind of direction I can't say it's useful at all in determining your alignment, so I'm going to pursue other avenues. I will note that I find it a useless thing to attack someone over. We've established that you find PZ's wagoneering scummy -- were there any reactions to that attempt at a bandwagon that you also found scummy?

@ODDin: About Raskol's entertaining hypothetical:

For me, if nobody else is even interested, do you mind pretending that you

must

use this hypothetical Day 1 vig kill? The option to opt out of that question with a conservative theory answer about not being bloodthirsty is much less interesting (and much less telling, I think) than asking you to name a name.

The above also goes for Sando.

-

@Troll: On a scale of one to ten, how high would you rate the importance of meta in forming your reads on the overall game?

-

I'm not ignoring it; I thought that your 332 was for something more recent/did it again. Both actions are scummy, but there have been a couple things from ODDin that I've seen that was pro-town which give me pause when I haven't seen *as much* of that from you.

Can you tell me what some of those pro-town actions were? If you've mentioned them along the way and I just haven't noticed it, I'd still appreciate us having a bite-sized synopsis on the table.

[charlatan]

Spoiler alert: I don't move my vote in this post.

Thanks to ODDin and Sando for playing along with my corollary to Rasko's original question. I honestly had no specific goal in mind with asking it, I just thought it an interesting question that might help me at least to get inside your heads a bit more.

Sando.

However, seeing that nothing that terribly important was going on in the game at the time, I don't see how avoiding to say his opinions would be all that helpful to Sando-scum.

I see this is as a nulltell, since I don't know how it would be helpful Sando-town, either. My most basic problem with Sando's Day 1 play is, as I've mentioned before, that I think he a) for the most part only interacts with those accusing him, and b) misconstrues attacks against him in a manner that allows him to try and turn them back on his accusers. I do not consider being merely defensive to be a scumtell, but there's more going on here. Townies should have no problem answering questions (or even brash accusations) leveled against them without posting from the assumption that anyone who dares criticize them must themselves be scum. A good example in his recent Zorblag reply:

So you're basically divorcing yourself from responsibility for a vote/lynch? You accuse me of general apathy and a lack of engagement, yet are voting someone that you admit you don't really have a case on, and only because there's noone better. Sounds hypocritical in the extreme, and divorcing yourself from responsibility is extremely scummy, you sound like you're setting up a defence for when the person you lynch flips town of 'well I only did it because noone else was available'.

Firstly, he attacks Troll for the simple admission that he doesn't have a super strong case on anyone Day 1, but Sando has ferociously defended his own right to not having strong opinions, so this seems entirely two-faced. Furthermore, voting someone because "there's no one better" is not scummy in the least and is, in fact, the norm. "No one better" means you're voting for the best lynch candidate. How is that not exactly what we should all be doing? I consider contradiction a very valid scumtell. Sando, do you think what Troll did with his explanation of his vote on you is meaningfully different from your own opinions on having opinions? If so, in what way?

All you people, pz included, who feel it's legitimate to start a wagon on nothing to see who jumps on - amished jumped on, not Sando. Plus when he did jump on, he said he saw the reason yet when pz lost interest he barely gave that reason a second thought.

This is definitely worth noting, however. I said before that Amished's reasoning for jumping on felt contrived, and I do stand by that. Amished's response was that he felt SC was eventually setting himself up to try and draw out inappropriate claims, which I think is a stretch, but it's less of a tell in my mind. People are wrong quite often, and it doesn't typically indicate scum. I will move my vote as we near the deadline if someone pulls ahead of both Sando and Amished, but those are the only two lynches I like for today. Why specific other players do not concern me at this junction is a question I am prepared to answer, but this close to the deadline I think it will only help scum formulate an effective night kill.

There are better lynches than Sando.

Plural? I know you think Amished. Who else?

I feel that it's more likely that a townie would suggest it, and list their reasoning why a claim would be beneficial (and related to the current game) when you actually push for a massclaim.

@Amished, this attack presupposes that SC would not give reasoning in support of his push for a massclaim in the event that he did push for one. Do you disagree?

Also, in regards to ODDin, at least twice that I recall you've mentioned seeing "pro-town actions" from his corner. Can you give some examples?

Secondly, I disagree wholeheartedly that Troll has been actively posting suspicions. When I read your posts dear sir I see a lot of observation and no analysis. Along with those observations I see copious amounts of fence-sitting, in the pattern of "I see X and Y, those could be slightly scummy but I'm not sure." Inb4 hypocrisy.

This was part of what I was dancing around with my meta question before, Troll. It sometimes feels like excusing people based on their meta, which I find questionable. I do not feel it is a big scumtell at this time, but close to a deadline I want to have these things on record.

[charlatan]

Add my name to the list of people sorry for not posting. Holidays and whatnot. It's late now, so I'll catch up tomorrow.

[charlatan]

Don't have much to contribute at the moment, honestly. I know we're all distracted by the holidays. I'm going to ask a few questions and see if we can't get a little discussion rolling anyways.

@VP Baltar:

Yesterday, this was the post from you in the final pages of the day explaining your vote:

Ok, caught up. I think I'm going to oblige SC this game. His case against Amished wasn't extremely moving, but there is something about Amished's play this game that isn't quite sitting right with me. I don't generally vote on gut reasons alone, but I'm rather pressed for time atm and Sando's latest bout of stamping his feet posting is nagging at me as honest.

Of course, as it turns out, those not on the bandwagon were correct. Would it be fair to say that your vote on Amished was almost entirely based on gut? And that your decision to stay off of the Sando wagon was based on gut?

@OJ: I believe you asked the question posed to me at the end of 349 (at least I remember writing a response); but I like to get a feel for competency judged from my perspective, what they pick up on so I know to focus on something else if I get a town read on them as they're better in a certain area of scumhunting than I am.

What would some of these "areas of scumhunting" be? Like, what's your best area of scumhunting? And your weakest?

[charlatan]

In response to Scien's pointed questions, I feel that being "vaguely defensive" is a nulltell entirely, but at the same time basically believe that ODDin is making something out of, well, not nothing, but very little. There is one point he has raised that I find very telling, however: PZ started a bandwagon to gauge reactions (I am willing to give him this, because I like to do this too), then did not use those reactions towards any end.

The above isn't my only issue with PZ - and I've said this before as well. I think that he created generated confusion with his wagon on SC, which he could've avoided. This confusion has hurt the town.

Do you feel this makes him more likely to be scum, or is it more along the lines of bad play? I found SerialClergyman's interaction with him at the end of the play intriguing in that he seemed rather heated in his arguments against PZ, but ultimately it seemed more like criticizing playstyle because it annoyed him without committing to a solid position on PZ's alignment.

[charlatan]

Of course, as it turns out, those not on the bandwagon were correct. Would it be fair to say that your vote on Amished was almost entirely based on gut? And that your decision to stay off of the Sando wagon was based on gut?

The Amished vote was mostly based on gut and the fact that it was the only other real lynchable wagon. Someone has to go and I was having severe misgivings about Sando at the last minute. Those weren't based on gut, so much as his frustration seeming honest to me.

Understandable. That is one of those vaguely weasely answers -- "something just felt genuine", etc. However, those answers are often legitimate, so I'm inclined to take your word for it.

This is exactly where I'm coming from. It seems fairly obvious that they looked at us sniping back and forth at the end of Day 1 and decided to see if they could push for a mislynch today. I'm both honored and amused given my horrendous play thus far.

In a newbie game, maybe, or even a game with a less able playerbase. But this is by far the most competent group of players on the whole that I've been in the company of so far (granted, I've only played a small number of games), and that seems a little too simplistic. I somewhat doubt the night kill was as much about you as it was about SerialClergyman.

I re-read his play with his death in mind, and in retrospect he did a fair amount of talk about power roles and claiming from the get-go which, in the absence of a better target, may have rung bells. On Day 1 the right call is not always clear for scum either, after all.

Regardless, I think nightkill speculation is not helpful to us, especially at this point, and I think what Scien is doing is muddying the waters. I have not decided yet if that is scummy or just a bad call, but I've certainly made a note of it.

[charlatan]

charlatan

---Top 2 or 3 suspects, please.

I'll be perfectly honest: I'm slightly embarrassed to not be halfway down someone's throat by now, but I'm getting a slower start this game. My top suspects at this point, in no particular order:

1) ODDin. This stems primarily from his interaction with Zito, which feels vaguely contrived and overly reactionary. While I agree that Zito's bandwagon attempt and Zito's votes do not seem to work together, ODDin's continual push against him is largely based on Zito's Day 1 vote on him. The signal to noise ratio there is off. Take, for instance, this quote:

Okay, suppose PZ is town. He makes a mistake and thinks my vote on eKim was RVS. He accuses me for it and votes me for it. Okay, mistakes happen. Then I point out that he was wrong. Why doesn't he back off? Why doesn't he admit it was a mistake? Why does he refuse to address it in any way and continue to vote?

A day later, and a large part of the case can still be summarized as "he's picking on me unfairly." (This is an exaggeration, but you get the point.) As far as I'm concerned, as long as the vote is getting a strong reaction from a player there's no need to say 'oops, I'm sorry' and unvote, and I do not believe Papa Zito has lied or failed to give reasoning for his vote anyways. ODDin does not seem to be digging elsewhere, either.

2) Amished/Albert B. Rampage. I'll be looking hard at Ramp to see if I can solidify my read here, as I'll admit it's not where I want it to be. However, I feel a certain style of erratic Day 1 play to be a reliable indicator of scum nervousness. I noticed in my initial read, for instance, the apparent disconnect between his reluctance to help anyone get a meta read on him and his subsequent posts that indicate he totally does see a use for meta. Dismissing his reluctance as "being lazy" rang false, as his post count and the attention he paid clearly show that he's not lazy at all. He tossed a blanket of activity over virtually everything happening in the game at once (not a bad thing), but seemed to be committing his energy where the argument of the moment was occurring. It's a good way to appear to be doing more than you are. (See also, switching between SC and Sando throughout the day, perhaps a way of trying to be on two bandwagons at once.)

I can go into more specifics where they're needed, but for now I'd like the two players I've mentioned to state any objections to the points I've raised. I also think there's a decent enough chance that one of the lurkers is scum, though it's too early for a lurker hunt. I don't like that AGar can be present enough to place votes but not enough to let us into his head. I also don't feel that I understand your positions at all, and you've also been asked to give your top suspects (by Zorblag, as I recall) and have not done so. To a significantly lesser degree, Baltar also falls into this category.

[charlatan]

Oh, I forgot:

Vote: ODDin

[charlatan]

Regardless, I think nightkill speculation is not helpful to us, especially at this point, and I think what Scien is doing is muddying the waters. I have not decided yet if that is scummy or just a bad call, but I've certainly made a note of it.

I found this a little weird due to charlatan just having posted some of his own thinking in response to the nk speculation.

The sentences you've quoted are a pretty natural progression of thoughts. I partook in the discussion and then said eh, this probably isn't productive. The difference between Scien and I in this situation was that I offered two sentences just for the sake of discussion, whereas Scien seems ready to let it affect his play:

I think I can use the NK to know who to look at for behavior.

Probably ought to be looking at everyone "for behavior", even as vague as that is.

My top suspects at this point, in no particular order:

charlatan, were these suspicions really exactly on the same level? What made you decide which one to vote?[/quote]

Actually, that was unclear on my part. Apologies. ODDin is my best suspect at the time. "No particular order" referred not only to ODDin and Amished, but also to AGar, Raskol, and Baltar, who I mentioned mostly re: lurking and unclear play. I had planned to say a little more about them at the time at the beginning of that post.

I want to reread AGar, but as I've said above, I'm not sure when I'll manage to do that. The problem is, him saying "I was skimming through D1" negates many possible arguments.

"I was skimming" should not be a way out.

AGar, to verify, you have caught up fully now, yes?

[charlatan]

Welcome to the game, crypto. I read a game of yours before and hoped to play with you sometime (though honestly that's mostly because I like players who use the word "fuck" with some regularity.)

VP has made some interesting points on Raskol, and Raskol replacing out without even addresing it is annoying in the extreme.

Is Raskol replacing out without addressing them only annoying, or also scummy?

I didn't vote for AGar solely because of the scum-off-the-mislynch-wagon theory. I think he's scummy on an individual level.

What specifically about AGar is scummy on an individual level?

Having read the most recent posts first before skipping back a page to catch up on what I'm missed, I got a bit of amusement out 532:

That's not good enough. Do you just get vague gut reads on AGar, or what?

You're calling PZ out for not explaining reads, but apparently not expounding on them yourself, either.

Also, what are your suspicions on Scien? He's bothering me a bit, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

I can't either, and last time I couldn't he was scum. He's good at playing the logical/clueless townie game.

I find this pretty interesting, because I'm having a hard time getting a handle on Scien this game, too, and I find this comment surprising. The only game I've played with him was that newbie game I was only in for a day or two (PZ was in it, too). The one difference I've noticed is that Scien was worlds more intense in that game, very much up to speed and making arguments. However, I did not find him clueless at all then and was rather impressed with him overall. Do I misunderstand what you're saying here?

[charlatan]

Hey, sorry guys! Those of you who have played with me before know this isn't really like me. My laptop battery died out two days ago, so I've only been able to steal a few minutes here and there on other peoples' computers. I am back in business now and will be catching up and posting shortly -- I should also be here for the hours leading up to the deadline.

[charlatan]

WHERE THE HELL IS MY MILLION DOLLARS?

Check your PayPal account, chief. I'm makin' it rain.

Since I have not been here, I am going to make a big post. I apologize. I am trying to be more succinct these days, but I'm still as long-winded as ever and there's a lot happening.

Is Raskol replacing out without addressing them only annoying, or also scummy?

Only annoying. I don't think replacing out of the game means something about the player's role, especially when a specific reason is provided which says the opposite. So, no, I don't think it's scummy, since I see no reason for Raskol-scum to be more likely to replace out than for Raskol-town.

I think I might not have asked my question correctly. I don't care at all about Raskol replacing and do not expect anyone else to. That is completely non-indicative of alignment. However, it probably stands to reason he could have answered some of the questions or suspicions directed his way before doing so. Do you think it's relevant that he did not?

---

I don't have a great deal to say in regards to ODDin's argument with crypto. I think it's kind of underwhelming, to be honest. I can see where crypto's coming from (I wonder if I'm also a dumbass?) if he thinks he can pick scum from that smaller pool, and I also think it's counter-productive (and semi-scummy) to make the leap to characterizing that as him

not

looking at (or purposely ignoring) players outside of that pool. I don't think anything he said indicates he would not consider voting elsewhere. I do think any sort of approach like that would depend entirely on the playerbase to be considered stupid or smart in any case -- I can certainly see a situation where you have good reads on the smaller group and vague reads on the larger group in which it would be helpful, and the opposite is also true.

I think my point is that I don't see why there's been so much page time devoted to that topic. I do not find crypto scummier for it, whether or not he's wrong theoretically. It does nothing to make me think my vote on ODDin is less deserved, either.

---

Moving on, Scien's point against VP is at best an honest mistake and at worst an attempt to fabricate a case. VP removing his vote with Raskol's replacement is pretty much just good sense. I would only see this as a problem if VP went on to ignore crypto once he got involved, but since he hasn't, the point is null.

Scien, please respond to the following point: I see a little bit of a disconnect here, as what VP is being accused of doing is what AGar has actually done with me since ekiM replaced out. AGar hasn't batted an eye at me since I replaced in, but I am sitting in what was his #1 seat. I am not apt to take that super seriously since that suspicion was based on early Day 1 debate, but since AGar thought it important enough to stick with most of Day 1, it's not nothing, either. Is there a difference?

By clueless I mean every townie is clueless as to who the bad guys are, and so they try to guess and put pieces of the puzzle together. He mimics this activity well as scum, I suspect because he's an uber-logical player.

Word. I did not take "clueless townie" in reference to knowing alignments, more like being generally stupid. Now I get you.

I'm trying to stick to a semi-minimalist approach this game because it's a bigger one than I'm used to on MS, with a lot better players. I've played solely in Newbie Games up to this point, so it's a bit easier to catch people who stick out obviously in them. I'm not necessarily ignoring people, but I'm not trying to get fully focused on everyone at once here, because each player has a lot better play than what I'm used to. I don't want to overextend my attention to too many people and botch something because of it, I'd much rather keep my approach to a few players and not get too involved in confusing myself with things.

This is kind of hardcore excuse-making. You don't have to be a better player than anyone here to play with this group or any other. Everyone slips. Nobody is scumtell-proof. You don't have a shot if you don't engage, and posts like this read like an attempt to rid yourself of responsibility. That said:

I agree with all of this. AGar, if this is like our newbie game together you really need to pull something together to make me believe you are town like you did in that game. I thought you learned from there that being defeatist gets you nowhere. You're being ten times worse here (with less OMGUSing) and it makes me really uncomfortable...and leaves pretty much no choice but ot lynch you.

I get a vague sense that this is pre-emptively blaming AGar for his mislynch in the event that he flips town. This is hard to quantify, and I wonder if I'm alone in this.

Ultimately, I think both leading bandwagons have their merits. If it comes down to a potential no-lynch, I will switch my vote. However, there is no doubt that AGar is an easy target today, especially since he's been so unengaged. It feels more like a policy lynch related to a lack of participation than anything else, and while that's not a horrible thing I also think we can do better. (Maybe not in the next few hours, though.)

[charlatan]

I get a vague sense that this is pre-emptively blaming AGar for his mislynch in the event that he flips town. This is hard to quantify, and I wonder if I'm alone in this.

Yeah, I get where you are coming from. My problem is that, like you, I sort of feel that he's just such an easy target that if he's not scum, they must be jumping up and down right now. They really don't have to do anything...which is why I wanted him to participate and make me solidly believe he's town so I could lynch elsewhere. Rolling over if you're town is really bad form, but at the same time you can't expect the rest of the town to let you go (not that AGar apparently does).

Exactly; there's no clean response, really. If the dude's an easy target it doesn't make him the wrong target (I've always stuck by this sentiment), and that problem is compounded if he's content to lay down and die. It's mostly on AGar to step it up in the next few hours. As for the bit I quoted, I realize there's not really anything you can say to defend against that, but it has been noted.

[charlatan]

We're looking at, what, 53 minutes left? Are we just gonna float quietly to the end of the day, or did anyone have anything to get out before the day ends?

[charlatan]

A++, would read again

[charlatan]

Sorry, that was in response to the giant smiley.

[charlatan]

Deadline was four minutes ago, unless I'm mistaken. Hammer is kinda pointless.

[charlatan]

Ugh, damnit, this is a very bad thing.

Unvote

Vote: AGar

Just in case.

I will accept whatever the consequence is tomorrow or tonight for this, but I very simply miscounted the number of people of people on the wagon and thought we were going to lynch already.

[charlatan]

No, and in 599 I was referring to if we had a situation in which two wagons had an equal number of votes due to people changing votes around in the hours leading up to the deadline. Again, I'm sorry to everyone if the vote doesn't count. Honestly, I'm more embarrassed than anything.

[charlatan]

Troll would like to do a popcorn system. Unless there be any objections Troll will start the claim after people have had a chance to give input. We have 10 days to work with now so Troll would like to get this done with quickly; barring any objections Troll will be claiming tomorrow afternoon PST.

I agree with this, and I also think that it should probably be done soon, unless someone has serious and well reasoned objections. The more time we spend arguing about whether or not to massclaim, the more time scum will have to think about how to approach it. I think we have a clear majority wanting to do it. Popcorn is best; who starts is probably not important. I'd be happiest to see Scien go first, largely due to his responses to the idea.

I also think that discussing whether or not to no-lynch after the claim is pointless now, since the information we do (or don't) glean from this should inform our views on whether or not a no-lynch is the right choice. My impulse is to say that a lynch would be a good idea, but if I'm being honest it will be entirely dependent on what we learn.

Vote Scien

Explanations to come.

As for the leads thing... I have leads. But I'm not going to go off and start a bunch of discussion while we do that.

Massclaim or not, I will be interested in hearing what your thoughts/leads are, especially as they will have presumably coalesced independently of the massclaim. I am unsure if I am more interested in hearing now or later, as the former may give scum information that will help them in the inevitably uncomfortable massclaim situation, whereas the latter may be affected by the claims we see. I think that, unlike crypto, I prefer the latter.

[charlatan]

Town Tracker. Each night, I can send in the name of one player and see who, if anyone, they target, though what action they take is unknown to me.

The reason I was very pro-massclaim is that I've scored on results. Night 1, I targeted Scien. I found him less involved than in the previous game I'd played with him, and seemed to be arguing more theory; I suspected he might be trying to fly under the radar.

Papa Zito was my night 2 pick, because although I found his Day 1 play less problematic than some others did, I still felt I wasn't getting nearly enough content out of him. I was also unsure what being on the tail end of both lynching wagons meant, but thought it might mean something. He targeted ODDin.

Vote: Papa Zito

I believe that just leaves Ojanen. Obviously, given the circumstances, and as I hinted at before, I have no interest in a no-lynch today.

[charlatan]

Oh, forgot to say - Scien didn't target anyone night 1.

[charlatan]

Charlatan, did you breadcrumb?

No, I didn't. I have never breadcrumbed, actually.

[charlatan]

Night 1, I targeted Scien. I found him less involved than in the previous game I'd played with him, and seemed to be arguing more theory; I suspected he might be trying to fly under the radar.

Er. You never bread crumbed you say? I'm fairly sure you said something similar to this before now.

Well, sure. I've given my opinions on players freely and I would think my target choices probably aren't a huge surprise to some based on that. I'm unsure how that qualifies as breadcrumbing, really, but either way my point is that there are no secret messages, clever puns, or gimmicks of any kind present in any of my posts that will back up the claim.

[charlatan]

lol charlatan. Sure, you're the only power role in the game.

Obviously we are in a mylo situation if scum are pulling this.

I know it must be frustrating, but that's just how it is. I'll respond to you in case it helps anyone else -- I may not even be the only power role in the game, for all anyone knows yet. Nor do I know what kind of powers scum may or may not have for balance purposes. Frankly, setup speculation is not one of my strong points and playing a straight-forward game has served me well in the past.

If anyone has questions that I can answer, ask away.

Can we just wait to see if Ojanen has any new info before voting? I've already stated how I felt about claiming power roles, especially with guilties, in LYLO. Not to be believed....I had a town read on charlatan because of his large contributions to the game, but I have to re-think that.

Hypothetical, Ramp: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I am telling the truth. What would my correct course of action have been, in your opinion? To lie? To withhold my result until a different time, so it seems less fortuitous?

[charlatan]

Well why didn't you claim straight away before we even started mass claiming? You waited and waited until everyone claimed before you did. That right there is not very pro-town.

I will explain to you why I disagree wholeheartedly with that assertion tomorrow, as well as expound upon some other things. I agree with Troll that the best thing would be to wait for Ojanen's claim before continuing. Plus, I also need to sleep.

In the meantime, a great use for this time is re-reading Papa Zito, to those of you who have not in a while. Tomorrow I believe that I can make a strong case for his guilt even independently of the track result.

[charlatan]

A lot of questions my way. I'll try to answer them all in this post and get to some other things in a subsequent one:

Oh look, charlatan's the only PR.

You keep harping on this point. We were told this is a limited reveal; is it conceivable that we've already lost power roles and were just given alignment? I honestly do not know the answer to this question or even if it's a stupid one. To me it's certainly possible, but even if I am the only power role it wouldn't be the first time that's ever happened.

Yes, you have to come up with this

after

you figured out I was prob scum and a good track candidate, amirite?

I never figured out you were scum beforehand, but probable scum does not, in my mind, make a good track candidate. I'm as fallible as anyone, and scum slip under my radar just as readily. In general, unless I have a very strong read on someone (and I admitted pages and pages ago that I was not getting the kind of reads I want in this game) I will track someone who I have come to conclusions about without a great deal of evidence. In your case, I agreed with some of your points in theoretical discussions and had no problem with your Day 1 bandwagon. However, when I asked myself

why

I thought you were a pro-town role I found that I could not think of good reasons. Considering you were more suspicious to other players (and I believe in the wisdom of groups), I thought I could solidify my murky read on you with a track. I'm glad I did. So yes, now I have to re-evaluate my entire read on you with the new knowledge.

-----

This is in response to Scien and ABR, who have asked about my actions today. I'll simply go through my entire train of thought leading up to the claim.


Coming into today, I knew I would claim. Due to the schedule of hours during which I play, I came back and already the idea of a mass claim was being discussed. As such, I had a choice: do I claim outright and derail the massclaim, or do I wait until my turn and then drop what I know? I had to think about pros and cons of each, and ultimately the pros outweighed the cons in my mind. For instance, I had gotten nothing on Scien on Day 1, but his opposition to the idea of a massclaim seemed somewhat suspect and obviously, not targeting someone (while it lends some creedence to his VT claim) does not clear them. I suggested he go first knowing that, if he were scum, he'd have to roll the dice and decide whether to fakeclaim or not without the luxury of prior claims. If he fakeclaimed something other than VT, there seemed a decent chance he was lying.

Also, although I found Raskol townish and have no problems with crypto's place until this point, I thought there was a small chance crypto would fakeclaim as well. When I did my initial read after replacing in, Raskol's 161 made me double-take, as he made two references to "tracking" players. I thought it might be the kind of vague breadcrumb that scum would seed, something casual enough to simply leave if a fakeclaim never became necessary, but feasible to pass off in the event that he did need to. crytpo is low on my list of suspicions, but I've been wrong plenty of times, both in the past and in this game. It was a small thing, but it nonetheless contributed to my thinking.

It also occurred to me that if someone claimed a power role and then attempted to clear Zito with that claim, I could double up that way. Or, perhaps, that Zito would try to clear someone else with a fakeclaim of his own -- that would be much more WIFOM, but would still potentially be worth noting. Point is, I felt that my results would be much more useful in the midst of a mass claim than in isolation. Whether I was wrong or not is one debate, whether that makes me more likely to be lying is another entirely.

What's more, I considered the reason for the mass claim and the current situation. If we're in MYLO today and we bagged scum based on this information, we'd most likely be in the same position tomorrow and be looking at the possibility of a massclaim again, only most likely I would have been nightkilled and scum would be able to fakeclaim (or not) with increased safety.

@Charlatan, please explain exactly what you thought was happening at the end of day two. Your explanation still no fits.

I don't know really how to explain it better. Technically, I think I had wrong in my head what was about to happen. In rereading the rules, I had read that a simple majority decides the lynch, and had it in my head that in the case of a deadline this meant that the wagon with a higher number of votes would go to lynch. Hence, my post 612 -- I thought the hammer was a formality, which is also why I did not do it in the posts leading up to the deadline, when I was partially joking around and asking for last minute reads, etc. I realize that the end of Day 1 should have driven it home in my head, and I really have no excuse there. I've not been entirely with it lately, and have had extreme difficulty keeping my head straight. I expected to take more heat for it today, but I also don't really know how fabricating a mistake of a no-lynch would be a viable strategy for scum. Or, do you suppose that I got cold feet and then hammered at the end to try and undo it? Like I wasn't going to be under a spotlight the next day? Why wouldn't I have just lurked right through and told everyone something came up? It was stupid and anti-town and embarrassing to have done, but even as another player I don't think I would see it as something scum would do. The menial payoff for an almost certain loss of a scum player? Part of me hoped I'd be investigated by a cop as a result of it (after the fact), so that when this situation came about I'd have one less person to convince, but no dice.

@everyone, what role did you have in the aborted version of this game? Troll's role then was vanilla townie as well.

As a replacement, I do not know what ekiM's previous role was.

[charlatan]

A lot has already been said re: Zito as scum, so I'm going to contribute observations that have occurred to me in re-reading him after my track results. Even if it's helpful to nobody else, I've tried to break down his relationships with others in this game as if I were doing so after his flip. If I cannot convince others to vote with me, I'm a total failure as a power role, but more importantly, it stands to reason that I'll be dead by tonight either way, so I want to get out thoughts on relationships before that happens.

Firstly, even had I not gotten a track result on him, I would have held him accountable for his AGar vote, and I'm frankly surprised it's not problematic to anyone else. He has consistently listed AGar as townish, even going so far as to say he feels he has a particular strong ability to read the guy. When it's clear that AGar is probably going to be lynched, he jumps aboard, offering the following statement, which I suppose is supposed to represent a shift from everything he's been saying up until that point:

AGar sounds like his townself but it's hollow.

That's it.

More on relationships with living and dead players. He spends most of his time talking to or about the following players in the first two days:

SerialClergyman
VP
Troll
ODDin
Sando

I'd assert that he mostly speaks with the first three, though the last two are the ones he has gone on to help lynch. His Sando hammer is particularly convenient; he has mentioned him in the margins of his play throughout the day in passing, and included him in a scum list along with ODDin and Troll, but despite his apparently high level of suspicion does not actually say a single word to Sando or respond to anything Sando has to say even once during the day. That night, SC is killed, which may mean nothing, but also may mean something. I would argue that Zito was, in a sense, attached to the hip to SC at this point, and the nature of their interaction would require that he be involved with SC in upcoming days as well. In my experience, it is not uncommon for scum to want to whack someone in a position like that, as it frees them up to pursue other avenues of attack. Even before tracker results, I thought his Scien interaction the next day was a little shakey, way too ready to support WIFOM in a manner that deflects suspicion:

This is exactly where I'm coming from. It seems fairly obvious that they looked at us sniping back and forth at the end of Day 1 and decided to see if they could push for a mislynch today. I'm both honored and amused given my horrendous play thus far.

This idea can be extended to ODDin -- he was a suspicious player and a likely mislynch, but knocking him out frees Zito to cast new suspicions elsewhere. This does not account for the NK preferences of his scum buddies, and it's a fair amount of speculation on my part, but I do think it makes sense.

What's more important here are the living players. His interaction with Troll is something everyone should be looking at, especially as it feels a bit like spinning his wheels. Troll is something of a town leader, and Zito's accusations against him can be mostly boiled down to "you're fence-sitting." If he's a scum buddy, this is a pretty safe way to distance; Troll has no real way to argue against that, as it's largely a matter of opinion -- as such, Zito does not look horribly scummy for suggesting it, but Troll is basically in no risk of being lynched on account of it, either. Alternately, it may be a method of buddying up through attacking, but I find the former slightly more likely at this junction.

Worth noting is also that he's expended a great deal of energy arguing with VP, though he has not cast a vote that way at any point. Their interaction does not feel contrived to me, but I would still expect votes to become involved in their ongoing debates at some point. I am unsure at this time as to what that might point to, to be honest.

[charlatan]

Sorry, in that list above of players he's interacted with, when I said he went on to help lynch the last two, I meant kill in general.

[charlatan]

Looking at charlatan's case superficially, finding PZ's Sando hammer scummy seems plain wrong, it ignores the deadline context. Charlatan, do you really find hammering suspicious in that context? Does that have something to do with your failure to hammer on time D2?

It doesn't ignore it. I think the deadline was a convenience. I don't think hammering at the deadline is scummy at all in and of itself, but I think keeping someone on the periphery of your suspicions while not interacting with them at all is scummy in that it attempts to create wiggle room to switch votes later. It's easy to say "p.s. this guy is scummy too" and not try to investigate him yourself at all, and on a growing bandwagon it can be (and is) used to set up a switch to the popular wagon later if it's beneficial. Even if there had been no deadline, I believe he would have switched, personally.

[charlatan]

Oh, and no, it has nothing with my near-failure to hammer yesterday. In what conceivable context would one have anything to do with the other?

[charlatan]

Coming into today, I knew I would claim.

Oh? Why? You would have pushed away from the no-lynch option based on your null tell on me and a guilty?

Yes. Better to lynch confirmed scum now and if we need to no-lynch do it with a smaller pool of people later. No-brainer, from where I sit.

[
The only one, with a guilty to boot. What a lucky town we are.

In the last two pages we've basically heard the same two things repeated ad nauseum:

1) That's so convenient!
2) Pffffffft, you're the only one who claimed a power role!

I'm inclined to think that an actual townie's move would probably be to try and display how I'm scum instead of arguing about the setup. Hell, I wrote a half page on why I targeted who I did and why I claimed when I did, which he should be trying to rip apart. Or to fight for his own innocence, as silly as it may seem, to avoid getting lynched.

[charlatan]

but the only reason for them to do this is if mislynching me wins them the game.

Or, case #2, I'm telling the truth and lynching you keeps us in the game another day.

[charlatan]

Baltar, it's more that PZ didn't put in effort AND didn't make the right arguments. His posts are like two-line "Setup and my role PM say you're scum" jobs as opposed to, heck, just a paragraph-long

case

.

Whatever. Apparently 9:37 PM is when my writing stops being remotely lucid.

This. Maybe I didn't communicate well, judging by VP's synopsis of the point I was trying to make. If I'm a townie and I know the guy accusing me is scum, and I know his justification for why he has acted the way he has is a lie, I'm probably going to try and find holes where I can instead of 'I had a bulletproof vest, you're scum'. That would not be a very important to me even as a non-PR, though. It should be much more significant that speculation-based defense doesn't even really make much sense.

[charlatan]

ABR, what happened to the Scien case?

Also, revisiting what I was saying about relationships and reactions before, recall that Ramp's initial reaction to my claim was immediately that it wasn't to be trusted. Then he disappeared for a bit and came back, having changed his mind and ready to vote (now that it's more likely it's going to happen than it was immediately after the claim.)

[charlatan]

I would like to spend a lot of time replying to every point in PZ's latest big post, but about 80% of the points made (i.e. he had a town read on me!!) have already been explained in my posts detailing why I tracked him and why I supported the massclaim.

Charlatan claims, despite posts contradicting this stance in-thread, that my read was "murky".

Oh? Where did I explicitly state that I had a strong town read on you? Agreeing with you on theory topics is not the same thing, by the way.

Then there's the bit about how proving alignment with a track is so inefficient and therefore I couldn't possibly have done it, and how I should have tracked Scien since I didn't have a great read on him (I did), and some other things. I guess nobody's ever caught scum via track before?

Charlatan himself as a townie PR with a guilty would have well reasoned objections to massclaim: He would want to protect any other potential PRs from claiming and becoming targets. The correct play for our claimed Tracker would be to wagon me into oblivion and claim his info if necessary.

It's really like Zito isn't even reading my posts.

My AGar vote came after I reread the game, then reread people in isolation. I stated both in thread.

Right, and even if I didn't already know you were scum, I would ask you what about your re-read caused you to change your mind about him, because it's helpful when you have reasoning to back up opinions. Otherwise, we'd all throw votes around with justification like "I read him isolation and realized he was scum", which would make for hilarious but frustrating games.

Yes, AGar was hollow. His scum self is highly guarded and defensive, his town self is far more carefree and offensive. In this game he was acting carefree-ish but I didn't see him push at anyone, just respond to posts.

This would have been the point to post before, not a day later.

2. There were others pressuring him. They didn't need my help. You're arguing it's bad for the town to expand its scope?

Can't do two things at once? Really did not have a single suspicion re: Sando that had not been mentioned by anyone else? Positive about the alignment of the others pressuring him, that their interaction with him was also genuine and to your benefit? I know the answer to the last question given your alignment, but I would consider this a scumtell under all circumstances.

I had a town read on SC. Go back and look. And ODDin was the only one pursuing the BS point about the wagon, and I was ignoring him. Go back and look at that too. I wasn't "attached" at all.

Your read was irrelevant in that regard. The fact that you considered the NK to be about you and him sniping back and forth at the end of Day 1 suggests that you didn't even agree with yourself here.

Basically, I want everyone to reread this case and look at the amount of speculation is in here, especially the "more important" part about living players which only mentions Troll and is a bunch of guessing about our alignments.

What? The comments I've made about reactions to the claim and your interaction with people is not part of a case against you. As I stated in the thread, it stands to reason that I will not be here tomorrow either way, and I would like to get my thoughts out about your potential scumpartners. Places where I've speculated I've mostly identified as speculation, I think -- either way it shouldn't be confusing.

[charlatan]

Please see this paragraph again:

In your case, I agreed with some of your points in theoretical discussions and had no problem with your Day 1 bandwagon. However, when I asked myself why I thought you were a pro-town role I found that I could not think of good reasons. Considering you were more suspicious to other players (and I believe in the wisdom of groups), I thought I could solidify my murky read on you with a track. I'm glad I did. So yes, now I have to re-evaluate my entire read on you with the new knowledge.

I'm as fallible as any other player, and frequently re-evaluate my opinions, especially at the end of a day that hasn't gone as well as I'd like it to.

You based your #1 suspect of the day on someone's continual attacks on me. To feel this way you must have had me as town being attacked by scum.

Again, I was not lying in the beginning when I thought you were likely town. I simply decided I might be mistaken (and now know I was). Even if that were not the case, the above statement would be false; scum just as often manufacture BS arguments for distancing/bussing purposes against other scum as they do against town.

Then there's the bit about how proving alignment with a track is so inefficient and therefore I couldn't possibly have done it

No. I said to assume that a track would prove someone's alignment one way or another is sheer lunacy.

Well, I certainly didn't assume it would. I had hoped it would, as anyone using an investigative role would. Considering that you were the only result on a person who died, it seemed pretty conclusive to me. Your vanilla claim solidifies it. I'm honestly not even sure what point you're trying to make here.

and how I should have tracked Scien since I didn't have a great read on him (I did)

Haha, can't keep your story straight now.

I find this pretty interesting, because I'm having a hard time getting a handle on Scien this game, too, and I find this comment surprising.

You made this comment D2.

Right, remember when my result was that he targeted nobody? That didn't help my read of him one way or another until massclaim time, and even now it only slightly tips the scale in the favor of believing his vanilla claim.

Your read was irrelevant in that regard. The fact that you considered the NK to be about you and him sniping back and forth at the end of Day 1 suggests that you didn't even agree with yourself here.

English. Do you speak it?

Actually, I teach it. What about the above statement confuses you? I'll clarify.

Oh, that wasn't part of your case? lol okay then, your case was even smaller than I thought.

If only upping the word count would entice you to roll over and come clean. I'm not worried about convincing you of anything, I'm concerned with showing townies that a) my reasoning was, if not perfect, consistent and deliberate and b) the track result does make sense. Plenty has been said about you, as I said in that post, and I don't feel the need to parrot the good points others have made along the way. Even based on your own arguments about the setup, the most logical choice today is to lynch you.

[charlatan]

You mean like I did with AGar? Oh noes, there goes a hunk of your case.

No, not like what you did with AGar at all. The difference is that I explained my thought process and how I came from Old Conclusion to New Conclusion. You did not. The idea that that townies should explain their reasoning and justify their votes is hardly controversial. It's the same with your Sando vote, really -- if the entirety of your reasoning for wanting to vote for a guy is his interaction with the people actively attacking him, then I'd expect you'd at least want to say that.

Is that your official position now, by the way? That you hammered because of what others were saying? Or that you wanted a lynch at deadline?

1. Oh good, you've admitted it in thread now. This supports what I said.

If you've been reading the thread, you will have noticed that I've already said more than once that I had a vague town read on you, but upon reflection could not come up with a good reason why I thought that at all.

2. This was NOT your argument. You said you tracked me to "solidify a murky read". Even though you just admitted to having a townie read on me. And even though, on Day 2, you admitted to having "a hard time getting a handle on Scien."

I guess I'll just quote myself yet again: "However, when I asked myself

why

I thought you were a pro-town role I found that I could not think of good reasons." How does that communicate anything other than "I might have been mistaken in my initial reactions"? You're reaching. Unless I misunderstand your flailing here, it seems like you're suggesting that I should have targeted Scien a second time? But, before, that targeting someone to clear up unclear reads was stupid? Having gotten a no-target result on Scien Day 1 was much more than nothing, in case it hasn't occurred to you: if, at any point in the remainder of the game he fakeclaimed a PR that targeted on N1, I would be able to bust him. This was also part of the reason I was fine with a massclaim in what I believe to be a likely MLYO situation (which, again, I have already said). If I had it to do over again, I would still target someone other than Scien on Day 2.

3. What reason did I have to distance a buddy? Was I in danger of being lynched and needed to protect myself? Was my buddy in danger of being lynched and I needed townie cred? Try to make this make sense from a Zito-scum perspective.

Do you only distance yourself from buddies when you're on the verge of a lynch, or are you a better player than that?

Day 1: Zito's town. Dunno about Scien. Let's track him to figure out his alignment.
Night 1: Scien didn't do anything. Oh. Well that doesn't say anything about his alignment anyway.
Day 2: Zito's town. Dunno about Scien. Let's track Zito to figure out his alignment.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Of course it does. If you were not busted scum, you wouldn't have to pretend I'm dumber than I am, nor should you have to try and straw-man me.

You're certainly overestimating the strength of my town read on you. I don't know how sure you are of things Day 1, but I would never conclusively have said anyone was town. Scien was not playing the same way I'd seen him play before, and was generally much less involved. So, track Scien and see what happens.

The result did not say anything about his alignment then, but easily could have later. Day 2, my Scien read was not great but with the potential to become very strong later as a result of my no-target result. Not complicated. Do I target Scien again, or move on to another target who I want to know more about, one who is suspect to other players but who I may have potentially been fooled by? If I realize that I think someone's town but cannot tell myself why I think that, 100% of the time I will start over with them. The same applies to scum reads. This is called critical thinking and it is a very useful tool for the game of Mafia.

Rephrase this:

The fact that you considered the NK to be about you and him sniping back and forth at the end of Day 1 suggests that you didn't even agree with yourself here.

Unless I am confused, you are saying that the connection between you and SC was more or less negligible and that it would not have been an important factor in upcoming days. Yet, at the beginning of Day 2, you were willing to speculate that SC was killed to incriminate you, which suggests the exact opposite.

No, what it means is that you had to quickly manufacture a case when your alleged track didn't convince the town fast enough, and you couldn't really come up with much because goddamit PZ is actually town and fabricating cases is

hard

.

That's silly. If I wanted to, I could say the same thing about how you have been only partially present in the thread until people started voting for you. Now, suddenly, you can't be dismissive. See how easy that was? Let's not waste our time with this level of play.

[charlatan]

Thanks to BigBear for modding and to everyone else. I enjoyed the game.

I didn't want to mention it during the game because I thought that it would sound insincere and also I wanted to look tuff and badass, but I usually will play a max of two games at once, and added this as a third when asked to solely for the player list. It was a like a dream team of players I'd wanted to play with again, so thanks to whoever suggested the invite (Troll?). There were also a few of you I hadn't played with before that I wanted to, having read games you played in.

I had a lot of trouble really sinking my teeth into this game early on. I can't really say why that was, but I just wasn't getting into it despite the player list. Eventually I came around. I always suck early in the game anyways, but I don't know. Maybe it was because I replaced in.

In retrospect, in accordance with the rules, I should not have counted day 2's lynch. It should have been a no lynch. The only way that I justified it, was because he was only 10 minutes off, and i know i've played other games where the same situation has happened, only I was in Charlatans position. (just not as scum)

That was the worst thing! Everything I said in regards to that was completely true. It wasn't some sort of scum trick. I thought I could argue it as a nulltell, but I was really relieved when BigBear counted it. I would hate to think that my misunderstanding of a simple rule changed the course of the game, but amusingly enough now I know that that was the case with the town PRs, too.

Charlatan was almost as convincing until I did a meta of him and saw that he was capable of making pro-town-looking text walls as scum.

Yeah, this was my second game as scum, the first ending just a few days ago, so that scum meta wasn't even available until Day 3. Won't be able to squeak by on purposely walling up anymore.

Claim was Rampage's idea, as you'll note in the quicktopic. I was going to be pretty content to chill where I was, especially as I had never done that before and wasn't confident it would look sincere. But I'm glad I rolled with it, as it made things more interesting, at least from my point of view.

[charlatan]

I'd /in for either of those games. I've played neither setup before.