926 A Game of Thrones Mafia - Over.

[MacavityLock]

Not interested in a mass name claim at this juncture.

Vote: The Inquisition

since nobody ever expects them.

[MacavityLock]

Not interested in a mass name claim at this juncture.

Call this the random question stage. State the advantages and disadvantages of mass nameclaiming. Not that I like Kinetic's idea, but as the third person to disagree with it, you're voicing a very safe opinion.

Upside: Dependent on massive setup flaw by mod, could out scum. Downside: Rolefishing.

[MacavityLock]

I'm with Raivann on this one. I don't necessarily think that Mina is "caught scum", but the playing both sides of the argument comes off as disingenuous to me. And it is I think deserving of a vote at this point in the game.

Unvote. Vote: Mina.

[MacavityLock]

Yeah, having been in two of the games that Kinetic sited, I'd have to agree that this is classic Kin. I can't see it as anything more than null.

It's important to note however that I don't see this game as being that much more complicated than most mini-themes, while those that you sited are magnitudes more complex. (The two that I were in were large themes, which are often a whole different beast.) I think a nameclaim is more likely to help scum than town at this stage of the game.

[MacavityLock]

Unvote. Vote: Buttonmen

for throwing out a random vote while having a supposed actual suspicion, as shown by the FoS. The more I think about it, the more I realize that there is no townie reason to do this. If they don't have to, townies shouldn't be wasting time voting for no good reason.

[MacavityLock]

Don't even think about starting a name claim until a majority of

townies

agree to it. Let's assume that scum will be onboard if they know a name claim is beneficial to them. Let's also assume either 3 or 4 total scum. So, 8 players need to agree to this before anything starts. (Either 3 scum + 9 townies/2 = 8.5 players, or 4 scum + 8 townies/2 = 8 players. Rounding down is okay I guess.)

By the way, I have read the books.

[MacavityLock]

I have some issues with MacLock's numbers (principally since they assume that scum will believe nameclaim is a good idea).

My point is that

if

it's good for scum, they will agree to it. And I think that a name claim is more likely to be game "breaking" for the scum than town.

I understand why you're wary of my numbers, and expected to take a bit of flak for it. But I really don't think now is the right time for a name claim. As if you didn't know already, but

Nay to name claim.

If it does happen, popcorn.

[MacavityLock]

P.S. This assumes popcorn begins with a randomly generated player.

[MacavityLock]

Sure, either random or group deciding by majority works for me as well.

[MacavityLock]

Kinetic, once the name claim is complete, will you be divulging your theory/theories, whether or not it/they happened to be true?

[MacavityLock]

Theon Greyjoy.

Buttonmen, you're up.

[MacavityLock]

Well, unless Faraday's feeling generous deadline-wise on the first day, we've got ~72 hours to figure out a lynch. Either the mass-claim needs to complete quickly, or we need to move on without it.

Claim recap:
Xvart - Coldhands
Locke Lamora
Raivann
Kinetic - Jon Snow
Bogre - Catelyn Stark
TheButtonMen - Arya Stark
Mina - Ser Rodrik Cassel
Heliograph - Tyrion Lannister
The Inquisition
MacavityLock - Theon Greyjoy
Seacore
Miserable at best - UP NEXT

Coldhands was introduced in A Storm of Swords, though the most popular theory is that Coldhands is a character talked about in A Game of Thrones: Benjen Stark.

[MacavityLock]

Kinetic, please divulge your theories now. I would appreciate you including everything you'd considered, even those that did not end up as you expected/hoped.

[MacavityLock]

Everything I say in regards to the name claim will assume it reflects innocence/guilt. It obviously may not.

Why would you not just assume straight out that scum have fakeclaims if they'd need them?

I think that Theon is a good choice as Serial Killer, if there is one, but I'm happy to wait to test that hypothesis. Obviously Sandor is a good SK option too, but I think he might be scum with one or two Lannisters that lied.

Why do you think there's a SK in the game?

[MacavityLock]

If so heres my response: I didn't respond cause thats not a case, pointing out I voted for a lurker and FoS'ed Kintetic isn't even anaylsis; in conclusion lolololol @ the case. Hope that helps.

Buttonmen, I pointed this out, but did not phrase it in the form of a question. Formally, why would you place a random vote on Locke when you had an actual suspicion, as shown by the FoS on Kinetic?

----

While I agree with Kinetic that there's no way to know whether the invisi-vote comes from town or scum, I think it's more likely to come from town. That is, I've rarely seen double-votes being a scum power. Therefore, I see no reason that Buttonmen is any more (or less) likely to be town due to the invisi-vote.

I also agree that the double-voter should not claim.

----

I'm still for lynching Buttonmen. But if Helio doesn't lynched, he needs a right vigging.

[MacavityLock]

<sigh> Flavor for why you're a cop?

Also, answering my question might be nice.

[MacavityLock]

Because I didn't think he was scum and I prefer a lurker vote to voting someone whos just raised my suspcions. Why do you think FoS trumps a Vote?

What does it mean that you FoSed him (which stands for Finger of Suspicion) but didn't think he's scum. How is that not a direct contradiction?

[MacavityLock]

FoS is a step below voting, its for people you find suspcious but not outright scummy. I found it odd that he would go for a mass claim at that time, but it wasn't enough that I wanted to vote him.

And yet you chose someone at random to vote for. How is this not contradictory?

[MacavityLock]

Votecount, official or unofficial, please?

Helio, claim role, not just name please.

[MacavityLock]

Rai, why question The Inquisition specifically to start the day?

[MacavityLock]

Here is something I'm pondering right now:

Is Inq the Serial Killer. Anyone care to weigh in on what they think about that possibility?

That was my thought too, specifically upon seeing this:

As a precaution I'm wearing armor.

Then it goes into my abilities.

That's it.

Bulletproof townies don't usually have additional abilities.

There's something that seems off about this though. Inq doesn't make much sense as a maf NK target.

Also, Inq, why did you choose to tell us that you have one armor shot left?

----

The Dead:
Heliograph - Tyrion Lannister - Innocent Aligned Double Voter was lynched Day 1.
Xvart - Syrio Forel -Vanilla Townie was killed night 1.

If there was two killing factions wouldn't there be different kill flavour like stabbed,shot,etc. Instead of just killed?

Why did you think this was true? Is it necessary for a mod to distinguish between the factions that make the kill?

[MacavityLock]

I want to hear Rai's explanation before coming to any conclusions or commenting, and would request that others do the same.

[MacavityLock]

Why did you think this was true? Is it necessary for a mod to distinguish between the factions that make the kill?

Just from my experience.

Please provide links to any and all games you were in with multiple scum groups.

(Arg at the search function being disabled.)

[MacavityLock]

When I say scum groups, I mean maf or SK. Link to Crimson King? Any others?

[MacavityLock]

Maf 104, Crimson King for those interested. Rai, if you think of any other games you were in with 2 mafs, a maf and a SK, and now that I think about it a maf and a vig, please provide links or some sort of pointers.

[MacavityLock]

Why claim that you have exactly one bulletproof-ness left?

[MacavityLock]

Seacore, #2 on Inq is a great call out.

I find it far more likely that Faraday has given major characters power roles and more minor ones vanilla than I do that we can guess anything about alignment from a name claim.

Inq, does Sam count as a major character? Bulletproof is a power role.

[MacavityLock]

But speaking of which:

FOS: MacavityLock

for never answering this:

Bulletproof townies don't usually have additional abilities.

...

I'm debating how hard I should pressure you on this.

Okay, MacavityLock, figure it out for yourself. What ability might a bulletproof townie have in this game, other than a bulletproof shot? Because you know, I'm making what I think is a very reasonable assumption...and something about this quote doesn't add up.

I'm not really sure what question you'd like me to answer here. Does he have abilities? Yes, I'm sure he does. But I didn't like the phrasing he used at all. It didn't seem right, given a bulletproof townie claim.

Inq, does Sam count as a major character? Bulletproof is a power role.

I'm not sure I would not call him a

primary

character, but unlike Syrio and Renly, he's a point-of-view character.

I'm not particularly satisfied with this as a response. This is especially true given that Samwell doesn't become a PoV character until Storm of Swords.

My gut and my mind are at war on the Inquisition. I think he's really stepped up his game today

There's a difference between stepping up your game because you just have more to say, and stepping up because you're under pressure. In the latter case, I seen that just as often, if not more often with scum.

Inq, have you answered why you claimed the exact number of BP shots yet?

----

Kinetic, I still want you to answer whether or not Inq makes sense as the target of the maf NK.

[MacavityLock]

3-MacavityLock said that Inq wouldn't make sense as a Mafia kill. But I think that only applies to a two-faction game. If there's an SK, he should be trying to kill the Mafia so that they can't outnumber him in endgame and win by strength of numbers. And if there are two Mafia families, they should be attacking each other so as to stop crosskills. On D1, Inq was a low-lying player (could have been scum trying to dodge a nightkill), not under any suspicion, playing rather safe, showing flashes of potential...If someone was trying to take out the other scumteam, I'd say Inq wouldn't be a bad choice. (Of course, that doesn't preclude Inquisition actually

being

a BP member of the other scumteam.)

MacavityLock, do you think any of these theories are plausible?

So, here's my problem. If Inq is scum, BP is more commonly a SK perk than a maf perk. This is not always the case, but that's the perspective I'm starting from. A maf, which I'm assuming does not include Inq, is not likely to know that there's a second scum faction. So, I would think that a maf would want to either hunt a "quality" townie, or a possible power role. The way I read Day 1, Inq does not seem to fit.

Now, if we take away my assumption that Inq-scum is necessarily a SK, then this goes out the window. The kill on Inq could have come from a SK trying to kill a maf. 2 maf families is not something I considered in my assessment, but it's possible that it could also fit.

But then he mentioned that his PM had a list for abilities. Which you replied to by saying that bulletproof players didn't have other abilities.

Firstly, could you explain just what you disliked about Inquisition's phrasing, and just what "didn't seem right"--with actual quotes? Because in that post, what you state in your own words is that "bulletproof townies don't usually have additional abilities." In other words, you find it suspicious that Inq claimed to have abilities other than being bulletproof. But now you're saying you

do

think it's likely that Inq has extra abilities--only you just didn't like Inquisition's phrasing. It "didn't seem right." This is a pretty strange contradiction.

After re-reading the sequence of events from those questions, I'm going to chalk this up to a misread. When I read Inq's explanation about the flavor of the claim, I thought he was saying that bulletproof was listed in his flavor, but

not

as an ability, and thus was confused as to why he had additional abilities.

Yes, I have a vote, and it's listed under

Abilities

, which can be seen in the provided vanilla PM.

I want Inq to answer my question before I decide whether or not to vote for him, but if deadline was right now, I'd be voting him.

----

There's a difference between stepping up your game because you just have more to say, and stepping up because you're under pressure. In the latter case, I seen that just as often, if not more often with scum.

What about not stepping up your game at all ?

Who are you digging at here? Also, what's the point of said dig?

I'm kinda suspicious of the players who are voting him actually.

Why?

[MacavityLock]

MacavityLock, who do you suspect other than The Inquisition? I don't think you've really done much today other than try to disprove Inq's claim. Also, do you still suspect TheButtonmen?

I definitely see the Bogre dislike, given the about face on the nameclaim, as well as the fact that he's done nothing today. Has he said that he suspects anyone yet?

Definitely still suspicious of Buttonmen, but his claim is in the realm of believability.

Rai keeps doing little things that I find strange. For example,

I am thinking a Bogre, Kinetic scumteam.

Why Kinetic?

----

ISOing MacavityLock I noticed a trend; he doesn't discusse in thread things. By that I mean his posts range in topic from peoples previous games, set up speculation, PR speculation and so on. He goes out of his way to avoid saying anything concrete about what people have said in the thread.

Feel free to check my day 1, specifically in regards to questioning you, to disabuse yourself of this notion.

[MacavityLock]

ISOing MacavityLock I noticed a trend; he doesn't discusse in thread things. By that I mean his posts range in topic from peoples previous games, set up speculation, PR speculation and so on. He goes out of his way to avoid saying anything concrete about what people have said in the thread.

Feel free to check my day 1, specifically in regards to questioning you, to disabuse yourself of this notion.

I did, other people were attacking me based on things I said and who I voted, you on the other hand just talked about the proper usage of FoS.

The FoS is something you said and did, as is the vote, and I was questioning why you did these things.

If you like, I can give you an example game where I identified scum based on a FoS (actually a HoS, the stronger "Hand of Suspicion").

[MacavityLock]

Mac: so you 'see' the Bogre dislike - does that mean you back his wagon, or do you simply understand the position of those on it without actually agreeing with them?

Sorry for being unclear. Yes, I back his wagon, and would join it in a deadline situation. Ideally, I still want to hear more from Inq before I do vote.

[MacavityLock]

I didn't see the word 'only' in Mac's post, did you Buttonmen?

I'm glad someone who wasn't me picked up on that.

He likely doesn't want to put bogre at L-1

This is not the only reason that I'm not currently on the Bogre-wagon, but it is certainly one of them.

[MacavityLock]

MacavityLock, why are you so afraid to vote?

Aside from the fact that I think taking issue with Buttonmen's "only" was nothing but semantics...if you're reluctant to put Bogre at L-1, then what's wrong with voting for another player? Why don't you vote for The Inquisition or TheButtonmen, if you also suspect them? It's not like they're anywhere close to a lynch.

I'm not afraid to vote. I wanted to hear Inq's answer before voting him. I'm still on the fence about Buttonmen's claim, and I still don't think he's a great lynch for today, as much as I really dislike his play.

As for the "only" stuff, Buttonmen was misrep-ing, plain and simple. I never said that I would withhold a vote on Bogre until deadline, but that right now without hearing more from either Inq or Bogre, I don't want to vote him. Adding "only" to what I said is a definite modification of my actual meaning there. The fact that Seacore pointed this out before I did is immaterial.

This is the question you asked Inquisition:

Inq, have you answered why you claimed the exact number of BP shots yet?

I'd already asked him this question (go me for being first! ), and he answered it here:

2. I thought it even money that a vigil was actually shooting at me, and I want to discourage wasting the bullet on me. Furthermore, I generally think full-claiming is preferable to trickle-claiming. I've been in too many games where a player not claiming his full role because he believed there was something about it that was best left undiscovered actually came to bite the town in the posterior.

Decide yourself if you believe this explanation. But I think you have enough information to at least place your vote temporarily on either Inquisition or Buttonmen--and change your mind if you hear new information.

I had not seen the full-claim vs trickle-claim stuff until you pointed it out here. I guess this does answer that question, but it leads me to a follow up request. Inq, cites for where trickle-claiming turned out bad for town, please. (Ooh, Buttonmen's going to hate me for that.)

I mean, if you suspect them both, why not vote for one? Apply a miniscule amount of pressure on someone who isn't Bogre, since the votes of all the active people are tied up by the Bogre wagon. I already mentioned that I didn't want Button (or anyone else, for that matter) to feel too comfortable. Give us an alternative if we decide

not

to lynch Bogre. Make sure today isn't a waste of time. There's no good reason for a townie with several suspects to wait all day to vote.

There are ways to play this game without having a vote down.

Rai keeps doing little things that I find strange. For example,

I am thinking a Bogre, Kinetic scumteam.

Why Kinetic?

Why do you find it weird that Raivann suspects Kinetic? Do you think that Raivann's overall gameplay fits that of an evil player? Because I thought Raivann's implication from that quote was pretty clear. Do you disagree that the quote he mentioned (coupled with Kinetic placing a random vote on Bogre but being reluctant to vote Bogre today, as well as the Bogre-Buttonmen and Kinetic-Buttonmen links I've seen) could be proof of a partnership? Then say so, or make a case showing that Raivann's behaviour is scummy. But this was just a really random point to bring up. Particularly when you don't explain just why you find it weird.

I find Rai's post strange because it seemed like there was an entire missing section of the actual case on Kinetic. So, yes, I think that when an entire case for a Kin-Bogre scumteam is based on a random vote then that's strange.

Why not let MacavityLock defend himself? I'm sure he's a big boy who can come up with his own arguments against Buttonmen (who, let's be frank, isn't a master of rhetoric). There was no reason for you to dilute what little pressure there was on ML like that.

A fair question for Seacore. A question for you: Given your quote directly above this one, are you defending Rai/not letting him answer questions for himself?

Mina, I'm not sure if there are any questions I can answer in your 499, but do let me know if there are.

----

Buttonmen, do you still think that my call out of your FoS and vote on Day 1 is just theory stuff, or is it based on your play?

----

@mod,

this is an official request for a prod on Bogre, for whom it has been over 72 hours since last post.

[MacavityLock]

A vote is not unclear, it says "here's my opnion".

If you refuse to vote for people, fine. But you do so accepting that some of us find you scummy for it.

If my opinion is unclear, ask me to clarify. Lamora did, and I subsequently clarified, to his satisfaction as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure why a vote, especially some single pressure vote, which is what you're asking for, is all that useful at this point in the day. I currently have reasons why for each player I'm not voting them.

In addition to clarifications, if you find inconsistencies in my play, call me out on them. But don't just blanket say "Not voting is scummy." If you'd like to make a case, give me a reason why my not placing a vote right now is scummy.

[MacavityLock]

Obviously, it's not set in stone, but do you agree that it's helpful to vote? Didn't you have a problem with Buttonmen not voting for the player he FOS'd? MacavityLock saying "I suspect X" is essentially an

FOS: X

.

I do agree that it's helpful to vote when warranted. Feel free to read my "I suspect X" as FoSes, if that helps you. It's important to note that I don't find FoSes scummy in and of themselves. It's all about why one would use them, would choose to use one instead of a vote, etc.

And do you agree that being hesitant to place one's vote is one of the oldest scumtells in the book?

Not really, no.

Enough so that vote-delayers, as a general rule, should come under intense scrutiny? Particularly if other parts of their behaviour fit the pattern of scum in a multi-faction game very well?

If you like, sure.

Why are scum more hesitant to vote? I think it's psychological. -Because you can keep your options open to move to whatever bandwagon gains support, rather than risk pushing a bad wagon and having it blow up in your face.
-Because you can distance from your buddies without risking their lynch. -Because you don't antagonize people.
-Because in this particular game, the Bogre lynch was starting to look inevitable, and it would benefit scum who weren't partnered with Bogre not to create an alternative lynch mob.
-Because you can stay off a townie mislynch and look squeaky-clean.
-Because it might be unconscious. I know that when I'm scum, I tend to temper my criticism/attacks a little when I know my target is town.)

That tell, while not 100% foolproof, has worked time and time again.

I can give you all sorts of example games where I'm scum where I vote readily. I don't mind being under scrutiny, but as I said before, if you're going to make a case, come with a reason that my not voting is scummy in this particular instance.

I find Rai's post strange because it seemed like there was an entire missing section of the actual case on Kinetic. So, yes, I think that when an entire case for a Kin-Bogre scumteam is based on a random vote then that's strange.

Fair enough. If you'd said all that, I wouldn't have had a problem. But all you said was "I find Raivann strange because he suspects Kinetic and Bogre." That throwaway post seemed to be the only thing that made you suspect him.

Well, Rai hasn't posted since I asked my question. Had he not answered me completely based on my shorter question, I would have clarified as I did for you.

But if you think you have a convincing defence to any of my accusations against you, or an explanation for why you keep on going with the flow, or have very safe opinions, then that would be nice.

Well, I think I have asked some behavior-based questions, and that I don't think that behavior-based are the only scum tells we should be looking for, especially when we haven't flipped scum so as to make connections.

[MacavityLock]

My question is, what would be the point of stalling, were I scum? To get you off my back, wouldn't it be far safer for me to drop that single vote on Inq? Doesn't the fact that I'm being obstinate about this mean something?

"Not voting = scummy" is shallow analysis. Don't do shallow analysis.

[MacavityLock]

Sure, it's at least partially WIFOM, but the point still stands. I'm not saying scum would never do what I'm doing. I just want her (and others) to consider why I'm doing what I'm doing. I easily had opportunities to "appease" Mina here. Again, "Not voting = scummy" is not enough.

One other point that I missed.

And I'm not crazy about the tone of your most recent post. It's what I call the "Make a case I can defend against!" defence. I find scum get a little irritable when they come under heavy pressure for a scumtell they can't fight with their arguments. I've seen this reaction both in scum caught by logical analysis ("How do you expect me to defend against this, when it's not my fault the facts are against me?"), and by behaviour ("So do you have a case against me that I can disprove, and that isn't just your gut?") You come across as though you'd know how to defend yourself against a charge of inconsistency, but can't deny that you've been reluctant to vote.

Wouldn't a townie be just as irritated by lack of case? I can't deny that I've been reluctant to vote, because I have been. Why am I scummy because of that?

[MacavityLock]

Two very recently completed games wherein I was scum:

Jekyll Maf - Replaced in on Day 2, where my vote was down all day. Early Day 3, my "top suspect" claimed cop, so I did not vote him. Once I found "something scummy" from someone else, I immediately voted that other person. Day 4 was LYLO.

Little Golden Maf - Overall, I was more hesitant to put down votes in this one. Day 1, my first vote ("semi-random") was down until a mason claim. After a delay waiting for said mason's replacement to answer some questions, I voted L-3 on the day's eventual lynch. Day 2, I did not really get a chance to vote before a good wagon on town formed to L-1. I requested a claim and would've been the hammer, had it not occurred while I was asleep. Day 3 was LYLO.

One more for good measure:

Muppets Maf - Only around for one day before getting vigged, but my vote was down the entire day.

----

I've been around long enough that I know how to modify my meta game to game. I certainly wouldn't say I'm the greatest in this regard, but please don't throw surface tells at me.

[MacavityLock]

Why Kinetic?

Just a hunch.
Why the question? I'm not voting for him or anything. Your question strikes me as not genuine.

Why wouldn't it be genuine? You posted a scumteam based solely on a random vote. I don't see a case there, and I didn't like it. So, just gut?

[MacavityLock]

If you were town I would think you'd be more interested in concentrating on today's lynch.
Your recent posts you seem more interested in self preservation and you only have 1 vote.
If you think we are gonna mislynch a town Bogre, then tell me why and who we should lynch.

Well, when the 2 people I have open questions to and want to lynch aren't responding, it's kind of a problem for scumhunting: You, until just now, and Inq, who's on V/LA. The other two people I most suspect are Bogre, who's in desperate need of a prodding, and Buttonmen, who I still don't think we can lynch due to his cop claim.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with a Bogre lynch, but would far prefer to hear more from him and others before closing out the day.

[MacavityLock]

While he's trying to turn this into a theory question of whether we should take reluctance to vote as a scumtell, this is his only defence to the meat of my case on him:

Well, I think I have asked some behavior-based questions, and that I don't think that behavior-based are the only scum tells we should be looking for, especially when we haven't flipped scum so as to make connections.

He doesn't so much as mention my point that he's been safe in his suspects. He doesn't give examples of his behaviour-based questions. (And don't bring up that you pointed out that Buttonmen's FOS was scummy...because Seacore and I had already beat you to the punch.)

My posts are public record, and given that you're so focused on me, I'm assuming that you've read them. Since you don't think I've asked behavior-based questions, any examples I show you won't appease. Still, you asked for them:

Everything I say in regards to the name claim will assume it reflects innocence/guilt. It obviously may not.

Why would you not just assume straight out that scum have fakeclaims if they'd need them?

If so heres my response: I didn't respond cause thats not a case, pointing out I voted for a lurker and FoS'ed Kintetic isn't even anaylsis; in conclusion lolololol @ the case. Hope that helps.

Buttonmen, I pointed this out, but did not phrase it in the form of a question. Formally, why would you place a random vote on Locke when you had an actual suspicion, as shown by the FoS on Kinetic?

Rai, why question The Inquisition specifically to start the day?

I'm kinda suspicious of the players who are voting him [Inq] actually.

Why?

I am thinking a Bogre, Kinetic scumteam.

Why Kinetic?

----

And what are you talking about, we need connections for behaviour-based scumtells to work? On the contrary, when we don't have links upon which to base our analysis, aren't behaviour-based tells the best we have to go on?

I'm not saying they don't work, I'm saying they work far better when we have scumbuddies to work off of. I'd like to be more comprehensive, when I can be.

And right now, he's withholding his vote for no good reason beyond stubbornness. But at this point, his reasons for not voting are crap. Just face it. Your refusal to vote is a distraction. I don't care if "sometimes, in theory, people who don't want to vote aren't always scum, so stop bugging me about it." Why are you being so reluctant to vote when clearly it's causing a problem for us?

I'm withholding my vote because I don't think anyone deserves it at the moment, and I want to hear more from Inq and Bogre, at least. Why is that a crap reason? Also, while it may be causing a problem for you and apparently Seacore, I'm not sure if it's a problem for anybody else. If it's causing you a problem because you can't read me without a vote, then you need to get better at this game. Sometimes, people don't vote.

Also, what would change about your read of me if I put a vote down in this post? Seriously, at this point haven't you already made up your mind about that situation?

I've been around long enough that I know how to modify my meta game to game. I certainly wouldn't say I'm the greatest in this regard, but please don't throw surface tells at me.

Then why are you using your meta to defend yourself?

Because you should be able to see now that I'm a more sophisicated player than you'd need me to be for your simple tell to work.

So you think that Raivann's answer to why he chose Kinetic...and your new question about Inquisition's meta (which you didn't bring up until I pointed out that Inq had already answered your question) were so important that you didn't have any more worthwhile contributions to add to the thread?

It's not that my questions were so important, but no, over the course of waiting, I haven't found anything else that would be worthwhile or pro-town to contribute to the thread.

By the way, did you happen to notice that Bogre's likely to be replaced?

[MacavityLock]

@mod

, next Wednesday is the 24th. Please clarify deadline.

Also, welcome Percy!

[MacavityLock]

MacavityLock, why are you losing your temper?

I'm not losing my temper. I'm fine, thanks.

There's no need to give me attitude or insult my ability to play the game.

And I don't want to, but I don't know how else to respond to

Why are you being so reluctant to vote when clearly it's causing a problem for us?

I've said "I don't want to vote" more than once, and that's all I'm interested in saying, so there's not much more I can do to alleviate your "problem".

Also, you didn't answer what would change in your read of me if I did decide to vote.

I have a sinking feeling that you'll turn into a distracting argument about Mafia theory...but fine, I'll bite. How the hell do behaviour-based tells work far better when we have scumbuddies to work off?

Behavior with respect to flipped scum. Did player try to protect, try to distance, etc.?

By the way, I like the way you try to disparage my answer before I even give it. I don't want to distract with mafia theory, and haven't done that this entire game, so why your intro?

What kind of tells are we supposed to use before a scum flip?

If we can ferret it out, knowledge of setup that only scum would have is really useful.

By the way, did you happen to notice that Bogre's likely to be replaced?

Yep (I even mentioned it in my big post above yours). Your point?

My point is that the following came after Faraday announced that he was likely to replace Bogre, and is thus useless, blowhard-y, and feels disingenuous.

Regardless of his alignment, it looks like Bogre is so useless that he apparently WANTS to be lynched.

----

Inq's 546 reads really weak. It feels like he didn't actually read any content that he missed, just saw that Mina and I had a bunch of back and forth. As far as I can tell, he literally addressed nothing that occurred while he was away.

To make it that much more clear: Inq, trickle-claiming examples, please.

[MacavityLock]

Also, you didn't answer what would change in your read of me if I did decide to vote.

Don't make me repeat that quote in size 18 again.

The fact that you don't just suspect me because of my lack of vote doesn't answer my question. Whether or not things would change in your read of me helps me in my read of you.

(Since you attacked Buttonmen for not voting his suspect, you clearly felt the same way.)

My attack of Buttonmen had to do with his use of a FoS in addition to a vote, and why he chose to place both.

To be honest, I do think you've been guilty of wasting time on theory. Case in point: the voting-vs.-not-voting debacle.

Come on now, don't deny your own part in the whole debacle. I've said as much as I want to say right now, and I've said that I've said as much.

And even you've admitted that much of your scumhunting has been based on the roles and set-up.

Theory does not equal setup spec.

But this leads into something else that's been bugging me about you. Why does the bite in your post turn on and off? I'd feel much better about you if you were consistently a jerk. But while you get very snarky when fighting a case on you, you're quite dispassionate when attacking the players you believe are scum. I find that to be a HUGE red flag.

Not sure I understand your point. If anything, I was a jerk to you once, because I knew of no more ways to tell you that I wasn't interested in voting at the moment.

Now I'd like to ask a favour of you. If you respond to me again, could it please be about something--ANYTHING--other than whether cautious voting is a scumtell?

Cute, trying to get the last word. I have asked you about things in previous posts that do not have to do with cautious voting.

For example, you didn't respond to my point about your useless quote re: Bogre that I brought up in 549. What was the point of it?

----

The case against Mac wasn't about his unwilliningness to vote; that was just one symptom of it. It was about his unwillingness to say concrete things about what was happening in game and his constant metaing and set up / role

analysis

speculation rather then scum hunting. He defended himself by linking his past games and by turning it into an argument about voting theory; you can see why this doesn't relieve my suspicions.

I have asked about many things that have occurred this game, and pointed out where I did so. It's certainly not the only thing I'm questioning, but I have been. I have not been trying to turn anything towards theory.

----

I also want to hear more from Rai, who I was about to have prodded before his single word post, as well as Kinetic.

I keep seeing big posts by Mina, but for some reason my eyes glaze over them with out reading much.

That probably isn't a good sign.

I would like to know what you mean by what I italicized above.

[MacavityLock]

Why then did you unvote Percy (Bogre) just to re-vote him?

[MacavityLock]

MacavityLock is scum. “Safe” hardly begins to describe his play. He bends with the breeze. He is playing to avoid offending players. I encourage those who have not done so to read his posts in isolation – he essentially takes no original stances. His only truly original stance: (i) his attack on The Inquisition for his role-claim, and (ii) his defense of himself.

Confucius, I have asked quite a few original questions, to Raiv, to Mina, to Inq, to Seacore. Maybe not everyone finds them useful, but I do.

Given the timing, I believe The Inquisition is either Town or Serial Killer. Either way, I believe somebody tried to kill him last night. Whoever that somebody is is probably scum.

Why "Given the timing"? Also, why is that somebody probably scum?

[MacavityLock]

OK, I can see now that it's time to nip this in the bud. Mina's almost certainly going to vote me at this point, and I want us to have time for all necessary discussion before deadline. I have been trying to prevent this all day, but Conficius did too good a job of ferreting out my breadcrumb.

I am Theon Greyjoy, Vig.

My first breadcrumb:

But if Helio doesn't lynched, he needs a right vigging.

Had he not been lynched, I would have vigged Heilo.

I also claim the Inq kill. And I was being as obvious about it as I could be without actually claiming vig.

I chose to kill Inq because I was looking towards D1 lurkers, and he seemed scummiest of the group I identified.

My kill method is "pierced through the heart with an arrow". Theon is a well-known archer: A GRRM-approved miniature. Sadly, the kill didn't go through, or else you would have seen it. However, I still know quite a few things because of this.

The scum likely all have different kill methods, and those kill methods are likely tied to the character.

Because of this, 1) This is how I picked out Raiv's tell of calling out different kill methods for different scum groups.

2) Scum almost certainly have fake name-claims, as the mod would not want scum to be outed by their kill method alone.

3) Had my kill gone through, I would have been easily identified as someone with a kill.

2 and 3 combine to provide the reason that I was adamant against a nameclaim on D1.

As for why I've been so hesitant to vote, it's just that. Given only 1 successful kill last night, it doesn't look like we have a SK. Given that bulletproof is more commonly a SK perk, I've been strugging with whether or not I think that Inq-maf would have bulletproof-ness. The fact that he claimed 2x BP didn't sit well with me, but there was still that doubt. Over the course of the day, neither Bogre nor Raiv reached Inq's level of scummy for me, so I didn't feel right about voting one of them when I was more suspicious of Inq.

However,

Vote: Raiv

. He has failed to answer questions, there is the kill method tell, and as the final straw, has taken an easy route in putting himself on my wagon. If I had a second vote, it would go to The Inq. I'm done with his lack of response to the questions put forth, and his 546 is awful. (P.S.

@mod,

it's almost time for an Inq prod.)

[MacavityLock]

When the original name claims were posted, I remember noting to myself that Theon would make a good SK, but I suppose he's equally likely to be a good Vig, thematically.

One important point here: This is A Game of Thrones mafia, not ASOIAF mafia. Throughout AGoT, Theon's a good guy.

Also, remember that since kills are tied to character, if I'm SK, I would have had a fake name claim.

I'd rather not say who I'm going to vig before night, given the likelihood of a maf RB. If a majority of the town wants me to though, I will.

[MacavityLock]

Vote count quotes haven't been, but all flavor ("chapters") have been set at King's Landing during Book 1. I understand not wanting to completely trust this, but I just want everyone to be aware of it.

[MacavityLock]

You point to a crumb while ignoring the rest of your quote.

I'm still for lynching Buttonmen. But if Helio doesn't lynched, he needs a right vigging.

This leads me to believe that if you were actually a Vigilante, you would have vigged TheButtonMen overnight after Heliograph was lynched. This is made more apparent since your last posts of Day One all attack TheButtonMen.

That quote in 303 came before Buttonmen claimed Cop. Once he claimed cop, my questions were all geared towards figuring out whether or not I should vig him overnight, but it would have taken a

lot

of scummy from him to get me to. A claimed and un-counter-claimed cop needs to stay alive for at least a little while.

Instead, you tried to kill The Inquisition. You did this despite the fact that you never once talked about The Inquisition on Day One. Why kill him then? Killing players you never talk about is an excellent way to dissociate a kill from yourself.

Buttonmen was far and away the most scummy to me on Day 1. Given that he was off-limits, I looked to scummy lurkers.

Finally, your first post of Day Two was:

Rai, why question The Inquisition specifically to start the day?

This makes me believe you were trying to preemptively paint Raivann as being the person who targeted The Inquisition, since you knew your kill on him had failed. This does not seem like something a Vigilante would do. It strikes me as words from a guilty conscience.

Given that I knew that I had attempted to kill Inq, it seemed very strange that Raiv had chosen to question him specifically. Why wouldn't I have questioned it?

[MacavityLock]

Please respond to the most important part of my post when you have time. Namely:

MacavityLock, please convince me that you are a Vigilante as opposed to scum trying to pass yourself off as a Vigilante. Your play in this game leads me to believe you are the latter. I judge people by their play, not solely their claims. What in your play makes you Town?

And what do you want me to say? I've been asking questions, relevant to the game, and relevant to my additional knowledge as vig. I've been doing my best to try to scumhunt with the additional knowledge I had without outing myself as a power role, but was sadly not able to keep it up.

My play from my first post has been entirely consistent with me as vig, and I'd ask you to re-read me that way. Give me the benefit of the doubt for one re-read, that's all I ask.

[MacavityLock]

Query: Are there any limitations on your claimed Vigilante ability, by chance? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Respectfully, I would prefer not to answer this question, as I'd prefer for scum to know as little about my role as possible. I will say that if I have a limited number of kills, I have not yet run out of them, and thus my role is still potentially confirmable via my claimed kill method.

[MacavityLock]

EBWOP:

... and thus my role is still potentially confirmable via my claimed kill method.

I think more accurately, this would be "... and thus my ability is still..."

[MacavityLock]

I can imagine The Inquisition, as scum, claiming to have been targetted; saying nothing would have been far more suspicious, and it could flush out the vig.

By the way, the reason why Inq-scum would need to claim BP is as follows:

Case 1) Buttonmen is actually cop. Scum need to RB Buttonmen, and Buttonmen will be aware of the No Result. Thus, I will figure out something's up, as I probably couldn't also have been roleblocked, and Inq was an unlikely doc-protect.

Case 2) Buttonmen is scum, claimed cop. Overnight, scum decide that he should be claiming RBed, No Result for whatever reason. Same conclusion as Case 1.

[MacavityLock]

However. MacavityLock has not taken enough stances during the time he has asked questions and defended himself from attacks. Please firmly tell us your top two suspects.

However,

Vote: Raiv

. He has failed to answer questions, there is the kill method tell, and as the final straw, has taken an easy route in putting himself on my wagon. If I had a second vote, it would go to The Inq. I'm done with his lack of response to the questions put forth, and his 546 is awful.

Anything else you need?

[MacavityLock]

-Please explain just what in particular made you think that Inquisition was so scummy that he was worth vigging on N1. Like I said before, I can see him as a rolehunting kill, or as an SK/second Mafia family taking a shot in the dark at a pool of under-the-radar players. But a vig kill on N1? Based on the little information we had in the thread? Terrible, horrifically bad play that could have devastated the town.

The job of a vig is to remove anti-town players. I would have vigged Heilo had he not been lynched. Buttonmen claimed cop. Those were my top two suspicions over the course of Day 1. Over Night 1, I re-read the game, and for their lurkiness, picked out the following 3 players as potential targets: Inq, MaB, and Bogre. Inq's switch on the nameclaim (isos 1 and 2 vs iso 5), as well as his disappearance after the nameclaim sealed it for me.

-Why didn't you reveal your role when everyone was attacking Inquisition for lying about his BP claim?

Why would I reveal my role earlier than I needed to? I would have far preferred remaining unclaimed for at least one more night.

Poor MacavityLock. If you're so experienced that you know how to change your meta as scum, then why would you be so distracted by the extra information you had as a vig that you'd be completely unable to make cases on people?

Except I wasn't. I felt pretty good about Buttonmen case on D1, as well as my D2 cases on Inq and Raiv. By the way, I've never played as a vig before, so I wanted to be very careful about not letting too much of my PR leak out.

I see one detail that fits your claim: picking up on Raivann's "slip" because you have your own kill method.

How about the fact that I was very insistent that Kin provide the reasons he brought up name-claim? I was trying to figure out whether he had knowledge of kill methods too, and if that was why he was pushing for a nameclaim.

I can believe that you genuinely thought Raivann "slipped." But then why weren't you pushing Raivann's lynch today, if you thought he was scum? You asked him a couple of sideways questions, but didn't even consider voting for him until your reveal. You seemed to suspect Bogre, Inquisition, and Buttonmen more.

I've been asking Raiv very pointed questions all day, and got very few satisfactory answers out of him. I did suspect Inq more, up until just recently.

[MacavityLock]

I've been asking Raiv very pointed questions all day, and got very few satisfactory answers out of him. I did suspect Inq more, up until just recently.

Why do you suspect Raivann more than Inquisition now? Is it because of his Percy vote?

It's because of the Bogre unvote without providing reason, the Percy re-vote without providing reason, and the jumping onto my wagon at a perfectly opportune time for scum to do so, without providing reason.

Bogre also flipflopped on the nameclaim and disappeared after it was over. IIRC, MaB was wishy-washy on the idea of a nameclaim (although I don't think he outright went against it) before changing his position...and

also

disappeared after the nameclaim.

All three players fit in the same general category: low activity, contradictory thoughts on the nameclaim. And yet you chose to target Inquisition.

See, what stands out to me is that of those three players, Inquisition would probably be the worst choice from the POV of a vig...but the

best

from the POV of a SK or second Mafia group. Bogre and MaB both came across as VIs to me--and would have probably been lynched had they not been replaced, so you'd be saving us a lynch with your kill. Inquisition, on the other hand, made a few reasonable posts early on against the nameclaim that showed he had a brain. He could have been scum...but chances were high that he was just a town player with no time on his hands, or a power role lying low.

Were I a vig who was going for the most antitown player rather than the player I suspected most, I'd have gone for Bogre or MaB--or maybe even Seacore. (I'd have avoided Buttonmen because of the cop claim.) But on D1, Inquisition wasn't the most antitown player in the game.

Inquisition was the

least lynchable

, and

most competent

of those three. In other words, the biggest threat to scum.

I'm going to disagree with you there. Bogre did not read VI to me. Inq did enough scummy things to pique my interest, while Bogre did not do much of anything. I also must admit that I gave him benefit of the doubt because of his early Join Date. I liked MaB's first post just enough, in addition to the Sandor name-claim. As you said, it's just too evil.

[MacavityLock]

Confucius didn't ferret out your Heilograph breadcrumb. This was the quote he was talking about:

There's something that seems off about this though. Inq doesn't make much sense as a maf NK target.

MacavityLock, are you saying this quote was an intentional breadcrumb?

Yes, it was. It is what I was referring to with

I also claim the Inq kill. And I was being as obvious about it as I could be without actually claiming vig.

[MacavityLock]

State which scummy things Inquisition did that Bogre didn't do as well.

Bogre barely switched on the name claim. He mentioned it once in his first post and then not again until voting Yay on the nameclaim. Inq was far more against the nameclaim, and gave real reasons to be against it in iso posts 1 and 2. In 5, he votes Yay for the reason that will promote role-playing, i.e. shitty reason. His switch was far more egregious than Bogre's. I also feel like the first two paragraphs of his iso 6 are fluff analysis, and not all that helpful.

[MacavityLock]

Confucius, you should be aware that if Button is our lynch, I will almost certainly be using my kill on either Raiv or Inq, not Kin.

Also, look at that Raiv post. Just look at it.

(Also also, boo on those Huskies. My Cal Bears deserved better than getting booted in the 2nd round by Duke.)

[MacavityLock]

MacavityLock, Buttonmen, and Confucius are almost certainly not on the same team, based on ML and Button trying to lynch each other and Confucius trying to lynch both.

Scum-team? Town-team? Either?

The one thing I find hard to swallow is why you didn't say anything in Inquisition's defence when people were trying to lynch him. I can see you believing Inquisition was BP scum. But why did you let people think he was lying about his claim?

I don't remember anyone saying that they didn't think that Inq was BP. Maybe Seacore brought it up once? As far as I can tell, everyone else was trying to figure out whether or not he was lying about his BP count.

You're saying the Mafia NK line was a breadcrumb...but when I read it at the time, my impression was that you doubted Inq's story (because the Mafia would have never targeted him). I don't think you

outright

said you didn't believe Inq was really bulletproof, but you sure as hell implied it.

Now that you say it, I can see how that could be a misinterpretation of what I was saying. I didn't even think of that.

[MacavityLock]

By the way, MacavityLock, did it occur to you that Confucius might be a power role, or did you just assume he picked up on your breadcrumb? Just trying to evaluate Con's claim.

It did not occur to me until he said as much. Now that he has, I believe the claim.

I'm basing alot of reads right now on The Inq. telling the truth. I just dont see the scum motivation in him claiming he was targeted at the beginning of D2.

Well, he might have been trying to discourage the other faction from attacking him again at night. Now that we know he was telling the truth about his BP claim, that makes him look somewhat better (although Percy mentioned reasons for why he could still be scum).

See my 606 for why Inq had to claim BP today.

But we've already established that if MacavityLock is not scum, then he's the worst vig ever.

Wait, what?

[MacavityLock]

If you just day-killed Kinetic, do you need to support his lynch?

[MacavityLock]

Sorry about that, I missed that fact that Raiv lied about his daykill as I was in the middle of a roto baseball draft. I still feel pretty good about Raiv lynch.

[MacavityLock]

So, this is my "at least I hit a liar" post. We clearly need to treat today as LYLO. Confucius, Buttonmen, results?

[MacavityLock]

We should also discuss who our vig/sk should target.

Obviously, I think that Button should be lynched, and one of the others shot with an arrow.

Interesting. From my perspective, we're almost certainly at 4 town/3 maf. So, assuming we lynch scum today, we'd be at 4 town/2 maf -> 3 town/2 maf with a successful maf NK. If I vig wrong, that's a maf win. Willing to risk it? Did you attempt to work any numbers out on your own before posting, or no?

You guys can't rule out me being SK, I understand that, but the above analysis still works. (Again, re: me being SK, I can only ask that you note the information I provided on both kill flavors and fake names.)

[MacavityLock]

Confucius, I understand that about potential doc-protects, as well as the "tomorrow's lynch" idea. All discussion that occurs today will be taken under advisement, obviously. A town-suggested kill is certainly a possible solution. I'm just saying that a) Seacore tossing that off about me killing without thinking about it might be scummy, and b) there's no guarantee that I will choose to kill tonight.

[MacavityLock]

Also, Confucius, are you interested in making a case on Buttonmen?

[MacavityLock]

Confucius, that's fine. The reason I was asking for a case is because I figure that one of the 2 claimed investigative roles is probably scum. I wanted to make sure you had a consistent throughline, and you weren't going to laze your way through the day.

I do have to disagree with your point 5, though. Was he a major wagon at any point on day 2?

[MacavityLock]

I didn't realize that Buttonmen got up to 3 votes before Raiv did, but looking back at it, you're right. One interesting thing: None of those 3 in a row votes on Raiv were from Buttonmen; they were Locke, Kin, and Seacore

[MacavityLock]

I can't disagree with anything being said thus far. Buttonmen is incredibly scummy for not providing his results right away and questioning Confucius the way he is. I also want to know why he's voting Seacore.

[MacavityLock]

Why did you just make that post, Seacore?

[MacavityLock]

Everyone who voted for name claim sucks.

Kinetic was obv-scum in retrospect. I was very unsuspicious of Mina until her 547 and 548, but I still couldn't pin anything on her. Confucius was very good scum.

All 3 nights, I killed/attempted to kill town: The Inq, The Inq, Seacore. Buttonmen, I thought your vote on Day 3 indicated a guilty result. Not that it would have mattered, as I got roleblocked. Buttonmen, why did you refuse to claim your result?

Bleh. Bleh bleh bleh. Damn townies, lying and being scummy all over the place. Bleh.

[MacavityLock]

Still, if he actually got No Result, he should have claimed that. It would have put him and Confucius into a 1 v 1. Also, because of that No Result, Buttonmen should have voted Confucius for being an obv-liar. Yes, yes, I know, the "fire" limitation. Whatever, I think we could have figured our way through that. I don't know that we would have lynched Confucius instead, but at least we would have had a chance.

[MacavityLock]

Oh, yeah, I don't think we had a shot by the end. Too many massive mistakes throughout the game.

[MacavityLock]

Well, having read the night talk, I can only say that I'm glad that paranoia about me led to fits.