Mini 931: Supreme Court Mafia (Game Over post 682)

[Fishythefish]

Alright! Welcome to the game. This should be pretty interesting. Let's get started with a few questions:

1) How much experience do you have playing Mafia?
2) How would you describe your playstyle?
3) What do you value the most in making decisions in Mafia?
4) Do you expect the Spanish Inquisition?
5) Do you prefer playing as mafia or as town?
6) How many games are you playing in at the moment?
7) What do you consider to be your greatest strength as town? As mafia?

I will answer once answers have been collected from all other players.

I also choose not to randomly vote.

1) I've been pretty active ever since I joined. ~12 completed games.
2) Too difficult a question. I try to be active, but sometimes fail, particularly when I'm struggling to work out what's going on. I think that sometimes I manage to scumhunt well. My strongest reads tend to be fairly gut based.
3) Whether a post feels like something I'd do in that position as town - or "gut" for short.
4) Of course not.
5) Other factors influence my enjoyment much more.
6) 5, including this one.
7) As town: I seem to look very townish, at least when I'm active. As scum: in my two successful scumgames, one was just a huge bus, and the other was really won through town lurking. I don't really have an answer to this one yet - though again I don't seem to come under much suspicion as scum.

vote: Bub B

- his answers try to both please and give nothing away.

[Fishythefish]

Can you please explain this in further detail? It's seems like an overly broad claim that could, on its face, apply to just about any set of answers to the questions; which, in and of themselves, do not seem to really promote "giving [something] away" in answering them.

Sure. BB's answers to a few of the questions are "haven't played enough to say". Which is fine. But it reads to me like he felt this wasn't enough, so he went with much more long-winded answers which said the same thing. Feels like he was worrying about people finding his answers scummy.

[Fishythefish]

@mod:

in the blurb for this game, there are three roles guaranteed to be in it. For convenience, please could these go in one of the opening posts?

Jack should answer GC's question.

[Fishythefish]

unvote, vote: pwnman

I think that Jack's method of answering the questions fits badly with scum. It's quite clear that copy/pasting is not a good method of avoiding attention in that scenario - unless you are idiotic enough to think it will go unnoticed, which Jack isn't (he admitted to it). I find the conclusion that Jack is scum from this not only wrong, but an unlikely one for a townie to come to.

I vote pwnman rather than Bub because following a bad vote is worse than the original vote.

[Fishythefish]

Sure. In the game of Mafia, there are at least two groups: An uninformed majority and an informed minority. The informed minority is the mafia and the uninformed majority is the town. The town wins when they gain information. The scum wins when information remains hidden. You are hiding information. Therefore, you are pushing towards the scum goal.

Argh. That's horrific false logic. I'm currently hiding my role from you - which is "hiding information". I don't consider this pushing towards the scum goal. It may be that in this case, hiding information is demonstrably scummy - but this argument feels like you want to convince regardless of whether you are right.

If Jack is a SK-cop, he is an idiotic one. Similarly, if he's a SK, he's an idiotic one. More likely, he just read more into the opening flavour than anyone else. Whichever of those it is, pressing him for information that may or may not exist seems like a bad idea.

@Neto: you say you can't find a pro-town motive for Jack's actions. Can you find an antitown one?

[Fishythefish]

Fishy: Sure, I can produce a scummy reason for Jack's actions. First, he is deliberately being confusing. Even if he is town, he would have had no other reason to bring up the matter in the first place. He is attempting to derail the game by his cryptic responses as well. Also, he is, I think, trying to benefit from early suspicion being cleared, which often means that the player will be looked at with less suspicion later in the game. If he establishes an extremely scummy style of play now, in the late game, if he plays in a more pro-town fashion, he will look much less like scum, regardless of his actual alignment. Thus, in a sense, it can be something of a protectionist move.

You see, I really don't think that's how scum think. They don't try and derail the game by posting nonsense - that just makes them look scummy. They don't try to look scummy to look townie by contrast later - that just makes them look scummy.

These motivations both demand that scum do something which obviously makes them look scummier. I just don't believe it.

Rival explanations for Jack's behaviour -
1. He's scum, doing one of the above.
2. He's either alignment, trying to stir things up a bit (as he claims).
Really, I find the second one much more credible. Put yourself in scum/SK shoes. Would you ever say that a flavour role (CIA agent) that doesn't exist is a SK? It seems a totally unbelievable scum gambit. To believe 2, you just have to believe Jack is prepared to do weird things in the RVS.

Weird is not the same as scummy. Jack's play is weird. There's no scum motivation for it, and it's not scummy.

[Fishythefish]

A person might have accidentally done that as an SK who has the CIA agent role and thought it was mentioned in the OP - if you notice, he doesn't realize until I point it out that the OP said secret service.

This theory relies on the mod calling the role different things in the OP and the role PM. This seems a remote possibility, and would be the last theory on my list.

So, people on this wagon:
Neto is wrong, but he's genuine. He's been pushing hard, and he seems to be really trying to work out what's going on.

Dark on Jack:
Dark thought that CIA was a SKslip. Ok, that was possible. But there's no SK in the game. What is your vote now based on, Dark?

jason on Jack:
jason shouts slogans. Slogans like "withholding information!", "refusing to answer questions!" and the like. Never do I get the impression that jason has actually thought "would scumJack do this?". Quite possibly just jumping on a popular wagon with what looks like a reason, rather than sitting down and thinking about whether Jack is scum.

pwnman on Jack:
Jumped on, originally based off the bad "copy/paste" logic, then sat tight. Content to let others do his dirty work. Horrible.

BB on Jack (and me):
Initially jumped on based off the bad "copy/paste" logic. This quote is fascinating:

At this point Jack is so anti-town that he is unlikely to be scum. No scum in his right mind would openly deny information that could be helpful to the town.

because this is the correct dismissal of Jack's early odd play as pretty much alignment-neutral odd play.
This makes his attempt to scare me away from Jack's defense all the more awful. I'm defending the guy because I think the case is crap. If I'm wrong and he's scum, I'll answer for that tomorrow. Saying I'm likely scum with him now is only a way of undermining defenses

which BB himself has already agreed with the most important point of

- viz. that Jack has no scum motivation for his actions so far. It's this last this I find particularly damning - why does he find scummy something he has agreed with the fundamental point of?
Later, BB reverses his position on Jack's openly denying information to the town being an unlikely scum strategy - why was that, BB?
He also agrees with me that the wagon sucks (specifically jason and pwn). This guy wants to have it every way - he's wagoning scum, the people he's wagoning with are scum, and the person defending is scum.

pwnman and BB's contributions to this wagon are scumtastic, with jason not far behind. I will be astounded if there isn't at least one scum in that trio.

[Fishythefish]

Given the Researcher role, 5 votes could be L-1 for Jack or any other player. Noone should put people on 6 votes unless they are prepared to hammer a wagon.

[Fishythefish]

Dark on Jack:
Dark thought that CIA was a SKslip. Ok, that was possible. But there's no SK in the game. What is your vote now based on, Dark?

How do you know that there isn't an SK. You seem to be just as sure of it as Jack was when he said that there was an SK in the CIA. For some reason I find this fishy, fishy (pun completely intended).

Slip of the keyboard. I meant "no CIA agent in the game". I have no idea if there's a SK in the game.

As you might imagine, I have a lot to say. Firstly I didn't say that you should be lynched now, or that you are even scum now. I was saying that

if

, and only if, Jack turns out to be scum, then you should be the next one lynched, due to your defense of him.

Yes. Which really look to me like a strategy to make me scared he is scum, and stop trying to argue that the case on him stinks. Because you pretty much agree with my defenses, but still you say I should be lynched if Jack flips scum.

Further-more, as far as me reversing positions, I'd like to remind you that at the time I voted, the sole reason for my vote was to get answers as to why Jack copy and pasted his answers.

Also, keep in mind that it was early in day one (and it still is I might add), and that he didn't have any votes on him at that point. I simply wanted answers. However, his outright refusal to give any, and several good points that Net and others have brought up (such as the CIA thing) have all but confirmed my original ickling of suspision.

But he did answer about copy/paste - he said that he did it to see if Neto or anybody else cared about the answers. I really don't think "several good points" have been brought up by other people - and the post of yours I quoted strongly suggests you wouldn't think so either.

Also, if Jack turns out to be town, then that means there's got to be scum on his wagon. Most likely it will be pwn, but it could be any one who wagon-jumped when they saw that they could get an easy lynch.

I heartily agree with this. If you think that there are people who "wagoned-jumped when they saw that they could get an easy lynch" on the same wagon as you, you are on the wrong wagon. Don't wait for Jack to be lynched - the players attacking him are much scummier than he is.

@BB: you seem to be mostly voting Jack for "failing to answer questions" (at least, that's the reason you are currently being most vocal about). Can you point me to some questions he's failed to answer, and give me reasons why he would do so as scum? The only thing I see in you posts so far is the initial Neto questions - and I can't believe that anyone has so little faith in their abilities to answer those questions that they resorted to doing something that was bound to attract attention.

[Fishythefish]

What I'm saying is that our roles have names, and I believe that Jack got a role based on Serial Killer under the name of "CIA agent".

1. There is no CIA agent in the game (unless the OP is a lie).
2. Why on earth would he ever do that, ever? Scumslips like "here is my flavour, here is my role" don't happen. If it's a scumslip, what was he trying to say/achieve when he said it?

[Fishythefish]

Content is on its way tomorrow, at which point I decide whether BB or pwnman is worse.

[Fishythefish]

@DLA: why is Jack scum? In particular, which of Jack's posts benefit scumJack more than townJack?

[Fishythefish]

I think it's fairly clear that the theory advanced by DLA in 204 makes no sense. It's time to

unvote, vote: Bub B

[Fishythefish]

In the opening post, the mod gives a complete list of all roles in the game: some justices, a secret service agent and two lawyers. There is no general information about the presence or otherwise of a SK.

[Fishythefish]

@DLA: why do you think Bub is town? Why aren't you trying to stop his lynch?

[Fishythefish]

@Fishy: Why are you voting for Bub over pwnman now?

My reasons for voting Bub are given. As for why Bub over pwnman - I have rather different reads on pwnman and on Bub - the former jumped on Jack in a lurky bandwagonny way, the latter in a horrible and self-contradictory way. TBH, they are neck and neck in my suspicions, and I don't really mind which one we string up.

[Fishythefish]

Sorry - the point that my reads on them are different is relevant because I find it hard to compare the strengths of different kind of scumreads when it's fairly tight.

[Fishythefish]

@Bub: what changed your mind about Jack?

I think you are confusing "pwnman" and "pman", perhaps? pwn isn't on your wagon.

[Fishythefish]

LYNCH JACK HE'S SERIAL KILLER!

Isn't it OBVIOUS?

No! It's so not obvious.

So, you think that the Jack accidentally let slip, in his first post, his flavour name and role. This is not how scumslips work. There's no way Jack can have thought that it would be considered protown to say a random non-existent flavour name was the SK. If he didn't mean to say what he said, he must have meant to say something else. But what on earth could accidentally come out as "CIA agent is SK"??

Jack says, basically, that he said something odd to stir things up a bit. You may not believe this, but you haven't given a credible alternative. Suppose Jack is the SK CIA agent. How did his post come about? He wouldn't give us his role on purpose, and there's no way he would have done it by mistake.

Why do you think Bub town?

[Fishythefish]

V/LA earlier than expected - I probably won't post again.

Bub should claim at this point. After that, he should be lynched. Failing that, it's pwnman time.

[Fishythefish]

(EBWOP: I probably won't post again until Monday)

[Fishythefish]

Sad to make a lurker list. Access should be fine from now on, V/LA being over.

Suspicions:
camn/pwnman for horrible play on Jack wagon. Jumping on a bad wagon and lurking there is not cool. On the other hand, camn's replacing in isn't at all bad.
jason. Harder to explain. His play on Jack feels off - like he's trying hard to make points against Jack, rather than really trying to work out Jack's alignment. I feel like he's scumhunting rigidly, using set, sloganny tells like "ignoring questions", rather than thinking about what scum actually do. His reasoning for his Darox vote seems a bit inconsistent - he's given two bad reasons (wagon hopping and failing to back up vote), and in neither case explained why that makes Darox scum. I really don't feel jason is trying to find scum, and he does things I just can't see myself doing as town.

vote: jason

[Fishythefish]

I'm sure people are going to jump all over me for saying this, but Jack is obv town here, and Dark Lights actions in response to him are looking odder and odder.

QFT.

DLA badly needs to talk about people who aren't Jack. Admitting lurking makes me pause though - somehow "back to lurking" doesn't sound like a lurkerscum sentiment.

[Fishythefish]

@Neto, jason, DLA, whoever: What do you think Jack is hiding? What game relevant questions are outstanding atm that he needs to answer?

[Fishythefish]

So, it's quite likely we have one scumteam. I'd guess a 3-man team, although that's by no means certain.

HoS: jason

(only not vote because I'm wondering whether it's time for massclaim)

I don't think his attacks on Jack read like those of someone working out Jack's alignment. More like someone who has seen someone refusing to answer pretty irrelevant questions, and seeing something he can go after safely.

I agree with Yos that discrediting a (pretty good) defense of someone by saying "you're his buddy" is extremely icky. Just because you think someone is scum, you shouldn't ignore their comments on someone else.

And yeah, we could do with a researcher claim at least. A massclaim might also be appropriate - if we lynch wrongly today, we lose.

[Fishythefish]

I like each player nominating next to claim. It's simple and doesn't need arguing over, except in who starts. I'd like jason to start.

After we've talked about it, ofc.

[Fishythefish]

I'd definitely include names in a massclaim.

[Fishythefish]

At least half the town (me, Neto, Jack, Dry-fit I presume) want jason to claim first. I suggest that this is what happens, and that we then play "nominate your successor" (because, realistically, we are never going to get agreement on the whole order).

Having said that, I could cope with Neto's order.

[Fishythefish]

Good point. I agree.

[Fishythefish]

@pman: do you still have a veto today? I can't remember how it works.

[Fishythefish]

A little bit V/LA until Monday/Tuesday. Should get on occasionally.

[Fishythefish]

Claims with order:
Jason - Antonin Scalia, vanilla justice
Pman - Allen J Counard, town veto holder, vetoed Bub then no one.
Camn - vanilla justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Dry-fit
Darox
Jack
Fishy
Netopalis

I think this is a good order (with Neto's semiclaim, I'm happy for the rearrangement). I'd also say that "claiming" doesn't have to mean claiming everything. As an example, if I'm a tracker and I'm claiming before anyone at all, my claim will be "tracker" - not my results as well. Revealing vetoing Bub is totally fine, but be wary about revealing results that could help the scum.

Dry-fit, take the stand...

[Fishythefish]

It's your turn by my count.

I really disagree about claiming results - if you have results on people claiming later, you want the to commit before you reveal them.

[Fishythefish]

I understand the principles of claim order. I actually think that all of me, Jack and Neto are likely to be town, so I'm not overly bothered about the order there. On reflection though, I am least certain of Neto, and would prefer if he claimed before Jack and I.

At any rate, I think you should claim next, Darox.

[Fishythefish]

I think there is something of a consensus that you are scummier than me/you should claim before me. Certainly from this thread, the following people think so:
Me, Neto, Jack, jason
And only you hold the opposite view. This is all IIRC, but I'm pretty sure I do. So I think you should be claiming now.

[Fishythefish]

In case it's unclear, my reference to a tracker claim was purely an example, and is in no way intended to claim whether or not I'm a tracker.

[Fishythefish]

I don't want to claim before darox simply because I don't want him to have any information about me. He hasn't said he has a good reason to want me to go first. If we both want the other to go first, the consensus is what matters - and I think the consensus is broadly on my side.

[Fishythefish]

Massclaim is holding us back and all the people who I wanted to claim before me have.

I am David A McCreedy, vanilla attorney. I'm the other attorney in Michigan vs. Fisher, and I rather imagine I'm the one Neto is looking for (just a hunch - the attorneys seem to be the characters who stand out).

[Fishythefish]

Let's wait for Jack to claim.

[Fishythefish]

@Jack: in the signups, the mod said the roles were allocated in a way that wouldn't work with specific flavours being researcher/vetoer/other thing.

[Fishythefish]

I think that the mafia being based on flavour is possible, but not likely. I'll have a detailed look at the flavour Neto is suggesting some time, and go from there.

[Fishythefish]

Re: Neto's idea; I doubt it. I think having a coherent thread that link the scum like this, with no fakeclaims (by the look of it) wouldn't be attractive for a mod. You don't want a game broken by massclaim. The only thing in it's favour is that it would be a kind of obscure reason for a conspiracy, and it could be that the mod would think we'd never work it out.

The thing that makes me hesitate about Yos's crumbs is that he already though Jack was town before he supposedly investigated him (this is very much IIRC). I'll go through his posts thoroughly when I get the chance (tomorrow at worst), when I'll also be able to think properly about today's events.

[Fishythefish]

A quick IIoA note: if there were fewer than three scum, assigning the PRs randomly wouldn't make much sense, as they couldn't all go to scum (did the mod even guarantee they definitely

could

all go to scum?). So three scum is even more likely than it would normally be.

[Fishythefish]

I'll go back and read the relevant blurb again later (all out of time now), but my impression is that they were randomly assigned.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy is basically lurking.

Yep. I've been low on activity. Activity has been coming in lots of shortish periods, which is fine for games I'm up to date with, but this one needed some thinking about. In my defense, I've also been acknowledging said lurking. Anyway, that's over now:

- jason is still scum. He defends against Yos's accusation of pairing Darox with Jack to discredit Darox's defense of Jack by saying "but I'd been calling them both scum all day". The point isn't that you thought they were scum - the point is that you attacked Darox's arguments unfairly, by calling him Jack's buddy, because you were unwilling or unable to address the arguments themselves. Dismissing points against your cases with "yeah, but you're scum" is a terrible and scummy thing to do, and betrays the fact that you don't actually care to think too hard about the validity of your case.
jason's link for Darox and Jack is that they have defended each other. Well, Darox has defended Jack, along with Yos and I, against the terrible arguments levelled against him. But the other way round looks totally artificial. jason provides two quotes. One of them is Jack asking "Really?" when jason calls Darox

and Jack himself

scum. So jason has apparently looked at this, and made the conclusion that the suspicion Jack was questioning was the one on Darox, not the one on him. I refuse to believe this is in good faith. jason's second "defense" is a little bit better. It's Jack pointing out a reading fail of jason. I don't think this can be classed as a "defense" of Darox - more like an attack on jason for making a point with his facts wrong. All in all, it's a weak and contrived link.

Other things:
- Admitting veto holder makes pman fairly likely town.
- Researcher is scum. We should be very, very careful about voting.
- camn's analysis:
I'm thinking that I agree with him on Jack and GC as Yos's investigations. Making Yos naive or sane.
I'm not a great one for wagon analysis generally, but I think his reasoning on D-F is fairly strong. Having all 3 scum on a wagon of 5 yesterday would be distinctly odd.

Things to do: read Darox. This will happen in the next few hours.

[Fishythefish]

I don't think my lurking is that bad. It lasted about 3 RL days, I acknowledged my access problems - and before and since then I've contributed well, I think. Jack called it lurking, and I think Darox saw a convenient way to go after camn. I think it's implausible to actually read my play and think that it's hypocritical for someone to think lurkers are scum but have a townread on me.

[Fishythefish]

Just a reminder of why jason is scum:
- His attacks on Jack through days 1 and 2 looked consistently like he had no interest in Jack's alignment.
- When attacking Darox day 2, his case was bad.
- Replying to people's arguments against a case with "but you're scum".
- Linking those people in an implausible way to back up that poor line of argument.
He's not done anything that makes me think he's actually thought about who's scum. He's done things that I think are obviously a case of getting evidence to fit an argument. This guy is a scummy, scummy scumbag, and I'm ready to vote him.

[Fishythefish]

You saw Jack called me a lurker. You recalled that camn had attacked someone for lurking, but had a townread on me. You jumped on the apparent contradiction, almost certainly without bothering to reread my play.

[Fishythefish]

When did you find my scummy (you may or may not have done, I don't remember)?
Why did you "worry" that you now found me less scummy?
Why is my recent post scummy?

I'm not sure I'm getting across to you here. You specifically attacked camn because she had a townread on me, and I was lurking. I think this is deeply inconsistent with reading my posts.

[Fishythefish]

EBWOP: sorry, only just noticed the bit about you attacking camn before jack commented on me. This is highly relevant, and I feel silly. I'll go and check that out now.

[Fishythefish]

This came a little after Jack accused me of lurking.

Maybe now Netopalis can respond to #564

Also camn, if you're so gung-ho against lurkers, surely you would want to know who is lurking, especially when the person you call obv town is doing so.

When I read this, I thought that "the person you call obv town" was referring to me. Was it?
You certainly later said I was lurking. Which I think by then was a poor assessment of my play. You are having an argument about lurking, but it really doesn't feel like you checked your facts on me - more like you saw Jack say I was lurking, and thought it would be good in your ongoing argument with camn.

[Fishythefish]

Where is the "yeah, me too"? I had some access problems, and I did have to look into things later. Which I did. How is this scummy? I don't think my game mechanics posting was "posturing", and I don't think it looks like a substitute for scumhunting. Anyway, the period all your comments here cover is about 72 hours! Before that, and since that (

before

your post) I have been active and commenting on many things. "Lurking" is a terrible description of my play in the game as a whole, and, by the time you said it, a bad description of my play today.

Yes, I have read you. I know you didn't label me or pman until after Jack's statement. Luckily, that's completely irrelevant. The point is that my play is clearly not lurking, and you labelling it as such to score a point against camn is completely wrong.

As for that post - I didn't want you to know my role when you claimed, in case you were scum. There's no more to it than that.

[Fishythefish]

I'm not trying to 'score points' against camn. If you've been reading, you would know I don't want to lynch camn today.

OK, "score points against camn's arguments".

In other news.

You claimed a vanilla townie.

Why were you afraid of claiming as such 'in case of scum'?

Was it simply because you are an attorney? Surely you couldn't be worried about me counterclaiming you as an attorney.
Was it because the Bubs school of thought 'Judges are town, lawyers are scum'? But that wouldn't matter if I claimed before you or not, because you would still have claimed lawyer.

So why the worry?

None of that. Very, very simple: the more town players you know are vanilla, the easier it is to fakeclaim as scum. If you were worried I might have tracked/watched/rolecopped you, you would claim accordingly. The earlier scum have to claim, the more difficult it is - regardless of the roles that claim later.

I am certainly not yet ready for a Darox lynch - I don't actually find him that scummy, generally. I much prefer jason for a lynch.

Darox: can we try one more time. This is what I dislike:
0. I haven't been lurking in this game, except for one V/LA and the below.
1. You are arguing with camn, because he has a scumread on a lurker, at least partly for being a lurker, but also has a townread on camn.
2. Jack says I'm lurking, which I have been for 72 hours.
3. I make a post with a decent amount of content, which also apologises for that lurk.
4. You say I'm lurking to further discredit camn's point - because he has a townread on me.
It's the fact that I wasn't lurking, and you said I was, which furthered your side of the argument. Can you explain what you were thinking?

@camn: I think your wagon analysis pointing to Dry-Fit and jason is good. I think your PoE to get to Darox in that post has many more assumptions and is correspondingly much weaker. I also really don't see reasoning for Darox-scum anywhere else in your posts. His recent argument against you isn't that bad. Apart from labelling my play as lurking, he really did nothing wrong there. I really think your vote is in the wrong place.

[Fishythefish]

btw. The cop gets probable/not probable in his results. I didn't feel like pointing out the flaws in assuming that Yos had an innocent on me before, but it's relevant to the "how many scum" and thus "bussing in lylo" question. The reason I didn't see where he breadcrumbed when you said it was obvious earlier is because I don't think he did. It would only be a probable in any case.

Well. If we assume that Yos was consistent, we at least know that his result on you was the same as that on a confirmed town, making him sane or naive.

With virtually confirmed town, no lynch is a bad idea. We should save the no lynch for when it's useful.

I hadn't considered the possibility that people stay researched, and I kind of doubt it - it would be hugely strong.

@Jack: I've got no idea why you think I'm scum. What is it?

[Fishythefish]

Fishy says he is 'not ready'..
Pman has suspiciously not commented on Darox.
Netopolis is softening toward him, I feel.. but had some decent Darox-hate a couple posts back.
and Dry fit can't be relied on to lynch anyone, I dont think.

Pman

.. your opinion of Darox?

Netopolis

... do you retain enough hate to lynch?

Fishy

.. what would it take to get you ready?

Dry-fit

.. are you willing to bus your buddy to look more townie tomorrow?

By "not ready", I mean that I don't think Darox is sufficiently scummy to merit lynching. To get me ready, someone would have to provide a much better case against Darox than I've seen so far.

Rereading D-F on a content hunt (almost entirely from his iso):
- pwnman attacks early day 1 are fine.
- Not much else for a while. Equivocal stance on jason's attitude on Jack. Commenting on DLA's tunnelling without calling him scummy.
- camn vote early D2 is fine - for lack of content/suspicions. Decides that DLA's tunnelling has become scummy - a reasonable point of view. Attacks for Yos for a dodgy townread on GC - which is fair enough (in fact, it was a breadcrumb).
- Since then, less content. Declared a strong townread on me. jason has crept up his suspicions for no obvious reason.
@Neto: I'm not really seeing active lurking here. There's content there, and reads, and he hasn't posted that much. I get a feeling he's trying to hedge his bets at some points (on jason and DLA, primarily), but nothing screams scum.

[Fishythefish]

vote: jason

I think he's scum.

[Fishythefish]

First, a plea not to do anything rash. I'm sure we're all aware that if there are three scum left, the town needs to quicklynch scum. But suppose there

are

3 scum left. Then the town hasn’t lost, quite. But here’s what needs to happen for us to win:
1. We lynch scum today faster than the scum can vote.
2. 2 people agree and lynch scum tomorrow faster than the scum can vote.
3. One person goes faster than the scum on the day after tomorrow.
Even if you are nearly certain someone (me, say) is scum, if there are 3 scum left the chances of tomorrow and the next day going well are

extremely

low. Effectively, it’s game over. So if there is any doubt in your mind about whether I am scum, you would do better to discuss it, and hope that there are only 2 scum. I won’t be voting until we have agreement on a lynch, and I urge you to do the same.

That out of the way – I was surprised at the violence of the reaction to my hammer (as it proved to be). I had been pushing jason’s lynch hard, for two days. I had said I was ready to vote him. I wanted him dead. Of course, I knew that if he was town, there was a good chance I was hammering. But I felt there was no more to be said. My vote post was short – but I’d given full and I think good reasons why I thought jason was scum elsewhere. Put yourself in my position as a townie – what else needs saying before that vote?

Some thoughts on who the scum are tomorrow.

[Fishythefish]

btw, Fishy, if that wasn't a "I'm mafia hammering for the win" post I don't know what is. You had me convinced

TBH, I thought I was either town voting scum or town hammering the mafia win. In either case, I couldn't be bothered explaining myself, and didn't need to. Momentarily, I'd forgotten that today could happen in a real way. I'm glad that it didn't matter much - I'd have felt pretty thick.

A good job all round from the scum.