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

[Netopalis]

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.

[Netopalis]

Pwnman: How many games have you replaced out of in the last week?

[Netopalis]

Well, as a matter of full disclosure, I *am* a law student, so if you end up with any law questions, let me know...

[Netopalis]

I usually try to open my games with questions as I find that they lead to a much more productive and deliberate day 1. I usually answer last because, if I don't, several people will basically parrot my answers. I'm a 1L at Mercer - are you in law school/looking at it?

[Netopalis]

I think so? I've done it in at least 6 games now, so it's kinda hard to keep track.

[Netopalis]

Unless if it's a big case that everyone learns about in 8th grade Social Students (

Brown v. Board of Education

, etc.) or a case that is especially important to a lawyer's specific field of law (and even then, it'd have to be an incredibly important and/or recent case), nobody here can recite to you the findings of a SC case off of the top of their head, either. I just did a five minute google look-up to see the history of the case - something anyone from anywhere can do, no intricate knowledge of the US Supreme Court needed.

Just off the top of my head - Martin v. Hunter's Lessee - the Supreme Court has the ability to overturn state court decisions where they are in conflict with the constitution, Nixon v. US - There is no executive power for the President to withhold documents except in limited circumstances, The Slaughterhouse Cases - The Privileges and Immunities Clause does not necessarily incorporate all rights of the 14th Amendment as binding on the states. That being said, I'm taking Constitutional Law now.

What's to stop them for parroting someone else's answers? Regardless of whose answers are being parroted, couldn't you just call the parrot out on his parroting? (

parrot parrot parrot parrot

!)

I'm still curious: Are you going to base your non-random vote off of the answers themselves (as your first post seemed to indicate)? Or am I just extrapolating too much from the juxtaposition of those two phrases?

Well, sure, they can parrot somebody else's answers...but I've noticed a unique pattern that sometimes happens when mafia players answer the questions. I'll explain exactly what I'm looking for at the end. While they still could parrot someone else's answers, it doesn't necessarily interfere with what I'm looking for here.

And yes, my first vote will be based on the information gained from answering the questions.

Heading off to W&M in August.

Awesome. I'll IM with you and chat a bit more about it...

[Netopalis]

I'd really like to hear from Jack and DLA before I post my analysis, but if I don't get anything by lunch, I might go ahead and do it anyway.

[Netopalis]

Alright. The reasons that I asked each of the questions:


1) How much experience do you have playing Mafia? - 2 reasons: to get an experience read on each player and to start out with an easy question to make the answerer more at ease with answering.

2) How would you describe your playstyle? I asked this because I like to compare what players are saying with what they describe their playstyle as - it helps show where they have to depart from it to paint someone in a wrong light.

3) What do you value the most in making decisions in Mafia? I asked this for the above reason and to also see how willing everybody is to cooperate.

4) Do you expect the Spanish Inquisition? I asked this to throw an easy question in the middle to put the player back at ease again.

5) Do you prefer playing as mafia or as town? This helps me read whether a flake is due to not liking the role or to genuine inactivity.

6) How many games are you playing in at the moment? Another easier question, and it also bears on the flaking question.

7) What do you consider to be your greatest strength as town? As mafia? See 3.

I also ask all of these questions to get a read on how each player approaches a problem - specifically, a question presented by a player of unknown alignment. Pro-town players generally answer helpfully while scum often try to avoid the question. Alternatively, scum can try to be extremely overeager to please a player that they know is town-aligned.

My answers are as follows:


1) How much experience do you have playing Mafia? I've played in roughly 15 games since September 2009.

2) How would you describe your playstyle? I favor logic greatly. It's taken me a while to develop my playstyle, as evidenced by my poor 28% win ratio - I blame a lot of this on the fact that the RVS is incredibly poor to my playstyle, hence why I try to start with questions and proceed in a more orderly fashion. I really hate playing by gut - I understand that a certain amount of it is necessary, but I need to be convinced to adopt a position.

3) What do you value the most in making decisions in Mafia? As above, I value logic and reasoning. Often, scum will hide behind vague and uncertain terms, and often scum hate taking firm stances as it locks them down and may open them up to attack later.

4) Do you expect the Spanish Inquisition? As many players noted, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

5) Do you prefer playing as mafia or as town? This is a toss-up, in my opinion. I'd actually say that I prefer playing as mafia, just because I actually feel more at ease about making cases, since there's no pressure to be right. That being said, I really enjoy the challenge of town play as well.


6) How many games are you playing in at the moment? I am playing in 6 games and modding 1.

7) What do you consider to be your greatest strength as town? As mafia? As town: a firm, logical style that presents results which are easier to follow than vague gut reads. As mafia: a playstyle that doesn't change much based on alignment and the ability to easily make cases sound good.

Analysis of player answers:
Pwnman: Seems pretty defensive, especially in question 7. Light scum read.
Pman: Overall, good, well-reasoned answers that don't appear to be too deviant in either direction. Light town read.
Darox: I can't shake the feeling that he's hiding something, especially with question 7 - his terse responses indicate that he's trying to be extremely careful about what he says. Scum read.
Bub: Again, it seems that he's hiding something, but I'm not sure if that's just a newbie town read or a scum read. It doesn't seem to be as serious as Darox's. Light scum read.
Dry-fit: While short, his answers don't seem to be trying to hide anything.
Fishy: Good post with some good analysis of the other players' answers at the end. Town read.
Jason: Honest answers that present weaknesses well in a candid way that I wouldn't expect a scum player to use. Town read.
Green crayons: See Dry-fit. The answers are short, but they don't seem to be trying to obfuscate the matter.
Yosarian: Until Q7, he's extremely short, but his answer to 7 is pretty open and honest. Light town read.
Jack: Very short, hard to read. Due to the SK comment, I'm going to put him at a light scum read.
DLA: Null, honestly, I could see his answers coming from either faction.

To recap, my inital reads are:

Town:
Green Crayons
Dry-fit
Fishy
Jason

Light town:
Pman
Yosarian

Null:
DLA

Light scum:
Pwnman
Bub
Jack

Scum:
Darox

Vote: Darox

Please note that these are just initial reads based on flimsy evidence. They will vary widely in the early game until they solidify later.

[Netopalis]

Interesting. Why did you choose to do that?

[Netopalis]

Jack: I missed it because I did the analysis in two batches - I read the first few responses before class and the second set afterwards. If you notice, however, I came to pretty much the same results on both reads, except for the fact that you had made additional posts which pushed you into the scum category.


Pman: Then expect a lot of votes from me. Withholding reasoning is scummy, providing good reasoning is town.

[Netopalis]

Green Crayon: This is a relatively new thing that I've been trying, so most of the games are in progress. There's one really good example, though:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12735

It leads to a D1 mislynch, sadly, but I feel that it was that start that helped us lynch correctly on days 2 and 4. It's working significantly better since that first game as I've been refining the questions and watching more closely the results.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and EBWODP: A honeymoon is far more importan than this game - I'd be OK with it, at any rate.

[Netopalis]

Uh...yeah, we do.

Unvote, vote: Jack

[Netopalis]

Oh, you should take it with a few pounds of salt. The end result is the same: it gets people talking. The bonus is, in my opinion, that it avoids the capriciousness of the normal newbie lynch on D1. I wish I could link you to ongoing games - like I said, the ones that I'm in right now are faring much better with it.

[Netopalis]

Jack: You're still ignoring us and are acting more and more scummily.

[Netopalis]

EBWODP: Let me put it in terms that you'll understand, Jack: Explain yourself, or you'll likely be the lynch. The town needs all information available to it, and we'll get it, whether it means hearing you out or lynching you.

[Netopalis]

No, it's your refusal to explain the FBI thing. You then moved from light scum to heavy scum.

[Netopalis]

Setup is interesting I think. The CIA agent is the serial killer obviously, but who are the mafia?

I'm sorry, where did it say that there is a serial killer?

I'm still curious where you determined the CIA agent is "obviously" the serial killer?

I'm afraid you guys are on a need to know basis. And right now, you don't need to know.

You only think you do. I'm (apparently) the only one who sees that you don't.

What do you think of pwman? I think his vote and followup are odd.

Honestly, these two posts are so scummy that I have trouble imagining any pro-town situation in which anything even resembling them might be used. I didn't vote for you earlier because I wanted to see whether or not you'd respond to the follow-up questions. You didn't. Now, I'm pretty much laying it in front of you: Would you rather be lynched, or would you rather answer?

[Netopalis]

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.

If you said you'd rather be lynched, then I'd push for your lynch.

[Netopalis]

I can think of no reason for your actions to date other than an anti-town alignment, be it SK or mafia. I truly do find you suspicious, and I ask you this: If you had no intent on following up your original post about the FBI, why did you make it in the first place? Surely you must have known that we'd ask about it. At the very least, give me a reason for your withholding of information.

[Netopalis]

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.

[Netopalis]

pro·duce (pr-ds, -dys, pr-)
v. pro·duced, pro·duc·ing, pro·duc·es
v.tr.
1. To bring forth; yield

It is the reason that I found you scummy to begin with, I'm just bringing it forward now. Respond substantively.

[Netopalis]

I didn't bother to explicitly state it because I thought it was obvious. Answer the bloody question.

[Netopalis]

I say that for things like Dry-fit's response, which shows a weakening towards your position because she apparently feels that you're just generally an anti-town player. Eventually, it builds up and you can get away with more...or you improve somewhat and remove all suspicion entirely.

ANSWER THE QUESTION

[Netopalis]

My conversation starters are soooo much more fun then question lists.

Someone in this room is trying to kill them, but the only people in the room that are not justices are the two attorneys and the secret service agent..

Have you read this bit from the OP netopolis?

Of course I have, but you said

CIA

agent, not secret service. Why did you say that? If it was from the OP, why not just say that instead of saying that there's a reason but that we don't want to know it?

[Netopalis]

What? That doesn't mesh with your later concealment. If you just lied this whole time, why the whole charade?

Confirm vote: Jack

[Netopalis]

Because it would change how everybody else answered. That's not an answer. Why did you make the claim to begin with?

[Netopalis]

Not a problem, Bub. Anything to get him to finally answer.

[Netopalis]

Not good enough. I hope you enjoy dangling.

[Netopalis]

Absolutely.

[Netopalis]

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.

[Netopalis]

Then why the heck would you even mention it?

[Netopalis]

He's right about that, at least. The Secret Service is under the Treasury Department.

So, wait. You decide that you're going to claim something that is a complete lie about the setup, breadcrumb a fake PR and then act like you're hiding information

in an attempt to start conversation

? Am I understanding you correctly?

[Netopalis]

It was meant to be a serious claim. You're not getting out of it that easily.

[Netopalis]

I don't think most of the people on his case are scum either, although it would hardly surprise me if at least one of them was.

Hmm. I don't like how committal you're being here. I mean, it's really anti-town to take such a firm stance. Do you think you could waffle a bit more?

[Netopalis]

GC: I didn't call them out on the parroting because I felt it was one of those rare situations where a number of voices needed to be heard in a situation in order to convince someone to act. He wouldn't respond with just me, but he might if, say, 5 people push him to answer.

I still need to analyze Jack's post a bit better. I'll try to get that in tonight.

[Netopalis]

Not a problem, Bub. Anything to get him to finally answer.

Um...I'm pretty sure he did answer your question, Neto, and he did so before bub made that post.

I meant the question about the CIA Agent/Secret Service Agent, which he said he would refuse to answer.

[Netopalis]

I'm willing to switch as I think this is all we're going to get out of Jack for now...But I'm still determining who I'm going to switch to, as there are a number of good candidates. I'm debating amongst Pwnman, DLA, Bub and Darok. Let me mull over this a bit, then I'll be back.

[Netopalis]

Yos: He spent the first 7 posts after we asked him intentionally and obviously avoiding making any sort of answer. He only claimed that discrepancy after I pointed it out. He then didn't give a solid reason as to why he made that statement if he knew it was false. There were a number of different questions, and throughout the day, it has been Jack's mantra that he won't answer anything.

[Netopalis]

My conversation starters are soooo much more fun then question lists.

Someone in this room is trying to kill them, but the only people in the room that are not justices are the two attorneys and the secret service agent..

Have you read this bit from the OP netopolis?

Of course I have, but you said

CIA

agent, not secret service. Why did you say that? If it was from the OP, why not just say that instead of saying that there's a reason but that we don't want to know it?

You weren't far off in your suspicion Net. Except your confirmation bias was twisting it the wrong way (but conf bias is a town tell so it's ok).

That first post was my version of the conversation starter. The fact that there was no CIA agent in the setup gave me an "out" once the starter had run it's course. Proof that it wasn't a scumslip, basically. That it was just made up.

What? That doesn't mesh with your later concealment. If you just lied this whole time, why the whole charade?

Confirm vote: Jack

Because it would change how everybody else answered. That's not an answer. Why did you make the claim to begin with?

Jack, whether or not Net made up the reason on the fly is irrelavent to the fact that you are still not answering the question. While I can see that possibly the secret service agent is the serial killer and the lawyers are the mafia, but how do you

know

that to be the case.

In other words:

ANSWER THE QUESTION

If you notice, there are still questions unanswered at this point. Yes, he eventually answers things...But he was still being intentionally obstructionist at the time of the posting.

[Netopalis]

Yeah..but I thought then and think now that it's a flimsy excuse.

[Netopalis]

Darox: At this point, I'm not planning on pushing it any further based on the limited information alone. I think he may very well still be scum,. but I know that pressing the case won't get us anywhere and I think I'll be able to prove it later after he posts more. If deadline were today and I could cast the deciding vote against any player, it would be him. That being said, I'm going to glance back through this and try to analyze a bit more on some other players; your post is excellent, by the way, and definitely nudges you town in my eyes.

[Netopalis]

Still here, just haven't seen a great deal to comment on. I'll look back over things again, though.

[Netopalis]

DLA: Reread the thread.

[Netopalis]

So, I finally got around to looking at Bub in iso. I have a few interesting points.

1) Note how he says that Jack is town before I start hammering on Jack; he changes his position rather quickly then. Why? I can't find a good reason in the thread. Looks to me like an attempt to appear to be more town.


2) Read the following quote carefully.

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.

Yes, that's a very good point, given the nature of the set-up. It would probably be a lawyer (because lawyers have to do a ton of research), but then that means that either one of the justices has to be scum (possible godfather), or that the CIA agent is teamed up with the other lawyer, or both.

This seems to imply that he knows that the researcher is town. How does he know this? Is it because

he's scum and knows all of the roles that scum have?

See, when I read it, I thought first that it was probably more of a scum-aligned role.

I'm going to do a quick votecount and make sure that my vote won't hammer, because I'm not ready for that quite yet...

[Netopalis]

Unvote, vote: Bub Budderskins

That's 4. It's either L-2 or L-1, depending on whether he was researched or not.

[Netopalis]

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.

Fishy: Let me go ahead and throw out there that I have reason to believe that there are other people involved. I'd rather not say more, though.

[Netopalis]

Not solely, it's in addition to the other stuff I mention in that post, the waffling, the unusual attacks and the other reasons that everybody else has mentioned to suspect you.

[Netopalis]

More Bub votes, please! This game is kinda quiet....

[Netopalis]

Yeah! Replacement! Woo!

[Netopalis]

Camn,
My attacks on Jack were warranted. Jack made what could have been a scumslip. Additionally, the only way that a game progresses from its beginning is if pressure is applied to a player. Did I exert excessive pressure? Perhaps, but we got some excellent reactions - especially from Darklight and Bub. Therefore, I'm not entirely sure why you would find it to be scummy.

Also, how do you let Jason get away with a "prob-scum" read, when you list Bub as slight scum and Jack as either brilliant scum or failtown?

[Netopalis]

Do we really need to do this, Camn? Do we

really

need to? Ellibereth decided before the game even started that he was going to attempt to bus me - it wasn't my decision, and frankly, I'm tired of hearing about that bloody game. Yeah, we won, but it's not a proud moment and I wish I'd never signed up. Either give substantive reasons for your comments here, or shut up.

[Netopalis]

Why should I be? As far as I'm concerned, it was one of my worst performances. At any rate, I've said my piece, and the ensuing pages haven't added much to my previous case.

[Netopalis]

Uh, sorry, Jack, could you elaborate?

[Netopalis]

GC is certainly a big loss. Luckily, we didn't lose any power roles.

I'm going to do a few more iso reads...There are a few things that I noticed that were suspicious yesterday, and I need to double-check to make sure I'm on the right track.

[Netopalis]

Let's take a look at DLA:

1) Late to the party: DLA came in after the whole Jack snafu and attacked it doggedly, as if he were scum who saw an easy lynch target. Apparently, he was paying so little attention that he didn't realize that nobody else was still on that tack.

2) Content? What content?: Pretty self-explanatory. Aside from the stuff about Jack, DLA has said nothing of substance. Calling the stuff about Jack substance is stretching it.

3) Floating: DLA has done his best to avoid getting involved in heavily attacking anyone aside from Jack, an easy target. This is so that he can avoid the suspicion that attends those who make cases and later turn out to be wrong.

In short:

Unvote, vote: DLA

[Netopalis]

Emoting =/= content.

[Netopalis]

Oh, for the love of all that is good and holy....

Jack, please, please, please try to change your playstyle. I'm not sure whether he's scum or not, but I'd almost support a policy lynch at this point. Note the almost, but the point is there.

[Netopalis]

Let's try a different approach.

Ok, we're on a need-to-know basis.

We need to know what you're hiding.

Simple enough?

[Netopalis]

Yosarian: Obfuscation, deliberately failing to contribute and general anti-town behavior.

[Netopalis]

I don't know that he is hiding anything. Ask him, he's the one implying that he's hiding something.

[Netopalis]

Obfuscation: Continuing to claim that he has information and we're on a need-to-know basis; the D1 FBI/Secret Service stuff

Deliberately failing to contribute: Posts 284, 310, 315, 337, to begin with. He never really explains most of his suspicions.

General anti-town behavior: He continues to draw attention to himself. If he's town, he's causing the town problems. If he's scum, he's bad at it.

[Netopalis]

Day 1? No. It wasn't obvious. Continuing it today is simply inexcusable. If it was a joke, why would he start it up again, given the amount of flak he took for it D1?

[Netopalis]

Oh, I got that the kill: thing was obviously a joke, I'm more upset about his other reactions.

[Netopalis]

My problems with Jack are the posts in which he simply says "Camn is scum" without any backing and the one in which he says that we're on a "need to know basis". Yes, it's obvious the kill was a joke. What is not obvious is why he is desiring to drag it out like this and what he gains from not backing up his suspicions.

[Netopalis]

Jack: Do you have a post restriction?

[Netopalis]

My problems with Jack are the posts in which he simply says "Camn is scum" without any backing and the one in which he says that we're on a "need to know basis". Yes, it's obvious the kill was a joke.

If you knew the kill was a joke, then when he was asked about it and responded "you're on a need to know basis" or whatever, wasn't it obvious that was also a joke? I don't understand.

I would have taken it as such had it not been for the protracted discussion yesterday. Maybe I'm wrong, and like I said, I don't really want to lynch him, he just frustrates me greatly. It seems as if he's deliberately trying to derail the town.

[Netopalis]

I'd be fine with a massclaim. Are we claiming names too? I think that they're rather important.

[Netopalis]

Nominating Dry-Fit to start.

Also he should give us a rundown of all alive players.

Failing that, he should be replaced.

This.

[Netopalis]

Good point...we might be waiting for a while. Jason would work. How about the following list:

Jason
Pman
Camn
(Dry-fit claiming whenever he gets online/is replaced)
Netopalis
Darox
Jack
Fishy

[Netopalis]

How about the claim?

[Netopalis]

I trust him the most out of the players left. That's not saying a great deal, but it is true.

[Netopalis]

That's everybody but Jason agreeing with it. Shall we start?

[Netopalis]

Jason: Who would you like to claim next?

[Netopalis]

Meh, some people wanted to popcorn, so I guess let's wait on that.

[Netopalis]

Camn or Dry-fit, whoever's next online, should claim. It may be a while on Camn, since she posted that she was away.

[Netopalis]

Uh, no. She said it a few posts ago.

Hello, everyone!

Firstly, I am on vacation in the west indies. there is internets here.. but I am mostly on the beach.. so don't expect much of me till i return!

Secondly, I obv support massclaim in lylo. popcorn is fine.

thirdly, I, too see Yos's targets very clearly. Though I am not totally sure why Darox wants to play hide-the-salami.

fourthly.. scumteam = Jason, dryfit and..... I cant really see an obv third?

[Netopalis]

My claim will involve some speculation about who exactly is scum based on information I have - I'd prefer to claim later rather than sooner.

[Netopalis]

If you folks don't mind, yeah. If anyone objects, though, I can claim earlier.

[Netopalis]

Darox should claim next. The names of the people that I was concerned about have already claimed, so I'm happy with claiming after Darox.

[Netopalis]

Actually, I take that back - there is one more character that I need to see claim. Sorry.

[Netopalis]

Jack, I'm much more convinced of Fishy than I am of you or Darox. I'm also much more convinced of you than I am of Darox.

[Netopalis]

Darox: Who does your flavor say that Simon Jackson is? He's not one of the two attorneys involved in Michigan v. Fisher.

[Netopalis]

Actually, no. If you're McCreedy, it's Darox's character I was looking for. Let me explain...

I'm John Paul Stevens, vanilla justice.

...

Why would I be making such a fuss over being vanilla? It's because my role directly contradicts the opening flavor post. According to the opening post, the scum SHOULD be the attorney in favor of the dissent in Michigan v. Fisher (Pman), myself and Sotomayor.

That's not the case, though. I was really nervous about a massclaim for this reason, because I assumed I'd be mislynched. However, one good thing about Bub's flip is that we know that he was Sotomayor and that he was town - I'd like to point to that in favor of my claim being true.

That being said, there are several oddities in the opening setup. If the justices of the dissent and the attorney in favor of that side are not the mafia, then who is? More importantly,

why do we have a Secret Service agent when the Secret Service has nothing to do with the Supreme Court

?

Honestly, on that point, I'm not terribly sure. I've concocted a rather weird idea that's been brewing in my head for some time - if this doesn't seem to make sense to anybody else, then that's fine, but it makes a whole lot of sense to me.

The Secret Service has two jobs - it serves as a counterfeit investigation unit and as the protection of important governmental figures - primarily, the President. The presence of the Secret Service implies to me that a President is involved somehow, probably as the scum. However, since Sotomayor flipped town, we know that it's not likely Obama. It can't be Bush I appointees because Thomas flipped town. It also can't be Reagan, since Kennedy flipped town. It can't be Bush, since Alito flipped town.

This leaves 1 possible President - Clinton. Clinton appointed two justices, Ginsburg and Breyer. Therefore, if my theory is correct, the scumteam would be Camn, Jack and Darox. I'll need to go back and read over a few things to see if this theory holds any water.

At any rate, let me know what you folks think. It's entirely possible that I've just gone Glenn Beck-esque crazy, but I think that there might be something to this list.

[Netopalis]

I'm assuming it because there's no other reason for the secret service to be involved. The secret service does not protect the SCOTUS.

[Netopalis]

Camn: Well, not exactly. I'm trying to look for something that would explain two things:

1) A connection between either 2 or 3 justices

2) A reason for the Secret Service to be involved

My theory is the only thing I could think of which covers both questions.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and BTW, I think that to bolster this, we need to remember that Darox claimed "Simon Jackson". I'm presuming that he's the Secret Service agent. Why didn't he include that fact? Was he hoping we wouldn't notice?

[Netopalis]

The opening post says that researcher, veto holder and investigator are given randomly amongst all pro-town and anti-town players. This does not say that the mafia is not based on flavor, it juts means that those particular abilities are given out at random.

[Netopalis]

That's actually a really salient point. Darox, if you're vanilla, why do you feel like going after Fishy?

[Netopalis]

Hmm. I may be wrong about the flavor thing, I guess. The more I think about it, the more I think that Battousai would not want to make a game breakable by massclaim. I need to think on these things a bit more - I'll post a case once I come to a conclusion.

[Netopalis]

I have to echo the sentiments - I'm really not liking Darox's play today. I didn't like it much either of the other two days, but today it's pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that he's being intentionally obstructionist. Not voting due to the possibility that he is actually town and was researched, since I think we need to build a consensus before we move, but I'd definitely vote for him if there was no researcher in this game.

[Netopalis]

Darox: It's possible, and it's better than any other lead we've got right now.

Fishy: See Rule 17.

[Netopalis]

Ah, yeah, forgot about it. I'll get to it now.

[Netopalis]

Reasons for Darox's scumminess by day:

D1: He calls a lot for Bub to post more and to defend himself, but he never votes for Bub. It seems as if he's waiting to see if it's safe to do so - as if he's trying to make sure that he won't be blamed for the mislynch if it goes through.

D2: He makes 4 posts in this day. One of them is attacking people for not posting more. Also, he pulls the plug on the pressure on Jack which I felt was still merited - whether or not the reason was merited, it was producing some interesting reactions. Why does he feel the need to defend Jack every single time he's mentioned? I'm not sure.

D3: Opens the day supporting decisions already practically made. He intentionally obfuscates the exact nature of his role - note that he didn't put "Officer" in his initial claim, nor did he try to expand on it any more. It almost looked as if he were trying to pass himself off as one of the attorneys, in my opinion.

That being said, there's an important piece of evidence that I was looking for that doesn't seem to be there - Darox saying he had role-related reasons for going after Fishy. I thought I remembered him saying that, but I can't seem to find it. Does anybody else remember where this was mentioned?

That also being said, this case isn't nearly as strong as I thought it was. Unless we can examine the role-related reason thing, I think I'll be canceling my voice of support for a Darox wagon.

[Netopalis]

Darox: Yeah, it is, but I'm backing off of it, since it's not as strong as I thought it would be. I'm going to look into Dry-Fit next.

[Netopalis]

Honestly, Darox, I made a mistake. The claim made a lot of sense to me at the time, but given the scumteam it resulted in, not so much.

[Netopalis]

I'm a little concerned with how quickly Camn was willing to move over to the Jason wagon. However, I think that our more important suspect is Dry-Fit. Dry-Fit's play this game has defined active lurking in a way that I didn't think was possible. Seriously, look at his ISO - There is

nothing

of substance in there. Nothing! Also, on both days, he cast early throwaway votes on wagons that didn't look like they were going anywhere. Was he trying to avoid pinning himself down to a mislynch? It's possible.

Quite simply, I cannot see a town motivation for his posts. They seem like they're almost designed to create the general impression of a non-scummy lurker in order to avoid suspicion. The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that he is scum.

[Netopalis]

Camn - If it came down to Darox vs. Deadline, I'd vote Darox, but I think we can do better. Still, I'll review the case and think about it some more.

[Netopalis]

What. If that was a lynch, then you have some serious 'splainin to do tomorrow, Fishy. And yes, if he's town, there will be a tomorrow due to the most-votes tiebreaker.

[Netopalis]

I'm going to go ahead and put this down, because I think that this is you trying to stall until your buddies show up.

Vote:Fishythefish

Best start explaining.

[Netopalis]

Well, presuming that there is a 3-person scumgroup, I seriously doubt that they'd be so blatant as to hop on their partner at the same time. I'd guess that there's likely 1 scum on the wagon, plus Fishy and one person off of it.

[Netopalis]

Because they know that there will be future days and they want to win when we have the same situation again tomorrow?

[Netopalis]

He probably didn't realize that the research ability expired...

[Netopalis]

Thanks for not making us play that out. Bwahahaha.

[Netopalis]

Oh, BTW, I was the researcher.

[Netopalis]

Fine by me. I don't think I said anything too terrible about anybody.

[Netopalis]

Meh, had you folks lynched Camn earlier, we'd have probably lynched Fishy today and Pman and I would have done the same thing on D5.

[Netopalis]

Tracker?

[Netopalis]

Jack.. do you think that influenced your thoughts on Neto?

He seems genuinely convinced I was scum round one, huge confirmation bias. Probably he was just convinced that I was a great lynch.

Were you really not reading the survey results carefully neto? That's pretty funny in retrospect.

Survey results? What survey results? Not sure what you mean here.

As for D1...Yeah, I was convinced that it would be fairly easy to pile people on you. If I were actually looking for scum in this game, I'd have honed in towards you. I think that's a playstyle thing, though.

[Netopalis]

Oh, that. What I said about it was true - I really did do it in two batches.

Battousai - The researcher role normally wouldn't be all that overpowered. However, on D2 and 3, it was fairly obvious who was going to get lynched the next day - or at least who there was a substantial probability of a bandwagon on.

[Netopalis]

this game was so scum sided, it was nearly impossible for us to lose.

This game also has reinforced my meta of acting town as scum and scum as town.

Uh. You're doing it wrong.

[Netopalis]

Well, scum had two roles that interfered with votes. That's much more powerful than a mere investigative role, at least it is to any scum who has an idea of what they're doing.

[Netopalis]

Only one member of the scumteam actually takes a night action - a no-action result means nothing.