926 A Game of Thrones Mafia - Over.

[The Inquisition]

It's not usually worthy of note to say you have the ability to vote, but since you made a point of the ability abilities thing, I told you exactly what there was.

A full claim is not meant to be a pseudo-copy and paste job. It's just meant not to hide some of the aspects of my role.

I was asked to talk about flavor. Who was I asked by? You.

[Seacore]

Yes, I asked you to talk about the flavour, but that was in a separate post, where I was probing as to why sam would have armour.

But what I'm asking about is the second quote of my last post.

I don't have additional abilities. I have flavor text that explains I have armor. Then I have a section that actually details my "abilities."

Why the middle bit? Why not "I don't have additional abilities, I just have bulletproof"

[The Inquisition]

What's your point? That I talked about flavor text there? So what?

[Seacore]

Also

I thought he was actually too eager a helper to actually be scum. Scum don't usually like to be noticed as much as he has

does not equal

thought you were so scummy you were town but then decided you were just scummy

1st is saying, "you seemed to be helping too much and jumping into the spotlight too much to be scum. But now I think you are scum"

2nd is saying "your actions seemed too scummy for a scum to actually make them"

So which is it?

[The Inquisition]

Trying to

seem

helpful is as reliable an early game scum-tell as I know. Helping town obviously isn't a scum-tell. Trying to seem like you're helping town with little regard as to whether you actually ARE, however, is. And it stood out to me at the time, but I dismissed it because of it seemed too scummy to be scum, but I now believe I was wrong.

[Seacore]

Inq, I'm going to assume that your Role PM lists your armour and explains that you have two safe shots of it.

If so, I don't understand why, when people were questioning whether you have multiple abilities, you didn't make it clear what your abilities were.

Instead you talk about your armour being mentioned in your flavour text and then about 'abilities'.

You did this twice.
Clearly, the first time (if you were being honest), you were simply answering my flavour text request. But then more than one person got confused, thinking that you had more than one ability.

You chose to mention your flavour text again in your clarification, which to me is still confusing. You don't mention here that the armour is listed in your abilities, only that it is listed in your flavour.

Anyway, I'm over it. Please answer to the other points of my case.

[The Inquisition]

If you have specific questions you think are relevant, please pose them. But I'm not about to get into a point-by-point battle with you. It's not helpful to town to have exploding posts as it just inspires lurkerdom from many and skimming from others.

[Raivann]

Raivann, why did you FOS Seacore, but put him in a neutral clump with five other players below Buttonmen (I understand why he was below Miserable, since you voted for him)? Because apparently, you don't suspect him more than most of the players in the game.

I had him pegged as town D1, It wasn't until I did reread D2 that I was suspicious of him. I was just trying to keep it simple with top 2 suspects.

Seacore is quickly becoming my top suspect though.
There is just too many scumslips to be coming from an eager townie.
His early claim,He keeps going back and forth on whether he thought Buttonmen was town or scum,xvart's catch on him, his weak 'abilities' attack on The Inq.
I know that killing xvart would cast more suspicion on Seacore or Kinetic, but I think one of them did it anyways.
Seacore I'll give you one more chance to answer these questions...

Obviously I don't think I'm a great lynch, but I also don't think there's enough time to convince 4 more people of my

guilt.

(Assuming that xvart, locke and mina are currently happy to vote for me)

So we need three more votes. Xvart has said he'll move his vote, so we need two more.

Shouldn't the word be "innoncence", not "guilt" ?

And you're making me feel better about you being lynched because this way we're lynching a slightly scummy usless town, rather than just a useless town.

Whoops! Scum slip much?

xvart.

Seacore had good reasons for wanting xvart dead too.

Xvart is right about Seacore scumslip.
What does "slightly scummy useless town" mean?
So he's scummy but you know he's town? How?
When did you say you thought Buttonmen was town?

FoS:Seacore

On second thought, nah. I'm sold

Unvote , Vote:Seacore

@Flutter-What's your character name?

[Kinetic]

I half agree with some of the things Rai says about Seacore, but I also feel like Rai/Inq are two of my higher suspects.

I'm almost wondering if this might be a partial chainsaw onto Seacore since he's pushing Inq so hard right now, which would make Inq team scum in that case with Rai as a partner. Possible I suppose but I'm not sure how likely.

[Seacore]

Okay, sorry Rai, I missed those questions.

1) That sentence would not have made sense if I wrote innocence.
I was arguing that our Day 1 lynch could only be, with the time available, Heilo or Buttonmen.
I was saying that even if you thought I was guitly, there wasn't enough time to convince enough people of that, so people who thought I was guilty (xvart mainly, from memory) needed to choose between the two actual possible lynches of the day. There wasn't a real wagon yet, so there was no need to waste any time arguing my innocence, instead I was arguing that there was no time to argue for my guilt.

2) I don't think that was a scumslip.
Again, I'm arguing that there were two possible lynches of the day, Buttonmen and Heilo. At the time I didn't think either were definitely scum. I did think they were both useless. I switched (at the time) from Heilo to Buttonmen because the no lynch play convinced me that Heilo was town, whereas I wasn't convinced that Buttonmen was town. The more I pushed him on it, the scummier he looked to me, thus my comment. Both of them were, at the best, useless town, and Buttonmen was scummier.

Then of course came the shadow vote, which changed things, but there's my explanations. Apologies for missing it earlier.

[Flutter]

Raivann--

As in nameclaim? Sandor Clegane, as my predecessor said.

[Seacore]

Also, to address the new comments, above your quoted, missed questions.

I'm not going back and forth on whether I thought Buttonmen was guilty. The problem is that it was a fluid situation and there were times I thought he was guiltier than others. So depending on the question of "Seacore, explain this comment/action", it might have come from a time when I thought he was simply the best lynch of the day, possibly scum, or whatever.

I'll state it clearly though, I never thought he was definitely scum. I never thought Heilo was definitely scum.
But we had a tiny amount of time left, people absent, others lurking and a bunch of people not contributing at all. I did what I could to assure us a lynch. My flip flopping is evidence of me trying to get the best lynch of the day, instead of just saying "well, one's as good as the other"

[Seacore]

Also, I admit that the "abilities" attack is not the strongest thing in the book.

It's about as strong as your guilt/innocence scumslip attack on me though.

[Raivann]

Unvote

Those answers seem truthful actually.

Do you think there is a SK ?

[Seacore]

I don't know. At this stage I'm honestly happier just to hunt for scummy behaviour. I always keep an eye out for multiple scum teams, SKs and Vigs (as well as anything really) unless its a completely open set up.

I think Inq is scummy, not just because of my admitidly weak "abilities" attack, but for my compiled case.
Trying to work out whether there is an SK based on his testimony is fraught with circular logic. We can't believe a word he's said. So whether or not he actually has armour, whether or not he was actually attacked by a SK/Vig/Scum(maybe he's the SK), its all too up in the air. I'll come back to it later.

Meanwhile, one of the biggest issues with Inq is his inconsistency. He was originally against name claims because he believed they'd betray power roles.

However he is a) interested in flavour (by his own testimony) and b) well read enough enough to know that the Night's Watch take no part in politics. I take this to mean that he has read the books.

Therefore, how could anybody who has read the books, and gets Samwell Tarly with bulletproof, think that a name claim would betray power roles, for even an instant.

[Raivann]

Also, I admit that the "abilities" attack is not the strongest thing in the book.

It's about as strong as your guilt/innocence scumslip attack on me though.

Touche!

[Seacore]

Hehe, I must admit I enjoyed typing that

[Raivann]

The Inq. wasn't under that much suspicion and to come out as being targeted...
It is a ballsy scum move. Like what Kinetic was saying about The Inq. being SK.
So Inq. didn't kill last night, instead he said he was targeted so if we don't lynch him and there's 2 kills on N2 he can say 'See told ya I was targeted'
and then throw on top of it 1 more NK block with his armor.
I would imagine the scum motivation for having 2 hit armour is so the mafia wont try and kill him ?
Why wouldn't he just claim totally bulletproof?

Buttonmen's claim of limited cop does kinda go with The Inq. limited bulletproof.
I guess he could have thought of that too though

[Raivann]

The main issue I'm having with Inq's claim is this:

If he had any more protection left, why did he announce he had it. Wouldn't that only discourage scum from attacking him again? Wouldn't a townie both PREFER the night kill attempt to target him again and maybe even try to draw it?

Everything in me is telling me this is a bulletproof scum gambit from someone who had a one-shot immunity and lost it and now is trying to trick people from killing him in the night phase.

For this to make him scum though, it points toward SK because of the type of protection (I see SKs much more likely to have night kill protection), and since the likely hood of three killing roles is nearly moot he would also thus have to be responsible for the xvart kill.

Unless there is something I'm missing that is so far where my main suspicions lie with Inq.

You seem a little too sure that The Inq. got targeted last night, yet you try and paint him as SK.
So you believe only part of his claim? Why?
Why do you think The Inq. didn't claim totally bulletproof?

[Locke Lamora]

I think Seacore definitely has the better of the exchange with Inq. The point about characters revealing PRs is spot on. If I'm Sam Tarly, my thought would be 'people will never guess that I'm a PR', not 'I'm an obvious PR'. Inq also seems to be tying himself in knots a bit with why he did, then didn't, then did suspect Seacore.

However, one thing does bother me:

Also, I admit that the "abilities" attack is not the strongest thing in the book.

It's about as strong as your guilt/innocence scumslip attack on me though.

I've seen this from scum before - it's a case of I know my attack's rubbish, but so is yours. I pegged KMD as scum because of this in Star Control. It gives me the impression of point-scoring to make others look bad. I'm also suspicious of people who pad cases out with weak points that don't really add anything other than to make the list of points against a player seem bigger.

Seacore: why even make the abilities attack if you hadn't looked at your own PM to check Inq's claim against it?

[Seacore]

@Locke, it was one of those "aha!" moments. Albeit, one that didn't go well.

About that quote, that came after my realisation that it wasn't the strongest attack. What makes it not "my attack was rubbish and so is yours" is that it was only part of my inq case, where it was the majority of Rai's case against me.

[Faraday]

Day 2.3 vote-count. The

'

Lord Gargalen once told me he hoped to die with a sword in his hand, to which I repied I would sooner go with a brest in mine'

'

votecount.

Seacore (1) [The Inquisition]
The Inquisition (1) [Seacore]
TheButtonMen (1) [Mina]

Not voting:

(7) [Locke Lamora, Raivann, Kinetic, Bogre, TheButtonMen, MacavityLock, Flutter, Raivann]

Deadline: March 20th @ 6pm GMT

[Flutter]

Mod: Is Raivann's vote in the above count correct, given post 413?

I've no idea what you're talking about But yeah, fix'd.

[Kinetic]

The main issue I'm having with Inq's claim is this:

If he had any more protection left, why did he announce he had it. Wouldn't that only discourage scum from attacking him again? Wouldn't a townie both PREFER the night kill attempt to target him again and maybe even try to draw it?

Everything in me is telling me this is a bulletproof scum gambit from someone who had a one-shot immunity and lost it and now is trying to trick people from killing him in the night phase.

For this to make him scum though, it points toward SK because of the type of protection (I see SKs much more likely to have night kill protection), and since the likely hood of three killing roles is nearly moot he would also thus have to be responsible for the xvart kill.

Unless there is something I'm missing that is so far where my main suspicions lie with Inq.

You seem a little too sure that The Inq. got targeted last night, yet you try and paint him as SK.
So you believe only part of his claim? Why?
Why do you think The Inq. didn't claim totally bulletproof?

Your questions can be answered simply by understanding the answer to this question: If you think he is lying about being targeted at all or his role, does this make him less likely to be scum?

I'm taking what he is saying at face value and then evaluating how likely I think he could be lying. I don't like his claim one bit, and even if part of what he is saying is true, I still find it very scummy and am poking holes in it in the way that I do best.

In fact, after reading I'm confident enough in my analysis, especially with some of the other things brought up, to

Vote:Inq

[Flutter]

I've been rereading a bit. The Inquisition just looks worse and worse, tbh, for reasons already adequately expressed by Seacore and Kinetic.

Here are some other things I noticed, focusing on players I couldn't read after my first run through the thread:

MacavityLock is very...

safe

. Vote on Mina at beginning of D1, vote for buttonmen, pushing on Inq a bit now. This is potentially scummy, and I barely noticed him on first read (despite his post count!), except for his opposition to the nameclaim.

Locke Lamora's last post makes me feel better about him, despite his extremely low D1 profile--basically, iso 14 was his only majorly content-ful post previous to this.