926 A Game of Thrones Mafia - Over.

[TheButtonmen]

My switch on name claiming came when it became obvious the game wasn't going anywhere, people weren't posting much and when they did it as all about the name claim, so I eventually figured if its all thats being discussed may as well go for it. I already breifly explained this D1with Seacore.

Normally, I would consider these quotes mild towntells for a selfless but lazy VT who doesn't feel like scumhunting but knows that his flip will reveal information. I think scum usually has more of a sense of self-preservation.

But then out of the blue, he claims cop to save his skin. Which is kind of weird. Because a cop would know that he wasn't going to be the lynch that day.

Agian I'm not a full cop, I wasn't expecting A) people to believe me or B) Helio self destructing.

[Faraday]

Day 2.8 vote-count. The

"But not of the Kingsguard," Sir Gerold pointed out. "The Kingsguard does not flee."

"Then or now," said Ser Arthur. He donned his helm.

"We swore a vow," explained old Ser Gerold.

'

votecount.

Seacore (1) [The Inquisition]
Bogre (4) [Mina, Raivann, Locke Lamora, Seacore]
Flutter (1) [Kinetic]
MacavityLock (1) [TheButtonMen

Not voting:

(3) [Bogre, MacavityLock, Flutter,]

No one is due for prodding to my knowledge, feel free to ask if you want someone prodded though.
Deadline: March 20th @ 6pm GMT

Inquistion and Flutter are V/la and I don't believe anyone else needs a prod.

[Seacore]

But Seacore, why did you have a problem with TheButtonmen for not having cast a vote, but go out of your way to defend MacavityLock for doing the same thing?

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.

I thought twice about defending him, but there's such sparse posting that I was hoping to move the conversation along. I normally hate people answering pressure off other people, but I felt it was warrented. Also, Buttonmen was annoying me by misquoting. I feel there is a significant distinction with the only.

Yes, I have a problem with Mac not voting. But I do not have a problem with him not voting Bogre.

However, I can see the Mac case now. But I'm happier with Bogre.

[Seacore]

Agian I'm not a full cop, I wasn't expecting A) people to believe me or B) Helio self destructing.

Yes, but why the hysteria prior to the role claim?

[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.

[Seacore]

Mac, just one small comment on your response.

I don't like that you aren't voting.

Yes, it's a playstyle of mine compared to a playstyle of yours, but in my experience, people who avoid voting (unless there is a specific mechanic factor invovled, such as voting costing a point from a finite pool of points) are scummier than people who do vote.

Votes make you accountable for your stances.
A clear counter example of this is the fact that you said you would be willing to vote for Bogre.

I interpreted this, in my head, as basically a vote. In my head, you would be as responsible for a Bogre lynch as anybody else, even if he was hammered before you got there. (Obviously this is conditional, someone who did a sneaky hammer to end the day before questions are answered is different, but what I mean is, I considered your comment as good as a 'normal' vote, similiar to my actual vote)

But Mina seems to have interpreted it differently. She's not wrong, I'm not wrong, the issue is that it's unclear.

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.

[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.

[Mina]

Faraday: when are Flutter and Inquisition going to come back from their V/LAs? They're holding up the game.

Agian I'm not a full cop, I wasn't expecting A) people to believe me or B) Helio self destructing.

Huh? But what's the difference between claiming "full cop" and "limited cop"? Either way, you'd save yourself from a lynch. I doubt people who'd say "HOLY SHIT COP UNVOTE UNVOTE" would switch to "HOLY SHIT COP UNVO--wait, he has some kind of vague limitation that he refuses to describe? Never mind. He's useless to us."

And you and Heilograph (I just realized that's how he spelled his name) were pretty much in dead heat all of Day 1. How were you not in danger? You're doing the same thing I accused Bogre of doing--offering convoluted explanations when called on trivial details. Would you have admitted to expecting your lynch if I hadn't called you on it?

That said...

Buttonmen, in case you're really the cop, can I ask you something?

Would there be a way to facilitate your investigation choice--e.g. for the town to pressure a suspect behave in a certain way, under threat of lynch? Or is it completely outside your control--e.g. dependent on night actions or scumteam coordination? (If it's the latter, then obviously don't go into details.) Because I have an idea.

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.

I'll admit his claim makes me think we shouldn't lynch until at least tomorrow. That doesn't mean no one should vote for him all day. Again, votes are effective both for pressure and for letting people know where you stand.

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.

I hate to defend Buttonmen...but to me, "I'd vote Bogre if it was deadline" strongly implied "I'm delaying my vote on Bogre for a while--possibly until deadline." Meh. This one isn't really important.

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 suppose I'd also be interested in seeing those links--even though I suspect you more than I suspect The Inquisition.

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.[/quote]
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

.

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

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.

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.[/quote]
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.

When I look for scum, I might take note of one or two details that seem fishy, but I'm primarily concerned with overall behaviour--if they're wishy-washy, if they're opportunistic, if they lurk..If you make a giant case on Raivann, taking into account his play throughout the entire game, then I will be very interested in reading it. My problem with you is that you

haven't

been making behaviour-based cases on players who aren't easy targets.

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?[/quote]
To be honest, I didn't notice that he'd never answered your question. I lost track of for how long he'd disappeared. But note that my focus was very much on the

format

of your attack on Raivann. I never once said that I didn't think his post was suspicious (although to be honest, that opinion was probably implied if you read between the lines). All my questions were concerned with if you agreed with Raivann's assessment of Kinetic and Bogre, and if you could explain what in particular you disliked about his case.

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

Questions? Not really. That post wasn't aimed at 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.

[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.

[Mina]

EBWOP: Buttonmen, by "how were you not in danger?", I meant "how were you a lock for the lynch?"

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.

Hey, isn't there a theory that town are more likely to be inconsistent than scum? (Not that I'm a supporter of that theory.)

Macavity, not being ready to put Bogre at L-1 isn't "inconsistent." And by itself, that wouldn't be scummy.

But you didn't vote The Inquisition when he was your top suspect and you were hammering away at him all day, either. And it also fits into an overall pattern this game of very safe, guarded, and reactive play from you. (See above for my explanation of why not voting is a scumtell.)

I know you claim to have wanted more information before voting, but that's not at all the impression I'm getting. You acted very confident of Inquisition's guilt before (when he was looking like a very easy lynch). You aren't sharing your thought process; you don't seem like you're genuinely agonizing over who is scum. I don't think that Inquisition linking to a game in which trickle-claiming was bad for the town is such crucial information that it will radically change your view of the game.

I think you're either stalling or nervous about committing to a wagon.

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.

[Mina]

The above was a crosspost.

Shit, it's after four, and I really need sleep now. And tomorrow will be a crazy day. I'll respond to MacavityLock's latest post when I'm fully conscious.

[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.

[Mina]

Actually, I'm probably not the best person to ask about this...

...because the last time I was scum, someone called me out for posting a case during the night phase (the thread stayed unlocked, and I couldn't post at any other time), and then going to bed rather than vote immediately when the morning scene was posted. He accused me of distancing from a partner with that case and not seriously pressuring anyone.

Ironically, the subject of my case wasn't even my partner. But I thought I'd look more innocent if I didn't cave in to my accuser's pressure. And several people had voted for my suspect since then, and I didn't want to look opportunistic. So I deliberately stalled my vote and said I wanted to see a vote count, thinking it would make me look more innocent. (I ended up voting a while later.)

Then the guy who'd attacked me vigged me that night. Bastard.

What was the point of this again? Zzzzzzzzz....

MacavityLock, I don't think your reasons for not voting are particularly convincing, but again, I don't

only

suspect you because you haven't voted. My mini-case is in 499--and maybe I'll reread you and see if I have anything more to add when I have time.

Now I'm really off.

[Faraday]

Bogre has been prodded.

Inquistion and Flutter's v/la's are up today. I'll send them out pm's to make sure they pick them up.

[Locke Lamora]

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.

Mina answered this in part, but isn't a benefit to doing anything that's not 'safe' as scum is so you can later say 'but why would I do that if I were scum?' Scum do not automatically do anything that would alleviate suspicion in the short term. Sometimes scum tunnel on people, they intervene to defend townies, they do all kinds of things that aren't necessarily the obvious optimal play for scum; then when somebody comes back later in the game and says 'I was getting a scummy read from him but I really don't think he would have done that as scum', it was the best play they could possibly have made.

[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?

[Locke Lamora]

I think you and Mina are going to keep butting heads on this because in Mina's book, reluctance to vote is a scumtell. I agree - scum are often hesitant about taking a decisive stance, particularly newbie scum. You don't fit into that category, though, so could you direct me to a couple of scum games of yours where you vote a lot?

[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.

[Raivann]

Why Kinetic?

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

[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?

[Raivann]

So, just gut?

No there's more but I'd rather not lynch him, there is scummier.
He just hasn't seemed very helpful in scumhunting, not like a paragon anyway.
His flutter vote was safe and easy. Has he even asked flutter any questions?
It's hard to tell who is scum actually. I'm glad Buttonmen is raising his game.
But with Bogre,theInq,flutter still not posting much, it's hard.

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.

[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.

[Locke Lamora]

I'm satisfied that Mac's voting patterns differ enough as scum that reluctance to vote is not a scumtell we can apply to his meta. I'm getting a fairly neutral read off him right now and Bogre's a much better lynch in my eyes.

I agree with Raivann on Kinetic too. He definitely hasn't been a paragon. Perhaps he just doesn't have the time, but his setup speculation hasn't been particularly useful and his scumhunting is rather scarce of late.

[TheButtonmen]

I'm satisfied that Mac's voting patterns differ enough as scum that reluctance to vote is not a scumtell we can apply to his meta. I'm getting a fairly neutral read off him right now and Bogre's a much better lynch in my eyes.

Which of the games are you basing that off of?

[Locke Lamora]

I read the first two. In Jekyll Maf he seemed a lot faster and more decisive when laying his vote down and stating his opinions. In Little Golden Maf he was more hesitant, as he said - in fact, he seemed more hesitant in the early game than he did in this game, where he put three votes down quite early. Different circumstances, of course, but between those two games and this one I see enough of a contrast in his voting behaviour to make me believe that reluctance to vote is not a scumtell here.