Open 216 - Generic Reality Television Mafia! Day 2!

[imaginality]

Vote: chnorek

for studiously avoiding commenting on Chronopie's vote on him.

[imaginality]

chronek, Deer: What is it about furcolow's play that you two don't like? (I've never been in a game with him.)

[imaginality]

It was for my roleclaim here, in Congratulations! You are... Mafia. Worth noting that the award is a recognition of silliness rather than skill (and even then, much of the humour was due to the role itself, I just played the part).

Where is everyone? This is a slow start.


@Miyu: what is your opinion of Day 1 policy lynches?

@everyone: has anyone played with anyone else on the list here? I'm pretty sure I haven't played with any of you yet.

[imaginality]

Should we believe claims? And risk counterclaim by real cops?

It depends on the situation I think; when and why they claim. We should be somewhat wary becuase with two cops, I could see a scum claiming cop, knowing it would require both real cops to come forward to counterclaim them. That trade-off seems like it would be in the scum's favour.

Maybe hypocoping to make sure both cops dont target same person?

Hypocop doesn't help make sure both cops don't target same person. It just ensures the cops are able to provide their results without having to claim.

But this will help scum with targeting Tailor.

Yes, normal hypocop is a poor strategy as it helps the scum narrow down who the possible cops are too quickly. I think that applies to this set-up too. That said, I have an idea for a variant of it which might overcome the problem. I want to give it a bit more thought before suggesting it, though.

How much can we rely on cops investigation?

It depends on what we think the scum will choose to do:

If tailors always target a mafioso, the likelihood that a guilty result is accurate (assuming the cop is confirmed) is (n-1)/n, where n is the number of scum still alive. So, 2/3 with 3 scum, 1/2 with two scum, never with one scum. And an innocent result is always accurate.

If tailors always target a townie, the likelihood that an innocent result is accurate is (m-1)/m where m is the number of townies (including cops). E.g. 7/8 with 8 townies alive. And a guilty result is always accurate.

If tailors target at random, then the likelihood of a result (innocent or guilty) being accurate is (m+n-1)/(m+n). E.g. 10/11 with 11 players remaining.

Another point worth bearing in mind is that any night when we have two cop results on different players, at least one of those results must definitely be accurate.

[imaginality]

@ksen: why are you in favour of hypocop?

[imaginality]

Okay, so here is the suggestion for an alternative to hypocop that I alluded to earlier. I'm interested to hear what people think of this:

Everyone lists *one innocent result and one guilty result* tomorrow. Non-cops choose their targets using random.org, cops list their actual result and choose the other target using random.org.[1] Neither cop claims D2.

Doing this means the mafia are less likely to be able to narrow down the cops effectively than with normal hypocop, since both results that a player claims have to be impossible for the mafia to be sure that player is a townie.

If we mislynch today

, the mafia have at best a 12% chance of ruling out more than two townies if a townie dies overnight, and 60% of the time they won't be able to rule out more than one, which would give them only a 33% chance of hitting a cop the next night. If a cop dies N1, they can expect only about a 20% chance of hitting the other cop N2. If we lynch correctly today, the odds are even better for us.

Following this approach means that if a cop dies without having claiming, we will know that their actual result was one of their two claimed results. This is likely to be quite helpful, especially as numbers reduce and we are able to rule out one of the possibilities. It also gives us a fairly decent chance of going into D3 with both cops still alive.

By way of contrast, normal hypocop allows mafia to rule out at least three townies over 40% of the time. (compared to the 12% for the above strategy)

I can give all the maths behind this if you like. (Figuring out mafia odds beats doing real work. )



[1]It's possible it could be better if players list an innocent result on someone they think is pro-town, and a guilty on someone they suspect, rather than choosing purely at random. This would make it harder for the mafia to narrow down their suspects based on their behaviour (e.g. someone trying to get their guilty result lynched might be more likely to be cop).

[imaginality]

Less Setup breaking, more scum hunting.

Agreed. I wanted to put my suggestion out there early (especially while we were still waiting for people to show up), but today should be about hunting scum rather than just setup discussion.

With that in mind

Unvote
Vote: ksen

for saying he's in favour of hypocop without giving any good reason why.

[imaginality]

Was my vote on ksen serious? Yes, it was. Not that I think there's a

strong

case on him (yet), but in the early game, even a weak suspicion is good enough reason to vote.

And for the record, I think the case on ksen is pretty weak. I would expect scum to be more focused the game in general, and from what I can tell, ksen seems to not be paying much attention due to him both missing the end of that article as well as post 35.

I see it somewhat in reverse. Town have motivation to make sure that if we do go with a plan (hypocop, my 'double hypocop' variant, or whatever), we think about it carefully and make sure it's going to work in our favour. Scum don't have that motivation. ksen didn't read the thread carefully, so to me it's a (very) slight scumtell.

I also think chnorek has a point that ksen repeating chnorek's question to nopoint is faux-scumhunting. I'm happy to keep my vote on ksen.

mavsfan41's post (70) was kind of confused, but seems like he's genuinely thinking at least. I don't particularly like how Chronopie unvoted him straight after with his 'Mavs posted' comment. Was your vote on him

purely

just to get him to post

something

? I expected some kind of comment on his post. Also, just an unvote, no comment on anything else or even another lurker pressure vote?


Note: I'll be V/LA from tomorrow to Monday (off to compete in the NZ Rock Paper Scissors Championship ) but might be able to get a post or two in during that time.

[imaginality]

[quote="mavsfan41"the town will also have trouble figuring out who the cops are[/quote]

This is good. The purpose of the plan is to let the town look back on a cop's results if the cop is killed before he/she claimed openly. It's not supposed to be easy for the town to figure out who the cops are while they're still alive.

Also, I saw no threat from Chronopie when he voted me. Seeing as there is no real cases on anyone yet (with maybe the case against Ksen that may be materializing) I will put an OMGUS vote on Chronopie for taking his vote off me and not putting it onto another lurker.

Just as an aside, OMGUS is used to describe when your real reason (stated or ulterior) for voting someone is because they voted you. If you have a genuine reason to vote them, it's not OMGUS. OMGUS votes are considered a scumtell because scum have more reason to worry about someone voting for them than town do. So it's not really a good idea to describe your vote as OMGUS.

Vote:Chronopie

That vote will probably be taken off on my next post

so no need to worry

.[/quote]

This worries me a bit though. Why so weak? In particular, why did you say the bolded part? Don't you

want

Chronopie to worry (at least a little) about your vote on him?

[imaginality]

Sorry, quote tags got messed up.

Unvote; vote ksen

My post should have read:

the town will also have trouble figuring out who the cops are

This is

good

. The purpose of the plan is to let the town look back on a cop's results if the cop is killed before he/she claimed openly. It's not supposed to be easy for the town to figure out who the cops are while they're still alive.

Also, I saw no threat from Chronopie when he voted me. Seeing as there is no real cases on anyone yet (with maybe the case against Ksen that may be materializing) I will put an OMGUS vote on Chronopie for taking his vote off me and not putting it onto another lurker.

Just as an aside, OMGUS is used to describe when your real reason (stated or ulterior) for voting someone is because they voted you. If you have a genuine reason to vote them, it's not OMGUS. OMGUS votes are considered a scumtell because scum have more reason to worry about someone voting for them than town do. So it's not really a good idea to describe your vote as OMGUS.

Vote:Chronopie

That vote will probably be taken off on my next post

so no need to worry

.

This worries me a bit though. Why so weak? In particular, why did you say the bolded part? Don't you

want

Chronopie to worry (at least a little) about your vote on him?

[imaginality]

Ythan is spot on here. Two lazy hops onto easy wagons smells of a mafioso glad to see weak townies do something they can vote them for.

Unvote
vote: Shattered Viewpoint

A chnorek wagon would also be good.

[imaginality]

I posted at 11:37am, thank you very much!

My mistake, I didn't see page 9.

[imaginality]

Apparently I'm having a bad day. Lemme come back tomorrow and see whether I can appease you people with my stellar scumhunting.

When you say you're having a bad day, do you mean:

(a) you're doing scummy things like opportunistic wagon-hopping and it's because you're not playing up to your usual standard of stellar scumhunting today, and hope to play better tomorrow?
(b) you're struggling to explain to the weak-witted townies around you how your play isn't in fact scummy at all, and hope to do a better job of explaining that tomorrow and/or doing enough other good stuff to convince us of your towniness?
(c) you feel aggrieved about having been caught by what you consider a fairly weak case against you and hope that snarkily dismissing it as you having an off day will stay us from driving it through to a lynch?
(d) other?

[imaginality]

Y'know what, I'm going to give Shattered Viewpoint a break for a bit. Applying more pressure to mavsfan41 is a fine idea. If he's scum I think he's gonna crack pretty soon.

Want to join us, Deer?

Unvote;
Vote: mavsfan41

Sidenote: The game I'm in lylo in is nearing deadline so by this weekend I should be freer to focus on this one again.

[imaginality]

I've not really mentioned chnorek because, honestly, he hadn't been on my radar. Now, he is, thanks to everyone being so sure that he and I are somehow linked, which is, truthfully, pure idiocy.

My trying to prove that I'm town and therefore not get lynched -- and to try and find the actual scum -- is part of that goal, yes?

How is your vote on chnorek helping to find the scum? How does it help prove you're town?

Unvote;
Vote: Shattered Viewpoint

[imaginality]

The Shattered wagon is better than chnorek though, XScorpion. Come join us on it.

nopointinactingup - why only an FoS on Shattered, why no vote?

[imaginality]

Because he said specifically "except XScorpion."

What was this in response to?

[imaginality]

2) He looks the scummier of the two leading wagons, no lynch is very bad, and the game has stagnated without any new info.

Do you think there is anyone else scummier than chnorek at the moment? Or do you think he is the scummiest player out of everyone, not just compared with SV?

[imaginality]

Miyu, nopoint and peanutman really need to choose one of the two main wagons at this point, or at least state their preference, so we can see where we're at. (Presumably chnorek will vote SV.)

[imaginality]

Crossposted with kunkstar. Great minds...

[imaginality]

I would be up for an XScorp wagon significantly more than a chnorek one, yep.

[imaginality]

No, I see SV as scummier than XS, and over a longer period. I don't have many issues with XS's play earlier in the day, it's post 89 onwards that read worse to me, whereas SV set off alarm bells with his votes earlier, and his reaction to the wagon on him now.

I also think we (at least I) learn more from an SV flip regarding reads on other players.

[imaginality]

My reasons for voting SV at the time were in the posts where I voted him.

Two lazy hops onto easy wagons smells of a mafioso glad to see weak townies do something they can vote them for.

How is your vote on chnorek helping to find the scum? How does it help prove you're town?

Since then you can also colour me unimpressed with his reaction to the wagon on him. Eg. iso 17 focusing on the possible buddy links rather than the main points against him, the "I was gonna vote chnorek to prove I'm town" in iso 20-22, and the craplogic in iso 24 ("Yes, I know, all *I'm* doing is defending myself, too, but the difference here is that I *know* I'm town. I'm reasonably sure chnorek is scum.")

Reason why I don't think chnorek is such a good lynch is partly gut, but backed up with things like iso29 and iso32 (in which he doesn't take the easy option of saying "lynch SV instead of me.") He struggles to express himself at times, I think, but I don't get a strong sense of a hidden agenda behind his words.

[imaginality]

Those questions were fairly clearly imply I have a certain point of view about the answers. The fact I voted him in that same post makes that obvious.

If you're unconvinced about how a question can be an adequate justification for a vote, another example of such a question would be a town tracker asking someone: "Severus, why did I see you visit the night-kill victim Albus last night? Vote Severus."

They're not merely rhetorical questions, because if he had come up with some compelling answer to my questions, I'd have unvoted. Instead though, he backed down and shifted tack with an "okay, my reason for voting chnorek was dumb, but um, now I look at him, hey he's scummy anyway" post (iso 24).

[imaginality]

For future reference mavsfan: if you're bored with a game,

replace out

. Whether you're telling the truth about it or not, claiming scum is really disrespectful to the remaining players.

Unvote
Vote: mavsfan

[imaginality]

EBWOP: and to the mod, too.

[imaginality]

Interesting how Chronopie started straight out with the neo-hypocopping. I know I proposed it, so I'm not against it, but I thought not everyone agreed with the idea.

Anyhow,

Mafia: kunkstar
Town: Miyu

[imaginality]

I agree with Chronopie. Half the point of hypocop is to allow the cop to get his or her results out without having to claim. With two scum, it might be worth coming out with a single guilty. With three scum, and the tailor factor, better the cop stays quiet for at least one more night.

@Peanutman: Have you noticed Ythan has already been NK-ed?

This seems a lot like fishing to see if Peanut is the other cop.


More later.

[imaginality]

Have to catch up properly later, so no vote for now, but on the face of it XS's "I have a feeling that the scum team is Shattered, nopoint and Chrono, as opposed to my suspicion of Chnorek, Shattered and ??? yesterday" seems like a decent call to me too.

[imaginality]

If the scum

didn't

use random.org and the rest of us did, that would make it

easier

for us, as it might give us clues who the scum are. The scum's selection of hypocop targets doesn't help them figure out who the cop is at all, so from that point of view it doesn't matter how they choose. At best it might help them influence our choice of suspects slightly if we place great weight on the hypocop results, but honestly, I don't think we should be worrying about these results until the second cop reveals him or herself (or gets killed), which hopefully won't be for another night or two either way.

[imaginality]

Wow, SV really is scum.

Vote: Shattered Viewpoint

[imaginality]

Post coming later today (before midnight NZ time).

[imaginality]

Excuse me for the site not loading (at least not for me) for pretty much the last two days, and being so slow when it has loaded that I'm not going to waste hours of my life trying to do isos and read previous pages.

Today seems better so let's see how it goes.

[imaginality]

I'm caught up now. This is one of those games that's annoying because most players look somewhat scummy. For that reason, I've kept one eye on possible groupings as I've looked back on people's posts.

Here's a brief player-by-player:

chnorek

is either tunneled town or buddies with SV, based on how he stayed on XS rather than getting on the SV wagon yesterday, at a time when it looked like it would be either him or SV lynched. Leaning towards buddies.

Chronopie

reads better in iso than I remembered him. My only major doubt around him is that if SV flips scum, Chronopie's strong preference for a chronek lynch over an SV one combined with steering clear of stating that preference until deadline was close, could point to possibly being his buddy.

Deer

has contributed little and seemed slightly lost at times, but has pushed the idea of chnorek-SV buddies hard. I don't see him as scum with either of them. Maybe with XS.

GroupThink

is the third weak player in that playerspot. I particularly don't like how peanutman lurked around deadline. There doesn't seem obvious scum motive for some of the other crappier points though. Gut says not scum.

kunkstar

's first post or two raised doubts in my mind. On the other hand his vote for chnorek was justified, I think. Less happy with his voting mavs despite thinking he's vanilla. Defends XS quite hard a couple of times and happy to vote chnorek or SV.

Miyu

looks pretty town based on perceptive questions and calling people out on stuff that actually is suspicious. Not as aggressive as some players, and doesn't seem to push a case on a player as strongly as she could, but makes decent points. Doesn't seem strongly linked to other players.

nopoint

hasn't done much scumhunting, has tried to keep suspicion on players (e.g. his comment on Miyu vs Ythan), FoSed SV without voting and indeed didn't vote at all until mavs imploded, fished about peanut's results, and votes me for no reason other than posting less lately.

SV

looks scum for reasons given earlier including the D1 votes, the stuff about how he was going to vote chnorek to prove he's not buddies, the voting chnorek followed by the 'since then I noticed' post-fact stuff trying to get the chnorek lynch pushed through, and the "told you guys" about mavs smacking of scum relieved at the miracle townie implosion that means he gets to dodge the lynch.

XS

posts a lot but with a high signal to noise ratio. He, like Chronopie, reads better than I remembered him. He pushed the idea of SV and chronek being scumbuddies and I think it's unlikely he's paired with either of them, given he started off today going for both of them again.


My conclusion is that the scum in this game either:

A: at least two of {nopoint, SV, chnorek, Chronopie} and up to one other

or

B: at least two of {kunkstar, Deer, GT, XS} and up to one other

If there are two scum in group B, SV and chnorek are both town.

An SV lynch would be fine with me still because I think he's scum, and it would make it more obvious which of those sets contains more scum. That said, I think nopoint is not only a likely buddy with SV if SV's scum but also more likely than SV to be the third partner if it's option B. So,

Unvote
Vote: nopointinactingup

[imaginality]

If you think SV's scum partner with me, why would you switch your vote from SV (who is on the verge of being lynched) , to me (who hasn't even got a vote yet)?

1.

not only

a likely buddy with SV if SV's scum

but also more likely than SV to be the third partner if it's option B

2. To see how you react to having the attention on you instead of the SV-or-chnorek focus. Deadline is more than a week away, I'm not in a rush to get SV lynched asap.

Moreover, when I hypocop/vote him as scum, I'm getting a reaction of measured defensiveness which typifies a scum.

Per my earlier comment about today's hypocop results, I haven't paid any great attention to see who said what about who, and don't plan to until we get a cop flip. Your evident strong focus on them is another indication you're scum, as scum would have an obvious motive to pay close attention to the hypocop results.

[imaginality]

One has two votes,
another has none;
the third person that I suspect has a votecount of one.

Please explain the pro-town motive behind you not openly stating who you suspect. Or else state openly who you suspect.

[imaginality]

No, no, no.

GroupThink's last post is just terrible for at least five reasons.

The numbers I ran were the probability that the scum tailor coincided with the sole cop investigation.

Only tangentially connected with the hypocopping...

Are you implying the cop's results to be unreliable? If so, what's the point of assessing probabilities?

#1

How is a non-random hypocop scummy?

I need to read up on this. What exactly

is

a hypocop? A hypothetical cop investigation...? (Googled to no avail..)

#2

Groupthink. For what reason did you vote for Chnorek?

I wanted you to call me scummy for providing no reasoning.

#3

Way to be completely vague and useless to town. Give real answers.
This also means that you don't suspect SV. Any particular reason you think he is less likely to be scum than the 3 other phantom people?

You honestly need my suspicions to make a decision on your own?

#4

And, given chnorek's recent scum!post, I'll

unvote

Vote: chnorek

Well I guess I'll

unvote

Vote: chronopie

#5

The first 3 parts I've quoted are lazy. Lazy thinking, lazy reading, lazy play. 4 misses the whole point of why giving reads and giving reasons is pro-town - it's not that it helps us make a decision about those players you suspect, it's (mainly) because it helps us get a better read on you. 5 is a lazy vote using SV's vote as cover, and not even getting the right name.

GroupThink, you've got to do better than this. You can start by telling us who your suspects are. That should be easy to do, assuming you actually have some.

[imaginality]

Edit: If GroupThink did mean to vote Chronopie in his latest post, I see possible GT-chnorek links. If GT meant to vote chnorek (which is how the way he voted after quoting SV's vote made it seem to me), it's a lazy vote.

Unvote;
vote: chnorek

Feeling fairly sure SV and chnorek are either both scum, but if they're not, they're both town and I'd rather mislynch chnorek than SV in that case.

@ XScorpion, Deer, Miyu, kunkstar7: do you think SV is scumbuddies with chnorek or not? If no, why not? If yes, come join us on the chnorek wagon.

GroupThink falls into the 'too scummy to be scum' category for me at the moment; it's a shame we can't use up a policy lynch on him (if we mislynch today, it's mislynch-and-lose tomorrow).

[imaginality]

I don't want a mislynch at all, Miyu, obviously. If I thought it likely either is town I wouldn't be voting for them. But if it does turn out I'm wrong and they're both town then yes, I think SV is more likely to help us successfully catch the scum tomorrow than chnorek is, so I'd rather it's chnorek we mislynched than SV.

[imaginality]

I thought he was hopping on the chnorek wagon after SV voted chnorek, and had typed the wrong name. I though that because he quoted SV's vote for chnorek and say, "Well, I guess I'll vote Chronopie" as though he was voting for the same reasons as SV.

@GroupThink: Why did you switch your vote away from chnorek after SV voted for him? Why did you quote SV's vote for chnorek when you switched your vote to Chronopie?

@XS I agree about possible SV-nopoint connection.

[imaginality]

Posted before finished typing there. XS, I think SV is slightly scummier in isolation than chnorek. But SV's "I'll vote chnorek to show you I'm not buddies with him" thing is more a sign of {SV-scum,chnorek-scum} or {SV-town} than {SV-scum,chnorek-town}.

[imaginality]

Let me explain. Your play so far has been so bad that I think it more likely you're lazy town, because scum are slightly more likely to put in at least some semblance of effort into not appearing to be entirely useless.

Offering to vote yourself tomorrow if you vote for a town lynch today is the latest example of terrible play.

[imaginality]

That's a confident man, and either

he's playing a bad town game

or he has reasons to be so confident.

Fixed that for you.

[imaginality]

Miyu, my vote on chnorek was because;

Edit:

If GroupThink did mean to vote Chronopie in his latest post, I see possible GT-chnorek links.

If GT meant to vote chnorek (which is how the way he voted after quoting SV's vote made it seem to me), it's a lazy vote.

Unvote;
vote: chnorek

Feeling fairly sure SV and chnorek are either both scum, but if they're not, they're both town and I'd rather mislynch chnorek than SV in that case.

Bolded sentences still apply. Let me explain the first one in more detail. The way GroupThink shifted his vote away from chnorek when chnorek started to look in danger of being lynched (straight after SV had just added another vote to the chnorek wagon) made me think GT's vote on him was distancing rather than actual suspicion of chnorek. If he was actually suspicious of chnorek, why would he switch away from him when SV switched to him?

I could see a switch to SV making sense in that situation (if he thought SV's vote on chnorek was scummy), but GroupThink's switch to Chronopie makes no sense at that point, unless his vote on chnorek wasn't a genuine one.

[imaginality]

chnorek has gone to ground, it seems. Resigned to his fate? Hoping our attentions will shift again if he says nothing? Hoping we won't lynch him if he isn't around to roleclaim?

chnorek, you're at L-1, you probably should claim in your next post.

Speaking personally, a vanilla claim won't do anything to deter me from lynching chnorek, but if he claims cop I'd rather lynch SV.


SV's posts this page are really bad.

[imaginality]

chnorek
Shattered Viewpoint
nopointinactingup
GroupThink

[imaginality]

I didn't say I'm

right

about all of those three being scum. But I don't think there's anyone else who's individually scummier than they are, which is why I've listed them.

I discussed possible groupings in one of my earlier posts. Yes, I think it possible they're bussing chnorek. More likely that only two of those three are scum, though.


At this point I'm going to

Unvote
Vote: Shattered Viewpoint

because it looks like chnorek will now be replaced (over 24 hours since the prod), and a replacement would make that slot easier to read.

[imaginality]

And because SV's lurking with intent, under the guise of 'nothing's happening', makes it fairly clear he's scum trying to survive the day rather than town trying to find scum.

[imaginality]

The root of SV's annoyance is the fact that, despite being in a game where pretty much everyone looks scummy, he's still been caught, and doesn't have mavsfan here to help him slip the noose this time.

[imaginality]

Erm, deadline is in two days. If we don't get an extension, someone should hammer before deadline.

@Mod: can we have an extension due to chnorek being replaced or does the current deadline stand?

[imaginality]

SV self-hammered? Woo! We caught ourselves a scumbag.

Come on SV, tell us why you hammered? Are you worried we'll out your scumbuddies if the day continues? Are you hoping chnorek was a cop and the night phase will be over before he gets replaced so there's no cop investigation? Are you channeling the spirit of mavsfan41?

[imaginality]

Oh and Mod, if Chnorek is the cop, please give him or the replacement a chance to investigate someone at night?

Yes, this.

[imaginality]

No, self-hammering as town really is truly, truly idiotic. SV doesn't strike me as truly idiotic. I still think he's going to flip scum.

[imaginality]

My hypocop results: innocent kunkstar, guilty nopoint. Away from home at the moment so wait for Sunday US time for a fuller post.

[imaginality]

If SV was thinking about fake-claiming cop, he would've done, I think. Certainly rather than self-hammer, he could've said "OMG you guys, I'm cop! Now stop voting me!" So I don't think he'd have chosen nopoint as his guilty with fake-claiming in mind. For me it's fairly null because of the wifom around whether to choose a buddy or not.

I agree with the points against chnorek/Empking - the way those D1 wagons went definitely left me with the impression they're buddies.

I'm going to do a re-read this evening, so expect more then (~12hrs from now), might have time for a couple more short posts before then though.

[imaginality]

My current reads:

Town: Deer, GroupThink, kunkstar7, XScorpion
Scum: chnorek, Chronopie, nopointinactingup

Chronopie's recent post makes no sense to me because he says "take the heat off my scumbuddies" about XS's reaction to mav's scumclaim, but his earlier points argue that chnorek is town due to XS's willingness to see him lynched rather than SV.

Re-read got blocked by the server move, and not being able to iso players kinda sucks at the moment. But I'm going to look at chnorek, Chronopie and nopoint for possible pairings. For now I think nopoint and Chronopie is most likely. Not going to vote nopoint yet though because that would put him on L-1 too soon for my liking.

[imaginality]

It's actually L-1, Chronopie. 5 to lynch.

Hoping iso is back tomorrow. I'm not going to hammer Empking this soon into the day, I think if he's scum let's keep him on the ropes and we'll get a firmer sense of who his buddy is (or maybe he'll hammer himself for us like SV did, lol).

Nopoint, saying you're 'almost 100% sure' about Empking being scum is a pretty strong claim. How much of that is based on the SV "I'll vote chnorek" thing? To put that another way, if that hadn't happened, how sure would you be about Empking being scum based on his own play?

[imaginality]

Okay. For me chnorek's ties to SV are strong enough that I'm going to hammer him now. I can see nopoint's point about Empking not trying hard to defend himself. Sorry Empking if you're town.

Also, I think knowing for sure whether the chnorek vs SV wagons were town vs scum or scum vs scum is going to help us greatly tomorrow.

Vote: Empking