Open 258 --- Night Watch --- Game Over

[nameloc1986]

VOTE: Joystick

I think he followed me into the game, very creepy.

[nameloc1986]

Since he likes bandwagons:

UNVOTE: Joystick

VOTE: Shotty

[nameloc1986]

Also that gets all my OMGUS out of the way

Apparently you lied here.

RQS questions:
1) Are you scum?
2) What is your strategy for nightkill this game?
3) Why should we lynch you?

[nameloc1986]

Also that gets all my OMGUS out of the way

Apparently you lied here.

No I gave a reason

Me being "opportunistic" is not a reason, it's an excuse to OMGUS vote.

[nameloc1986]

@shotty: Why is loc's vote "opportunistic"?

Because that was a really easy shot for scum to slip onto a wagon with a "reason", and push a mislynch

So my first bandwagon deserved praise, but my bandwagon on you was opportunistic?

[nameloc1986]

you learn quick

Yep, I learned that you suck.

Anywho, I really don't want to get carried away with mindless squabbles during RVS. I'm gonna wait for others to post.

[nameloc1986]

exactly so know we have gotten no where, and we are right where we started, also now there is a wagon on a town person, with no reasoning, and this sucks.

1) Assuming that you are a town person

2) The reason is because it's RVS and bandwagons this early entitle a reaction. Usually that reaction can either say a little or even a lot.

3) "we are right where we started" - not necessarily true, but I agree that we haven't gotten too far. It's only the 2nd page and half the players haven't posted yet, what did you expect? Plus, saying this is fluff and doesn't add anything even to the RVS. If you really want to get somewhere, why not add something constructive.

[nameloc1986]

VOTE: Joystick

For a self-proclaimed "know-it-all" he sure doesn't know how to read and doesn't know the definition of RVS. Either that or he's scum.

[nameloc1986]

Woops forgot to unvote:

UNVOTE: shotty

VOTE: Joystick

[nameloc1986]

RVS (random voting stage) is what we are doing now. We're pretty much just voting for random reasons just to get the ball rolling. Bandwagons are usually formed to put early pressure on others and see how they react. Once we get some suspicions and discussions going, then we'll back out of RVS.

Another thing to do is RQS (random question stage).

Another RQ: Since I feel this may be an issue this game, what is everybody's stance on policy lynching?

[nameloc1986]

clarifying: you mean 'lynch all lurkers', right?

No I mean 'lynch an idiot'

My stance on policy lynching: Only if you think there's a chance there might be scum and only on Day 1.

My stance on lynching lurkers: Don't. At least wait and see if they're replaced first. Sometimes it can mean that they are disinterested in the game because they are VT. Therefore it's very circumstantial.

[nameloc1986]

Guys you will realize that Joystick marches to the beat of a different mafia drum.

Anyways, I don't agree with Joystick's theory. If new evidence comes in that they may really be townie, then why lynch them? Not saying we should just believe their claim as a VT, but even PR's might claim VT.

Like Bazz, I'm fairly new here too. I played "real life" mafia COUNTLESS times but only started playing online just recently.

@Everybody: So far shotty and Joystick have been the bandwagons of choice. If you had to lynch one of these two NOW, which one would you choose and why?

[nameloc1986]

Yeah but the question was you HAD to. It's not like I'm asking you to lynch one of them right now. It's just hypothetical.

[nameloc1986]

*facepalm* You miss my point, but fine.

To answer my own question: ATM I would go for Joystick, not because I think he's scum but because I'm getting a town read on shotty.

Again this question is completely hypothetical.

[nameloc1986]

@nameloc -

@Everybody: So far shotty and Joystick have been the bandwagons of choice. If you had to lynch one of these two NOW, which one would you choose and why?

This does read as though you are narrowing down our options. Perhaps you are trying to draw attention to these two so we are more likely to find them scummy at a later date (scum-motive), or

perhaps you are trying to get discussion going to bring us out of an RVS

(town-motive). In answer, I know you've said its hypothetical, but I really couldn't say who I found scummier at such an early stage. If you pushed me for an answer, I'd only be giving one for a mundane reason, so I may as well role a dice and see.

[the bolded part]: That's pretty much it.

Just to clarify, I do realize that those aren't the ONLY two suspects and that there is a chance that neither could be scum. It's the discussion, that I'm interested in.

[nameloc1986]

@shotty: Why is loc's vote "opportunistic"?

Because that was a really easy shot for scum to slip onto a wagon with a "reason", and push a mislynch

...
Opportunism is the easiest thing for scum to accuse their wagoners of, because it usually involves vague generalities like this.

Antihero makes a post about opportunism, saying it's something scum would accuse someone else of (referencing shotty) but doesn't admit that scum would use opportunism either.

policy lynching = epic fail

So, jason, how about a shotty or joystick wagon?

Asks Jason to hop on a BW then....

That said, Jason why did you vote shotty?

meh, i was asking for opinions. The fact that jason didn't give any looks kind of bad. BTW, wouldn't jason be sheeping me?

...places suspicion on Jason after he answered his question???

How is this a scumtell?
It's easy to label someone's behavior (e.g. "overreaction") without really explicitly calling it scummy. It's just sphagetti flinging and it's quite scummy.

ditto what Zdenek said

UNVOTE: Joystick

VOTE: Antihero

[nameloc1986]

^^^BTW post #81 that I ditto

[nameloc1986]

nameloc brings up decent points....

you feel like antihero is scummier than joystick and shotty?

ATM yes

[nameloc1986]

@everyone - Just to throw a question into the mix:
Do you think your read of a player should take into account their experience?

In a way yes. A newer player you tend to expect that they sometimes read into things the wrong way, or they may not look like they are scumhunting because they really don't know what to look for. Sometimes it's hard to determine what's "scumtell" with them and what's "newb" mistakes.

[nameloc1986]

Another RQ: Since I feel this may be an issue this game, what is everybody's stance on policy lynching?

I'm not for it. If there's a player you have even the tiniest bit of suspicion of that 's better than a policy lynch. And a situation where it's impossible to get any kind of read at all is hard to imagine. Which player(s) do you suspect might be likely to be policy lynched?

Great question: Andrew is the epitome of the village idiot. He's stupid enough to fake-claim PRs. Also I've checked his meta and he seems to have a knack for getting lynched Day 1 as a townie. Also I'm getting a "slight" idiot read off of shotty. His meta, from what I can tell, doesn't help him a whole lot either.

Anywho, I really don't want to get carried away with mindless squabbles during RVS. I'm gonna wait for others to post.

Why not? Isn't that how we get out of rvs?

Maybe constructive squabbles can help you out of RVS, but not mindless squabbles.[/quote]

[nameloc1986]

nope what do u mean by 'didnt follow up', i asked him to explain it, and on the same post i asked ckd what he meant, i then continuously replied to hop , whilst he hasnt replied yet

Also, how can you continiously reply to someone... who hasn't replied?

This:

Andrew is the epitome of the village idiot

[nameloc1986]

nameloc has upped in my scum read as he is trying to get everyone to ignore me by naming me VI.
i have seen this tactic in a finished newbie game where a person convinces the others to completely ignore someone else due to 'vi'
i no like


preview edit: what? so i get lynched in about 8 games as townie on day1 to win in this game? huh, it makes no sense to me

1) I'm not trying to get people to ignore you, I'm just trying to warn people that you are an idiot. It was really meant to mean whether you are a townie or scum.

2) If I was "scum" trying to get people to ignore you, it would be because of you being scum. Scumslip maybe?

Seeing as how you are a popular Day 1 lynch, I'm not going to vote you just yet, but you're definitely tempting me.

FOS: Andrew

[nameloc1986]

nameloc has upped in my scum read as he is trying to get everyone to ignore me by naming me VI.
i have seen this tactic in a finished newbie game where a person convinces the others to completely ignore someone else due to 'vi'
i no like


preview edit: what? so i get lynched in about 8 games as townie on day1 to win in this game? huh, it makes no sense to me

1) I'm not trying to get people to ignore you, I'm just trying to warn people that you are an idiot. It was really meant to mean whether you are a townie or scum.

2) If I was "scum" trying to get people to ignore you, it would be because of you being scum. Scumslip maybe?

Seeing as how you are a popular Day 1 lynch, I'm not going to vote you just yet, but you're definitely tempting me.

FOS: Andrew

when you warn ppl that im an idiot, they tend to not listen to me- if your scum u just made ppl not listen to me

point 2- er wtf? your scum getting people to ignore me- town guy

Dude,

if anything

I was helping you out because people (i.e. Jason) suspected you as scum. I was trying to help explain what looked like your "scummy" behavior as you just being an idiot. With your track record for being lynched Day 1, I thought that should speak for itself. Also if you are a "villageidiot" meaning townie and I was scum I wouldn't worry about people ignoring you for you're not that much of a threat TBH.

[nameloc1986]

Which is why the VI play is the perfect way for Andrew to skate by undetected as scum. People just think its normal for him

Yeah, but pursuing it this way is a little WIFOM don't ya think? I'm not questioning your vote on Andrew, but I think we really need to analyze him more before we claim his as our lynch.

[nameloc1986]

...places suspicion on Jason after he answered his question???

First off, the intention of the question was to get Jason to give some opinions on other people. I didn't think jason would just vote shotty w/o a reason.

... didn't finish the thought.

Second off, why is it scummy to not like the reaction to a question, even if the question is yours?

Because the question felt more like a "friendly" question and then your response made me feel like you set him up for a trap.

Kinda of like:

"Hey do want to try this chocolate cake or this pound cake?"

"I think I'll try the chocolate."

"WHY THE FUCK DID YOU CHOOSE THE CHOCOLATE??"

-Exaggeration I know but the point is that he did what you asked in a sense. He jumped on a bandwagon. Then you jumped on him.

[nameloc1986]

I guess that does make Jason look more like a "follower" but being Day 1 and close to the RVS, I didn't think it was absolutely necessary to give a reason right then.

[nameloc1986]

...places suspicion on Jason after he answered his question???

First off, the intention of the question was to get Jason to give some opinions on other people. I didn't think jason would just vote shotty w/o a reason.

... didn't finish the thought.

Second off, why is it scummy to not like the reaction to a question, even if the question is yours?

Because the question felt more like a "friendly" question and then your response made me feel like you set him up for a trap.

Kinda of like:

"Hey do want to try this chocolate cake or this pound cake?"

"I think I'll try the chocolate."

"WHY THE FUCK DID YOU CHOOSE THE CHOCOLATE??"

-Exaggeration I know but the point is that he did what you asked in a sense. He jumped on a bandwagon. Then you jumped on him.

This is a false analogy. Also, it's an exaggeration to say that I "jumped on Jason."

I guess that does make Jason look more like a "follower" but being Day 1 and close to the RVS, I didn't think it was absolutely necessary to give a reason right then.

OK, well that's a matter of personal opinion.

It may be an exaggeration but you still were suspicious of him. And how is it a false analogy? You ask him to try a bandwagon out, he chooses a bandwagon, doesn't give a reason and then find him suspicious for it. That's pretty much what the analogy entails.

Let me ask you this question: Why did you ask him to join a bandwagon?

[nameloc1986]

Let me ask you this question: Why did you ask him to join a bandwagon?

To get him to give some opinions instead of talking about theory. I've repeated said that already. [/frustration]

Sorry I see where you said that now.

[nameloc1986]

@DF: I really don't know if a no lynch would be beneficial at all in this type of set-up (probably not), but my point was that if there is not enough evidence for me to merit a vote, I will not vote. I stand by what I say in post 77 that a lynch will give us more info than a no lynch, but I don't want to vote for someone just because I HAVE to vote.

Alright, let's say that hypothetically that two people were at L-1 right before deadline. You don't have strong scum reads against either of them but your decision was key to making a lynch. What would you do?

[nameloc1986]

I don't really think Anti-Hero 'jumped' on me as it has been put. He asked a question of me nothing more, however I explained my reasons.

Yeah yeah, this has already been addressed and I already admitted to exaggerating.

I am still wondering when shotty is going to come and participate, he has questions directed towards him and no response from him yet

search.php?author_id=13944&sr=posts

He's been online the past couple of days, but only on this game to vote andrew and then he invited him to a marathon game. Since then he's been doing a couple of marathons (never finished the one he started) but has had time to post in other games. Granted I'm not sure what this says.

[nameloc1986]

I wouldn't take shotty's inactivity as that big of a shock. I did some further checking on him and he's in at least EIGHT FRICKIN GAMES currently. I think the best thing to do is ask the mod for a prod on him and move on.

@mod: can you prod shotty?

I know it may seem early for a prod but I don't want to play with someone who's not going to have time for this game!

[nameloc1986]

There's no defending shotty at all in that post. I'm merely pointing out facts and saying we should maybe focus on someone else UNTIL shotty comes back or gets replaced.

[nameloc1986]

I wouldn't take shotty's inactivity as that big of a shock. I did some further checking on him and he's in at least EIGHT FRICKIN GAMES currently. I think the best thing to do is ask the mod for a prod on him and move on.

@mod: can you prod shotty?

I know it may seem early for a prod but I don't want to play with someone who's not going to have time for this game!

Name I'm in 4 dumb ass, and I'm sorry.
I was on a date last night, sorry!!

First off, don't call me a dumb ass when you don't even know how many games you are in. You are in 6 (2 of them I checked earlier the mods didn't update the game over status). I'll list them:

Open 258 (this one)
Open 259
Mini 1068
Ocarina of Time Mafia
Newbie 1014
Open 252

So no, I'm not a dumb ass but apparently you are.

Anywho, you're wanting Andrew lynched as a policy lynch is very laughable when you yourself are a dumbass and haven't been very pro-town yourself. Especially if you want Andrew lynched without ANY real evidence against him. Pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

[nameloc1986]

Joystick, Joystick, Joystick........I hate to reiterate what has already been iterated but explain your vote please!

[nameloc1986]

Can you explain your vote?

I have never been a fan of those who just vote without reason

, seems like a lazy bandwagon jump to me to be honest.

After a re-read of everything, I came across this bit of irony! Didn't you yourself jump on a bandwagon without giving a reason??? Hypocrite much?

[nameloc1986]

Wow I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't

Seriously I think saving him for later is still a good idea but I think he is suspicious. The other wagon on anti-hero I just don't feel is valid, so I decided to stick with Andrew. Andrew's meta is same for town and scum will only confuse us later in the game.

What do you find suspicious about him? This reason we ask is that you seem to have pulled a lightswitch here.

[nameloc1986]

I find his agression scummy, he has questioned like 4 or 5 people on comments that I particularly did not find scummy, he than tried to twist my words in an attempt to find me scummy.

I don't feel I flipped a switch cause my vote was on him to begin with.

Emphasis on Bolded Part:

Yeah but to begin with we were in RVS hence RANDOM vote. The flipswitching was saying that you wouldn't lynch him at all Day 1 to now voting for him.

]Plus shotty mentioned a good point about

use the mislynch

now, I think he is scummy so no point in derailing his wagon just yet. If I see something that catches my eye I can unvote.

A good point? His point was policy lynch.

Not bolded part:

bad choice of words here. That sounds really scummish.

Earlier you said:

as for policy lnching, depends on the policy

Explain what you mean here

It's not the evidence that you have against Andrew, I'm just not sure if I buy your flip-flop.

[nameloc1986]

I didn't notice it at first when shotty said it:

while we can afford a mislynch

To me this implies that it is a gamble that Andrew's lynch might be a mislynch.

use the mislynch now

Having just read shotty's comment is not an excuse for a scum slip. This wording implies that you KNOW it's going to be a mislynch.

Nice try Joystick!

UNVOTE: Antihero
VOTE: Joystick

[nameloc1986]

I don't even know what the hell a policy lynch is anyway, someone care to explain it, I never heard of it til this game

https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Policy_lynch
MafiaScum has this great wiki page, if you want to know what any of the lingo means just look it up!

[nameloc1986]

hoponmyjoystick is NOT a watcher

he is 'vanilla'

So you're trying to claim role cop? hmm........

Watcher is kind of a easy claim since there two of them. I'm catching up on what I've missed now.

[nameloc1986]

So reading back, nameloc seems to have some sort of weird connection with shotty, first says he gets town read than an idiot read

WTF? So I have an apparent connection with anyone I get a town read off of? I guess this is one big food fight of spaghetti then.

he admits to helping Andrew out by saying he is an idiot and cause he is lynched early day 1, which is really a different approach I took in saying we should not lynch Andrew day 1

I'm not denying this is true, but I was trying to caution everybody just like you were. I didn't want to vote for him just because of scummy/odd behavior when he has a history of being a VI.

he than goes after anti-hero and votes him but I don't understand his reasons why

Because I just thought his way of asking Jason a question and then saying he was suspicious for his answer was almost like a trap. I know it was weak but it was just something that bugged me.

as soon as I question shotty about his vote and not responding to my question, he starts making excuses for him
his post 33 he just copies other people's questions

I was not making excuses. I was just as curious about his absence as you were so I checked up on it. I explained why he might have been absent, but also said that I didn't know what it meant. I'm not sure how you get the idea that I was defending him.

his post 35, he says "the reason WE ask" as if letting it slip he is working together with shotty and anti-hero

WE as in I wasn't the only one to ask. And why do you say "shotty" and not BAZZ? Don't you mean BAZZ and antihero?

he also doesn't feel shotty seeming so sure it's a mis-lynch as being scummy, yet when I repeat his wording I am scummy

I explained this in my post#37. You both said the word "mislynch" but he said "while we can afford a mislynch" while you said "use the mislynch now". I get two different reads off this quote.

seems like nameloc is working with shotty or at least buddying him

point out the posts where I am buddying with him. The only thing that supports this is my "early town read" on him. In the whole mislynch thing, I don't DENY that shotty is scum, but that your words look scummier.

also tries to immediatly discredit Andrew so any suspicions cast on him are thrown out for being VI

You're right. I was probably quick to call andrew a VI. I guess it was because of frustration with my last game with him. Since its ongoing I can't reference it, but you should know because you're in that game!

[nameloc1986]

I'd like to add to the case on Nameloc.

I think he is reaching for reasons to vote.

When he voted for antihero, he questioned him about questioning Jason for jumping Shotty's wagon, and when he voted for Joystick, he did so because he interprets Joystick's statement: "... use the mislynch now" as a scumslip. Now, taken literally, and out of context, it might be a scumslip. But in context, it doesn't seem that bad to me, especially considering how Joystick is acting.

Vote Nameloc

Aren't we all "reaching for reasons" though? No one knows for sure who's scum so we all have to do scumhunting.

[nameloc1986]

UNVOTE: Joystick

Watcher is an easy fake claim for a scum, but I'll buy it..........for now.

[nameloc1986]

Aren't we all "reaching for reasons" though? No one knows for sure who's scum so we all have to do scumhunting.

I just don't like what you came up with in those instances.

Fair enough.

[nameloc1986]

I am willing to believe this even though Andrew's meta says that he fakeclaims. When he does it, isn't it to take a night kill when he is a VT to save a PR, rather than trying to get a townie lynched?

But you run the risk of the real "PR" to counterclaim which might make people assume Andrew is scum. If he gets lynched for it, then the real "PR" will get targeted for nightkill and you lose TWO townies AND a valuable PR.

[nameloc1986]

So if Andrew is VT and he just "fakeclaimed" RC, he just risked the counterclaim of the "real" RC. The fact that Andrew has faked claimed at least once before goes to show that he's capable of doing it again. "Stupid is as stupid does." We need to be really careful with this and how we handle it.

[nameloc1986]

yet another gambit? like I said, gambits are run by scum not by town

Not necessarily true, but I do think shotty's gambits aren't that well thought out.

@shotty: What kind of reaction were you expecting to get from Joystick?

[nameloc1986]

So if Andrew is VT and he just "fakeclaimed" RC, he just risked the counterclaim of the "real" RC. The fact that Andrew has faked claimed at least once before goes to show that he's capable of doing it again. "Stupid is as stupid does." We need to be really careful with this and how we handle it.

stop defending your scum buddy hop.
why would i randomly claim cop. i was trying to get hop to L 1 at the start (hence my pick on his minority post) so he coudl claim something
and bravo- he claims a power role, when he is NOT A power role. = scum

How am I defending Hop? I never said you did fakeclaim, that situation was completely hypothetical. I just made the point that you have fakeclaimed before, so you liable to do it again. Though your trap for Joystick makes sense. I don't like the fact you outed yourself so early, but at least we caught a liar. I think I'm willing to believe you though.

I'm gonna check how many votes he has before I vote back Joystick.

[nameloc1986]

If I vote Joystick that will put him at L-1. I'm not comfortable with that just yet. I just hope to GOD that Andrew is not shitting us.

@Antihero: You think Andrew was lying about being RC? If so, do you think he is scum or townie?

[nameloc1986]

UNVOTE:

VOTE: CKD

andrew, I think I now know why some people are in favor of policy lynching.

anti and all
HE IS COMEFIRMED SCUM(HOP)

Why aren't you taking into consideration that Andrew might be lying?

[nameloc1986]

UNVOTE:

VOTE: CKD

andrew, I think I now know why some people are in favor of policy lynching.

anti and all
HE IS COMEFIRMED SCUM(HOP)

Why aren't you taking into consideration that Andrew might be lying?

um, nameloc, andrew just admitted to lying

When? I totally missed that.

[nameloc1986]

.............wait........did you just hammer yourself?

[nameloc1986]

Nevermind he's only at L-2. Andrew's last vote was unnecessary because he already had his vote on Joystick.

VOTE: Joystick

Now he's at L-1!

[nameloc1986]

I'm not sure what he's trying to pull with self-voting. It may be that he's trying to change our minds by AtE. It could be a town or scum move by him. I'm still going with Andrew though, his confidence is saying a lot.

[nameloc1986]

And before anyone else asks, yes I realize self voting can be scummy but if town I'd gonna lynch a watcher on day 1 based on info from Andrew who fake claims roles all the time.

Also not sure if I beleive Andrew based on my results last night, somebody did visit shotty last night, didn't feel the need to say anything earlier cause clearly he is alive and hadn't thought of the possibility of Andrew fake claiming

Andrew is mad cause of another game and he's trying to take it out on me here, he was really pissed at me.

I'm sorry, this just seems like bullshit to me. What game is Andrew mad at you about?

[nameloc1986]

Well looks like Joystick will be our lynch. I feel kinda good about this. If Joystick really is watcher, then Andrew had better be scum.

[nameloc1986]

So Joystick, are you Watcher or Scum? PLEEEEEEAAASE don't say you're a VT!

Just to point out before the day ends: I do not like shotty's confusing attempts to bring down both Joystick and Andrew together and trying to out another PR. That is definitely anti-town behavior! Shotty if you are a townie then STOP!

[nameloc1986]

The fact that you didn't answer my question says a lot.

[nameloc1986]

andrew only one needs to watch you

But one watcher won't know what the other watcher is doing.

[nameloc1986]

Hmm....this is interesting....no one died? I guess that means the scum tried to kill the hider and he successfully hid right?

@Shotty: You realize that Andrew can't detect scum right? He can only detect power roles. You're asking him to give away a power role that could be targeted.

FOS: Shotty

[nameloc1986]

Alright, I may as well come forth with this: I am the

hider

. I'm not going to reveal who I hid behind just yet though. I don't want to give the scum a target by revealing a confirmed townie.

P. Edit: Bull Shit, you were asking him what his results were, why else would you ask him anything? Also I DARE any of the scum to counterclaim. Doing so would be foolish since the lynch of one of us would reveal the other to be scum.

[nameloc1986]

dude nameloc, whats the watcher for- its for watching confirmed townies.

what about night 0 , did u hide or not.

finally, emp king is scum as well. i know this for a fact

What do you mean "whats the watcher for"? I didn't say anything about a "watcher".

Night 0, I did not hide. Obviously since it would have been a great risk since I do have any town reads yet.

And how exactly do you now Empking is scum? You claimed RC, which does NOT detect scum.

[nameloc1986]

Oh wait Andrew, did you mean "that's what the watcher is for"? (i thought you were asking a question of me)

Andrew I know that the watcher can watch confirmed townies, but I don't want to draw the watchers attention

publicly

to a target. That would beat the whole purpose of the watchers catching scum in action. If I announce the "confirmed townie" the scum might steer away from the person in fear of being watched. I wish there was a way we can tell one watcher to watch you and the other watch someone else (at random).

P. Edit: @Antihero: I can answer that: Yes I would have.

[nameloc1986]

Oh wait, I just epically failed at logic! Xo Sorry guys my brain is trying to think TOO much into it. I probably need to go to bed.

Alright fine, I'm convinced. The person I hid behind was Empking (which blows Andrews theory about him being scum).

P. Edit: I saw that too Andrew and came to the same conclusion, but it was just Joystick being stupid.

And this is not true, I'm not sure where you got this from: "therefore if hider doesn't die, the person he hides behind dies."

What did you mean to say here? I didn't die but the person I hid behind didn't die!

[nameloc1986]

How did you work out it was 2/9? As far as I'm aware, there are 10 players remaining, two of which are the scum themselves, which leaves 8. But then we should assume that scum have no reason to doubt your cop claim, or nameloc's hider claim (assuming they did actually target nameloc and fail), which means there are only 6 players who could possibly be watchers, making it 2/6 (or

1/3

).

Actually it's even higher than that. If Andrew reveals the "vanilla" player and we lynch him as his "plan" suggests, then it will be 2/5 prob if that person is NOT scum (40%). We can't afford to help the scum snipe the watchers so Andrew please DON'T reveal who you targeted.

[nameloc1986]

Yeah, but then the watchers will be exposed themselves. There are only 2 watchers and 4 PRs (2 watchers + 1 hider + 1 RC).

Look there's a good chance that the watchers know each other already. I say we just go through the day like normal and we try and lynch someone we think is scum. If someone tries to claim watcher, then all we have to do is get that watcher to watch Andrew, I'll hide behind the "claimed" watcher and the "unclaimed" watcher will watch the "claimed" watcher. My death will expose the "claimed" watcher as scum and Andrew will live another day. So if someone claims watcher, then we can be pretty sure they're telling the truth. Plus it may only take one CC to disprove someone as watcher (if the watchers know each other). Whatever we do, if we put someone at L-1 and they claim townie we need to lynch them anyway. If we disband the bandwagon on them and force someone else to claim, we'll help the scum at watcher sniping.

But let's stop worrying about "plans" that AREN'T foolproof and actually do some old fashion scum hunt.

[nameloc1986]

Nameloc, is shotty your main suspect?

TBH, not really but I don't know who my main suspect would be. Shotty I've noticed has a bad case of saying something before he thinks it through and is famous for referring to something as a gambit when it really was just him being stupid. I actually get more of a town read than a scum read from him TBH. That said, when I look back at my FOS from earlier, I think it was just him not thinking it through. I called bullshit on him for what he replied back with. I think he was trying to keep himself looking stupid. I don't completely rule him out either though.

My current gut feelings: BAZZ &

Antihero

are town & Jason & maybe Zdenek are scum.

P. Edit: hmmmmm.......you actually bring up good points about Antihero....this may need some looking into...

[nameloc1986]

Lurkers, come out wherever you are and comment on what's taken place so far this day.

[nameloc1986]

i admit I was role fishing but with a pro town reason

which is?

[nameloc1986]

-_- Shotty, you're pathetic, seriously. By the mere chance you are VT and just making shit up, I wouldn't mind going for a policy lynch right now.

[nameloc1986]

I think we should mass claim

what's the point?

[nameloc1986]

I think we should mass claim

what's the point?

because then we have scum narrowed down to 4 people, and if we guess right one of the two days we win!
And today before we lynch some one we set up a fool proof scum catching thing at night that forces scum to either not NK or to be caught

6 people, not 4. I see what you're getting at but there are a lot of risks involved.

@Shotty: Who is your top scum suspect and why?

[nameloc1986]

@Shotty: Who is your top scum suspect and why?

Another question: Why did you fake claim watcher?

[nameloc1986]

about your other question +scum points for you
I think you just role fished

*facepalm**facepalm**facepalm**facepalm**facepalm*

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO FAKECLAIMED WATCHER! I DO NOT NEED TO ROLEFISH BECAUSE YOU'RE ROLE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY ANDREW. ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION PLEASE! YOU'RE EITHER VT OR GOON! I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY THE HELL YOU'D FAKECLAIM WATCHER IF YOU REALLY ARE A VT! I CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT YOU. I ALMOST WAS CONVINCED THAT YOU WERE TOWNIE FOR A MINUTE!

VOTE: Shotty

With shotty's scummy behavior + his confirmed fakeclaim = shotty lynch today!

[nameloc1986]

OH...........MY...............GOD..........

Andrew...........how the hell was anyone supposed to figure that out

UNVOTE: Shotty

Andrew, your breadcrumbing attempt was way too subtle. >_>

[nameloc1986]

Okay what Andrew was trying to say was he wanted Shotty to "stop claiming". In other words

shotty is a watcher

(according to Andrew's breadcrumb). Sorry Andrew and Shotty for saying this but you're confusing the hell out of everybody. Now with that being said, I think it's time to move on from that and start looking for scum again.

[nameloc1986]

Since andrew said he got a vanilla result on someone, I doubt andrew knows this.

hmm........*goes to do some ISOing of Andrew*

we will lynch the person i investigated last night and i got 'NOt power role'- so he cant be watcher.

FUCK!! YOU'RE RIGHT!

Andrew, did you investigate Shotty last night, yes or no? Shotty do you claim Watcher?

Let's get all this bullshit straight. I'm so confused right now, my brain is about to explode from trying to read all this mess!

[nameloc1986]

BAZZ quick question. Upon my rereading I came upon this post of yours:

@Zdenek -
I disagree with your post about Anithero discouraging others from accusing (post #81).

I think its important for a town player to be vocal if they think somebody is making unfair, or tenuous, accusations

; it helps us avoid mislynches.

I know this is way back on page 4 but isn't that what Zdenek is doing, being vocal and saying that Antihero's accusations are unfair? I'm just really curious about your logic here. Do you agree with Antihero's "spaghetti flinging" argument? (post #62)

[nameloc1986]

BAZZ: Scratch that never mind. You already answered that.

[nameloc1986]

I don't know why the hell Andrew is defending Shotty. Andrew said he investigated a "vanilla" person last night and Shotty has claimed watcher. I like to point out that this does not clear Shotty. I'm not sold on him being Watcher and not being scum. But Shotty note this: I'm hiding behind you next night so if you are scum YOU WILL BE EXPOSED!

Anywho, I'll be joining the Jason wagon now.

VOTE: Jason

[nameloc1986]

Well we're not lynching Jason.................yet................

Shotty, Jason is only at L-2. Let's let others have a say as to why we should lynch Jason. I don't like that you're trying to rush things to a lynch right now.

My thoughts on Jason:
I didn't really care a whole lot about Jason's tunneling on Andrew. He kept saying "he's using the VI card to pass by as scum". I found ZERO benefit of the doubt given to Andrew by Jason. Almost like he wasn't even considering Andrew's miswording as just a townie mistake. He even admits to Andrew's meta at being VI but pretty much ignores it. Later he suspects Shotty for voting but not giving a reason. This makes me think back a few days to when he did the same thing. He calls me out for defending Shotty and Andrew. I admit to defending Andrew slightly but I still don't see how I was "defending" Shotty. The kicker is when Andrew makes his RC claim, Jason actually uses Andrew's meta to say he might be lying.

So he's quick to jump on Andrew's case, almost disregarding any meta that shows he's an idiot, but when it comes to believing him, he uses that meta to say we should lynch him. The main point, he was tunneling Andrew even after Andrew claimed.

These suspicious may be a little weak, but there best I can find. I also wouldn't mind a Anti lynch ATM. Let's just be VERY careful who we get to claim ESPECIALLY this early. If we get someone claims VT, then we may have no choice but to lynch them. Trying to get someone else to roleclaim VT would help the scum with their watcher sniping.

[nameloc1986]

@Shotty: Do you know who the other watcher is? Don't tell us who it is if you know, just say yes or no.

[nameloc1986]

BAZZ: Night 0

What is this referring to?

Also, nameloc certainly should not agree to a plan where they get a watcher and a hider in one night.

The point is if shotty is fakeclaiming as scum, then I'll die but he won't.
If shotty really is watcher, then all the "other watcher" has to do is watch him. Then shotty should flip a coin to see if he watches Andrew or a "random unannounced player" of his choice. This keeps Andrew potentially safe because the scum would have to risk a lot nightkilling him and also gives Shotty a chance to catch scum nightkilling someone else. Maybe the unclaimed watcher can flip a coin to and that will increase our chance of catching scum in the act.

@Andrew: Checking yourself is the most retarded thing I have ever heard on this Earth. I'm starting to doubt whether you really are the role cop.

[nameloc1986]

BAZZ: Night 0

What is this referring to?

When I think Shotty was investigated.

No he investigated Joystick, that was the whole reason Joystick got lynched.

[nameloc1986]

I dont understand the jason case...can someone explain it to me...

How about just read what we already posted

and why is he not posting right now?

Dunno, he's not supposed to be on V/LA till Saturday. Could be that he's just busy.

also ANTI IS SCUM.....

he immeidately started to discredit the claimed cop...he countered the wagon...the came up with the "andrew is lying"

....these are scummy plays, completely lost as to why some of you are not seeing this....though I imagine your scum buddy is trying to spin the wagon away from you.

Note the bold:

This is all the same argument yet you stretch it out to make it look like "scummy play

s

". Plus I don't see how doubting Andrew's claim is "really" scummy.

[nameloc1986]

it was two different actions, not the same action. (one discredit, one "he admitted to lying")

Nevermind, I see what you mean. Although, I tend to see the "he admitted to lying" part as him misreading Andrew (I don't think he would blatantly lie without a fear of getting caught).

Andrew claimed, there was no counter claimed, yet he tried to discredit the claim on scum

Think about it, the counter claimed may not have come instantly. Why can't he doubt a claim until a CC?

go back and reread the exchange for yourself.

I did but I still think your argument is weak.

[nameloc1986]

Ok so I think anti is scum, end of story.
Also the hider should not hide behind me because then all scum has to do is kill me and two townies die. Hide behind someone else so that only one will die

.......unless the other watcher watches you (or flips a coin). This sounds to me like your scum not wanting to be proven that your lying. All the more reason for me to hide behind you.

[nameloc1986]

Pooh, my internet timed out while trying to make my last post! Let me try this again:

I agree with Antihero being scummy. I had a case on him, but my notes were erased (forgot to save ). I still think he was doubting Andrew based on his meta but CKD may have a point. Plus I don't really care for Antihero's last post.

Allow me to UNVOTE: Jason and VOTE: Antihero.

This puts him currently at L-2.

[nameloc1986]

antihero claim...

Like I told Shotty, let's don't be too hasty. I rather others weigh in and give their opinions before Antihero claims. If he is watcher, he needs to claim only as a last resort.

P-edit: *sigh*...........

[nameloc1986]

antihero claim...

Like I told Shotty, let's don't be too hasty. I rather others weigh in and give their opinions before Antihero claims. If he is watcher, he needs to claim only as a last resort.

P-edit: *sigh*...........

What are you sighing about? You're the one who slapped on the vote to L2 (and who's another viable lynch candidate right now?). Plus, I'm not the other watcher.

If you want to get frustrated, I suggest you direct some of it toward yourself.

If you read what I said, you'll know exactly why I'm sighing. I was telling Andrew not to be too hasty with getting you to claim and now you've gone and claimed. I said before that if we get a VT claim we need to lynch said person so we don't help the scum watcher-snipe. Therefore you're more than likely going to be our lynch. Why the 'tude and backlash over a sigh? Can't I sigh if I want to? sheesh!

[nameloc1986]

Okay in case Antihero gets hammered:

1) Shotty, flip a coin to see if you watch Andrew or the player I say I'll hide behind
2) Unconfirmed watcher, flip a coin to see if you watch Shotty or another player of your choice
3) Andrew, check out Shotty

I was going to hide behind Shotty, but Andrew can take care of that. I rather risk my life for someone who's not claimed.

@Everyone: Who should I hide behind? Any other suggestions?

[nameloc1986]

Okay in case Antihero gets hammered:

1) Shotty, flip a coin to see if you watch

the player I'll hide behind

or

Empking

2) Unconfirmed watcher, flip a coin to see if you watch

Shotty

or

Andrew

3) Andrew, check out Shotty

I was going to hide behind Shotty, but Andrew can take care of that. I rather risk my life for someone who's not claimed.

@Everyone: Who should I hide behind? Any other suggestions?

Change my mind already

Edited, changes in bold.

[nameloc1986]

I'm a little pissed that you slapped your vote on me with crappy reasoning. That's why the 'tude.

A) Getting pissed does not help your defense in mafia
B) My reasoning is my reasoning and I can vote who I damn well please whether you think it's crappy reasoning or not.
C) Half of the reasons of my votes are to entitle are reaction. Yours is noted.
D) You're the one who claimed prematurely knowing good and well that we would have to lynch a person who claimed VT. If you get lynched it's your own damn fault and not anyone else.

FUTURE NOTE FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO MAKES IT TO DAY THREE: IF YOU ARE VT DON'T CLAIM UNTIL ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY

[nameloc1986]

That I'll do.

So during the night:
Shotty flip a coin, if heads watch CKD (I'm hiding behind him), if tails watch either Empking or another player of your choice.
Unconfirmed watcher flip a coin, if heads watch Shotty, if tails watch Andrew
Andrew check out Shotty

If I die and CKD survives, then CKD is scum and lynch him.

[nameloc1986]

andrew already checked me out name

I don't think so. You claimed watcher and Andrew said the person he watched was vanilla.

[nameloc1986]

Wait then how did andrew know I was telling the truth?

This is the golden question and it needs to be answered by Andrew.

[nameloc1986]

But we also want the watchers to catch scum in the act. If we get the to watch particular people, then were steering the scum to kill "unwatched" players without risk of being watched. My method allows the "confirmed" people to be safe while still having a random chance at catching scum. If you have better plan, please share.

[nameloc1986]

of course they will kill confirmed town
otherwise 2morrow they will be outnumbered confrimed town > unconfirmed town

so no point guarding unconfirmed town cos they are not going to be killed

*facepalm* you're missing the point, I'm not asking the watchers to ignore the confirmed people but instead have a random chance of watching confirmed or unconfirmed.

Let me spell it out:
WATCHERS WATCH ONLY CONFIRMED PEOPLE: the scum will after the unconfirmed and keep the confirmed safe but since one of the watchers is unconfirmed we risk him being killed + we lose the opportunity to catch scum in the act

WATCHERS WATCH ONLY UNCONFIRMED PEOPLE: uhhhh....this is stupid moving on....

WATCHERS GAMBLE BETWEEN CONFIRMED & UNCONFIRMED: Like Anti-hero suggested, we play WIFOM with the scum. They don't know who the watchers are really targeting so they will be stupid to go after a confirmed but also risk the chance of being caught with someone else. Granted, the chance we actually do catch them on an unconfirmed is low but it's better than nothing.

[nameloc1986]

And Name don't hide behind me, that would be dumb

How would that be dumb?

[nameloc1986]

The way Shotty is trying desperately hard to keep me from hiding behind him only makes me want to hide behind him even more. Guys I'm going to hide behind Shotty tonight. Other watcher, follow the plan and it should go fine. If I die during the night and Shotty is still alive, you know what to do.

[nameloc1986]

@BAZZ: Before I answer any of your questions, can you tell me your motivation for asking these questions? No offense, I just don't want to walk straight into a possible scum trap. I can see how scum would use these answers to determine who to kill tonight.

[nameloc1986]

Before I answer any of your questions, can you tell me your motivation for asking these questions?

I asked the questions for three reasons, one which I'll tell you after I get the answers.
1) I wanted to gauge the level of agreement with a Dry-fit lynch. As I've stated, I don't find Antihero particularly scummy, and I'm beginning to think that we've got so caught up in the setup of this game that we've forgotten the basics: lynch the player you think is scum. (This doesn't mean I'm not also aware of the dangers of pushing for a new lynch, which is why I want to gauge the level of interest in it first).
2) My particular question of you was partly because I don't know where you are with your thoughts and reads. I feel that since you've been confirmed as 'safe', you've been focused on establishing a course of action for tonight, and you (as well as the town in general) haven't been doing much scumhunting. Again, I feel we're getting caught up in the setup and forgetting the basics. All players (not just you specifically) need to pull their weight in finding scum, regardless of whether they're safe, and we shouldn't be relying so heavily on the nightphase.
3) [I'll post this once everyone's given an answer. Remind me if I forget to do so]

But here's the thing, we found Anti-hero scummy and he prematurely claimed. If we just drop Anti-hero's wagon we risk 2 things: a) he is scum and we're giving him a free pass, and b) we'll make it easier for scum to watcher snipe (we force a watcher claim OR we force a VT claim which will still give the scum a better chance to snipe the watcher). I've given my thoughts on Anti-hero and Jason, but since Anti-hero has claimed I'm not sure why he isn't lynched already. I'm not going to abandon the AH wagon, whether that's too much set-up strategy or not. And I actually have been doing more scum-hunting, I just haven't felt led to share more of my thoughts because I really don't want the scum to get more ideas before the day is over.

So yes, I have more thoughts I just won't share them right now, because I feel Anti-hero is the best lynch today whether or not we find anyone else scummy.

[nameloc1986]

Bah, because I was on V/LA when I died!

I will not be deprived of my bah post!

Go town!

[nameloc1986]

I have to admit, Andrew, though frustrating to understand at times helped us win the game! Good job Andrew!

Oh Joystick, you would have been lynched sooner or later either way. You shouldn't of claimed watcher when we have sure fire ways to know if you are lying or not. Heck, you probably would've been lynched anyway if you didn't claim watcher.

Well hey, I was right about 2 out of 3 of the scum!

[nameloc1986]

My hiding targets:
Night 0: no one
Night 1: 2k3/Empking
Night 2: Shotty

Sorry Empking and Shotty for being a creeper.

BTW I enjoyed my hider flavor PMs, care if I post some smashbro? Some of them were hilarious!

[nameloc1986]

Epic win of flavor right here: (Hider Night 0)

"So, you find the person you want to hide behind in your living room. but every time you try to get behind nameloc1986, he runs away from you. After tiring yourself from running in circles all night, you find that you are alive."

ROTFL!