Prozacs Basic Theme 3 - GAME OVER

[Porochaz]

Day 3 Votecount 1

dramonic - 5 - scooby, Nocmen, mykonian, TheJackalope, StrangerCoug
Bunny - 4 - Fate, Katsuki, CSL, Oman
scooby - 2 - dramonic, Banshee

Not Voting - 3 - David, Elli, Bunny

With 14 alive, it takes 8 to lynch.

Deadline is in I think 19.5 days.

Noone needs prodded.

[scooby]

The general idea I'm trying to get accross is that who he claimed I killed and who killed him dont share flavour at all.

Wait, how do you know which flavor belongs to who?

[TheJakalope]

@mod

: You have me twice on the Vote list again. My current vote is on dram. Thanks.

[scooby]

Let me illustrate the dramonic case:

trekker is not remarkably protown, post one lines and is very stupid.

However, he posts this:

dramonic, why did you kill him?

What are you referring to?

the man who died in the night phase.

Ok, we know NOW that trekker is VANILLA, but assume for a second you were scum reading that post. Doesn't this sound like a power role breadcrumbing information about dramonic?

Scum couldn't know trekker was "bluffing". Scum bought the bluff and killed him in the night.

[Porochaz]

@mod

: You have me twice on the Vote list again. My current vote is on dram. Thanks.

bleh thats because I was trying to reorder them and a line of votes disappeared so I c/p'ed them again and forgot to ammend.

[Banshee]

Let me illustrate the dramonic case:

trekker is not remarkably protown, post one lines and is very stupid.

However, he posts this:

dramonic, why did you kill him?

What are you referring to?

the man who died in the night phase.

Ok, we know NOW that trekker is VANILLA, but assume for a second you were scum reading that post. Doesn't this sound like a power role breadcrumbing information about dramonic?

Scum couldn't know trekker was "bluffing". Scum bought the bluff and killed him in the night.

Allow me to explain where I think you went wrong.

Night 0, this happened:

Dillan Bowden, NPC, was

shot in the head

Night 0.

Night 1, this happened:
Flameaxe - Michael Murphy - Gambler - Gambler (doc variant) - Stabbed by a roulette table spike night 1
Blackberry - Nina Jones - Old Woman - Vanilla Townie -

Shot out with the casino

night 1 (ALSO note that this is a WOMAN)

Night 2, this happened:
RECKONERx - Derek Walker - Security Guard - Town Roleblocker -

Shot

Night 2
Trekker - Caroline Maeby - High Roller - Vanilla Townie - Cut into bits Night 2

So let's look at what actually happened. The shot typically indicates scum and I think it specifically does in this case since the NPC kill was performed by scum and the flavour was definitely "shot", but it doesn't matter which way you look at it.

Trekker accused Dramonic of being scum, specifically, of being part of the faction that killed that man in the night phase. That man would have either have been Dillan, NPC, who was shot, or would have been Flameaxe, who was stabbed with a roulette table. The other death was a woman.

For the sake of argument, let's assume for now that the stabbings are a serial killer. It makes enough sense that we can do that; it doesn't harm anything if we're wrong for this argument.

So, we have two serial killings on two nights, and three scum kills on two nights (one pregame). Dramonic is arguing that he couldn't have killed Trekker because the flavours don't match with the Night 0 kill. However, the flavours absolutely match with the man killed in the night phase on Night 1, Flameaxe.

So you're wrong when you say that Dramonic is scum. Scum is unlikely to have killed Trekker based on his statements, because

1) No one could provide evidence regarding Night 0.
2) Night 1 scum killed a woman, not a man. The presumed SK killed the man.
3) The kill flavors do not match for the two men killed in the night phase.

However, I do think Dramonic killed the man in the night phase during Night 1 and that he became concerned that Trekker had seen it. Not because he's scum. Because he's the SK. That's why there's the "You can't know I'm scum!" non-denial crap and half-hearted defense, because he's now drawn attention to himself and any pro-town investigators are going to ruin his chances of winning.

I still think Scooby is likely scum due to other reactions around this. Of course, scum have just as good a reason to kill the SK as town does so it's completely null if my theory is right either way.

Please feel free to pick apart my logic and tell me where I've made mistakes or overlooked things.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Dramonic

[dramonic]

*faceplant*
There's no flavour kills, Prozac just confirmed that.

Scum couldn't know trekker was "bluffing". Scum bought the bluff and killed him in the night.

That's probably correct. Scum couldn't, but I could, since I know what I did during N1. Ergo, I knew he was lying and if I were scum I could tell my buddy "he's fakeclaiming, dont worry about him". Face it Scooby, if I were scum Trekkers would be alive. What he was doing was attracting a nightkill.

[Banshee]

I think you're confusing method with flavour. Flavour is "I chopped you into little bits and left you on the doorstep" or "I sliced you open and decorated my room with bits of you" or "I slit your wrists and made it look like a suicide." Method, in all these cases, is knife.

@MODPorochaz

: Am I correct in separating flavour from method? You are distinguishing between kills made with a knife and kills made with a gun, yes? Or is it completely random in all cases and someone who killed with a gun before may kill with a giant stuffed pink bunny the next time?

[Porochaz]

@MODPorochaz

: Am I correct in separating flavour from method? You are distinguishing between kills made with a knife and kills made with a gun, yes? Or is it completely random in all cases and someone who killed with a gun before may kill with a giant stuffed pink bunny the next time?

There is some consistency within the kills, however as I have said previously, flavour will/should not give you any clues to the mechanics of the game.

[scooby]

However, I do think Dramonic killed the man in the night phase during Night 1 and that he became concerned that Trekker had seen it. Not because he's scum. Because he's the SK. That's why there's the "You can't know I'm scum!" non-denial crap and half-hearted defense, because he's now drawn attention to himself and any pro-town investigators are going to ruin his chances of winning.

Please feel free to pick apart my logic and tell me where I've made mistakes or overlooked things.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Dramonic

Banshee, THAT was exactly my point but you lost me in semantics.

I think the problem is that when I talk about "scum" I talk about any kind of antitown-roles, not only mafia. We don't know there is a SK in the setup. The "knife" method can mean a second scumgroup. I could even be more strict and say that "shot" could be the SK method or even a VIG. Or flavor could mean nothing.

The thing is that the core of my accusation is that a player that was not considered town by anyone died = trekker. Why would he die then? So I isolated him and found that he had (falsely) breadcrumbred that he had information imcriminating dramonic. But scum couldn't know he was bluffing. So they thought that he was a power role. And killed him.

[scooby]

The general idea I'm trying to get accross is that who he claimed I killed and who killed him dont share flavour at all.

Wait, how do you know which flavor belongs to who?

[Banshee]

Okay, I have no idea what that means. If there's no consistency of the method (not flavour) of killing, then I'm not at all sure that there's any way to know who performed any kill. So Dramonic's defense is null and can't be considered at all.

This does make him less likely to be guilty, however, in a weird way. Since there are two kills (and had been when Trekker made his comment) both kills are unlikely to come from a single scum group. It's not impossible, but it's not likely. So either scum group (or the SK) may have targeted Trekker because they believed Trekker's vague softclaim and were threatened by it even if Dramonic is town. The existence of the second kill (if not performed by a town vig or a scum vig) does hint at a second anti-town group or individual.

Meh, it's all WIFOM without evidence from the kill types.

@Scooby

: The problem with this is that the existence of two kills on night one would inspire paranoia in scum. Scum could have seen the attack on Dramonic by Trekker and have decided to get rid of Trekker before he turned his investigative eye toward them with no awareness of Dramonic's alignment. Scum may be facing a third-party or second-scum-team opponent just as town is. If they assumed Dramonic was 1) a second scum group or, more likely 2) a serial killer, they could have taken out Trekker and counted on getting Dramonic the next day or night.

Do you see what I'm saying? I'm sort of at a loss to make it more clear.

[Banshee]

ETA: Dramonic's non-denials and weird circular logic moves are the reason my vote is staying. Not the WIFOM about Trekker, but the almost resigned way in which Dramonic seems to think he's lost already. This argues to me he's SK and that he knows every investigative role will be on him til the end of the game.

[Porochaz]

edited previous post to make it clearer what I meant.

[Bunnylover]

The way you bussed xvart by sheeping the"scum masons" was so lulzy

Because when you last faked claimed mason you didn't bus your third party member.
Right?
Right?
RIGHT?
Because Fate scum would never buss his scum members. Fate scum is a team player!

@Dramonic Case: I'm not quiet understanding it and agree with Dramonic on it.
Trekker said he had information that pointed Dram to a kill.
Trekker flipped VT.
People are voting Dramonic based on the information that Trekker said he had (which is none).
What am I missing?

[scooby]

If you were scum and someone says he has information regarding you, despite of you telling the truth or not, which at the same time you could not know, would you kill him or not?

[scooby]

I think dramonic should claim.

[Banshee]

If you were scum and someone says he has information regarding you, despite of you telling the truth or not, which at the same time you could not know, would you kill him or not?

If I were scum and someone said they had information on me, I would kill the claimed PR even though that's a sacrifice play. (People would then definitely know I was guilty.)

However, if I were town and someone said they had information on me, I would not be able to kill them even if I wanted to. But scum would also see that and, not knowing if I were third-party or second-scum group, might kill the claimed PR themselves and count on the town to take me out for them tomorrow.

See the problem with the big assumption you're making?

@MODPorochaz:

I still don't see what you're getting at; I get that flavour doesn't matter, and if the method isn't separate either then I don't think we can separate out kills by their separate groups. It's just new to me not to be able to tell which group committed which kill even if you knew there were multi-groups or scum and SK or whatever. By which I mean, separating kills by "shot", "stabbed", or whatever regardless of other flavour touches. If the same scum group factional kill can look like shot, cut to pieces, smothered with a giant feather boa, or kissed to death by Delilah the Kissing Bandit, there's no way to separate them out by different groups or kill types. And that was all I meant.

[Nocmen]

If you were scum and someone says he has information regarding you, despite of you telling the truth or not, which at the same time you could not know, would you kill him or not?

If I were scum and someone said they had information on me, I would kill the claimed PR even though that's a sacrifice play. (People would then definitely know I was guilty.)

However, if I were town and someone said they had information on me, I would not be able to kill them even if I wanted to. But scum would also see that and, not knowing if I were third-party or second-scum group, might kill the claimed PR themselves and count on the town to take me out for them tomorrow.

See the problem with the big assumption you're making?

@MODPorochaz:

I still don't see what you're getting at; I get that flavour doesn't matter, and if the method isn't separate either then I don't think we can separate out kills by their separate groups. It's just new to me not to be able to tell which group committed which kill even if you knew there were multi-groups or scum and SK or whatever. By which I mean, separating kills by "shot", "stabbed", or whatever regardless of other flavour touches. If the same scum group factional kill can look like shot, cut to pieces, smothered with a giant feather boa, or kissed to death by Delilah the Kissing Bandit, there's no way to separate them out by different groups or kill types. And that was all I meant.

However, it's possible that scum could still be framing him, by seeing this and killing trekker. Still, I don't think that just going and making jokes about it is a town reaction to someone pretending they have information on you.

[scooby]

If you were scum and someone says he has information regarding you, despite of you telling the truth or not, which at the same time you could not know, would you kill him or not?

If I were scum and someone said they had information on me, I would kill the claimed PR even though that's a sacrifice play. (People would then definitely know I was guilty.)

However, if I were town and someone said they had information on me, I would not be able to kill them even if I wanted to. But scum would also see that and, not knowing if I were third-party or second-scum group, might kill the claimed PR themselves and count on the town to take me out for them tomorrow.

See the problem with the big assumption you're making?

@MODPorochaz:

I still don't see what you're getting at; I get that flavour doesn't matter, and if the method isn't separate either then I don't think we can separate out kills by their separate groups. It's just new to me not to be able to tell which group committed which kill even if you knew there were multi-groups or scum and SK or whatever. By which I mean, separating kills by "shot", "stabbed", or whatever regardless of other flavour touches. If the same scum group factional kill can look like shot, cut to pieces, smothered with a giant feather boa, or kissed to death by Delilah the Kissing Bandit, there's no way to separate them out by different groups or kill types. And that was all I meant.

[Banshee]

However, it's possible that scum could still be framing him, by seeing this and killing trekker. Still, I don't think that just going and making jokes about it is a town reaction to someone pretending they have information on you.

Oh, I disagree with this completely. Someone who is town knows that the comment is a lie. Scum are unlikely to call attention to themselves with this lie, so the townie may well assume that the investigative claim is a joke and respond in kind. It's scum who would likely freeze in the headlights and not respond to it directly.

Can you explain to me exactly why you're voting Dramonic right now? Is it because of his jokey reaction to the initial accusation?

[scooby]

I have no idea why 844 posted a quote from Banshee instead

[scooby]

I have no idea why 844 posted a quote from Banshee instead of what I was trying to say.

[scooby]

So I guess this boils down on which is most likely:

a) Dramonic who thought that was caught or thought that trekker was a power role.

b) Someone else who is trying to frame dramonic.

[Banshee]

Yes. I don't want to say anything else until I get an answer from Nocmen, but I agree with that.