Open 11 - Pie C9 (Game over) - before 400

[Ripley]

Random

Vote: Nightfall

[Ripley]

Yikes. Prods already.

My vote was 100% random. I just scrolled up and down through the game three times to try and find

anything

else to say, but every time there was something, it was fairly obvious and someone had already said it. OK, I'll try this:

Let's discuss why there's no discussion.

Maybe because we've all been in the situation at the start of a game where you try really hard to find any non-random reason to vote somebody, just to get things moving, and you promptly get jumped on for blowing a tiny thing out of proportion, even though tiny things were all that was available. And maybe we're more careful by nature than the average group, and the first lynch is going to be so crucial with this setup, that it's made us even more careful than that.

[Ripley]

I'm going to take a look at the other game that was played out using this format, just in case it gives me any ideas. No time tonight. Tomorrow.

[Ripley]

OK, just to let you know I read the other game and it's not the slightest help. Somehow I thought from Patrick's earlier post about strategy, that there'd be discussion about the particular format of this game, but there's nothing like that and it's not an interesting read at all.

Sorry. I tried.

[Ripley]

Pat, I liked how you were thinking in our last game, eventhough we were on opposite sides. If you can think up some kind of idea to put into action in this game, I'm more than not willing to follow your lead.

If

anybody

was able to suggest any kind of strategy at all, it would at least give us something to talk about. I think maybe this setup was designed to be strategy proof, unfortunately. And anyone who brings up a poor strategy is at risk of being attacked for it.

[Ripley]

Hmm, this talk of strategy is a bit strange. Certain games do need a strategy discussion, this is just simple pie c9 though.

I'm not entirely sure of my facts here, but I thought I read how the format originally used for newbie games got changed to the format used now, because the players eventually found a way to break it. Which implies that even in a very small game it could be useful to look at strategies.

Has this particular format with the roleblocker been used frequently in the past then? I had somehow got the impression there was just that other game I looked at, Open 1, and then this one.

[Ripley]

...yeah okay... Pat, I liked how you were thinking in our last game, eventhough we were on opposite sides. If you can think up some kind of idea to put into action in this game, I'm more than not willing to follow your lead.

So we're still going nowhere.

I think this post by Nightfall is the closest anybody's been to acting suspicious. Offering to follow another player on the basis of his play in another game - that's slightly odd if for all you know he could be scum in this one. Also there's something a bit lazy and responsibility-dodging about it. Probably if there was a good plan, somebody would have thought of it by now, so any plan devised by Patrick is unlikely to be great. None of this is such a big deal, but everyone's being so careful still, there's not really been anything else to comment on.

But I was voting Nightfall anyway, so it doesn't change anything,

[Ripley]

Why did Ernie intend to hammer Nightfall? It's too early and any case against him seems minimal.

I'm not sure Ernie intended to

hammer

Nightfall (though I agree with the rest of what you say here). He seems not to have had any clear idea how many votes Nightfall was on, or even how many votes makes a lynch in this game, and I really wish he'd try and make sure of these things before voting in future.

Or, of course, maybe he knew at least one of these things and is just trying to appear clueless. It wouldn't surprise me; it's hard to be sure. I'm not about to put him on lynch -1 when there's been so little useful discussion yet today. But he did move right up to the top of my suspect list, so I'm going to

Unvote: Nightfall

.

I'm not unvoting Nightfall, there's as many good reasons to vote for him than for voting for anyone else.

Please specify what these good reasons are.

[Ripley]

I

think

what Ernie said was that his "good reasons" to vote for Nightfall were that he's as likely as anyone else to be scum...

[Ripley]

This game just refuses to gather momentum, doesn't it?

Ernie would be my choice for a lynch right now. I didn't like any part of the Nightfall thing, the not counting votes, not knowing if he'd hammered, the awful reasoning for doing it.

I'm still wary of putting him at lynch -1, because it doesn't seem like this game has anything like enough content to go to night. But something does need to happen. I'm going to try and find time to reread and reconsider the game later tonight, and if I don't find anything new I'll probably be voting for Ernie.

[Ripley]

OK. I reread. First thought was what a huge number of nothing posts there were, with no content whatever.

Usually by this stage there would be one or two people I'm starting to think "seems to be trying hard to find scum, a likely innocent" but in this game it's impossible to pick out anyone.

I had some minor reservations about Nightfall before the whole Ernie thing started up (see post 82 for details). Reading through again, I still feel uneasy about him. The almost total lack of content is a problem, but in this particular game it hardly even stands out from everyone else. But I've been in a couple of games lately where a scum about to be lynched started saying "guys this is a terrible mistake if you lynch me it'll be down to lylo tomorrow and you don't want that..." - you know the kind of thing, where they completely avoid addressing any of the charges against them, and I just got that feel from a couple of Nightfall's posts:

*Whispers* Your looking in the wrong direction...

*Throws the hammer at Ernie*
Definately the wrong direction guys.

I mean, come on, obviously you're not going to say it's the

right

direction, tell us

why

it's wrong. This kind of posting makes me suspicious.

Twito's case against Patrick seems to be all based on interpretations of whether Ernie thought he was hammering Nightfall either at the time or afterwards. It's not an issue I can get terribly worked up about, all of Ernie's posting around that time is a mass of confusion either genuine or faked, and if Patrick hadn't voted him I'd have done it myself.

Conclusion: first choice Ernie, second choice Nightfall, but would consider a case against anyone because nobody stands out as likely innocent. Not ready to vote; hoping for some content from other players.

[Ripley]

I'll reread the game.

Well? All we've had since then was "Ripley is probably protown", which looked like a response to the results of my reread, rather than the result of any rereading of your own.

[Ripley]

I'm curious as though why you didn't ask Nightfall anything as he has been much more inactive than me.

You're the one who said you'd reread, that's why. I did it myself so I know it doesn't take long because of the dismal lack of content. I've already commented on Nightfall's failure to contribute. And noted the total lack of response. This game really doesn't need people looking for excuses not to post.

[Ripley]

Twito and Fircoal have added nothing of any meaningful content with all these posts so there is nothing to respond to. They're just increasing the percentage of rubbish posts in the thread, which was already enormous. I already went through this game and managed to find stuff to say (post 147). It probably needs somebody else to do the same.

[Ripley]

Ripley's case on Nightfall sort of disappeared - people basically said "Ripley looks protown" and then talked about whether that was a null tell for him. If it had been just one person doing that I would have FoSed them for trying to take the heat off a scumbuddy, but quite a few people did that, so I can't.

Quite a few people? It was

Twito and Fircoal

. The Spammer Twins. When one says "WEEEEEEE!" the other says "WOOOOOO!" To say a statement is more valid because it was made by both Twito and Fircoal is like saying it must be true because it was confirmed by both Laurel

and

Hardy.

Seriously. These two have never played in a completed game with me, and they don't really seem the kind to do extensive research, do they? They are both in one ongoing game with me, alas. Since their entire experience of me is limited to this game, and it's illegal to discuss current games, it's basically impossible for me to respond, other than to say it's misleading of them to have implied they have any wider knowledge of my play than that game, and that if they do claim to know that I play this way - by which I suppose they mean "reading the game and posting useful content" - as scum, they should back it up with admissable evidence.

Anyway, it's terrible play to evaluate a post by this means and not by actually dealing with the contents.

With regard to your comments about post 140, Ernie's confusion about so many things in this game has been such that I don't think it was unreasonable to consider that it might be, to some degree at least, faked or exaggerated.

I was unwilling to put Ernie at lynch -1 at that stage when so little content had been posted, yes. Especially as I had underlying doubts about Nightfall (and still do). Yes, I thought the game needed to gain some momentum, but I preferred to try and do that by a reread and trying to find some thoughts to discuss, rather than by voting in that situation.

[Ripley]

I don't really have anything new to say. Nightfall's list is pretty much entirely lacking in examples and evidence, and tells us only what his gut feelings are. I now know a great deal about the disposition of Nightfall's gut, but it hasn't really helped.

We have a deadline and we need to do something. I do agree with Nightfall where he says CDB's townishness has to be weighed against Ernie's scummishness. For me they probably just about cancel each other out, but given that CDB is the one we have now, I'd be against lynching him today. He's a player that puts some effort in and that would be very useful for tomorrow. Given the almost complete lack of a case against anybody at this stage, I'd be in favor of lynching somebody less likely to be useful. Both Twito and Fircoal have made a lot of posts that did nothing apart from clutter the thread with rubbish, which makes the game difficult to reread and makes it harder to get any sense of continuity. Since we have to lynch somebody, I'd prefer to go after one of those two or else ShadowLurker, who hasn't contributed a whole lot.

[Ripley]

Erm... thanks for clarifying that, Skruffs. For a moment there I had no idea what you were talking about.

[Ripley]

Twito, I'm very surprised with you. The last 7 player game I played with you, you were confident of yourself and set traps to ensnare scum with -and they worked, too, except that the scum outtalked you and got you lynched. This game you seem to be playing a non-offensive goofball. *poke poke poke*

I think it's odd that you would say how Twito's playing entirely differently from the way he was when he was pro town in a previous similar game with him, and then not even consider him as a suspect.

I don't think there's anything to be learned from the fact that everyone declined to hammer Nightfall in the short time he was on 3 votes. I can't see scum putting themselves in the position of almost certainly being lynched next day - it would have been really hard to talk their way out of it - just to get a townie quicklynched.

ripley - On one hand you say that Ernie was scum (without voting him) and that you are consider him as scum but at the same time you seem to be saying "Give him another chance" and "I'm not sure this is worth going after" while pushing for twito/fircoal to be lynched. Hum.

My memories of this game have faded somewhat but I'm almost certain I never said Ernie was scum or that I considered him as scum. It's simply not the sort of thing I say without a far higher degree of certainty. Where did you get it from? I may have said I considered him the

most likely

scum, but that's entirely different. I've already said why I didn't vote for him, but here it is again:

I was unwilling to put Ernie at lynch -1 at that stage when so little content had been posted, yes. Especially as I had underlying doubts about Nightfall (and still do). Yes, I thought the game needed to gain some momentum, but I preferred to try and do that by a reread and trying to find some thoughts to discuss, rather than by voting in that situation.

I also already explained that Ernie is no longer with us and I thought his replacement was worth keeping around, judging by post quality at least, whereas Twito and Fircoal (

and

ShadowLurker, as you failed to mention) would be less of a loss. I think it's putting way, way too strongly to suggest I "pushed" for

anybody's

lynch, then or at any time during the game. I just suggested that if nobody had a coherent case to make against anyone else, we would do better to lynch one of the poorer contributors.

[Ripley]

Something I just noticed is that Skruffs left Nightfall out of his analysis. Skruffs. was this deliberate or accidental, and are you going to remedy it?

I'm not sure what to do next. Patrick can see Fircoal/Skruffs as scum. I'm unhappy with how Skruffs didn't pursue his observations of Twito playing completely differently. And also with how he misrepresented me. So, given how his predecessor SL was so very unhelpful, I was thinking maybe Skruffs is the better lynch.

But then I looked at it the other way - Skruffs, a new player under time pressure (we are deadlined) did at least make a long and content-filled post, and maybe some mistakes were inevitable. Quite probably a similar post from Twito or Fircoal would have contained mistakes too. At least Skruffs gave us

something

.

SO - I'm still not decided, though we really must make a move soon. When exactly is the deadline? Fircoal is currently on 2 votes with the promise of a third from Nightfall. Fircoal is looking the most likely lynch therefore, so should we be asking him to roleclaim today, so we have time to decide what to do about the claim?

[Ripley]

We have at least two days?

No, it's

tomorrow morning

.

We need to act now.

[Ripley]

I'll check the thread before I go to bed, in case of a claim, though there's not enough time left to check for counterclaims... how did this happen? It seemed the day was dragging on eternally, now all of a sudden we have a deadline almost immediately after our new player's first meaningful post. Oh well, I suppose all of us could have tried harder to post than we did, so we can't really complain ...

[Ripley]

Remember, if he claims mafia roleblocker, lynch him and we go for the win via the Patrick plan. Where you from Ripley btw? And whats the timezone?

Yep, I have that one covered.

I just looked at his post times in this thread, and he seems quite often to post around now. I'm in the same place as you, but I stay up really late. I can make a last check about 3.30-4. I daren't leave it till tomorrow because bird1111's rising time seems fairly random, and the US seems to be an hour ahead of where it usually is anyway. Are you likely to be around much longer? (in case I have some dilemma like Fircoal claiming something other than Mafia Roleblocker, which I think he's just about devious enough to do.)

[Ripley]

Being a lazy student, no lecture until 1 pm tomorrow, I'll be around a while longer

Being a very, very industrious person who works from home, I will naturally be spending the whole day watching cricket.

However. Enough thread cluttering. Where's Fircoal? Fircoal, come out and play.

[Ripley]

OK, I guess I have no alternative. It's Fircoal or nobody.

Vote: Fircoal

[Ripley]

Well, it's either a doc protect or else the mafia deliberately didn't kill. I'm still thinking about that second possibility.

[Ripley]

I'd been thinking during the night that if both power roles survived I'd probably suggest a mass claim. It seemed that it would improve our chances of hitting scum however it turned out, and hitting scum had to take priority over anything else. I hadn't thought so much about this situation, with 6 of us still alive. I'm not sure the extra person's actually that much use to us. We're still almost certainly finished if we lynch wrong today, aren't we? Only another successful doc protect would save us. And we're basically picking scum from 6 people rather than 5. And we don't even know for sure if last night's protectee is cleared. This is the kind of thing that's making me stop and wonder whether the scum did do this on purpose.

[Ripley]

Assuming they did both their actions, they already know that neither of the two people they targetted (for kill and roleblock) was the doctor. Tonight they will probably target two different people, which is the OTHER two people, and they will kill the doctor, or block him and kill someone else.

This is true, So there is absolutely no chance of a successful doc protect tonight if we lynch wrongly, which means if we lynch wrongly, we lose.

Secondly, why would you say that the scum have 6 people to target? What benefit would the scum have in targetting themselves? No, it's out of 4.

I have no idea what you're saying here. I think you misunderstood something I said.

I still think I'm inclined to support a mass claim. It improves our chances of hitting scum regardless of how they choose to handle it. At least, I think so. I don't want to go into the scum options in detail as when you do that you generally end up advising them which you think is best.

Would the scum be hoping that we claim or that we don't? My guess is they hope we don't. I could be wrong. Any other opinions?

One other option would be that the cop comes forward if they have a guilty result, and the doc then judges whether or not to come forward also. For example, if the doc had protected the cop, it would almost certainly be right to stay quiet unless there was a counterclaim.

[Ripley]

I still think claiming should only happen in the 66% chance that the cop wasn't blocked last night.

So - you think the cop should come forward if they have any result at all? But should otherwise stay silent and we try to find scum without claiming. Is this right?

I'm not giving my opinion on this right now. Just checking that I understand exactly what you mean.

[Ripley]

[quote="Patrick"]I'm happy enough with the cop claiming if they have a result and then we see where we are. [\quote]
Problem with that is, if nobody comes forward, the scum know who the cop is. Whereas the rest of us, including the doc, don't.

[Ripley]

Wow... The cop might have an innocent result. If he does, scum doesn't know anything.

Sorry but I don't understand your point here.

No baiting, here, either of you.

As far as I can see Patrick is just supporting something you suggested yourself in posts 305 and 307. And even if you think that's baiting, all I did was to suggest a weakness of the strategy, so how can you be accusing us both of the same thing? Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by the term.

I'm still leaning towards a mass claim. If yesterday is anything to go by, I don't see us getting far by trying to find scum purely by discussion.

Where's ChannelDelibird?

[Ripley]

Thing is last night was the only effective night a claimed cop gets. Tonight a claimed cop will be blocked if we mislynch today - if the cop was blocked, then saying so tells nobody anything. If he got an innocent, and doesn't come out with it, scum will not know if they blocked a cop or a townie. As soon as he says who he is, he's blocked tonight, unless we can be sure to lynch scum.

You say "If we mislynch today", and talk of the cop being blocked tonight unless we lynch scum, but as far as I can see we cannot win if we mislynch today. It's game over. It would go to night as a formality only. The scum would block or kill the doc and that ends the game.

Does anybody disagree with this?

So I'm not even thinking beyond today's lynch and maximising our chances of getting it correct. Our basic starting odds are 1 in 3. I think a mass claim is the best chance for reducing those odds as much as possible, which is the reason I still think it's the best option.

Incidentally, let's be quite clear that at this stage we're only discussing options. I don't think anybody should claim anything, until we've had input from everybody at the very least.

[Ripley]

Just realized a slip up by the mod. Sorry for the slight metagaming here:

huh?

I think, if the cop has any result, innocent or not, they should claim. If the doctor protected that person, that person is cleared. That's three people.

I don't understand this at all. Who do you mean by "that person"? The cop? The cop's cleared as long as nobody counterclaims. Why are you bringing the doc into it?

In favor of cop claiming only with any result : 1 (Skruffs)

So you continue to support an option which could reveal the cop to the scum but not to the town?

And, just as suspicious if not more so, you appear to be trying to conduct a poll which excludes the option I support.

[Ripley]

Skruffs: if you sensed hostility, you misread my tone. This has happened to me in other games, so I apologise. It certainly wasn't meant.

Telling me I am not including your opinion doesn't mean anything - I didn't include anyone but my own's.

I didn't say that, I said you didn't include my preferred

option

(mass claim) in your poll. You included four options and your own opinion.

You just seem very nervous all of a sudden.

Not at all. Mildly suspicious; somewhat frustrated that we seem to have so much difficulty understanding each other, when I think everything I write is clear and you presumably think everything you write is.

Nothing else has really happened. Mass claim might help to get us moving.

How shall we start? Nominations for the first player to claim, then that person claims and says who goes next?

If we do it, I think that's a good way to determine the order. But I'd like to hear other opinions on the mass claim idea before we proceed. Although it's my favored option, I'm not so super confident that I don't want to hear other views.

I wonder why Twito wouldn't post until after CDb had?

[Ripley]

I agree that people claiming roles should only claim roles initially (not targets).

I think until all claiming is over we should refrain from any speculation as to what scum are likely to do.

I'm ok with Nightfall going first.

[Ripley]

I'd probably have picked Twito as my first choice, but I didn't mind Nightfall and I wouldn't have minded Skruffs either.

Perhaps if nobody has a first choice that

isn't

one of those three, we could randomize them with dice rolls?

[Ripley]

LOL. this is becoming like a logic problem. How to arrange these six people so that everybody's demands are satisfied?

I was just about to post a suggestion which Nightfall's latest has rendered obsolete.

Patrick, you're the chess player (allegedly), which marks you out as a person of refined cutting-edge logical intellect. Think of something!

[Ripley]

I think having everyone post their entire preferred order is possibly divulging too much information. Patrick's list is fine by me. Probably CDB should go above Patrick because of the Nightfall/CDB clash, and someone could roll a dice between those two to see which goes above the other. So:

Skruffs
Twito
Nightfall / CDB
Patrick
Ripley

Anyone object to anything?

[Ripley]

Skruffs,

please

cut out the speculation. Sometimes the best way to demonstrate your cleverness is to show that you have the wisdom to judge when to be quiet.

I think we should get on with roleclaiming right away. The following list has everyone within a place of where they were on my list, Patrick's list

and

Skruff's list.

Skruffs
Nightfall
Twito
CDB
Patrick
Ripley

Let's just do it.

[Ripley]

And I am 98% sure of who the other townie will be. It's based on scum logic.

Skruffs,

please

. Please stop this. Please don't post any more until all the claiming and claiming of targets has been done. I can see what's happening. You want to slip in all these speculations and predictions and hints before the claims so that you can use them as proof that you were right (if it turns out that you were). Your first aim if you are town should be to catch scum, and I think the best way to do that prior to a roleclaim is to keep quiet about what you know, or think you know, until the scum have been forced to take a position.

[Ripley]

Wait to claim targets until everyone's claimed roles.

Go on, Nightfall, claim. We're probably going to be held up for days by Twito so let's at least get it to his turn. I'd suggest replacing him but I can't imagine anybody being masochistic enough to agree to replace into this game.

[Ripley]

Gripping indeed. All of a sudden the last two and a half months of stagnation and tedium seem entirely worthwhile!

Come on, CDB, hit us with some more excitement. And that says excitement, not excrement. (If you think it's odd that I need to specify this, that's because you haven't been playing in Ogre Village...)

[Ripley]

Oh no! And I was totally rooting for you. I'm devastated.

[Ripley]

I

am

proud of you.

[Ripley]

Im not sure he's comming back. I'm in another game with him that we are close to lynching him, and he hasn't posted in quite a while there either.

That would be a

real

pain at this stage. But look, it's only 3 days since his last post in this game, so maybe it's not hopeless.

Mod

, could you prod the Delibird because we're all waiting for him to roleclaim? Surely even if he's bored with Mafia in general he'd be willing to take one minute to post a roleclaim. Well, I hope so....

[Ripley]

Um - maybe what Skruffs is saying is that Twito could give the name of the person he claims to have protected to the mod? That kind of makes sense. In an orangey, stripey sort of way. Or maybe I'm hallucinating.

[Ripley]

I'm the doc, and Twito is a scummy bag of scummy scum.

Now what? People claiming roles claim targets in same order?

[Ripley]

Actually what I just said is stupid. Nightfall is cleared and he should go last.

Since the scum already know who I protected I can't immediately see why I shouldn't just go ahead and tell the rest of you, but it's too early for me to be thinking entirely clearly so I'll say nothing for the moment in case anybody prefers to have Twito go before me.

[Ripley]

I've only skimmed the posts that have appeared since I went out, so no deep analysis at this stage. I'll just say (a) I really disagree that it was the wrong play to lynch Day 1, and I'm not just saying that because I was the one to hammer Fircoal. I know I make mistakes, and I admit them when I do. And (b) I protected Patrick. My reasons for the choice were a bit haphazard but I'll provide them if anyone wishes. I know the scum are Twito and one of Skruffs/CDb.

[Ripley]

I did say I protected Patrick.

[Ripley]

I think I'd like to have Twito say who he's going to pretend to have protected before I explain why I protected Patrick. I said my reasons were haphazard, but actually "convoluted" would probably be a better description. I'll type it up now, and post it as soon as we hear from Twito.

Okay that might come accross as hostile

Not in the slightest.

[Ripley]

You see now that I was dismayed by your prediction that Patrick had a result that cleared me. (It hadn't occurred to me, I just thought he took me as innocent from my posts.) But if he had, that would have been really unlucky, with the cop clearing the doc and the doc clearing the cop (and the scum smirking Tweetily and Delibly/Skruffily in the background.)

I have a fairly strong preference for the outstanding scum but I'm not going to say anything in case Nightfall pops up and proves me wrong. I look stupid often enough as it is without engineering more situations of potential idiocy.

[Ripley]

What I meant was, if there had been no counterclaims, then having the doc and cop only able to clear each other would be a bad result, because in a situation where potentially 4 people could be cleared only 2 would be.

[Ripley]

Twito's been pretty vague about his access. He might post tonight but it's equally possible we won't hear any more from him for a week. Any thoughts as to how long we give him? Do we actually have any option but to wait? How damaging would it be to bypass him and get Nightfall's result?

[Ripley]

I'm

almost

certain I saw Twito here earlier, though I refreshed the page at the same instant as I registered the name, and then, if he was here, he was gone.

I'm just trying to remember why I wanted to wait for him before saying why I protected you. I think it was just that if I said nothing, it definitely wouldn't help him. It probably wouldn't help him whatever I did, but there seemed no reason to take that chance. So, if we have to wait for Twito anyway, because of Nightfall, I may as well wait too.

[Ripley]

Here’s why I protected Patrick. Bear in mind that other than thinking Twito was more likely to be scum than anyone else, I had no idea who was what. So:

1. I had just been in a similar 7-player game with Patrick, where he played much the same way on Day 1 and got killed Night 1 after we lynched wrong Day 1. Which made me think:

a. There was a slight inference that Patrick was the kind of player likely to be nightkilled in that situation, and, more importantly;

b. Having started down this line of thought, I knew that if I didn’t protect Patrick and he actually did get nightkilled, I’d be really annoyed with myself. Far more than if it happened with anyone else.

2. I reasoned as follows: “If you have to choose someone to protect, pick the player you’d be most glad to have alive and cleared next day. They’re no more likely to be the right choice than anyone else, but if they are you’ve maximised the efficiency of the anti-scum team.” I picked Patrick because I find his style to be clear, helpful and logical. Not that the rest of you aren’t all wonderful in your own special ways.

[Ripley]

Oh, and btw, good manners require me to welcome The Fonz to the game even though he's a FILTHY LOATHSOME SCUMBAG OF THE VERY WORST KIND.

Welcome!

[Ripley]

I'm quite happy to respond to all this in detail, but since it would take quite a long time to do so, I'm first going to ask Nightfall to confirm that he needs me to do so. It's not impossible that he has an investigation result on me or Twito/Fonzie but asked The Fonz to make his case anyway in the hope of him implicating his scum buddy. (There's no chance of Nightfall needing me to reply in these circumstances because he would know I'm innocent.)

[Ripley]

I'm quite happy to respond to all this in detail, but since it would take quite a long time to do so, I'm first going to ask Nightfall to confirm that he needs me to do so. It's not impossible that he has an investigation result on me or Twito/Fonzie but asked The Fonz to make his case anyway in the hope of him implicating his scum buddy. (There's no chance of Nightfall needing me to reply in these circumstances because he would know I'm innocent.)

Agreed. It's only worth continuing here if Nightfall investigated Skruffs, CDB or Patrick and got not-guilty, or got roleblocked. Any other result and we have confirmed scum, and the lynch is obvious.

Though actually even if he has a guilty result on a non-doc-claimant and therefore an obvious lynch for today, I will need to respond to your post at some stage since the remaining scum would have to be one of the two of us, and looking at it purely from the POV of my own real life I should do that today, when I am lounging around at total leisure (whereas tomorrow I'll have virtually no time at all and I'm pretty busy for the whole of the next week). So... I think, to avoid holding the game up any further it might be right for me to reply now. Hmmm... but it would be so tiresome if it were all unnecessary. I'll see if we hear from Nightfall in the next few hours and take a view then.

[Ripley]

Skruffs/Ripley requires me to believe that all their arguments are staged, and that scum no killed on night 1 for some reason.

Surely we

know

that scum tried to nightkill? Skruffs pointed this out in post 343, following the mod's announcement that he would not go to night in the event of a wrong lynch today:

The only way that the scum will know with 100% accuracy that they will block or kill the doctor is if they targetted two people last night.
If they had targetted the same person with both actions (which doesn't even really make sense) than there would be three people left 'unchecked' and they could max have a 66% cvhance of blocking or killing the doctor.

Since we know that the scum definitely know that the doctor is one of two people, we know that they definitely targetted two people last night.

Incidentally, this is the reason for my change of stance regarding the possiblity of a no-kill (listed by The Fonz as one of his reasons to suspect me). I was really concerned about it at the start of the day. Being prone to paranoia, my initial reaction of "Yay, I got it right" was very quickly replaced by "Or maybe that's what they

want

me to think..." It seemed possible that scum, especially if they thought one of themselves to be a likely protection target, might no kill. We'd still be close to lylo (only a successful doc save night 2 would save us if we lynched wrong Day 2).

But Skruffs' logic quoted above seemed impeccable, so at that point I dropped the idea altogether and viewed Patrick as cleared.

[Ripley]

LOL. I managed to miss Nightfall's post too. I suggest we discuss the Skruffs/CDB situation before lynching.

[Ripley]

I thought The Fonz turned in a great performance as our replacement, especially since he knew there was a fair chance it was already a lost cause. So thanks to him.

I thought CDB was the other scum, not because of anything he'd done, but because I really thought Skruffs was innocent. I couldn't see a scum pointing out to us how we could tell from the mod's post that there must have been a nightkill, since apparently nobody else had noticed this. (Maybe they had, but nobody had said so.) He was driving me nuts at one stage guessing aloud, but I was fairly sure this was genuine. (Skruffs, I'm sorry if I got a bit snappy, but I was worried you were giving things away. I hope all is forgiven.)

Looking back, it's a shame the first day was so endless and so dire. Maybe the argument "long first days are good for the town" can be taken too far. In this particular game we could have lynched Fircoal after ten minutes and it would have made no difference, to me at any rate. Did anybody else actually look back at Day 1? Without the successful doc protect the roleclaiming might not have been so effective and maybe we'd have been forced to try, but I don't know that there was anything much there to help us.

Thanks also to the mod; we didn't make it easy for you. I doubt that I'll ever get so many prods in a game again.

[Ripley]

Had Twito claimed cop not doc the scum still would have had a chance.

I wonder how it would have gone if CDB had claimed cop (in addition to Twito claiming doc).