Mini #553: Over!

[destructor]

Vote: Matt_S

How does Khelvaster's post make him scum or a power role?


Khelvaster, have you considered that scum were given safe-claims? If so, even without role-claiming, name-claiming could be enough to out certain power-roles.

[destructor]

Actually, I think if we're going to do it, the earlier the better. But we've already heard that at least two players have non-fellowship role names and I'd be surprised if scum haven't been given safe claims anyway, which makes me cynical to how effective it would be.

Matt_S, you sound a little paranoid. I don't think you should have voted for me, but if you still feel it's worthwhile can you tell us why?

[destructor]

destructor

: Two times in the first page, you've mentioned the possibility that Mafia have been given safe-claims. Do you consider this a commonplace occurence in Mafia games?

Yes, at least I think it should be or, like Coolbot said, it makes a game very broken. Also, I have recent experience in an ongoing game where a mass name-claim hasn't outed scum.

Matt, why do you think people are suspicious for not knowing what you know?

[destructor]

No, I'm pretty sure he originally wanted a full mass claim. Only after getting resistance, Khel switched to the three outsiders. Sounds like fishing to me.

I don't think this makes sense, if you think about it. As confusing as the start of this game has been, both Matt_S and Khelvaster are in my tentative town list. I can't imagine either of them doing what they did as scum.

Unvote

[destructor]

Can any of those people voting Khelvaster explain how he could be scum? I'm not buying this wagon.

Also,

Mod:

Can we actually have vote counts posted throughout the thread? It helps to have a record of votes as we read through the thread as references later in the game.

[destructor]

I feel I haven't contributed to this game as much as I could have. I'm catching up in a bunch of other games I'm in right now, but I'll try to get something substantial in here at some point tomorrow. From my cursory read of the posts since my last, I'm still very iffy about the Khelvaster wagon.

[destructor]

That's suspicious. I just don't get how you can agree with the people voting Khelvaster that the name-claim would have been bad, but you're not willing to join them.

Khelvaster suggesting a name-claim, it being a bad idea and Khelvaster being scum are different things. But anyway, I thought about it and after learning what we did about the setup, I found it unlikely that he'd be scum.

Also, most of your comments on my quotes are wrong because you're saying I said something I didn't and others are being taken out of context.

It's kind of late and I'm not thinking completely straight, but there's also something about the argument for me being scum on the condition that Khelvaster is scum, even though he's not scummy that seems not right.

[destructor]

Got a prod. Sorry, will get to this game in a few days. =/

[destructor]

That's a little embarrassing. I'm halfway through page 3 in my reread. Will have the rest read and post up my summary tomorrow.

[destructor]

I'm slack. Reread's almost done, but unfortunately I've got limited access for the next 2-3 days. I'll get stuff posted up by Sunday at the latest.

[destructor]

Reread is done. I don't like the Matt wagon. He's claimed unnamed vanilla and both massive and Talitha have since clearly suggested that they thinks Matt has fake claimed, but I find this to be a huge reach just because it's would be a idiotically ballsy gambit for scum to decide to fake claim "unnamed townie" after someone suggests a name claim.

But, hey, maybe Matt has pulled an idiotically ballsy gambit. It seems kind of bastard-mod-like to only give one player an unnamed role. I can't say I've picked up on the 'named'/'unnamed dichotomy like ting has claimed to. That no one else has blatantly claimed to be unnamed

does

make me wonder. If Matt is the only person who's unnamed, maybe he has fake claimed. If he is scum, I would begin to doubt that scum have safe-claims. But right now, I don't believe Matt is scum. On that note, though...

Mod:

In light of the "unthemeing", what would happen if we went ahead with a mass name-claim?

I'm not sure where to start with the rest of my analysis, so I'll post stuff on the fly...

I wasn't impressed with Imat's entrance, mostly because he pretty much jumped right on the Matt wagon.

I don't like the suggestion that Coolbot claimed unnamed. He said quite clearly that he wasn't fellowship and left it there. In other Coolbot news, I did find his hop off the diffusing Khelvaster wagon on to the Matt wagon questionable.

@ Coolbot

- Do you think it's likely that Matt has actually fake claimed Unnamed vanilla? If not, what do you think it's likely that scum had safe-claims?

Scum wouldn't do that, he says, but then [Matt_S] went and wanted me to be lynched. That's the prbolem.

I didn't agree with this. I thought Khel was exaggerating, but perhaps more concerning was that he seemingly ignored Matt's question about what Khel thought Matt had done that suggested he wanted him lynched. He still hasn't answered this, and Matt has asked twice. This also got me thinking that if Khel is scum, scum did have safe-claims but those safe-claims didn't include "unnamed townie". But scum receiving named safe-claims while unnamed town roles existed sounds ridiculous to me, but maybe I'm getting caught up in the metagame.

@ ting

- In Post 127 you mentioned named and unnamed town

and

scum.

Vote: eljcko

I have a reason for this, but it's late and I'm too tired to write it all out. LOL. But I'll let you know I'm sure I want to be voting him. It's mostly inspired by Post 107.

Hopefully that wasn't too incoherent.

[destructor]

Goddamit. I need to preview more often before I post.

Fixed.

Ting, my question was going to be about what it was that made you think there were named and unnamed scum, because my recollection of our mod's unthemeing post was that he only spoke of town roles, but I checked it and realised it was actually quite ambigious.

[destructor]

Almost Ten Pages Vote Count!

Votes required:

7 to lynch

4, Matt_s

-

massive, Khelvaster, Coolbot, Talitha

1, Coolbot

-

ting =)

1, Eljcko

-

Destructor

Not Voting:

6, Qman, Petunho, Matt_S, eljcko, crazy_vlad, Imat

My questions about the name-claim had more to do with site rules. A name-claim being something that technically shouldn't happen in a normal game. I was wondering about replacements too. If it wouldn't be breaking any rules, I think it

may

be useful.

[destructor]

I feel I need to reread again, just because this game isn't sitting well in my head. But in the mean time, here are my reasons for voting eljcko.

WOW. That was a lot too take in. First and foremost,

unvote

. Ting made pretty good defense and I can't really argue too much about it. I still don't trust you though, still fishy behavior IMO.

This was just odd. Backs off on his vote on ting, but leaves a foot in the doorway.

eljcko noted two explanations of Matt's behaviour:

He seems to know a lot about the townie PM, but there is no townie PM posted by Shaka. Two possibitites strike me right away.

1. Matt S is vanilla townie
2. Matt S is scum with the safe claim of vanilla townie. (i.e. knowing what the townie PM is)

He continues, saying that he'd been leaning towards 1 for most of the game but then "Matt_S started digging himself a grave," referring to the bandwagoning case that had recently been bought up, essentially rehashing the arguments that had already been stated. I found it ironic that eljcko accused Matt of bandwagonning, when that seems to be exactly what eljcko is doing.

Vote Matt_S

This is not my final vote, I am still not 100% on you. If you give me a solid reason to not vote for you, I'll unvote.

So similar to his unvote of ting, just that it's a vote this time. He's unashamedly non-committal, essentially saying, "I'll unvote if you can respond and shake this bandwagon off."

If we go back to eljcko's two explanations of Matt's vanilla claim, it would seem that he's discarded reason 1 and now believes 2 is the case - that Matt is scum with a vanilla townie safe-claim. I'd like to know if eljcko still believes this is the case. That's a question I'd like to ask everyone on Matt's wagon. Given the reaction we've seen to Matt's claim, I have doubts to how 'safe' his claim was, whether town or scum.

I didn't like, most of all, eljcko's non-committal hop on the Matt wagon, his grudging unvote of ting and the loose ends he's left with regards to Matt's claim.

[destructor]

I finished a second reread, and honestly, things didn't make a whole lot more sense the second time around. =D

I'm hearing the calls for the day to end and I'm agreeing, I just don't believe the evidence against Matt is tight enough to call him scum. I need to look over eljcko myself again, post by post because I'm suddenly unsure of myself, though I don't know why... =/

I wasn't given a name when i replaced in, and I assume that the other replacees don't have names either. This doesn't mean that people who are original players shouldnt claim... I will mull over that for a while.

Did you mull over it? What did you decide?

On a related note, however, Matt_S does not claim "unnamed" until after the theme gets pulled. Up until that point, he had merely said there was something in his PM that only vanilla townies would know. Can you read and infer that he's saying "we have no name?" It's possible. But it's also possible that he was hedging his bets and hoping that no one would keep pushing.

I don't understand why you're considering this. The way I'm reading this, you're suggesting that Matt was improvising a gambit, hoping that there

was

something in the townie PM that implied a mass name-claim wouldn't work. I guess it's possible, but not as likely as him actually not having a name, being vanilla and assuming all vanillas were like him, in my opinion.

Imat, is there a reason you left Khelvaster, Petunho, crazy_vlad and myself out of your list in Post 255?

[destructor]

Well, I think it's likely, because that's my experience with themed mini-games (SG:A Mafia and Vegetable Mafia).

With (c), do you mean "vanilla townie" as a role name, or as the generic role? I don't believe it would have been used as a role name, but I don't think anyone has suggested this so far.

[destructor]

No, I mean "vanilla townie" as in a generic role.

You're saying that this game has no vanilla townies? I don't think I'm understanding you here...

When I last posted, Matt's post wasn't deleted. He paraphrased his role PM, apprently close enough to warrant mod action. So he's confirmed.

unvote: Matt_S

I missed his post. Doesn't that sort of thing usually result in a modkill? Or was it something else?

This is confusing the shit out of me.

[destructor]

destructor

: I was saying that, yes, I could see this as being a game with no vanilla townies. I think that, in terms of the original set up and theme, that having a generic nameless vanilla townie is unusual. There are plenty of flavorful characters in the stories that you could assign a "name" to everyone, even if you don't give them an ability.

I get a feeling maybe I have a different idea of what a vanilla townie is. My understanding of what it means to be 'vanilla' is that you have no abilities besides your vote. I didn't think it made a difference whether you had a name or not. When Matt claimed vanilla, I just assumed that was his

role

but that this didn't have any bearing on his

rolename

. Is this different from what you thought?

[destructor]

I'm trying to finally get my head around the unnamed thing. I thought by unnamed Matt meant something along the lines of "generic unnamed inhabitant of middle earth" as opposed to a named main character, but as I reread the early sections I can see how someone could have thought that. Since he's apparently confirmed, he role

is

completely unnamed. I wasn't expecting that.

[destructor]

eljcko's nameless townie claim seems completely inconsistent with his suspicious of Matt_S earlier in the game. His suspicious actually seemed to

increase

after Matt's claim. I was getting cold feet earlier, but in light of his claim I'd be content with this lynch.

We've got a while before deadline, though. I wouldn't mind using that time to have another thorough reread. Just in case, y'know. What's that? Like reread number three? LOL. There's something about this game that makes hard reading. =/

[destructor]

Vote: massive

I'm sure I had a reason... case to follow.

[destructor]

The way he kept going after Matt_S and his reaction after he was 'confirmed' innocent. Also, this from Post 99:

But even if you go the extra step and believe that he had a safe role claim, he still is running a gambit that could possibly out the entire rest of his team --

there's been no night, so he hastn't talked to his supposed cronies to find out if their safe role claims would fit into the gambit.

In games where I've been scum I've been able to talk with my buddies pre-game. massive implied here that he

knew

the Mafia couldn't in this one.

The rest of that post, compared to his vote on me today, is worth noting. Why does he vote for me, suggesting that scum may have safe claims? Why does he point at me for suggesting this, when there was another player, Khelvaster, who

asked for a mass nameclaim?

massive went out of his way to defend Khelvaster, who for all we know could be scum with a safe claim. What made him so sure he's town? And why has he not mentioned this now, in light of Coolbot's reveal? Instead, he uses this to attack me, makes no mention of Khelvaster, and now he's using some weak WIFOM argument against Qman, perhaps realising the inconsistency of his initial attack on me.

Actually, reading his case on Qman, he's being inconsistent again.

Then, I looked back and I noticed that after [Qman] replaced in, his big point was to try and get us to stop talking about previous roles, which is important information for the town.

But you were just saying that you thought scum had safe claims? Why would Qman be suspicious for trying to stop role name discussion other than scum

not

having safe claims? First

I

am suspicious because scum might have safe claims, and now

Qman

is suspicious because scum might not have safe claims. This doesn't add up.

[destructor]

Sorry for being lazy Vote Count!

Votes required:

5 to lynch

Matt_S

-

Khelvaster

Qman

-

massive

massive

-

destructor

Not Voting:

5, Imat, Matt_S, Oman, Mert, Ting =)

massive, you're just trying to spin this around back to me. What exactly is suspicious about someone noting that mafia could night-talk pre-game in

other games

?

Also from the first page, you have consistently indicated that you believe that the Mafia have safeclaims. I still believe that it is VERY unusual to be given a safeclaim. You appear to think otherwise. I think it's because you knew the Mafia had safeclaims -- you had one in your own PM.

More spin. Your trying to paint what was a pro-town act as scummy. Until CoolBot's reveal, none of the town had

any

reason to assume scum

didn't

have safe claims. If they do, a mass claim was ALWAYS going to bad for the town. You already asked me about this yesterday anyway. Given the way you're reacting now, it seems that whatever answer I gave would be suspicious.

And again, why on earth aren't you suspicious of Khelvaster at all? He's the one who opened this can of worms in the first place. Instead you're pointing at me for cautioning the town.

I'll go over massive's behaviour around Matt from Day 1 later when I have more time.

[destructor]

Sorry I haven't posted in a while.

Mod:

Can Khelvaster, Imat, Mert and ting be prodded?

[destructor]

Oh, and yes, I will post some actual content tomorrow. I just noticed those guys hadn't posted in days.

[destructor]

Why did you mention safe claims anyway? In your reply to massive, you looked back and justified it, but you never gave your reasons for doing it in the first place.

Khelvaster had suggested something that in my experience could be very detrimental to the town. Every themed-mini I played had scum with safe claims, so I assumed this would be the same. I can't imagine how a themed game with no generic townie PM in the first post could be unbreakable short of scum having safe claims. There was no generic townie PM posted in this game, so it occurred to me that scum could have safe claims.

I was and am surprised by how my comment is being treated as something unusual and even scummy. Here's a similar situation that occured in SG:A Mafia, where Kinetic (who it turned out was scum) suggested a mass nameclaim. The major argument against it was... safeclaims. And yes, I was scum in this game, but most of those arguments came from town anyway and scum DID have safeclaims.

I remember saying I was going to post more of a case on massive a while ago. I've neglected this game, but I'll endeavour to get that posted either tonight or tomorrow as well as catch up, even thought it seems not much really happened since I last posted.

[destructor]

Just two. SG:A Mafia and Vegetable Mafia.
Scum had safe-claims in both games.

[destructor]

I've been a bastard to this game. I'm going to ease back into it.

What IS WIFOM is

using the possibility of him having a safeclaim as a reason to believe he is scum

. There is still no proof anywhere that these safeclaims exist.

massive, are you still suspicious of me? You openly state that there is no proof that scum have safeclaims, yet their existence, so far as I can tell, is the basis of your suspicion. In fact, the part I've bolded seems to pretty much describe exactly what you're saying about me.

You've generally been overstating anything that may be 'unusual' about my safeclaim and pre-game talk suggestions, referring to them as "wild speculation". Based on my experience, they're not the least bit unusual.

I'm still irked by your stance on Khelvaster. As I explained above, I can't see why you're giving him a free pass taking the basis of your suspicion of me into account. I'm suspicious because scum could have safe claims, yet Khelvaster, who as scum would only have made the suggestion he did if he also had a safeclaim, is getting off the hook? Why are you finding the player who raised the possibility suspicious but not the player who, if they exist, acted in a way that could actually be consistent with it? You've addressed this in ways, and as much a fan as I am of Occam's Razor, it's still WIFOM. I can see scum doing this, which I don't think would necessarily be as much a gambit as you're suggesting.

[destructor]

Does your suspicion of me have anything to do with scum

actually

having safe-claims?

[destructor]

Destructor, you're attacking khelv on the basis that he might be scum with a safeclaim, which is why he wanted a name claim. You can't do that without attacking yourself too, since you too were for the name claim.

I attacked Khelvaster? I don't think I did. I was suggesting why massive should be, if he was going to attack me for bringing safe claims up.

And I wasn't "for" a name claim. That's not to say I was entirely against it either, but I was most definitely erring on the cautious side.

[destructor]

This was to massive, earlier.

Does your suspicion of me have anything to do with scum

actually

having safe-claims?

[destructor]

And I wasn't "for" a name claim. That's not to say I was entirely against it either, but I was most definitely erring on the cautious side.

You can phrase it any way you want, but you're still the only player who hopped on the suggestion in any way.

I went and had a quick read of my posts earlier in the game. I can't see a point where I was noticeably for it. In fact, almost all of my nameclaim-related posts seemed to be arguing against it more than anything.


massive:

I'm not sure if you're posting that because I didn't answer, but here goes: the short answer is no. I have no idea if scum have safeclaims or not. I started being suspicious of you because it seemed like idea came out of nowhere...

Hmm.
Here's the first post you made when you voted me.

I must say that it is interesting that CoolBot, the Mafia Godfather, started the "named but not Fellowship" train ... which makes me wonder if, in fact, that Mafia DID have safe roleclaims all along. Which makes destructor's initial comments about safeclaims all the more suspicious. Do we still have a destructor?

In that case, I

vote destructor

.

Later elaboration:

Also from the first page, you have consistently indicated that you believe that the Mafia have safeclaims. I still believe that it is VERY unusual to be given a safeclaim. You appear to think otherwise. I think it's because you knew the Mafia had safeclaims -- you had one in your own PM.

Both of these make it clear that me having a safe-claim

is

a significant factor in your suspicious.

... but now, thinking more about it, the last thing scum would want would be to out the fact that they have safeclaims. So my initial suspicion, while valid in my eyes, would also have to be based around an equal belief that you are a bad player who made a huge mistake. I think, had you been scum, that you would have backtracked on that mistake pretty quickly, and since you haven't ... I guess I have gained some perspective.

And a backtrack from you? Also, I may be wrong, but this sounds like the same argument you made again Khelvaster having a safe-claim. I keep noticing inconsistency with your treatment of me and Khelvaster.

[destructor]

Something else that's been bugging me about Matt_S. The mod has made it clear that Matt_S didn't quote his role PM in the post that was edited.

When I last posted, Matt's post wasn't deleted. He paraphrased his role PM, apprently close enough to warrant mod action. So he's confirmed.

I never saw the post. But what does this mean?

Is

Matt_S actually confirmed innocent?

[destructor]

I think that doing something like a nameclaim is more likely to out scum if done earlier. The longer the game goes, the more information scum are given to effectively fake-claim. I was drawing attention to this point. If you disagree, tell me why. I think that's a pretty solid theory, though.

[destructor]

Hello, I haven't really been following what's been happening lately but have skimmed the recent post just now. Honestly, I have been avoiding this game because it confuses me. I don't know what to make of both of the recent replacements finding each other suspicious. I notice massive is still voting for Qman and Bab has posted a wordy case on Imat. I guess I'll try to make some time to read stuff in detail.

[destructor]

massive, you were role-fishing then? Why would you want the vig to claim? And why is it a point against him if, as a vig, he didn't?

(No, I haven't read the last few pages... )

[destructor]

LOL.

Ok, I'm going to reread Imat/shamrock since there seems to be some momentum there. I can't say I recall anything obvious about him.

My read of massive still = very scummy, so I'm not sure I understand why people who say they also find him scummy don't want to lynch him today.

[destructor]

My activity in this game is sub-par and I realise that. I'm in the middle of finishing a read for a large game with a strict deadline. This is top of my list once I get that done.

[destructor]

I believe that is the replacements all sorted. *crosses fingers*

If that was with me in mind, no I don't intend to flake!

Sorry guys, I'll be making some time for this in the next few days. I notice that the Imat/Guardian wagon seems to have dissolved some and massive is now at L-2. Feeling slightly out of the loop, I'm going to

Unvote

until I've caught up.

[destructor]

ting, why are you still pushing a Guardian lynch?

[destructor]

I probably could have asked that questions better.
Why hasn't he voted massive yet? He's said that he thinks they're both scum but he's kept his vote on Guardian. Actually, I did ask him about this at one point and his reply was:

@destructor.
I don't mind a massive lynch but the shamrock wagon was building up faster, and since I find both suspicious, I figured to go for Shamrock first.

I had no problem with this at the time, but now the Guardian wagon is basically gone yet ting is apparently delaying his vote for massive, if he's even still okay with a massive lynch. That's what I really want clarified.

[destructor]

I'm not sure I'd call it an inconsistency just yet. That's why I want ting to clarify his stance.

After having read, I'm still in favour of a massive lynch. He's been inconsistent and his recent Matt_S vote screams "distract and confuse!" to me. I'm pretty sure at one point he even said himself that Matt was confirmed. I feel like he's been in the background, not just himself, but the scrutiny his actions warranted. This is what makes me cautious of the Guardian wagon, it feels like it could have been a red herring that gave massive some relief.

I want to wait for ting's response before I vote.

[destructor]

Hi Guardian. Other than you being a dirty lying scumbag, I have no explanation for your result. Sorry.

Unless there are some pretty odd setup shenanigans, he is scum and messing with our minds.

So, what's the odd setup shenanigan?

[destructor]

I was Elrond in the unthemed game. I am a doctor who learns who targets their nightchoice. I protected Khelvaster night one. No one targeted him.

Nope. He said no one targeted Khelvaster. If he was roleblocked, he shouldn't have received a result at all.

And anyway, a scum roleblocker isn't a 'shenanigan' - they're more than common enough. You hammered a

claimed doc

yesterday. I can't imagine you as town doing that without considering the possibilities first. On top of that, you even said you thought massive was town. And now you want us to believe that a tiny part of his claim which didn't jibe with your 'results' caused you to completely change your mind and

hammer

him without further discussion or consideration? No, I think it's far more likely that you saw an opportunity to take the doc out and pounced at it.

Vote: Guardian

[destructor]

Oh, and I sincerely doubt we have a Cop, Doc+Watcher AND a Tracker in one game.

[destructor]

Why on earth are people even beginning to believe Guardian?

massive received a result in Night 1.

How could he possibly have been roleblocked

if he received a result

?

Bab, if I recall correctly, you were one of those pushing a Guardian lynch hardest yesterday. Even if you say you're "so close in the middle", how is it that Guardian's tenuous claim somehow tips me above him?

I'm presently leaning towards a destructor lynch for reasons I will clarify later.

Don't take too long. I'll be waiting to tell you why you're wrong.

[destructor]

Superstrawman strikes again? =P

My point was that massive explicitly stated that:

No one targeted him.

He's an experienced player and I believe it's reasonable to assume that if he'd received 'no result', both as a response or by lack of PM from the mod, he would have asked for clarification and certainly would

not

have said "no one targeted' Khelvaster.

[destructor]

Where's ting?
And does anyone besides Matt_S have a reason to suspect me besides Guardian's claim?

[destructor]

Superstrawman strikes again? =P

Uh, where? What are you talking about?

See below.

My point was that massive explicitly stated that:

No one targeted him.

He's an experienced player and I believe it's reasonable to assume that if he'd received 'no result', both as a response or by lack of PM from the mod, he would have asked for clarification and certainly would

not

have said "no one targeted' Khelvaster.

You were trying to say that massive receiving 'no result' and a

result

that said "no one targeted Khel" to be the same thing.

What if his role PM said something like 'you will receive a PM if the person you protect was targeted by anyone other than yourself' and he received no PM?

This is illogical, completely ignores what I said in the text you quoted and is pure speculation to boot. massive explicitly stated that no one targeted Khel. Again, based on his experience, I'd say that he would have informed us if his night result was as specific as you're suggesting.

Where's ting?

Desperately hoping that my biggest detractor from yesterday comes back and gets me out of a jam?

Or, wondering where one of the more active players from the last few days is.

And does anyone besides Matt_S have a reason to suspect me besides Guardian's claim?

Sure: lurking.. There's a reason lurking is scummy. You've constantly prioritized other games over this one during the game's course. It is harder for scum to get caught when they don't post a lot.

Sure, but I'm hardly the only player who lost interest in this game at some point. Would I be less suspicious if I decided to flake instead?

Sorry. I don't have regular internet access.

Considering the way the game has gone, is there any chance that Shaka may have forgotten to inform massive about Imat targetting khelvaster?

I didn't think my opinion of shakaa could have gotten lower.

So are we going to entertain that Guardian's defence against evidence posted by massive which directly contradicts his claim comes down to mod-error? Sure, it's possible, but I'd ask this game be abandoned immediately if that was the case.

But that is straying so far from the point. Short of the presence of some redirecting role (which I would NOT expect in a mini normal) I

know

Guardian is lying because I didn't target Empking last night. And let's not forget who he hammered: a claimed doc.

I need to reread the previous day. The idea that the town had a cop and a doc and a vig

and

a tracker... doesn't quite sound right. Like guardian said though, we could have a scum roleblocker, that might make the game balanced, but that's a pretty ridiculous amount of power roles in a mini. That means that less than half the players are standard townies/goons. Has there ever been that kind of game in a mini normal before?

In a mini, sure. Not sure about a mini normal. Although, this didn't really start off as a mini normal...

My recollection of the 'untheming' was that shaka's problem was purely flavour.

I also strongly doubt we have three investigative roles in this game.

I've got to say, I really expected ting=) to attack me wholeheartedly here. His not doing so gives me think someone else is destructor's partner.

Who might that be?


Matt, I can't remember being overly suspicious of CoolBot throughout Day 1. I had to go and skim my Day 1 posts to find what you were referring to. I remember thinking there was a lot of suspicion around you and not attaching it to anyone in particular. If I never followed up on those questions, it was because I got distracted by something else.

[destructor]

I just read Destructor's posts in isolation and alot of his posts concerned stuff that scum would know about. Twice he was able to take an "objective" view and accuse people for assuming the normal stuff for scum.
I'm talking about his actions regarding safe-claims and wether mafia talked before the game started.
It's just an observation.

What does this say about me, exactly? Was it really a lot, too? The only metagame points I raised were about safe-claims and, as a result of this, pre-game night talking. I've explained my experience with safe-claims. And in every game I'd played as scum, I had been allowed to talk pre-game. So when massive suggested that this wasn't what happened, I thought it was telling.

[destructor]

Bab, I don't understand what you're saying or what you think I'm saying.

[destructor]

I'm pretty sure we've got two scum left because of this:

[Guardian] would have only tried this gambit if there was another scum left since Guardian would be lynched after Destructor.

I realise that the rest of the town can't be sure of that, but I'm just saying.

The problem is going out and not being subtle here will help the scum right now.
It's very unfortunate that you don't understand. If you can, re-read your posts and what I said and try to understand again.

I still don't get it. If it's going to help scum, why bring it up?

Also, did you ever re-read my giant posts over the night?

I didn't get around to reading them, no. Why do you ask? Do you think I should?

Also, this:

Bab, if I recall correctly, you were one of those pushing a Guardian lynch hardest yesterday. Even if you say you're "so close in the middle", how is it that Guardian's tenuous claim somehow tips me above him?

[destructor]

Bab, when you get back, don't forget to answer my question.

About the Doc claim, no I don't think that's a very normal role to claim. But I also don't think that excuses dropping a hammer like Guardian did.

[destructor]

Everyone but Bab.

Guardian, just because you don't have to convince me doesn't mean others won't learn something from your responses to my posts. You're obviously avoiding answering them.

[destructor]

Re: Massclaim.
I think it's lazy. Why not just look at Guardian's hammer, his (inconsistent) claim and see how the evidence points to him being scum? Also consider the situation we're in: LYLO. He's trying to mislynch me for the win. If we massclaim, we'll be giving information away to his scum-buddy.

Ok, fine, so look at me too, lol. But I oppose a massclaim on the basis that there is enough evidence that outs Guardian as is and massclaiming will only reveal info that needn't be revealed.

Also, from what I can tell, the main reason I'm even considered one of the most suspect right now is because of Guardian's claim (which I know is fake and have tried to explain why in my previous posts) and not because of any case based on my content.

If the majority of us want to go ahead with the claim, then I'll do it. But I don't think it's needed right now.

[destructor]

I would like a claim from you, destructor. There's no reason not to anymore.

From my point of view, I think the fact there there will still be scum alive after today (assuming we don't mislynch and lose the game) is a reason not to. I would say that a massclaim at this point will probably benefit scum more than town.

Do you think my guilt being pushed by someone who could be, so far as the town knows and in fact evidence point towards, fake-claiming scum should provide reasonable cause for doubt? If Guardian, with his history in this game, hadn't claimed as he did today, would you still want me to claim?

[destructor]

Just to let you know, I'm waiting for Matt and Bab to give their own thoughts.

ting, I'm unsure of why you're pushing for my claim. You said you'd vote Guardian after I claimed. Does that mean you already think he's scum? If so, why not vote for him now? Can you see how me claiming will do anything to change your read of Guardian?

[destructor]

So... why

do

you want me to claim?

[destructor]

So... why

do

you want me to claim?

[destructor]

This, especially the last sentence:

From my point of view, I think the fact there there will still be scum alive after today (assuming we don't mislynch and lose the game) is a reason not to. I would say that a massclaim at this point will probably benefit scum more than town.

Do you disagree?

[destructor]

Ok, so I count ting, Matt and Seth for my claim. I've said what I have to say about it, but I'll wait until Bab gets back and adds his thoughts before going ahead with it.

[destructor]

LOL. I was going to ask that too.
Actually, I don't think he's eating a cookie at all.

[destructor]

Lynch all Liars?

[destructor]

Lol. That post would screw with anyone analysing this game with that Gemelli's thread distillery thing.

We should probably stop spamming up the thread. It is fun, though.

[destructor]

Guardian, you evaded the beef of what I was saying. Your defence against evidence that contradicts your claim is, more and more, becoming speculation about what has happened with the setup, to the point where I think most would agree the game should have been abandoned by such a mod-error.

Also, in the post of yours I quoted when I asked who you thought my scum buddy was, you had just said you thought it

wasn't

ting.

[destructor]

Guradian, I'm pretty sure we've already been over all of that.

I don't have much else to say. Still waiting on Bab. And then it's really into the hands of ting, Seth, Matt and Bab.

[destructor]

I don't think my case was a 'nah' one. I

did

say that I know he's lying because I didn't target anyone, but I also pointed out how his claim is inconsistent with what we've seen and what massive claimed. That part has nothing to do with me and anyone else can see it as much as I.

[destructor]

Seth, do you have anything to add at this point?

[destructor]

Unnightkillable townie.
My rolename was Frodo, flavour being that my mithril shirt made me unnightkillable.

I have no abilities, so couldn't have been tracked to Empking, i.e., Guardian is scum.

[destructor]

Destructor: explain how your role-claim fits with your actions.

As in showing you unnightkillable townie-tells or something? Do they even exist?

Well, normally I would have been as helpful and obviously pro-town as possible, but I couldn't get into this game for any extended period of time. I did start day 2 with a better resolve, which is why I started pushing massive so hard. I thought he was scum. But again, I tailed off.

Guardian's equating my lack of interest with lurking. The times I have been interested (like now), I think I've been active and involved.

So far as the rest of my behaviour, I opposed claiming today because now the town's got a boat load of WIFOM to deal with and if I hadn't claimed and we'd lynched Guardian, I thought I could have been a likely nightkill, which failing, would have screwed scum over pretty badly and helped confirm me. I was hoping someone might have picked up on this when I said claiming would probably help scum more than town.

And Bab, you've still got some questions

I

asked that you have to answer.

[destructor]

unNK able townie?

Does that really make any more sense than tracker, especially considering that neither the SK nor godfather had such immunity?

That I'm unnightkillable is why I thought it was very unlikely that this game would have three investigative roles - it would be insanely unbalanced. I think considering three killers in the game, an unnightkillable town role makes sense. I agree, though, that the SK and Godfather not having that immunity doesn't really line up, but that's the role I got.

[destructor]

Stuff from this post.

[destructor]

You've said both Guardian's and my claim 'fit' with our play. Why?

I'm also uncomfortable about how you've asked us both to post what are more of less defences without actually demonstrating why neither of us weren't playing as our role would have been. That is, what I wrote was a defence to an attack that never existed.

It was also an odd request given that you even said our claims 'fit'.

I was talking about how you were soft-claiming.

When did I soft-claim? What did you think I was soft-claiming?

[destructor]

So Destructor, why don't you tell us who you think Guardian's partner is?

What? And tell scum who to keep alive? Nah.

[destructor]

I think this lynch should be correctly figure-out-able by dint of destructor's claimed role. UNnk-able townie just doesn't make much sense. First of all, like I've said, does it make any sense at all that the town has an UNnk-able role and the

one man only team, who has to survive the whole game with two other killing roles, the SK, was NK-able while a random townie wasn't

??? Shakaa was pretty bad, but how could a mod conceive of that being even remotely close to fair?

I'm not going to play outguess the mod. And before you someone says that's what I'm doing by saying three investigators is too much, that was me hinting at my own role.

While Guardian is trying to convince you that I'm scum based on setup speculation, I'm trying to convince you that Guardian is scum because he couldn't possibly have tracked me to Empking. Yes, I realise now that when I put it like that, I'm asking you to believe me over him, but I have stated that Guardian's used speculation (about the unthemeing, about massive's role's mechanics and now about balance) as part of his case against me. What I'd ask the rest of the town to do is look over them and decide how credible his speculation really is and how much is really him trying to cover his own back.

Second, des hasn't played in accordance with that role at all. UNnk-able townie should play as the most vocal (and hopefully town looking) player in the game. Granted that is not always possible, but destructor's hanging back is complete opposite of how you'd expect this role to play. That role desperately wants to be targeted at night by scum, and destructor's play just doesn't match up to that.

I'm not sure if it came across in anyone's read, but this game was painfully dry for a

long

time. I can't say for a minute that I've played "well" in this game but disinterest

was

a factor. To be completely honest, when shaka went MIA, I actually wanted the game abandoned.

In addition -- some have noted his agreeing with the mass claim as making sense. To me it looks like scum who have a powerful fake claim (Frodo, perchance?) and possibly a partner who's almost confirmed themselves by mimicking the townie role PM.

Or... a townie who's got a rolename? And anyway, I cautioned against a mass name-claim more than I ever supported it. My support went as far as noting that, theoretically, the earlier it happened the better. We've been over this enough as is.

And UNnk-able townie should vehemently oppose a role claim -- once claimed, the UNnk-able townie loses a lot of its utility, and since UNnkT is such a powerful role, losing one of its two main draws (sucking in scum NKs) by mass claiming is a pretty poor play.

Khelvaster's suggestion was nameclaiming, NOT massclaiming.

Sure an UNnkT has the other possible power of being confirmed somehow, and then never being lynched or killed, but that's not much good at all if all the other power roles are dying around you, as would happen in a mass claim.

I had no reason to believe a nameclaim would necessarily out powerroles. It

was

a concern and I did note it. And anyway, if I'd claimed Frodo back in Day 1, do you think I

wouldn't

have drawn a nightkill at some point?

Also, comparing destructor to Imat: Imat's unsureness and towards the end peripheral play can be explained by disinterest. He got replaced. Destructor stuck it through and lurked, and lurked, and lurked some more. Who wins by lurking? Scum.

So, seriously, would you have preferred it if I'd flaked?

My lack of activity ("lurking") can be explained by disinterest.

[destructor]

Oh yeah, sorry, forgot that. Yes, unNK townies should avoiding claiming. That's exactly what I did and argued against for a good part of today. But given that it's lylo and I was one of the lynch candidates I eventually decided it was worth it. If I hadn't claimed I'm guessing I would have been lynched. An outed unNKable townie that's alive is better than a lynched unNKable townie that means a scum win.

[destructor]

No. You show me where I didn't. Stop asking me to defend myself against a non-existent attack.

[destructor]

I know. I was waiting to hear

him

say that.

I

did

say that. Matt was repeating exactly what I said:

Khelvaster's suggestion was nameclaiming, NOT massclaiming.

...

And anyway, if I'd claimed Frodo back in Day 1, do you think I

wouldn't

have drawn a nightkill at some point?

and

Yes, unNK townies should avoiding claiming.

What were you waiting for?

Seth, what are you thoughts? Anything more than "Guardian or des could be scum"?

[destructor]

Unvote
Vote: Sethaniel

[destructor]

I'd like ting to drop in before saying anything other than noting that I haven't been lynched yet.

[destructor]

My 'splaination: I felt like going out on a limb. I was thinking about who Guardian's scum buddy could be and decided to go with Occam's Razor on the whole thing. I don't think you were bussing him yesterday, I think Matt_S is town, I don't think Bab was bussing Imat/Shamrock. The only player left is Sethaniel who's been floating around the last few weeks. I wonder why Guardian hasn't had anything to say about

Sethaniel's

lurking.

I'm thinking Guardian's case on him in Day 2 was distancing because it looked like he was going to be lynched.

If Des really has no targeting ability, then Guardian is lying.

Whether I had a targeting ability or not, he lied anyway.

For des to switch his vote to me with no explanation reeks of scum. Perhaps he realized a Guardian lynch was iffy, and saw bab's suspicions as a way to get some other townie lynched.

So what are you suggesting I switched my vote for? After spending today pushing for Guardian's lynch and building a case, I thought I'd have better luck lynching you? And I decided my best bet to get you lynched was to vote for you without explanation? Which part of this makes sense?

And how was a Guardian lynch iffy?

[destructor]

No, voting you proved that you're Guardian's buddy. ting not hammering me proved that he wasn't. You could say my vote on you was an all-in, hoping for an ace on the river, AKA a gambit.

Again, why did you think I switched my vote? Do you really think I thought you would be today's lynch? I'm completely aware that the best play for the rest of the town today is to lynch one of me of Guardian because they all

know

that one of us is lying.

And on that note,

Unvote
Vote: Guardian

[destructor]

Bab hasn't checked in yet. We're not necessarily deadlocked.

[destructor]

=( [gnit]

amirite?

More seriously, while a no lynch wouldn't lose us the game, it's something we can avoid if Bab sees the light.

[destructor]

But in his alleged position of UNnkable town, I absolutely cannot see myself doing it and you saying you can see yourself doing it is absurd to me.

If you can see yourself as an innocent player voting anyone else but an information role who claims that he knows you are scum with 100% certainty, you need to rethink your mafia strategy.

I wasn't interested in responding to and raising the same argument again. Rather than run around in circles I thought I'd vote Seth. I already explained why I did this. I don't even know why you're saying it's not something an innocent would do, or even specifically an unNK townie.

[destructor]

If I am scum, then yesterday was a big bus-fest, obviously. Unless Bab wants to elaborate on this further, I don't know if it's worth dwelling on. The way I see it, for him to have bussed his buddy yesterday would be counterintuitive since a mislynch would have won scum the game.

I'm still pretty much convinced that Seth is the last scum. Matt's vanilla and I don't think Bab would have made the case he did against Imat in Day 2 if he was scum with him. Add to that how silent Guardian was on all things Sethaniel yesterday.

So...

Vote: Sethaniel

[destructor]

I think he's scum, so yeah, I'd like him to claim first.

[destructor]

Spammer!

And I just ruined your watch list! hahahaha

[destructor]

Unvote

Seth didn't hammer. Matt didn't hammer yesterday.

Lemme read over Bab's claim again, but there's really no other place for my vote right now.

Vote: BridgesAndBalloons

[destructor]

haha.

Well done guys. I'll post more in a sec.

[destructor]

Destructor: both Ting and Matt_S were confirmed yesterday. What made you choose to NK Ting over Matt_S?

Probably a combination of factors, but mostly that of the two, if it came to it, it would have been harder to call ting Guardian's buddy at some point. Either way, I just needed people who would be willing to lynch Seth around.

Guardian/Destructor: Why did you choose to bus eachother yesterday? Were you guys thinking that Guardian would be lynched, and that we'd think Destructor was town the next day?

Yeah, pretty much. We figured we'd be lucky if we could win it in Day 3, so Guardian suggested he'd claim an incriminating result on me and we'd see what happened from there.

How could I have improved my game?
What was the best thing I did?
What was the worst thing I did?

I dunno. You were right more than you were wrong, I think.

Maybe your case against Imat could have been a little more succinct. Sometimes going over everything post by post isn't really required and it's more worthwhile bringing up a few telling posts. That can end up being more conductive to discussion, since it's easier for people to read and comment on it, and so be more convincing. I personally tend to have an aversion to verbosity where it's not needed, but that's just me.

Also, I

have

to say, Guardian really gave the scumteam a fighting chance. I don't know what would have happened if he hadn't replaced in and I was really impressed by how he played. After the Shamrock replacement fiasco, I really thought things were irrecoverable.

But yeah, I think you guys played pretty well and things remained mostly pleasant and jovial, which was nice for me. It's actually true that I wasn't enthusiastic about this game earlier on, due to the various mod-errors and when Talitha took over I was even considering asking to be replaced. But I'm glad I didn't, because it turned into a fun game for me. A bit of a rollercoaster.

[destructor]

Holy crap. I completely forgot - Thanks to Talitha for taking over and convincing me to keep playing!

[destructor]

When Khel suggested it, I immediately assumed that every pro-town player had been given a name, and so by not supporting it, I'd be caught as scum. I decided at that moment that I would have to fake name-claim at some point. As the day went on, I realised that all the vanillas had been nameless, but it was too late for me to go back on that. I needed to claim a power eventually.

And that may answer your next question - scum weren't given safe claims. They weren't allowed to talk pre-game either. Both of these actually made me laugh a few times when massive was going after me in Day 2. lol

If you're interested, here was my original PM:

Destructor

You are a Nazgul, slave of Sauron, along with Zycronium. Every night you and Zycronium gather with Sauron to discuss who you shall attack.

You win when the forces of good have been conquered.

You are a mafia goon, along with Zycronium. Your godfather is Sauron, more commonly known as Coolbot.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me.

Confirm via pm.

I assume that Frodo probably was in the setup originally, but I knew you were vanilla (picked something up Day 1) and every other player replaced in after the flavour had been stripped, so I was confident that I wouldn't be counterclaimed. The UnNKable thing seemed like a good idea since I could link it in flavourwise with Frodo's vest.