Martino

It is not in the advantage of the town to go for a no lynch. The lynch is our only power. If we never lynch, we will certainly lose as we would not get rid of the scum. In addition to that, the lynches can also be used to gain information.

You don't want day 1 to become too random, but yet you vote mole 'just because'? FOS: Falzis If you were not already at 3, that would have been a vote.

Well, it seems like it will be either KevinH or Sir Jesus. I am going to vote now, because I think everyone should get their votes in. We don't want the mafia to be able to come in a few hours before deadline and decide the lynch. Both KevinH and Sir Jesus have done something that could be suspicious. EM had been aggresively targetting Sir Jesus throughout day 3. So that makes me think that Sir Jesus is less likely to be scum. KevinH on the other hand hasn't been able to convince me that he is a townie. So I will: vote: KevinH

It's dangerous though. If the mod puts in a very cleverly disguised clue that X and Y are mafia and I just happen to see through it, then the mod has basically screwed the mafia over. That is not how it should be.

Hmm, when you said you were going to alter your playstyle, I figured you would be less vocal. Instead, you seem to have chosen an anti-town strategy? The "First of Many" Votecount molestargazer 1(junkahoolik) Carl Vincent 1(molestargazer) junkahoolik 1(Falzis) Electric Mango 1(CanucksDynasty) Falzis 3(Theophilos, angel of doom, Carl Vincent) No Lynch 2(Electric Mango, KevinH) Not voting: Martino, Kaziocore, Sir Jesus

Perhaps. If you had both voted Falzis, you may have gotten him lynched. On the other hand, if EM had voted Falzis, Falzis would have voted EM and we may have ended up still lynching EM. In that situation, it would have been obvious that you and EM were avoiding voting eachother and you would be the next to go down. So, I could see EM voting you to try and create some distance, even knowing that it was bound to get him lynched. It would have been pretty risky to unvote there. The scum knew that EM was scum and from a townie pov the case against EM was pretty strong. Also, even if someone did unvote, Theo could have voted in his stead and we would still have lynched EM and then we would have found another suspect. Now, I'm not saying that Theo made a mistake, but that vote alone doesn't make him a definite townie. However, he has given me no reason to believe he is scum.

Well, that is my biggest problem at the moment. I have a few reasons to suspect that some players are not scum, but hardly any to suspect that someone is scum. The main 'scummy' things on my list: - Sir Jesus and Narsis didn't vote for EM - KevinH ended the previous day prematurely If you got any others, please let me know. In my previous post I have listed a few reasons why I think that Sir Jesus and Narsis are less likely to be scum. I didn't notice any for KevinH. So, KevinH, why are you not scum?

/in

Yes, we lose a lot of information if we quickly lynch. We could have used the remainder of the day to discuss and gain more information. Anyway, you're not to blame as you were the first to vote.

I can agree with most of your post but I have two issues: 1) I wouldn't give Narsis a free pass because the previous player seemed uninterested. Nerau could, in fact, really have been too busy. 2) Yes, KevinH voted for EM to save his own skin. However, he did so after EM voted KevinH to save his skin. If EM had voted for Falzis instead, then I think we would have lynched Falzis there. On the other hand, both EM and KevinH are very experienced players. They may have feared that we would lynch one of them next and that they would seem connected. So, overal, I agree that we should not give KevinH a free pass because of that vote, but it does speak slightly in his favor compared to Sir Jesus and Narsis. As I said in my first post of today, I had done a reread of D3. Unfortunately, most of that information was centered around Falzis, but I also made some remarks regarding the other players. I wasn't really suspicious of KevinH and I hadn't noticed any really strange posts, so I did not have any relevant notes of him. The same goes for Theophilos, but for him I am still quite certain that he is town. About KevinH, however, I have my doubts. I am especially wary of the quicklynch of Falzis yesterday. That was simply unnecessary and certainly not in our advantage. Narsis: Didn’t vote on D2. I suppose this was mainly due to the inactivity of Nerau. So I’ll disregard it. His first post after replacing defends EM. At that point EM was receiving some heat, but I was the only one voting for EM. Says he is suspicious of KevinH and Sir Jesus in the same post. This, combined with Narsis' vote today for KevinH makes me believe that they are not scum together. His suspicions of Sir jesus also make that connection less likely. His defense of EM makes him more likely to be scum but EM also made this post: This seems to work in favour of Narsis. Why would EM put forth this theory if this was indeed the truth? There were others in favor of lynching Nerau at that point. Why would EM try to persuade more people to vote for Nerau, if he was his scum buddy? Of course he wouldn't be of much use inactive, but sooner or later he was bound to get replaced. Sir Jesus: I had written this in my analysis: Was the last one to vote for Sojourner on D2 and that vote sealed the lynch. If Falzis is scum, I am convinced that Sir Jesus is scum as well. It would have been a clear way to save his scum buddy. On the other hand, if Falzis is not scum, then I believe it would make it less likely that Sir Jesus is scum. I just can’t imagine the scum putting themselves out there like that if the vote was between two townies. Turns out Falzis was a townie, so I believe that makes it less likely that Sir Jesus is scum. Mentioned early in the day that if there is a strong doc, that he should lay low. This was before EM ‘suggested’ the roleclaim. Since I’ve lynched EM partly for suggesting that roleclaim, I’ll credit Sir Jesus for suggesting that the doc lays low. However, after EM ‘proposed’ the roleclaim, he says that his gut tells him to keep the pro town roles safe and hidden, but he doesn’t immediately reject EM’s plan. Of course he did post his objections, but I would have expected someone who wanted the strong doc to lay low to respond a bit more fiercely to this proposal of EM. So that earn him some suspicion from me. When, at the start of D3, EM was asked who he found the most suspicious he answered Falzis and Sir Jesus. A little later EM votes for Sir Jesus. At this point, KevinH and Theophilos were voting for Falzis and CD and I were voting for Kaziocore. There was no significant pressure on either EM or Sir Jesus at this point. This earns Sir Jesus some townie points from me. On the other hand, it does raise some suspicion against Kaziocore. EM had been too closely connected to Falzis on D1 and 2 to suddenly change all the way and vote him. So if Kaziocore was scum together with EM, EM would have needed to find a new target for the lynch and that turned out to be Sir Jesus. IF Kaziocore is scum, then Sir Jesus is not. Kaziocore: Another interesting post by EM: At that point it was 3 votes for Kaziocore, 2 for Falzis, 1 for Sir Jesus. EM managed to get Kaziocore of the chopping block with this post. I stated at that time that I did not believe this to be a valid reason to unvote and I still believe so. Anyway, looking back, EM was clearly defending Kaziocore. With EM turning out to be scum, that makes Kaziocore look bad. Finally, after EM's roleclaim proposal: If the strong doc would indeed be an investigative/informative role instead of a regular doc, then EM’s suggestion wouldn’t be so outrageous. So this could be viewed as Kaziocore defending EM. However, I may be overestimating Kaziocore here. He is new, afterall, and I am not sure if he could have drawn the conclusion at that point that if the strong doc was an invenstigative role that it wouldn't be so bad to suggest a roleclaim. Anyway, I have one huge issue with Kaziocore possibly being scum and that is his vote for EM. Kaziocore was the third to vote for EM and he was the one that really got the bandwagon going against EM. There is a good chance we wouldn't have lynched EM without Kaziocore. So why would he have done so if he is scum? Also, I've had my suspicions about him since the beginning and, unfortunately, that may lead to me seeing things there are not, just to confirm my believe. So I would like to know from the other players what they think about all this. I would especially like to hear from Theophilos.

Before I will give my opinion on KevinH/Sir Jesus/Narsis, I would like to ask Kaziocore what do you think about them? Who do you think is town/scum and, more importanty, why?

Yeah, I am not so happy about that either. Even if there was a consensus that we should lynch Falzis, we could still have used the remaining time to discuss the rest of the players. Anyway, I'd like to apologize for not posting yesterday, but I was doing a reread of D3 and when I was done I discovered that the day was already over. KevinH - why did you think it was a good idea to finish the day that fast? Even if Falzis would have been a scum, wouldn't we still have been able to get more information by waiting a few days? Also, why did you first want to have someone else vote before hammering Falzis? Why not just place that 4th vote?

I'm pretty busy and the last few pages haven't really changed my opinion on most people. But I'll give my opinion on a few posts now. I believe this was more a case of an unfortunate formulation than KevinH really suggesting that we randomly lynch someone. It's simply completely out of character for KevinH. Still, I don't really like his posts that contribute nothing such as: That is not getting the town anywhere. On the other hand, there is not really much of a case against him, so I can understand his frustrations. Still, these posts do not help his cause nor do they help the town. That earns you my: FOS Narsis. I really dislike voting without a reason. It just makes it so easy to find an excuse in a later stage. If you want to vote, you must have a reason. Even if it is just agreeing with someone else, you should still share it with us. That way we can either agree with you and vote alongside you or disagree and try to prevent the lynch of a possible townie. Yeah, that is not going to get you off of my scumlist. Also, I almost completely agree with Aquinas' posts. The only difference is that I think that the link between EM and Falzis might be a bit too obvious. I'm not sure if scum would play it that obvious. I found that remarkable as well. Still, while you have attacked KevinH in one of your last few posts, you haven't answered his question. So, could you please list your reasons for voting KevinH? So in short my current opinion: I think the case against KevinH is not very strong and, even though I have my suspicions of Falzis myself, I think there are better targets than him as well. My first target is still EM, for his 'suggestion' of the strong doc roleclaim, his vote on Sojourner and his mirroring of Falzis. Closely followed by Kaziocore for his vote for Sojourner based on a false reason and his general refusal to do anything to help the town.

That won't be necessary; I'm still around. I just didn't find your defence strong enough to unvote. Your basically saying that you have no opinion regarding the strong doc roleclaiming because you don't know what his role is exactly. Wouldn't it make sense that the weak reffered to the power of the doc role? And the doc role is always related to protecting players from night kills. So then there would be no reason for the doc to roleclaim. Which is why I think you were rolefishing and not trying to help the town. Now, you say that the strong doc is perhaps not a doc but a psychiatrist. But why would mole call the psychiatrist a strong doc? It just doesn't make sense to me. In fact, even that won't work. As a townie, I only know my own alignment. So if I add a statement like KevinH is a townie. Then it could no longer be used to investigate as I don't even know myself if that statement is true or false. So if we are going to do this, we should only add the statement about ourselves: I am a townie.

I certainly believe that Kaziocore should be one of the players considered for a lynch. I believe he has a fair chance of being scum and if he is not, then he hasn't been of much help to the town so far anyway. Also, I disagree that he has a higher chance of being pro town because he is willing to self sacrifice. I have played a game before where a newbie scum followed the same line of play after he couldn't defend himself anyway. Back then the situation was a bit more dire for the newbie scum, but I don't think it is a townie tell that he is willing to sacrifice himself for no added benefit for the town. Of course, if he is not on top of your scumlist, you shouldn't vote him. But I wonder why you decided to vote for Nerau, if it doesn't feel right to vote for someone who isn't on top of your scumlist. He wanted to discuss a strategy that obviously damages the town. Of course he couldn't come out demanding that the strong doc reveals himself, as that would be seen by all as role fishing. But I still don't like him bringing up a possible strategy that is clearly not in the advantage of the town. No, we don't know what the strong doc is. But is there really sufficient evidence to believe that he knows more than us? As I said before, I think that the reason that Narsis couldn't replace is because he knows what the weak doc can do. For example, if the weak doc has a 50% chance of saving someone, then Narsis could deduct that the strong doc probably has a higher save percentage. In my previous analysis I've also voiced my suspicions about EM. However, I find it unlikely that you and EM are both scum. At that time, I thought that the odds were greater that you were the one who was scum, so I left EM be. However, this move has changed that. I find it unlikely that EM couldn't have concluded himself that this was a very flawed strategy. So that makes rolefishing the most plausible explanation for me. Which puts him on top of my scum list. So in short, I still find Kaziocore suspicious, but I find EM even more suspicious at the moment. Also, I have a few questions for EM: - When you posted the roleclaim idea, were you in favor or against the roleclaim? - If you were against, why did you bring up the idea? - If you were in favor, why didn't you try to convince us of this idea in your post?

I think it is a bad idea to unvote because of this post. Yes, he might be honest. But keeping him alive just because of this post is not the right way to play it. First of all, we would be giving any newbie scum a free pass to the endgame. Secondly, we would be rewarding poor play. If he is a townie, we want him to defend himself and not roll over when he gets under a little pressure. If you were not going to vote for Kaziocore before this post, then you still shouldn't. However, I find unvoting like Falzis did to be the wrong course of action. @EM and his roleclaim idea No, terrible idea. I'm assuming that the information mole was referring to was the definition of what a weak doc is. I suppose it can be derived from that information what the strong doc is. It would, therefore, be unfair to give Narsis a role in this game, as he would have information that the other players do not. A doc usually does not have any information that is useful to the town, so he should not claim unless he is in direct danger of being lynched. Our doc should certainly not claim in this particular situation. We are stuck with 10 players. An even number of players is always in the disadvantage of the town as it will be game over one day earlier than with an odd number of players. Assuming that there are indeed three scum, then we can afford one more mislynch before losing this game. If we would have been with 11 players, we could have afforded two more mislynches. So what we really need is our doc to correctly guess who will get nightkilled tonight. If he can prevent one kill, we can afford ourselves two instead of just one mislynch. If the doc claims today, we will die tonight and we will be stuck with an even number of players. So it's certainly not in our advantage if the doc roleclaims. I think EM should have known better. So I will: unvote Vote: EM

I just noticed a typo in my previous post. It should be:

That is also part of the reason I voted for you. So far you have only ever given your opinion on something when directly asked for it. That gives me the impression that you have been trying to lay low. Now, I understand that this is your first game, but you should really try to give your opinion a bit more. Although, or may especially because, you are new, you may still notice something that someone else doesn't. VOTE COUNT Falzis (2): KevinH, Theophilos Kaziocore (2): Martino, CanucksDynasty Sir Jesus (1): Electric Mango Not Voting (5): Nerau, Sir Jesus, Falzis, Kaziocore, Aquinas - Nerau still needs replacing, I have no-one lined up, they're all busy. Anyone knows someone / anyone dead wants to do it, shoot me off a PM.

That is assuming that both Falzis and Sojourner were a townie. I'm certainly not convinced that Falzis is a townie. If Falzis is one of your scum partners, you would be more likely to want to save him.

Yes I know, but I had to drag that reason out of you. What I want to know is why you, at first, decided to vote without giving that reason.

Why didn’t you say so when you voted for him? You said your vote was only to put some pressure on him. As I’ve explained before, there was already enough pressure on him. Also, if I place a vote to put some pressure on someone, then I want them to explain a certain situation or answer a question. However, it also means that they can still give me an acceptable answer and get me to unvote. Judging from this post, you were intent on lynching him. So could you please explain why you chose the wording of your vote post the way you did? I see no connection, so why did you post this? It just seems to distract from the more useful discussion. @CD I'll give my opinion on all five remaining sojourner voters. Falzis. There is still yesterday's contradiction. But more importantly, I am suspicious of him because of the last lynch. He was at 4 votes and the clear lynch target when he made his case against sojourner. I did not feel that the case against sojourner was strong. In fact, I pointed out that it was held together by a few, in my opinion, flawed assumptions. Yet, he got five others to quickly vote for sojourner. Of course, not all five of these could have been scum, so his case must have appealed at least a little to some townies. Still, I feel that there is a good chance that the scum saved their scum buddy there. I simply cannot see 5 townies vote so quickly for a relatively weak case. Electric Mango. He has been playing like his usual self, but like someone else already pointed out, he plays the same way town or scum. I disagree with his vote on Sojourner, but he was the second to vote. Would he really vote immediately after his scum buddy? I doubt it, what if the rest of the townies would see right through their case? That would certainly cause them some problems. So that leads me to believe that they are not both scum. Also, he and Falzis have been buddying up since D1 and I doubt scum would play it this obvious. Therefore, if Falzis turns out to be scum, I doubt EM is his partner. On the other hand, if Falzis turns out to be town, EM would probably be a good next target. But for now I believe Falzis has the higher chance of the two to be scum. Kaziocore. I’ve already made most of my case against him above. But overall he just doesn’t seem to be contributing much. I especially dislike him jumping on the bandwagon the way he did. Even if both Falzis and Sojourner were townies, it could have been a great way to first get Sojourner lynched and then Falzis next. The only concern I have is that he is a new player and he may not actually be thinking as much ahead as I am assuming. Aquinas. The only one on the bandwagon of whom I am not really suspicious. His timing was supicious, but that was just about it. He has made some great content posts and he did have a decent reason for voting for Sojourner. Sir Jesus. Has been a bit too quiet for my taste, but he has, of course, given a valid explanation. I don’t like the fact that he put sojourner at lynch -1 for such a weak case though. Unless one of the sojourner voters would switch to falzis, that pretty much ensured that sojourner got lynched. I think that was quite suspicious, although it depends on Falzis alignmenet. If he is a townie, then it wouldn’t make much sense for the scum to put Sojourner on L-1 on a weak case. Then for my vote. I am doubting between Falzis and Kaziocore. I think they are both suspicious, lynching Falzis would probably give us more information, but I am slightly more suspicious of Kaziocore. I also believe that Falzis will be able to make more of a positive contribution to the town if he is a townie than Kaziocore would. Therefore, I will: vote Kaziocore

I am not claiming that he is not scum. In all honesty, he hasn't done much to help the town, so sure he could be scum. I just think that the case made against him depends on a few doubtful assumptions. Also, if you look at how easy it was for you to get the bandwagon going against him this time, then I think that invalidates most of your reasoning for voting him. Why would the scum help you lynch their buddy this time but not on D1? Especially considering that you already had 4 votes, so they could have easily voted for you instead of him and thus save him.

Could you at least explain why? I put a FOS on you for giving a false reason for your vote. It seemed like a great way for you to get on that bandwagon and then, if he turns out to be a townie, claim that you never intended to lynch him and that you only wanted to put some pressure on him. Like I said before, there was already enough pressure on him after the other votes.

Why would we even want to look at you if sojourner turns out to be scum? If sojourner is scum, it will pretty much clear you. You've been the one to lead the charge on him since D1. It's pretty much common knowledge on this board that KevinH won't vote D1. If he did, alarm bells would go off all over the place. So yeah, unless we have a scum confession, I am pretty sure that he would not vote. I don't know why you chose to attack me over the word never though. You're not making much sense here either. I said that KevinH wouldn't vote. Even when the town is about to lynch his scum buddy, then he still wouldn't vote to save him on D1. It would simply raise too much suspicion. Yes, I could have also voted on someone else without a case. Wouldn't have been any more help to the town though. A random vote is a random vote, no matter on who I cast it. I disagree. Yes, they could try to make up a reason and they could try to shift the suspicions to the other voters. But just because they could, doesn't mean that they will. I just don't think that they would risk exposure by bandwagoning on a very weak case, just to get a townie lynched on D1. Perhaps if there were two players with 3 votes each and one of them was scum. Then I could see the scum try to save their buddy. But with the alternative being a no lynch, which hurts the town, I don't think they would risk exposure. That is way too simplistic. You're basically assuming that the mafia won't use any kind of a strategy but will just blindly go in for the kill whenever they can. Also, I've always seen the day lynch as a town tool to get rid of the mafia. This isn't some movie where the bad guys are idiots. The mafia are just as intelligent as the rest of us. They aren't some bloodthirsty monsters who can't control their temper and have to go in for the kill whenever they have an opportunity. So I really don't think their drive to kill is greater than their drive to survive. In fact, a townie-scum tradeoff would be a terrible trade off from a mafia pov, so I would expect survival to be a higher priority than killing. I don't even think it holds true for most novices. Even they should realize that they won't win this game if they don't survive. I think both options are based on a single assumption: 1) Scum wants to kill everything in their sight 2) Scum wants to survive I would say that the 2nd one is more realistic.

I think that puts him at lynch -1. Please, let's at least give him the opportunity to respond before we lynch him. While I would really like him to defend himself, I will say that I am not as impressed with the case against him as the rest of you seem to be. First of all, the theory doesn't hold if KevinH is scum. He would never vote, no matter whether you guys were about to lynch a townie or his scum buddy. Secondly, and more importantly, the case against Sojourner on D1 was weak at best. I am always greatly in favor of a lynch on D1, but I found the case to be so weak, that it would have just been a random lynch. That wouldn't help us, so I didn't vote. Assuming that he is town, do you really think that the scum would have come out and hammered him based on virtually nothing? I think that would have been a great way for them to get into trouble. Further, you assume that the mafia would be in favor of a lynch. While they would of course like to lynch a townie, I certainly don't think a no lynch is in the disadvantage of the scum. So again, it seems plausible to me that the scum just decided to lay low together with most townies. It really puzzles me that so many immediately voted for sojourner. I have become mighty suspicious of the last few people to jump aboard the bandwagon. It seems like you guys are not even willing to give him a chance to defend himself.