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.

 

What I really mean is that when the strong doc protects someone, he would also know the faction of the guy.

About the quick lynch yesterday...

 

I just read yesterday in the mafia wiki that it's always bad for the townies to lynch quickly or something...

About the quick lynch yesterday...

 

I just read yesterday in the mafia wiki that it's always bad for the townies to lynch quickly or something...

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 believe the scum would have tried to save Electric Mango so I give townie points to those that lynched him:

Martino, Kaziocore, KevinH, Theophilos

 

I believe the best lynch comes from the remaining two:

Sir Jesus, Narsis II

 

Considering Sir Jesus voted in the Sojourner lynch, he gets my vote now.

 

Vote: Sir Jesus

Two posts and two days ago:

We could have used the remainder of the day to discuss and gain more information.

Nothing further discussed in this thread in this day.

 

But in the sign-up for the next game we have activity from Martino, Narsis, and Theophilos.

 

Why can't we have the desired discussion in this thread?

 

A prod will be sent to Sir Jesus - the only person inactive enough to warrant one.

Edited August 9, 200917 yr by molestargazer

because i am mainly waiting for you guys...

I've been extremely busy, I will post in detail tomorrow (my day off).

We're wanting and waiting for discussion.

 

None of the remaining players seem scummy to me.

 

There are a few clues from voting patterns but not much else. If there's no discussion, there won't be anything else. (That's what the scum would want.)

agreed Kevin. need i remind everyone that we are at LYLO? assuming there are 2 mafia of course.

We're wanting and waiting for discussion.

 

None of the remaining players seem scummy to me.

 

There are a few clues from voting patterns but not much else. If there's no discussion, there won't be anything else. (That's what the scum would want.)

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?

- KevinH ended the previous day prematurely

 

...

 

So, KevinH, why are you not scum?

 

As I previously posted, I ended the day prematurely with notice that I would do so. Falzis had all the votes at that point and no discussion was happening. I thought Falzis was the best option for a lynch and nobody proposed an alternative. It was best to move on with the game.

 

The best evidence to prove that I am not scum is that I voted to lynch Electric Mango. If EM and I were both scum, we would have tried to effect the lynch of Falzis and not vote for each other.

not true necessarily. if Falzis turned up town(which he did later) then you both would have been under suspicion, especially if you weren't careful enough and seemed too overeager. so there is reason to have voted each other.

not true necessarily. if Falzis turned up town(which he did later) then you both would have been under suspicion, especially if you weren't careful enough and seemed too overeager. so there is reason to have voted each other.

From a scum perspective, isn't it better to have 2 scum alive and under suspicion than 1 scum dead?

hmm...that reminds me of something i should look at...

ok looking back over D3, some interesting things:

 

first, Falzis at his height had 3 votes against: Kevin, Theo and CD. one of which has been proven townie. now assuming the other two are townie as well and that Kevin is right about 2 mafia under suspiscion better then 1 dead, then wouldn't the mafia have voted to kill Falzis? but they didnt. which means one of two things:

 

1. Kevin's assumption that 2 under suspicion is better then 1 dead is false.

or

2. Kevin(or Theo or both) were mafia already voting for Falzis. in which case even with EM's vote, it would have required either one or two townies to vote Falzis as well.

 

secondly, Kevin was also tied with Falzis with 3 votes: SJ, Falzis, and me. Assuming Kevin is a townie, and knowing that me and Falzis were townies(since i know my own alignment) and assuming that SJ is a townie as well as once again assuming Kevin is right about the suspicion death thing, then wouldn't the mafia have voted to kill Kevin? especially with Falzis's vote against him they probably could have easily driven a lynch against Falzis the following day, resulting in a loss for the town. but they didnt, which again means one of three things:

 

1. Kevin's assumption is false.

or

2. SJ, or me, or both are mafia as it would have required one or two townies to vote to get a lynch.

or

3. Kevin is mafia.

 

 

interestingly enough, this means that one of the following conclusions is correct:

 

1. Kevin's assumption is false.

2. Kevin is mafia.

3. SJ is mafia.

 

also interesting is that none of Kevin's nor SJ's(nor Theo's) contradict the play of scum. in the only scum lynch, SJ held his vote on Kevin, Kevin's vote against EM was very OMGUS, and Theo's "hammer" wouldn't have made a difference. on D2, both candidates were townies so the votes are null and D4 was so one-sided it doesn't matter much either.

Just read through the thread again, and noticed something particularly interesting.

 

Watch the Vote Pattern of the second day:

 

-KevinH FoS's Falzis

-Martino + Theophilos vote Falzis

-KevinH votes Falzis

 

-EM votes KevinH

-KevinH SFOS's EM

-Narsis votes KevinH

-Falzis votes KevinH

-SJ votes KevinH

-Narsis unvotes KevinH ->Nerau

-Aquinas votes KevinH

 

-EM unvotes KevinH with the following reasoning (extremely weak):

With Kevin or Falzis already locked in as one of our candidates for a lynch I thought it would be best to apply pressure to at least one more candidate.

 

Nerau is usually a lot more active but has remained relatively quiet so far. This is different from his normal playing style.

 

This seems to me like a very well thought out plan by KevinH and EM. KevinH cast suspicion towards a vocal player, Falzis, but doesn't risk first vote. Once public begins to agree, he places his vote. There is now a strong case aganist a townie.

 

EM begins his distancing move by placing an accusation against KevinH, and KevinH SFOS's back but does not return the vote. The public has noticed a playing style difference in KevinH and the day starts looking very bad for KevinH with a near lynch. EM then decides to change his vote to another candidate with one vote against them, and KevinH avoids being lynched on Day 2...

 

I also think it's ironic that KevinH's accusation against me is "you voted to kill a townie in Day 2," when you specifically designed and carried out a hammer vote on Falzis.

 

VOTE COUNT

KevinH (1): Narsis II

Sir Jesus (1): KevinH

 

Not Voting (4): Theophilos, Sir Jesus, Martino, Kaziocore

 

With 6 Alive, 4 is needed to lynch.

Edited August 11, 200917 yr by molestargazer

I also think it's ironic that KevinH's accusation against me is "you voted to kill a townie in Day 2," when you specifically designed and carried out a hammer vote on Falzis.

Townies vote to lynch what they think is the best choice and sometimes they get it wrong.

First case:

sojourner (6): Falzis, Narsis, Electric Mango, Kaziocore, Aquinas, Sir Jesus

Second case:

Falzis (5): Kaziocore, Sir Jesus, Theophilos, Aquinas, KevinH

 

And sometimes they get it right:

Electric Mango (6): Martino, Aquinas, Kaziocore, KevinH, CanucksDynasty, Theophilos

 

I didn't "design and carry out a hammer vote."

 

Remember saying this?

This is where all the evidence comes together, and I believe KevinH has presented that evidence much better than I could.

 

We all thought Falzis was scum and there were no alternatives presented.

Now I obviously know I'm not scum and I'm pretty sure Martino isn't scum. That said I've never really thought that Kazio was scum either ... the only way I see her as scum is if she's receiving instructions on how to behave from the scum boss ...

 

That leaves KevinH, Narsis II and Sir Jesus. I already FOS-ed the latter, so I'll start there. Two things there: he clinched the sojourner vote and didn't vote for EM when we lynched him. That's contra, on the pro side he does make an interesting assumption against KevinH. That said he still remains my suspect for scum.

 

Narsis II didn't vote for EM, but didn't vote for sojourner either ... so a tad suspicious perhaps but I'm not really sure about him ... still more re-reading or something ...

 

KevinH ... I'll not repeat the arguments for him being scum, save for the fact that they've become more compelling since we saw that Falzis wasn't scum.

 

At this point I'd say Kevin and SJ are scum.

 

 

Also this vote:

KevinH: Falzis, SJ, Narsis II, EM [confirmed 1t & 1s ... 2t or 2s or 1t & 1s remaining]

EM: Martino, Aquinas, Kazio, KevinH, CD and me [confirmed 2t ... 2 more t - me and Martino + 2s or 2t or 1t & 1s]

I think it more likely that the scum vote would spread to cover their bets and leave at least one scum hidden ... So we know that EM was scum that leaves Kazio and KevinH in the pro EM lynch camp that could be scum. As I don't believe Kazio is scum that leaves KevinH. In the pro Kevin lynch camp we are left with SJ and Narsis II, which would mean (to me) that SJ is the other remaining scum. Their is the third option that Kazion and Kevin are both scum. Mind you I'll need to think about this last part a bit more

Where's all the discussion that everyone wants?

 

Here are my thoughts on people ordered from most likely to be town to most likely to be scum.

 

• KevinH - wrongly lynched Falzis but it seemed like it was the best move at the time
  
• Martino - no wrong votes at all
  
• Kaziocore - wrongly lynched Sojourner and Falzis but swung the vote to EM at a critical time
  
• Theophilos - wrongly lynched Falzis
  
• Narsis II - no wrong lynches on townies as Narsis II (although he was absent when we lynched Falzis), but didn't vote for EM
  
• Sir Jesus - wrongly lynched Sojourner and Falzis, and didn't vote for EM
  

actually i disagree with the idea behind that list. it's not always who they voted for but why they voted and the circumstances surrounding their vote.

 

for instance: both your vote and Theo's against EM. sure you voted and killed scum. but your vote was an OMGUS to EM's vote of you and Theo's hammer wasn't really needed to kill EM. with that in mind can you still say that their votes on EM were driven by a desire to kill scum? i think not.

 

sure people wrongly lynched sojourner, but the only other person that they could have voted for that would have resulted in a lynch was Falzis, a townie as well.

Also sometimes lynching other townies is an indicator that they are really townies because it means that they make mistakes and they are ignorant of something.

for instance: both your vote and Theo's against EM. sure you voted and killed scum. but your vote was an OMGUS to EM's vote of you and Theo's hammer wasn't really needed to kill EM. with that in mind can you still say that their votes on EM were driven by a desire to kill scum?

 

I agree that there are lots of circumstances where the motivation for the vote isn't exactly clear. However, it's still a potential indicator of scum versus townie because in general, scum want to lynch townies and not lynch other scum.

 

In my case, I needed to OMGUS because EM voted for me. If we were both scum, he wouldn't want to put me in that position.

 

In Theo's case, there could have been some unvotes but his vote prevented that. Yes, the motivation could have been "EM's going down, I better join in" but it could also have been "I want to lynch EM and I'm not going to allow any last minute unvotes."

Also sometimes lynching other townies is an indicator that they are really townies because it means that they make mistakes and they are ignorant of something.

 

That's a totally valid point. Falzis and Aquinas are perfect examples of that.

 

I think we need to interpret the data to the best of our ability and take actions based on that. Falzis set himself up to have lots of "evidence" built up against him when he was truly just a townie. At the time, it seemed to be the right thing in lynching him. In hindsight, I wish we still had him alive.

I agree that there are lots of circumstances where the motivation for the vote isn't exactly clear. However, it's still a potential indicator of scum versus townie because in general, scum want to lynch townies and not lynch other scum.

 

In my case, I needed to OMGUS because EM voted for me. If we were both scum, he wouldn't want to put me in that position.

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.

In Theo's case, there could have been some unvotes but his vote prevented that. Yes, the motivation could have been "EM's going down, I better join in" but it could also have been "I want to lynch EM and I'm not going to allow any last minute unvotes."

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.

I agree that there are lots of circumstances where the motivation for the vote isn't exactly clear. However, it's still a potential indicator of scum versus townie because in general, scum want to lynch townies and not lynch other scum.

 

In my case, I needed to OMGUS because EM voted for me. If we were both scum, he wouldn't want to put me in that position.

 

In Theo's case, there could have been some unvotes but his vote prevented that. Yes, the motivation could have been "EM's going down, I better join in" but it could also have been "I want to lynch EM and I'm not going to allow any last minute unvotes."

 

WIFOM.

 

also, what Martino said.