Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[notquitethere]

Vote Stories

I take it that people's suspects are NQT or Tiruin or Imp. (Persus and Toaster think it could be me or Tiruin, Tiruin thinks it's Imp or me, Imp thinks it's definitely me and I think it's either Tiruin or Imp).

Well, what are each player's vote-story? What did they do with their vote each day?


Imp's Vote Story

Day 1, Imp doesn't place a vote until right at the very end. I pressed her on this:

Imp you going to place vote?

Then she arrived and tied the vote with a vote on Nerjin, tying it with Cmega. Nerjin, because he believes in lynching every day to the point of self-sacrifice even-as-town unvoted Cmega to avoid a tie.

Day 2, again Imp doesn't do anything with her vote. Interestingly, when the forum was down for the day and the day would have ended, if Meph hadn't have extended, Caz would have died with Persus, Tiruin, Toaster and NQT on his lynch.

Again I pressed Imp on her lack of voting:

Imp - Has yet to press a lynch case as we're nearing the end of the day despite being generally active

And she finally voted for Caz when her vote would have no impact and there was no possibility of lynching anyone else.

Day 3, Imp claims Max is lying about being a seer, creating distance between the two of them but she doesn't vote Max at this stage. No, she says this:

about Max White:

He has claimed to inspect notquitethere and get benign, to inspect Persus13 and get malevolent.

Notquitethere has opened the day with a vote on Max White, for reasons he stated near the end of D2.

If we lynch Persus13 D3 and get a Town result, then we obviously lynch Max D4 - I assume we get a Scum result?

Then we decide if we want to lynch notquitethere or not.  It's already D5 at that point.

We had two night kills last night.  Neither are kills of high powered active people.  Is there any chance we're dealing with a conversion cult?  I... I don't think so.  But just in case, I lean towards lynching notquitethere first at this point.  There's something -weird- about this set up and especially weird about notquitethere's behavior.  I'm going to think more about it and I'm talking about it so everyone else can think about it too.  I don't think notquitethere 'usually' makes this many contradictions in his play and I'm burning my mind trying to understand why he is now.

So, rather than kill Max or even Persus she thinks that they should lynch... NQT! She labels her section 'about Max' but really it's all about killing NQT. But she doesn't vote yet.

No... Toony and Jim vote for Max, making it NQT-Toony-Jim on Max and only Max on Persus. The chances of a Max lynch look increasingly certain, and Imp redoubles her efforts to get NQT lynched instead, before eventually voting Max when it looked like a certain thing, all the while saying:

That said, I bet most all of you still want Max White lynched first.  I'm willing - but I'm serious about being scared about it.  If NQT -is- a converter - we're probably in deep trouble if we don't kill him first.  So I'll support the Max White lynch, totally - but I'll switch faster than fast to NQT if people agree he's the better D3 lynch - if we have a converter, we have NO time to waste.  If we don't have a converter, order doesn't matter at all.

NQT's Vote Story

Day 1, NQT puts an RVS on Caz, a pressure vote on Persus for appearing to ignore a question and then places a vote on Nerjin for his lack of scum hunting and not engaging with all the players. 6.5 hours before the lynch there's a tie between Nerjin and Cmega. NQT has a last post where he considers breaking the tie but doesn't (I think I went to the pub with my girlfriend at this stage). Nerjin, unsurprisingly, breaks the tie. (Then Imp ties it again, Nerjin unvotes to break the tie then Jim votes Nerjin for unvoting.)

Day 2, NQT claims priest and full responsibility for Nerjin's resurrection. His first vote is on Jim for saying something that appeared anti-town (I'm still not convinced that Vigilante is a pro-town role), then he unvotes admitting he wants to do proper analysis:

I want to give the game the game a proper look over before I push a Day 2 case in earnest, so unvote for now, but I might be back.

And when he comes back with his analysis, he concludes that Caz is scum:

Max and Caz did well on the questioning test but have only pressed one lynch case on one person in the entire game. This clear lack of genuine suspicion and reluctance to draw negative attention is not a town trait.

Caz's day end lynch vote on Nerjin was an RVS vote!

And this vote almost leads to Caz getting lynched on day 2. Here's the vote count immediately before:

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Caz: Toaster, Tiruin
Toaster: Persus13
notquitethere: Jim Groovester, Max White
Persus13: Caz
Tiruin: ToonyMan


Day has been Extended to ~5pm Pacific Friday. There will be no more extensions this day.

NQT then breaks the tie between Caz and NQT by voting Caz in the early hours of the day of deadline. Due to the forum being down, Meph extends the day and NQT later votes Jim as the latter appeared to have lied. Caz ends up lynched anyway.

Day 3, NQT votes Max in the first post of the day. Max retaliates by fakeclaiming seer and claiming he'd got a good inspect on NQT. After Max's lynch is a sure thing, NQT has second doubts and can't see how Max could be rationally claiming so he votes for Imp, but then Imp persuades him that she couldn't be rationally fakeclaiming so he goes to Persus. At no point when switching was it ever likely that anyone other than Max was going to be lynched.


Tiruin's Vote Story

Day 1, Tiruin votes Caz for his superficial scumhunting. She continues this vote, continuing to press Caz until she votes for Cmega after the latter places a vote on Max.

Cmega3

Max white, could you please calm down a bit?
You are acting rather weird.

I'd implore you to address quite much everything directed to you as of late, because its pretty...curious how you've been acting.

Tiruin tilts her hat 45 degrees to the right and looks directly at you.

What's up, son? What do you understand about Mafia?

At this stage of the game, the vote was tied between Max and NQT, and she switches her one vote on Caz to a one vote Cmega (though it's unclear why when her Caz suspicions seemed stronger). Later other people vote Cmega and he almost gets lynched.

Day 2, Tiruin returns to her original suspect, Caz, who she votes in her first post of the game (after Toaster had already voted for Caz). It's unclear why she didn't return to Cmega but perhaps she addressed this at the time. She then keeps her vote on Caz for the entirety of the day until Caz is lynched. Cmega was absent for almost the entirety of the game.

Day 3, Tiruin pushes for a mass claim and is the last player to put a vote down, on Max when there already five votes against him.


Conclusions

All three suspects had lynch votes on scum. Imp's vote on Caz came after his death was already certain. Her vote on Max was begrudging: she really wanted to vote NQT. NQT almost gets Caz lynched on Day 2, were it not for the forum going down. (Max also tries to get him killed D1 and 2, expending most of his posts in the game to that end), and led the lynch against Max even before he'd claimed and had that claim falsified. He does switch off the Caz and Max wagons before each day, but not without reasons. Tiruin was on Caz on Day 1 and returns to have him lynched on Day 2 (despite the fact that she would have gained little suspicion for continuing to vote Cmega on Day 2). Tiruin votes for Max on Day 3 but only when the result was already predetermined.

It seems to me that the Day 3 scum strategy was for Max to claim seer and have Persus lynched. When Persus flips town, the hunter would attack Max but it wouldn't work. Scum would kill someone else, hopefully the hunter. Day 4 would arrive with 2 scum and four town. They'd lynch Max for fakeclaiming and in the night they'd kill another town player. The 3rd scum would have previously distanced themselves heavily from Max as they know he's going to be lynched eventually. But they'd need a fall guy for the hunter to kill or town to lynch after Max's death. How would a fake seer set up a fall guy? By claiming he's innocent and trying to get him on side. In the words of Lee Harvey Oswald, "I'm a patsy!"

My lynch analysis says Tiruin is scum and it was dead on right for Max and Caz. Should I follow it to the end and vote Tiruin, or should I follow what the Vote Stories seem to be saying and push for an Imp lynch...? Right now, I'm leaning Imp, but next I'm going to look at scum interactions with Tiruin and Imp before the end of the day tomorrow.

[notquitethere]

Tiruin

This is a new kind of scumhunting. I'm saying the meta-data (voting patterns, post counts etc.) correctly showed Max and Caz to be the scummiest players and so I have good reason for suspecting you too as you're the next scummiest by this metric.

What exactly is that metric?

I'd love for you to expound on the bolded part - who do you see I've suspected that makes you say such things? How it makes me scum in regard to what I've said, please.

During the Witches game I discovered that measuring the number of people that separate players votes for is a great way of finding town players, as town tend to vote for a wider range of suspects than scum. Of the players left alive, you've voted for the fewest number of suspects. On this measure, you look the least town. I've since gone and looked at all your votes and your lack of suspects is really due to focusing on Caz all of Day 2 and then following the crowd and lynching Max on Day 3. I'm conflicted as to whether you're just amazing at distancing/bussing or you're just very single-focused in this game.

@underlined: Expound then compare to your target. I see your vote more like a marker than not given that I've a good feeling we can debate the face of the earth away today and end up more than not, probably safe tomorrow.

I'm very unclear as to what you're trying to say here.

I guess it should have been more immediately obvious, but Max's plan must have been to get Persus mislynched in order to have the hunter target him at night. As he was a knight, the attack wouldn't have worked. Perhaps they were afraid of town lynching scum during the day and the hunter getting the final scum at night.

When or where did you get this idea?

It's the only thing that makes sense given that Max fakeclaimed a seer while he was in fact a knight. Do you have an alternative explanation?

[Tiruin]

...NQT: I really don't like how you state as a general conclusion rather than poke on why the person did their vote and any suceeding explanations on it.

It really cuts into my theory on bussing (in which..on a re-read, becomes shallow in comparison to thought). Prior to that, let me poke at the first statement to me:

Tiruin was on Caz on Day 1 and returns to have him lynched on Day 2 (despite the fact that she would have gained little suspicion for continuing to vote Cmega on Day 2).

...
It appears you didn't read up, or you did read up then went back and retook something else to focus on. I did state why I was voting Caz, yes? You don't poke at that. Same with the note on my D3. Do you see how it reacts with my results and what I said in regard to Persus, then?

You seem to be scumhunting only in pattern. A very fallible method of scumhunting (though the method you propose does have merit in eliminating suspects via their interaction, how you go through with it has error).

On the conclusions:

They'd lynch Max for fakeclaiming and in the night they'd kill another town player.

Precluding my presence somehow? I can disrupt attacks, and by D3 I was more than enough convinced about Persus' Persus-ness.

The 3rd scum would have previously distanced themselves heavily from Max as they know he's going to be lynched eventually.

...Why? What is there to gain from distancing themselves from a scummy target?

But they'd need a fall guy for the hunter to kill or town to lynch after Max's death. How would a fake seer set up a fall guy? By claiming he's innocent and trying to get him on side. In the words of Lee Harvey Oswald, "I'm a patsy!"

I can't see how the 'but' connects this with the statement quoted above..(also, fall guy? New term )
Also..who is this fall guy here? The hunter can't kill Persus (as proven) so..ehh? You vote Imp, and then state this. Bolded the word for emphasis.

My lynch analysis says Tiruin is scum and it was dead on right for Max and Caz.

Uh huh. On what basis?! I don't see how your lynch analysis directly says people are scum. It gives who may be scum based on action, but not what is direct given how the word 'says' is there. I stand by my principle that the analysis should also bring in--or better yet, how the player using said analysis interprets--by the essence of how the player's action is and not primarily by...superficial observing.

I mean all this, and I have yet to see you poke directly at my posts and why/how I voted what I voted. I did explain myself--I don't see you delving into that part.

Query on your case on Imp:

And she finally voted for Caz when her vote would have no impact and there was no possibility of lynching anyone else.

Do you not think that she'd rather show her intent than stay silent? Since you've browsed far back there, I'd like to hear what you thought of her choices in the expenditures of her vote.
How do you interpret it? (and by interpret I don't mean in a statistical way, I mean how do you view it, descriptively)

So, rather than kill Max or even Persus she thinks that they should lynch... NQT! She labels her section 'about Max' but really it's all about killing NQT. But she doesn't vote yet.

You do note that she also suspected an illusionist, yes? As in, someone who would contend with:
1. Her role, and
2. A role which has a reputation of being thoroughly attractive, both in trustworthiness and direct-ness. The Alignment-Cop.

She thought she should lynch you due to your actions. Have you any say on those?

While I do get the details of someone hopping off the bandwagon so late in time, I throw caution to where I see and have to poke at one thing.

The chances of a Max lynch look increasingly certain, and Imp redoubles her efforts to get NQT lynched instead, before eventually voting Max when it looked like a certain thing[...]

What are your thoughts on Max at the time?
What did you think of Imp's efforts against you at the time, compared to how the status quo were acting?
How do you interpret the vote on Max?

[notquitethere]

Tiruin

...NQT: I really don't like how you state as a general conclusion rather than poke on why the person did their vote and any suceeding explanations on it.

It doesn't really matter why people make their votes most of the time as most town player's votes are for people that don't turn out to be scum. I don't care if you don't like the way I scum hunt: as the record shows it's a lot more reliable than regular methods.

You seem to be scumhunting only in pattern. A very fallible method of scumhunting (though the method you propose does have merit in eliminating suspects via their interaction, how you go through with it has error).

What does this even mean? I looked at the players patterns of voting. Due to the obvious reason that it is very easy for scum to invent reasons to vote players, while obviously dodgy vote-reasons should be questioned, in general looking at a person's overall pattern of voting is most effective.

Precluding my presence somehow? I can disrupt attacks, and by D3 I was more than enough convinced about Persus' Persus-ness.

Right, so you're saying that the scumteam would know about your abilities when making plans on Day 3. What are you trying to tell us, Tiruin?

The 3rd scum would have previously distanced themselves heavily from Max as they know he's going to be lynched eventually.

...Why? What is there to gain from distancing themselves from a scummy target?

Obviously it makes sense for scum to distance themselves from fellow-scum that they know are going to be lynched.

But they'd need a fall guy for the hunter to kill or town to lynch after Max's death. How would a fake seer set up a fall guy? By claiming he's innocent and trying to get him on side. In the words of Lee Harvey Oswald, "I'm a patsy!"

I can't see how the 'but' connects this with the statement quoted above..(also, fall guy? New term )
Also..who is this fall guy here? The hunter can't kill Persus (as proven) so..ehh? You vote Imp, and then state this. Bolded the word for emphasis.

Read the word 'but' as 'and'. A fall guy is someone that is innocent but takes the blame. The scapegoat. The patsy. That's me. I'm saying I'm the fall guy. Their plan was always to have Max lynched and me look scummy while they did it, to set me up for a mislynch.

My lynch analysis says Tiruin is scum and it was dead on right for Max and Caz.

Uh huh. On what basis?! I don't see how your lynch analysis directly says people are scum. It gives who may be scum based on action, but not what is direct given how the word 'says' is there. I stand by my principle that the analysis should also bring in--or better yet, how the player using said analysis interprets--by the essence of how the player's action is and not primarily by...superficial observing.

I mean all this, and I have yet to see you poke directly at my posts and why/how I voted what I voted. I did explain myself--I don't see you delving into that part.

The analysis ranks the players in order of scumminess. It's better at predicting who's most likely to be town. My vote is on Imp at the moment because I don't think it's impossible for the analysis to be wrong here, but it heavily suggests that you're the remaining scum. I've gone back and looked at the reasons why you had so few targets, and the reason seems to be you were quite effectively hunting scum, and that's part of the reason why I've switched my vote to Imp. My suspicions of you are meta-tell suspicions.

Query on your case on Imp:

And she finally voted for Caz when her vote would have no impact and there was no possibility of lynching anyone else.

Do you not think that she'd rather show her intent than stay silent? Since you've browsed far back there, I'd like to hear what you thought of her choices in the expenditures of her vote.
How do you interpret it? (and by interpret I don't mean in a statistical way, I mean how do you view it, descriptively)

I'd rather she voted during the actual day rather than in the last post of the day! Day 1 she did no voting then tied the vote nearly at the last moment. Day 2 she did no voting before using her vote in a token way. Day 3 she begrudgingly votes for Max despite the fact she apparently called him out on a false vote. It doesn't matter who she voted for, the way she voted was scummy.

She thought she should lynch you due to your actions. Have you any say on those?

She had a bizarre case based on me being a converter when that wasn't even a possibility. It looked very much like she was clutching at reasons to vote me.

While I do get the details of someone hopping off the bandwagon so late in time, I throw caution to where I see and have to poke at one thing.

The chances of a Max lynch look increasingly certain, and Imp redoubles her efforts to get NQT lynched instead, before eventually voting Max when it looked like a certain thing[...]

What are your thoughts on Max at the time?
What did you think of Imp's efforts against you at the time, compared to how the status quo were acting?
How do you interpret the vote on Max?

As I said at the time, I wasn't too upset that Max was being lynched because I thought he was really scummy, but I couldn't (at the time) work out why he'd fake claim seer so it appeared to me that Imp must be lying. I think Imp was acting bizarrely and it was clear that neither Toony nor Jim thought her case had any merit. The vote on Max wasn't unreasonable given the counterclaim, I just had doubts about Max's sanity if he was fakeclaiming. I now see why he may have fakeclaimed and it makes a bit more sense. Recall that at the time I wasn't arguing that Max was town, only that I didn't think he was fakeclaiming. I didn't take into account the possibility of him being a knight and trying to draw a hunter attack.

[Toaster]

Tiruin:

PFP
Toaster

The fact that Max made a potentially suicidal fakeclaim is very strong evidence that there is one more cultist out there.

What makes you think there is one other out there? As in, what are your - and your own - thoughts on that matter? I'll give my reasoning, and it doesn't primarily base itself on the quoted statement here.

I said this.  Let's assume Max was the last cultist.  He fakeclaimed to get Persus lynched.  Assuming that he had been successful, we'd be lynching him today post-haste, and that'd be it for Team Cult.  Ergo, there must be one more cultist.

Continued query: On your advance to ToonyMan, why him instead of the ot

Toaster

N3 I didn't buy Toony's sudden switch from Max to Persus.  Prior to NQT changing his vote, Toony was content with the Max lynch and had moved on to questioning others.  When NQT switched to Persus, though...

@Orange: What persuaded you to kill him based on this buying of actions? Is it relevant with the purple?
@Purple: ...And this caused you to kill him..why? It was scummy..how?

Buying such to save a buddy..how?

I thought he was reasonably likely to be scum, so I was willing to off him.  His change seemed a bit sudden, forced, and contradictory.  Yes, the two things you colored are linked.  Since he had moved on, that signaled that he was thinking "Okay, Max is lynched.  Let's start working on the next target for the next day."  This is a reasonable and townlike behavior.  When NQT switched, though, suddenly he's waffling and going back on what he said.  This is not townlike behavior.

This makes sense, however I've to wonder if you considered Imp's behavior (in which I've to ask what were your reads - preferably in a list - on everyone @D3) a note on NQT.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

Verdict:  I need to go over all of NQT and Tiruin's posts again.  I still doubt it's Imp or Persus.

'Or'? So there are levels of suspicion on each? [ALSO IMP IS FEMALE D:<]
Point being, if we take everything at first glance, nothing points to a straight answer (we're all mentioning 'someone bussed' wherein the only notable candidate between us all for majority town-ship ness is Persus).

Yes- a planned bus for either Imp or Persus with Max is within the realm of possibility.  I doubt it, though.

Why Persus more than Imp?

Kills use human-style weaponry flavor, which is consisted with Super1 vampire hunter.

Partly out of mafia context but: We're still going on this style of concluding? Nobody counterclaimed you, and by valid reasoning--you're a hunter (or someone else is hiding it but I see no reason not to claim//counterclaim at this point in time).

..Or just emphasizing yourself. Egoistical much?

Well, I'm just mentioning everything.

Also, when would I be egotistical?

It probably can or can't be Imp

Specific!

Toaster:

Continued query: On your advance to ToonyMan, why him instead of the other person - like NQT, who was of reasonable suspicion?

Fix'd.

Also, do you have any kind of modification to your role as a hunter? We haven't seen any kind of monster or otherwise--and I believe that the Exorcist (Jim) covered the ground of moral-aligned (where does one classify demons/devils?) enemies.

Oh, that makes more sense.

I considered NQT, but didn't really have enough to go on for him.  Toony stuck out more as a potential target- and scum reacting to a townie's vote change is more likely than the reverse.

Nope, I'm a nonspecific Monster Hunter.  Remember Super1 had a vampire hunter when there weren't any vampires.


NQT:  I think you're framing your actions to make them look good in your own meta-tell.  Let's look:

First off, before I do anything else, Tiruin. No one has counterclaimed Toaster and he's confirmed what Persus said. Thus it's either Tiruin or Imp at this stage, my vote-analysis says Tiruin is guilty and the law of post counts says Imp is not scum (she has the most posts in the game and she's least suspicious by way of vote counts). My vote analysis was right for the rest of the game, so I'm trusting it for now while further analysis is ongoing.

My lynch analysis says Tiruin is scum and it was dead on right for Max and Caz. Should I follow it to the end and vote Tiruin, or should I follow what the Vote Stories seem to be saying and push for an Imp lynch...? Right now, I'm leaning Imp, but next I'm going to look at scum interactions with Tiruin and Imp before the end of the day tomorrow.

You've got two of your own meta-tells here giving you conflicting results.  But let's step back a second:

# people voted not counting RVS & FOS:
1. Caz
2. Cmega Max
3. Nerjin Tiruin
4. Jim Toaster
5. Persus, Imp, Toony
7. NQT

Look at this: you're at the top.  Are you intentionally voting a lot of people to put yourself near the top?  Your track record seems to agree:

It would be absolutely irrational for me to be Scum and roleclaim to attempt to get Max lynched.  If Perses is telling the truth about being a knight, the only way to get rid of him is to lynch him.  If he's lying about being a knight, my Scum-perspective would probably be 'yay, Seer revealed, we're getting rid of a competitive and dangerous third party today, and maybe that Seer tonight - if not, we're definitely getting rid of someone else tonight! - I have NO reason to prefer a lynch of Max to a lynch of Perses.

OK. I've given it some more thought, and you know what, I think that you're right. It would be pretty irrational of you to fakeclaim a fortuneteller result just to have Max lynched (though he potentially is the cop) unless it was part of some weird gambit. OK. Unvote.

It's completely irrational for either of you to fakeclaim your inspect roles as they're so easy to confirm. If I assume that both of you are telling the truth then one of you must have been redirected (I don't think it's possible for you both to have been redirected given that no illusionist has claimed). If both of you are telling the truth, then you must have been the one to be redirected. The scum or third-party illusionist would then be keeping quiet with the hope of getting both you and Max lynched. If that's the case then Persus really is malicious.

What's noteworthy is you decide Imp must be telling the truth, so you go to... Persus?  Why not Max?  All redirections in the past have been obvious to the redirected party, and no one claims this.  Thinking back on this, I really don't see the logical leap.


I think you're votejumping and throwing around to see where it will stick.  Trying to see who you can drive a mislynch on, NQT?


You know, you've been doing this a lot:

Max— You sheeped Jim's vote and left it there with this as your argument:

...

Toaster and Tiruin for their very longstanding cases against Caz get many town points in my eyes. There's no good reason why they'd have pursued those cases for so long (yeah, yeah, to seem town, but really that kind of early-form bussing is usually counterproductive). Persus hopped on and off the Caz-wagon, but I'm not sure I'd draw any strong conclusions either way from that.

Again, praising an activity as townlike while doing it yourself to reinforce the point.  You've put a lot of work into reinforcing a barrier around yourself.  Your breadcrumbing is another example of you building a giant town facade around yourself.  You've done well disguising it, but I can see through it now.


PPE:

It doesn't really matter why people make their votes most of the time as most town player's votes are for people that don't turn out to be scum.

wat

It looked very much like she was clutching at reasons to vote me.

But that doesn't matter, right?

[Tiruin]

EBWOP

[...]Right now, I'm leaning Imp, but next I'm going to look at scum interactions with Tiruin and Imp before the end of the day tomorrow.

..."Before the end of day tomorrow?"
Erh?? RL days, right?

Tiruin

This is a new kind of scumhunting. I'm saying the meta-data (voting patterns, post counts etc.) correctly showed Max and Caz to be the scummiest players and so I have good reason for suspecting you too as you're the next scummiest by this metric.

What exactly is that metric?

I'd love for you to expound on the bolded part - who do you see I've suspected that makes you say such things? How it makes me scum in regard to what I've said, please.

During the Witches game I discovered that measuring the number of people that separate players votes for is a great way of finding town players, as town tend to vote for a wider range of suspects than scum. Of the players left alive, you've voted for the fewest number of suspects. On this measure, you look the least town. I've since gone and looked at all your votes and your lack of suspects is really due to focusing on Caz all of Day 2 and then following the crowd and lynching Max on Day 3. I'm conflicted as to whether you're just amazing at distancing/bussing or you're just very single-focused in this game.

...Do you think that me voting the least # of people is directly proportional to how I regard those people as scum or not despite me stating my notes and the psychological imperative of an apparent publicly show instead of lightly concealing the assertive suspicion in your tone/words?
If yes, then that's how I feel you see me as.

..Also the Witches Coven (Is this the right game?) was a...really different thing there.

But here..I really see you as trying to undermine me. I focused on Caz, HOWEVER I fail to see you note my OTHER suspicions. Remember ToonyMan? Or perhaps you don't, because you killed him and feel guilty about it. Remember Cmega? Remember how I said I discarded my suspicion on him due to his utter lack of responses (+ newbie card-benefit of doubt) [aaand he requested replacement. Something which confirmed my suspicion that his play was more of a...RL thing given how I couldn't glean much from his posts]

I'm conflicted as to whether you're just amazing at distancing/bussing or you're just very single-focused in this game.

I pay attention to detail and have to ask, did you see where I say why I do what I do? As in, that one post wherein I do admit my thing on Caz, and why I do such?

Fakeedit: I do wonder how I wasn't in the vote-analysis before, if this takes in those votes given how I interfaced with those people back then.

Also a continued point which was left out from last post on Imp's voting Caz: I do like how she got her own reasoning, and mine (despite it not being directly said by me >.> as in 'that accusation of lying'). I cannot fathom how 'no impact' scales with anything but how the votes turn rather than how it can be analyzed. Also she has notes on Caz.

PPE: NQT.

It doesn't really matter why people make their votes most of the time as most town player's votes are for people that don't turn out to be scum. I don't care if you don't like the way I scum hunt: as the record shows it's a lot more reliable than regular methods.

Wat.
So analysis of the person's vote equals if they're scum or not is a futile method compared to how many times they vote others? Is that what you're saying?!
...My conventional scumhunting principle feels shattered by this assault on its honor. Point taken, query still stands.

Right, so you're saying that the scumteam would know about your abilities when making plans on Day 3. What are you trying to tell us, Tiruin?

...That's a really nice FoS! is what I'm saying :v
*Tiruin points at reasons and actions taken, specifically the Persus note.
*Tiruin then points at what I just said.
I don't even what you're saying here. How or what are you saying by the bolded part? Emphasis on the underlined.

Obviously it makes sense for scum to distance themselves from fellow-scum that they know are going to be lynched.

*ahem* T'ain't obvious t' me, sir. Hence why'm askin'.
So again: Why?

Read the word 'but' as 'and'. A fall guy is someone that is innocent but takes the blame. The scapegoat. The patsy. That's me. I'm saying I'm the fall guy. Their plan was always to have Max lynched and me look scummy while they did it, to set me up for a mislynch.

...But..but-...what?
This feels like I'm staring at the Gordian Knot, and I don't have a sharp object and/or any firestarting things to unravel the knot.
Meaning: ...I can't make direct sense of this..and I feel like you're saying that somehow, "I'm the victim, and given the events of yesterday, it all seems like an elaborate plan to have me lynched."
..Please reword, thanks.

The analysis ranks the players in order of scumminess. It's better at predicting who's most likely to be town. My vote is on Imp at the moment because I don't think it's impossible for the analysis to be wrong here, but it heavily suggests that you're the remaining scum. I've gone back and looked at the reasons why you had so few targets, and the reason seems to be you were quite effectively hunting scum, and that's part of the reason why I've switched my vote to Imp. My suspicions of you are meta-tell suspicions.

Yeah, HOW @bolded part. What is the basis of scumminess that it ranks people by? I can see the likelyness, yeah, but in how you interpret it, it seems like you're missing crucial notes which are PERTINENT to how the analysis works! I agree that the analysis may be near infallible (ie It is a good a tool as a lurkertracker in theory) but in how results are interpreted are what I'm attacking here.
You saying I have so few targets is...pretty appalling. I had thought you were thinking much deeper than that superficial note.

..Also meta-suspicions. Really. >.>

I'd rather she voted during the actual day rather than in the last post of the day! Day 1 she did no voting then tied the vote nearly at the last moment. Day 2 she did no voting before using her vote in a token way. Day 3 she begrudgingly votes for Max despite the fact she apparently called him out on a false vote. It doesn't matter who she voted for, the way she voted was scummy.

See: Above. I checked back on the voting (the suspicion was in her context).

She had a bizarre case based on me being a converter when that wasn't even a possibility. It looked very much like she was clutching at reasons to vote me.

Let's check on it I'll check on it later because sleep >_< Sorry to cut it short for ~5 hours or somewhat.
PPE: Toaster Blarghh why does activity happen when I'm planning to sleep.

I said this.  Let's assume Max was the last cultist.  He fakeclaimed to get Persus lynched.  Assuming that he had been successful, we'd be lynching him today post-haste, and that'd be it for Team Cult.  Ergo, there must be one more cultist.

Ah. Thanks.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

I..noticed the list + scoreboard of people. Disregard that.

Yes- a planned bus for either Imp or Persus with Max is within the realm of possibility.  I doubt it, though.

Why Persus more than Imp?

...Because I targeted Persus on N2? That, and evidence prior to today really orients my sight on Persus==Town. Sure, Max could've done the kill (given him being Knight), but comparing the facts..well. Try to reason why the scumteam has TWO Knights (technical aspect) AND the Hunter-Sword thing back then (proof of knight) + Persus' words and posts (including him believing that Imp is a saving grace vs Max' ability due to Seer having... quite an attractable reputation, as my guess on why he rationalized that)

Specific!

I am unsure if what Imp did is a bus, she reads minor Town to me, with intervals coming greater towards the green side given how NQT is posting.

Also heeey, you've the same wat I have
^{Yeah sleep sorry. Nice username by the way.}

[notquitethere]

Toaster

NQT:  I think you're framing your actions to make them look good in your own meta-tell.

Yeah I knew people would say that. I'm damned either way. As you'll see in my analyses, I had about the same number of suspicions as anyone else in the early-to-mid-game.

You've got two of your own meta-tells here giving you conflicting results.

Not really. Tiruin looks most scummy due her low number of suspicions, but those low number of suspicions look particularly justifiable. Imp is very town with her suspicions and she has the highest post count, but the way she used her vote and the cases that she's making have been pretty scummy. Basically, my scumetrics say Tiruin is scum and Imp is town, whereas traditional scumhunting says Imp is scum and Tiruin is town. I'm torn.

What's noteworthy is you decide Imp must be telling the truth, so you go to... Persus?  Why not Max?  All redirections in the past have been obvious to the redirected party, and no one claims this.  Thinking back on this, I really don't see the logical leap.

I didn't know redirections were obvious to the redirected party. If I'd have known that then I probably would have voted Max again.

I think you're votejumping and throwing around to see where it will stick.  Trying to see who you can drive a mislynch on, NQT?

Nope. I'm willing to change my mind and not give a damn how that makes me look. Changing your mind is not a scumtell. You really think my interactions with Max and Caz are indicative of scumbuddies? Toony and Jim certainly didn't think so.

...Again, praising an activity as townlike while doing it yourself to reinforce the point.  You've put a lot of work into reinforcing a barrier around yourself.  Your breadcrumbing is another example of you building a giant town facade around yourself.  You've done well disguising it, but I can see through it now.

Or... I'm not building a town façade around me because I actually am town.

It doesn't really matter why people make their votes most of the time as most town player's votes are for people that don't turn out to be scum.

wat

Do you think there's any worth looking at why Toony voted Jim wooly voting or you voted Cmega for acting defensive? Like I said, we should definitely question people over weak votes, but it's worth bearing in mind that often (especially in the early game) scum can fabricate perfectly reasonable sounding reasons to vote for people.

It looked very much like she was clutching at reasons to vote me.

But that doesn't matter, right?

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. Admittedly, I could have been clearer.
PPE Tiruin: get to you in a moment.

[Tiruin]

@NQT: If significant posts of mine wouldn't (most probably) be taken into account, here's a part which I explained my narrow vision.

PPE: Yay activity!
^{Ok I'm really sure I'm half-asleep judging by my ability to have lucid musical compositions of the instrumental genre play in my surroundings.
I think I listen to it too much. Ah well.}

PPE Tiruin: get to you in a moment.

Aw fish.

Not really. Tiruin looks most scummy due her low number of suspicions, but those low number of suspicions look particularly justifiable. Imp is very town with her suspicions and she has the highest post count, but the way she used her vote and the cases that she's making have been pretty scummy. Basically, my scumetrics say Tiruin is scum and Imp is town, whereas traditional scumhunting says Imp is scum and Tiruin is town. I'm torn.

I'd really love to derail, rerail, and weld shut the tangent on..the suspicion by observation instead of a suspicion by analysis point :S I really don't see this going anywhere conclusive (other than..give the notion that you're sticking to your analysis. I get that.)

..Traditional scumhunting?

Do you think there's any worth looking at why Toony voted Jim wooly voting or you voted Cmega for acting defensive? Like I said, we should definitely question people over weak votes, but it's worth bearing in mind that often (especially in the early game) scum can fabricate perfectly reasonable sounding reasons to vote for people.

Err, illogical voting is a towntell then?
...I'm confused. There is a fine line between genuine-ness and manipulative-ness. It's there, and I don't think I can explain it right now (or probably when I'm fully awake too..but its in how one...analyzes.)

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Imp: notquitethere
notquitethere: Imp, Toaster, Persus13


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Friday

[Imp]

"Track record"? And "Kill another Town"?
Clarify.

'Track record' is an idiom basically meaning 'collective accomplishments and failings'. I was saying that Toaster has consistently targeted town players to kill in the night and so I have little faith that he'd successfully pick scum on the last night.

I believe you're lying in what you claim is your thinking and beliefs here - or you are showing a very strange bias that is illogical.

I believe this because -the lynch- is also failable.  Though in this game so far we have lynched Scum 2/3 times - many games the lynch continues to pick out Townie after Townie.  The difference to me between a Town vig kill and a lynch is -only- the number of people involved in making that decision - which means that the lynch is decided by -both- Town and Scum so we know people of good and bad intentions are all deciding together - and that the vig kill is decided by one person only, who is definitely Town, and who is making their choice to kill or not based on influences from both Town and Scum (the posts of others throughout play) and then only their own (but certainly Town) perspective.

By the logic you use, the lynch should not be used - in most games the lynch targets more Town than Scum - in some games the lynch only kills Town.

Note I am specifically talking about the difference between the lynch and a Town vig kill.  Not between the lynch and Toaster's kills this game. 


Lets examine the similarity or difference between 'Toaster's kills this game' and 'what a Town Vig would reasonable do'.  We have the benefit of the fact that Toaster's played before.  I'm going to call him 'a typically stable and sensible player who usually is able to move effectively towards his Wincon, whatever that is' - and if anyone cares to present older-game evidence that Toaster does not in fact tend to make effective choices to support his actual Wincon, I want those quotes and links presented.

Because Toaster is 'sane and effective' by my standards, because Toaster has claimed a role we know exists (but didn't know was Toaster - and had NOT excluded him as the only possible liar if he did not claim so), and because Toaster's claimed role leaves a visible evidence Trail - we can evaluate Toaster's actions and attempt to determine what Wincon those actions work towards.

Given only what I know of D1 play - Persus was slight lean Scum to me.  Toony was my only 'moderate lean' Scum pick alive at start of N1 - and I can accept (especially since it was talked about) that my pick of Toony was probably mine alone at that point.  Had Toaster picked a player I felt was a null-Tell or any lean towards Town would put doubt in me that he truly felt that player was selected for Scumminess -  but he did not.  I view attempting to kill Persus N1 as a reasonable Town Vig choice.

Nerjin was Toaster's N2 choice.  While he was -not- high on my Scum list, he was on the Scum-lean side.  Unlike the rest of us, having been ressed Nerjin had somewhere around a 50% chance of being not-Town.  His play was odd.  Loss of his play as he'd been using it was a small loss to Town - and it is a reasonable assumption that Nerjin was playing the way he was because of active choice - pretending to have given up and trying to survive by being 'little and sad' or something, instead of having actually given up and been waiting as Town to die again.  I view killing Nerjin N2 as a reasonable Town Vig choice.

Toony was Toaster's N3 choice.  He's my second Scum pick at D3 end - his play at end of D3 was weird.  His play D1 and D2 was rather erratic and pretty lurky - which wasn't exactly countered by his D3 play either.  I view killing Toony N3 as a reasonable Town Vig choice.

Now - huge issue.  Far as I know, the only possible threats to Town are killers or converters, and we may not have a converter this game.  Scum can kill, and Toaster can kill.

But we didn't have to know that Toaster can kill.  If Toaster said 'no, I'm an X' - with X being any non-killer, and especially if the X he picked was a role that -would not- appear to me to be a type of killer (like say, werebear would) - then he has only the chance that I picked him to investigate and that I thus could and surely would counterclaim him.

But now Toaster has chosen to claim being a Town Monster Hunter.  THis is a very reasonable claim for a real Town Monster Hunter to make under these circumstances - and not necessarily the best claim for a SK to make.

And I believe, if Toaster is an SK, Toaster has lost by making that claim under these exact circumstances.

So, all told, I'm perfectly happy with Toaster's play being exactly in lines with what's reasonable for a Town vig killer to do.

[Imp]

I just thought of this N4 plan guys - assuming we have a N4.  If the game ends with NQT's lynch, there's no N4.  If it doesn't end with NQT's lynch - the words Meph uses may make it clear if there is another Scum - or if the problem is not Scum.  That may help us D5 in telling if the problem we face is Scum or not, and that may help our search D5.

Assuming we lynch NQT today, this plan offers a way to test the claimed roles of Toaster, Persus, and Tiruin.  This is only important for Tiruin - who has not yet had a role verification public action.  If we do NOT lynch NQT today... The plan needs changing or scraping.  Unless of course I'm lynched in place of NQT - the plan doesn't need me or him.  But it does need all the other three.

Tiruin, I ask that if we have a N4, that you select Toaster to be redirected to Persus13.  This ensures that if Toaster IS an SK, he cannot actually kill anyone.

Toaster:  I ask if we have a N4, that you target Tiruin for your kill.  There's no way to make you do this - but the only reason your kill could actually harm her, as she has claimed Illusionist and to be able to redirect you - knowing that you are supposed to target her, if she -can- redirect she has -every- reason to redirect you, regardless of her alignment.

If Tiruin instead redirects you to yourself or me - Tiruin ain't Town and Persus and whichever of Toaster or Imp who lived should lynch Tiruin.  If she cannot redirect you, she's lied about being an illusionist and your kill will kill her.  If she follows the plan, you are redirected to Persus13 - no one dies.

Persus: the only request for you is to report on D5 if you were or were not the target of another night attack.

If we have a remaining Scum or a hostile third party and we need to have a D5, this ensures we reach D5 with no night kill - assuming that everyone has role claimed with honesty.

Does anyone see any flaws in this plan or any way it could fail and cause a death, or fail and cause a death that doesn't help one identify the liar and ensure that player's death the next day?

This plan doesn't test me - and I don't see any way it could - as I have no way to 'control outcomes'

An alternate form of this plan would use me as the kill target instead of Tiruin.  There's less 'Tiruin -must- use her claimed power or die herself' in this form of the plan, but if she doesn't save me it's clear she lied about being an Illusionist OR that she wanted that night kill to happen.  Does anyone see a flaw in this form of the plan, a way it could hide anyone's actual intentions better than the plan where Tiruin is the kill target would?

[Imp]

NQT, your vote story about me D1 is a lie.  I -had- a lynch pick until near the very end of that day, when I finally accepted that Toony might by my choice but no one was going to agree to that.

Nerjin was a compromise vote to me, and I really wanted Toony to be the lynch.

Replace your -garbage false analysis-

Day 1, Imp doesn't place a vote until right at the very end. I pressed her on this:

which any check of either the posts in the thread OR a look at Think's vote tracker would make obvious.

You -also- pressed me to stop voting Toony that day, and tried again and again to highlight Nerjin's Scumminess as a good alternate target:

Imp— I agree that Toony's play has been subpar but a lot of what you point out could be indicative of a selfish personality rather than role. Right now though he's my second choice for scum. He at least has made an excuse that he's been too busy to participate. Nerjin on the other hand has been quite active and intolerably passive. Speaking of which...

At the time you made that post I was still voting for Toony.  Yeah, you're my top Scum pick.  You're being deceptive, manipulative, directly lying when you choose.

I have to go to work now.  I don't have -time- to pick out the rest of the lies from the truth.  But these are not the first lies from you, Scum.

[Imp]

But here..I really see you as trying to undermine me. I focused on Caz, HOWEVER I fail to see you note my OTHER suspicions. Remember ToonyMan? Or perhaps you don't, because you killed him and feel guilty about it. Remember Cmega? Remember how I said I discarded my suspicion on him due to his utter lack of responses (+ newbie card-benefit of doubt) [aaand he requested replacement. Something which confirmed my suspicion that his play was more of a...RL thing given how I couldn't glean much from his posts]

I never read all the posts before making my own this morning.  Just mentioning here as I complete my reading and catching up - Toonyman was Toaster's kill, not Scum's.  Jim was N3's Scum kill, by the flavor of disappearance versus sword-wound.

[Imp]

Toaster
Imp is very town with her suspicions and she has the highest post count, but the way she used her vote and the cases that she's making have been pretty scummy.

Oh neat.  NQT, consider yourself invited to expound upon how my -suspicions- look very Town and my -cases- make me look pretty Scummy.  Ima get me some popcorn for when I read this.

[Imp]

What's noteworthy is you decide Imp must be telling the truth, so you go to... Persus?  Why not Max?  All redirections in the past have been obvious to the redirected party, and no one claims this.  Thinking back on this, I really don't see the logical leap.

I didn't know redirections were obvious to the redirected party. If I'd have known that then I probably would have voted Max again.

So you're saying, NQT, that you didn't bother to look back at the previous S games where Illusionists had used their skills and read the PMs of the targets, all of which make it clear that the targets knew they were redirected by the end of the PM, despite how you were considering the possibility of an Illusionist being involved and made multiple posts which support the observation that you were putting thought and analysis into how an illusionist might be affecting play.

Why didn't you think to check that, why were you comfortable with your assumption that the misdirected Target wouldn't know they were misdirected and didn't bother to check past evidence that was even linked for you?  In my post analyzing illusionist past play I give link to the post with the role PMs, and it's just a scan down from there to find the night PMs.