xkcd

by **webby** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:25 am UTC

Ok, I'll do the proper calculation:

If we were to claim right now, we'd have 6 claimed villagers, of which 2 were scum.

Chances of going T/T/T = 4/6*3/5*2/4 = 1/5
Chances of going T/T/S in some order then T = 3 *4/6 *3/5 *2/4 *1/2 = 3/10

So overall without any good results, and lynching at random, a mass-claim now gives us 50-50.

Without the scum roleblocker, it would definitely be the best idea, because we'd likely to do much better than that from cop result(s) with the 'I am a power role' rather than 'I am cop' claiming strategy (for example a cop surviving night 2 would win the game for us).

I think it's definite that if we're about to lynch the cop today, they should claim, and we should mass claim.

Apart from that, we need to consider how useful the cop is to us. They have a 2/7 chance of hitting scum tonight, and a 1/6 chance of being nightkilled. So the chances of getting a useful scum result tonight is 2/7*5/6 = 10/42, or a little less than 25%. That's actually more than I expected.

So I'm ok with not massclaiming today - I don't think it's overwhelmingly a better or worse option than playing the game the normal way and it doesn't seem to be very popular. It just felt like the right way to play this sort of game, where the town-scum ratio is high and the power role-vanilla ratio is also high. At least it started the discussion.

by **roband** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:32 am UTC

re: "If I was a cop, I investigated XXX and s/he was YYY" - I don't like it when games turn into that

re: claiming, right now I don't think it's the best idea. Tomorrow, if any power roles get a 'result' that's worth claiming - maybe a mass claim will be in order, but I think we can take that as it comes.

Sorry for my low content so far, the weekend (and busy end of last week) is over now.

by **Lorenz** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:39 pm UTC

webby wrote:Ok, I'll do the proper calculation:

If we were to claim right now, we'd have 6 claimed villagers, of which 2 were scum.

Chances of going T/T/T = 4/6*3/5*2/4 = 1/5
Chances of going T/T/S in some order then T = 3 *4/6 *3/5 *2/4 *1/3 =1/5

So overall without any good results, and lynching at random, a mass-claim now gives us 40-60.

FTFY

by **webby** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:50 pm UTC

Lorenz wrote:
webby wrote:Ok, I'll do the proper calculation:

If we were to claim right now, we'd have 6 claimed villagers, of which 2 were scum.

Chances of going T/T/T = 4/6*3/5*2/4 = 1/5
Chances of going T/T/S in some order then T = 3 *4/6 *3/5 *2/4 *1/3 =1/5

So overall without any good results, and lynching at random, a mass-claim now gives us 40-60.

FTFY

Oops, for some reason I thought 2-1 town-scum was a 50-50 chance of winning. My mistake.

by **weiyaoli** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:33 pm UTC

We haven't been hearing much from bio, markstonia or PE so far. (I don't think they have had any posts except for their confirms)

by **roband** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:00 pm UTC

mark-who?

by **webby** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Yes, we haven't heard anything from them and the deadline is about 1.5 days away.

I haven't picked out anything scummy from anyone's posts yet - the proposing and refutation of ideas has seemed like genuine attempts to help town. If all else fails, I'd vote a lurker, but I'd much prefer we got posts from them.

In case their silence is based on not knowing what to say - I would like comments from them either on the specifics of the proposed strategies, or their thoughts on the players who have proposed them.

by **Misnomer** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:41 am UTC

Modprods have been sent out to Phoenix Engima and markstonia.

b.i.o has made an actual game post, so avoids my wrath for now.

Deadline extended to 6pm BST Thursday 21st July, ~58 hours from now. There will be no further extensions.

by **Azrael001** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:54 pm UTC

I always prefer mod kills to lurker lynches, but only in extreme cases. Though on the first day replacements aren't so bad.

by **PhoenixEnigma** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:06 pm UTC

Sorry, I've been terribly absent.

I'll admit I'm not one for playing by numbers and odds too much - I tend to play more by intuition - so I can't comment too heavily on that aspect. I'm inclined to think the people actually doing that analysis look towny, but I might just be wowed by "oh, shiny numbers." I am aware that number crunching is an easy and objective way for players to be useful without actually needing to provide a lot of opinion, and can therefore be useful to scum, but that's not really the vibe I'm getting here.

My one strategy thought is that, presuming the watcher is still alive, follow the cop is very viable - I'd have to work out the numbers (or, you know, not), but I think that currently, with the watcher alive, if we go to lynch either the cop or tracker, they can claim, and be effectively doctored by the watcher. This seems like a pretty strong position to be in, but I'm not sure if partial claim works out better than massclaim (I'd guess no, myself, but it's nice to know that if someone's hand is pushed, we're not too bad off).

Also, I don't really like games that massclaim and are just playing out the days - even if it's a win, it feels cheap to me.

by **DaBigCheez** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:00 pm UTC

PE - the problem with that is the roleblock, so "follow the cop" will be useless if the cop's claimed. It'd keep the roleblock locked down, and it'd give us a confirmed townie (since they know the watcher will be watching, and thus won't kill the cop), but will also effectively negate the cop and watcher's powers, leaving only the tracker free. Certainly if the cop's forced to claim to prevent a mislynch, keeping a confirmed townie alive is better than nothing, but follow-the-cop won't work whilst the roleblocker yet lives.

by **Lorenz** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:06 pm UTC

Wouldn't watcher see the cop get role-blocked though?

by **DaBigCheez** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:13 pm UTC

Oh right, dur. Watcher would see the roleblock if it happened, and would also see the kill if it happened, and it's not like doing both would help scum in any way. For some reason I was thinking of the watcher properly in terms of being confused by cop/tracker visits, but not thinking about the roleblock <_<

Yeah - in that case, follow-the-cop would work, and scum would have to either counterclaim a watcher result (ensuring they'll be lynched within 2 days) or get supremely lucky with a roleblock; if it does come down to a claim, I think a partial-claim with watcher remaining hidden and then following the cop will help us a lot more than a full massclaim (or even a "I am a power role"-claim for that matter). Tracker should presumably remain hidden as well, barring interesting results.

by **PhoenixEnigma** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:18 pm UTC

Yeah, that was my assumption - if the cop is roleblocked, then the watcher sees it and outs the scum. Of course, this requires the watcher to not have claimed, otherwise the watcher gets RB's and the cop gets killed, but at that point we're in rather a tight spot anyways.

by **PhoenixEnigma** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:21 pm UTC

EBWOP: Ninja'd. And yeah, tracker should probably remain hidden, if only because they might be more useful towards the end game. The first day or two, they're probably (heck, they are, even I can tell 2 = 2 XD) as likely to out town power roles as they are scum. That might be an OK trade later, or narrow down claims, but early on seems like an unneeded risk.

by **Lorenz** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:27 pm UTC

It does seem like a good idea. I can't figure out the cons/pros to this, but what about watcher following the tracker, and cop remaining hidden?

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:21 am UTC

Lorenz, two problems with that.
1) Tracker results are more ambiguous. If you hit the cop with the tracker, you'll force the cop to claim rather than knowing for sure you've caught scum, and hitting the goon would do nothing if the mastermind was carrying out both actions that night; the cop doesn't force a tracker claim, it only returns scum if you've caught scum.
2) It leaves the cop vulnerable to being killed at random.

Basically, the cop is more valuable than the tracker - I'd be happier with a cop publicly claiming results and a tracker gathering stuff on the side which may-or-may-not be useful than the other way around.

Another thought:
-If the tracker hits the Watcher, then it'll be clear that the public claimant (be it cop or Tracker) was targeted. If the claimant isn't killed or roleblocked, then the tracker knows who the watcher is, but can keep that information to themselves to avoid outing them.

THEREFORE:
If the cop claims:
-Watcher can watch them each night.
-Tracker can be certain whether activity they see is scummy, as cop is claimed and watcher will have obvious target.
-Cop can claim targets for the upcoming night publicly to guarantee no overlap with Tracker, enabling two "cops" per night (though there may be overlap after the first night post-claim). Possible problem, in that if the target is town, that could provide an easy confirmed-townie takedown for scum during the night.
-Scum is guaranteed to be caught if they kill or roleblock the cop, unless they simultaneously kill or roleblock the Watcher.

Honestly, this is looking like a pretty solid strategy to me - cop claim, with watcher and tracker remaining hidden barring imminent lynch. If and when scum successfully hits the watcher the jig is up, but there should be enough of a delay for the cop to get results out.

Question to the mod:

When someone is lynched, is their role revealed immediately, or in the morning?

(May become relevant in the case of a Watcher mislynch, if they don't claim for some reason - the only situation I know of barring luck or extreme late-game where scum could safely kill the cop without fear of the Watcher, without requiring at least one day/night cycle after killing/identifying the Watcher)

by **webby** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:33 am UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:-Cop can claim targets for the upcoming night publicly to guarantee no overlap with Tracker, enabling two "cops" per night (though there may be overlap after the first night post-claim). Possible problem, in that if the target is town, that could provide an easy confirmed-townie takedown for scum during the night.

Looks all good apart from this. This means we get no useful townie results because scum will kill any player they know is going to get targeted. Much better for the cop not to say who they're targetting.

I like this strategy - several townie points to PE.

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:37 am UTC

Right, webby; I didn't really like the idea while I was writing it, but thought I'd throw it out there.

by **Lorenz** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:54 am UTC

Ok, I really like the idea as well. I also don't like the idea of the cop claiming who they're going to target.
Completely scratch my idea of exchanging tracker/cop, thanks for explaining DBC.

On another note, should we start discussing lynch candidates? IF we somehow are lynching the watcher, and they claim, the strategy will fail, so I suggest the cop doesn't claim (If the consensus is that cop should claim) until after we decide who we want to lynch. That way, if the watcher has to claim, the cop doesn't.

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:09 am UTC

Hmm...that does nicely plug the only hole I've noticed so far (that is, that a watcher lynch/claim-forcing wrecks the whole strat). So, let's get on with that, you know, actually-playing-the-game thing

My thoughts so far:

webby, PhoenixEnigma, and Lorenz have all been making good contributions and spinning off strategies; some have been flawed, but I think all of their contributions make me lean town on them. (I'd be suspicious of some of Lorenz's contributions, as they're more asking for explanation/leading to potentially flawed plans, but pointing out the "watcher sees the roleblock" thing gives him more townie cred in my mind.)

roband - not enough content for me to get a read
Azrael001 - neutral leaning scummy, seems to have OK content but a bit more focus on shooting ideas down than generating original content
weiyaoli's been pinging me a little bit, but not too hard; I'm not able to identify anything in particular that's causing it, though, just a gut feeling relating to how logic's being presented.

markstonia - hard lurker, mod's job to deal with if they don't respond.
b.i.o. - lurker after initial discussion-generating post which I'm not sure how to interpret; could be scum trying to lure something out, could be town trying to probe out the merits of a strategy

I think overall, I'd prefer a lynch on weiyaoli or Azrael001, but I'll want to examine my own feelings more in-depth there before casting a vote, and see if I can figure out where the pings are coming from. Preference going to weiyaoli, due to stronger (and more consistent from start-of-game) feeling + finding Az's posting style more fun to read. I'd like to see more content from roband and (obviously) the two lurkers.

by **Lorenz** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:23 am UTC

Hmm, I hadn't noticed I was in such a questioning mood. Anyway
Roband - Low content, but has had low content in other current games. Does seem to be busy at the moment. - Neutral
Markstonia - NO READ
Lorenz - I'm posting players in the posted order of the OP, so here is where I land. TOWN
Azrael001 - Some content, but nothing to move the game forward. NEUTRAL
PhoenixEnigma - No posts until recently, proposes good strategy. TOWN
DaBigCheez - Most content IMO, has proposed some nice plans, and analyzed others. I have been fooled twice before to think he is town, but that should not change my judgement now. TOWN
Webby - Gave some wrong number-crunching which sounds genuine. One of their last posts saying cop should not claim who they're going to track crossed from neutral to the town side for me - TOWN
b.i.o - Too little to actually get a read. NEUTRAL
Weiyaoli - Has some good discussion, but I could kind of interpret some of his posts in either direction (For example, the question to the mod about the roleblock seems towny at first glance, but I could also see scum taking advantage of the opportunity to get more info themselves). Still, nothing that really makes me suspect scum anyway. NEUTRAL

I could go for an Azrael/b.i.o/weiyaoli/roband lynch, for lack of scum-tells. I would not like for the vote to be stretched till deadline in case anything important needs to be posted, so I'll be casting a vote at the latest in 24 hours.

by **Misnomer** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:49 am UTC

DaBigCheez wrote:Question to the mod:

When someone is lynched, is their role revealed immediately, or in the morning?

In the morning.

Votals: still none!

Soft deadline in roughly 33 hours

by **roband** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:56 am UTC

Whenever I reply, the maths fonts have to load. I often get pissed off and close the page.

Anyway, content is hard when there's not a lot to go on. This is a similar line I used in Portal, when I was SK, but f'realz, I'm getting nothing here.

It's impossible to get a read on someone when they're doing maths - sometimes I don't even check that stuff, and skip to the percentages at the end.

I currently have no lynch targets.

by **webby** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:12 pm UTC

Time to analyse!

1. roband

Spoiler:

Slightly scummy until he has some content, although I am sympathetic to the maths fonts and it being hard to get a read on people doing maths.

2. markstonia

Lurker

3. Lorenz

Spoiler:

Moderately townie.

4. Azrael001

Spoiler:

I think one-line posts might just be his style.

Reacts to content rather than putting it forward himself. That can sometimes be a scumtell, but can also be a playstyle thing. For now - neutral.

5. PhoenixEnigma

Spoiler:

Moderately townie from the one post so far.

6. DaBigCheez

Spoiler:

Moderately townie.

8. b.i.o

Single post was a good one - first to point out the potential for claiming and/or coordination in power roles. Lurker.

9. weiyaoli

Spoiler:

Overall, neutral, nowhere near as helpful/townie as a lot of players in the game.

From town to scum:
1. Lorenz
2. DaBigCheez
3. PhoenixEnigma
4. weiyaoli
5. Azrael001
6. roband

Lurkers:
markstonia
b.i.o.

I'd favour lynching roband at this point, but could be be convinced on Azrael.

by **roband** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:54 pm UTC

Well obviously I don't like being at the bottom of your list, but I'm a little annoyed to see that you counted my 'mark-who' post as a scummy-leaning edge.

You know by now, I expect, that I'm not bothered about posting short, conversational and often non-game related content. Normally, this doesn't stand out as much because I tend to post a lot, I guess.

I want to have a counter argument, but there really has been so little to discuss so far. PE's inactivity worried me, simply because I /know/ he's been online and such, but not posting for some reason.

by **webby** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:11 pm UTC

Yes I do know that, and as I've said to you before, those little/jokey posts (like mark-who) are only scummy when they're combined with a lack of actual content. It just feels like you're acting far more like you did in C9 than in Terminator.

It's near the end of day 1, and I think by now there's enough that's gone on and been said that you should have at least some opinion of the players based on their posts by now. If you had to vote for someone, who would it be?

by **roband** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:15 pm UTC

webby wrote:Yes I do know that, and as I've said to you before, those little/jokey posts (like mark-who) are only scummy when they're combined with a lack of actual content. It just feels like you're acting far more like you did in C9 than in Terminator.

Was I scum in C9? I can't recall.

Erm, yeah, activity seems to be lower than normal for me, across the board in both my games though. Not sure why, I'll try to improve.

And if I HAD to vote? Probably a NL. Right now I think we'd probably gain more in having an extra person alive tomorrow, than we would from lynching someone who hasn't said much which can be analysed (basically everyone).
I doubt that'll be a popular idea.

by **webby** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:23 pm UTC

roband wrote:And if I HAD to vote? Probably a NL. Right now I think we'd probably gain more in having an extra person alive tomorrow, than we would from lynching someone who hasn't said much which can be analysed (basically everyone).
I doubt that'll be a popular idea.

That's actually not a crazy idea when we have a follow the cop strategy. I'll sleep now and consider it more in the morning.

by **roband** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:26 pm UTC

About 26.5 hours to deadline, just to note.

by **weiyaoli** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:14 pm UTC

No one is standing out to me at the moment, except maybe DBC with his "feeling" but no specifics but that does also have a bit of OMGUS in that. I don't think I would support a lurker lynch in this instance, because they (particularly markstonia/bio) wouldn't be active enough to claim power role. On the converse of course, there is that if they were inactive enough to not claim, they wouldn't send in their actions anyway, but there is always the chance that they would show up again or at least get replaced.

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:12 pm UTC

I read back through weiyaoli's posts, and didn't get pinged this read-through; I think it was mostly from this post, and the pings were a hold-over from when I was thinking that claiming 'I am a power role' could lead to one scum claiming power role/one scum claiming villager, forcing us into a massclaim, and for some reason thinking that was a bad outcome (forced massclaim with auto-scumkill in first two days, rather than searching for them among the villagers). I now consider weiyaoli as Neutral.

Thinking about a no-lynch...hmm. If we lynch every day, we've got 3 lynches to hit one scum, 4 lynches to hit both. (Worst-case wherein we still win: 7/2 town/scum --> 5/2 --> 3/2 --> 2/1 --> Win)
If we NL today and lynch every other day, we'll have 2 lynches to hit one scum, 3 lynches to hit both. (7/2 --> 6/2 --> 4/2 --> 3/1 --> Win)
If we NL both today and tomorrow, we'll have the same situation - 2 lynches to hit one scum, 3 lynches to hit both. (7/2 --> 6/2 --> 5/2 --> 3/2 --> 2/1 --> Win)

I'm a little leery of no-lynching (in large part because I think it makes the game kinda lame), but considering a forced watcher claim would break the strategy, I think NL today and tomorrow might be the strongest plan, then get with the lynching. IF we NL today, THEN we should also NL tomorrow; if the watcher dies during the night or we get a strong scumtell, we can think more about it tomorrow.

I hesitantly advocate a NL today and tomorrow.

by **Lorenz** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:09 pm UTC

No lynching makes no sense to me. If we no lynch, scum can counter-claim any future claims and give us some trouble. I want to analyze this further, as I'm working right now, but I did promise I would cast a vote by now.
Vote: Roband
I will move this vote if I realize the NL strategy is good. At first glance I see some problems with it, and I do want to keep my words of submitting a vote.

by **weiyaoli** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:32 pm UTC

Lorenz wrote:If we no lynch, scum can counter-claim any future claims and give us some trouble.

What do you mean by this? Scum can do this whether we lynch or not.

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:48 pm UTC

I, too, am curious how no-lynching affects scum's ability to counterclaim.

by **Lorenz** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:48 pm UTC

Yes, what I mean is that it can be more profitable for them, since we only have 3 lynches. (Will analyze the full consequences at night, sorry I can't do it now)

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:12 pm UTC

Oh, right - Lorenz raises a potentially good point there. I am, however, unsure of its validity, and here's why.

If we have 4 lynches to win, then scum counterclaiming power roles (1 each) is a guaranteed town victory - we will with 100% certainty be able to lynch both claim-pairs, killing both scum and winning.
If we only have 3 lynches to win, then scum counterclaiming power roles (1 each) is not a guaranteed town victory - in the worst-case scenario, we might only take out 1 scum and then lynch the wrong one of the remaining pair.

The reason I'm not too worried about this is that it's better for scum to claim villager more or less regardless - we won't have a guaranteed win anyway, as if they all claim villager, it's 2 scum in 6, and there's a decent chance we'd go the whole way without hitting a scum. If they were forced to counterclaim power roles, it'd be important.

I would, in fact, argue this points more strongly in favor of no-lynching; if we get lucky and they hit all villagers, it's 2 scum out of 4 people (if they both claim villagers) or 5 people (if one claims a power role instead). If they hit power roles, well, we lose the power roles, but we've got 1-2 nights of cop results to help narrow down the remaining players (worst-case they hit the watcher N1, so we only get 1 night's worth of cop results and whatever the tracker can dredge up).

Actually, let me think this out:
IF WE NO-LYNCH TODAY+TOMORROW, most probable scenario:
We'll get to D3 at 5/2 with 2 cop results. Assume cop hits one villager and one power role, and scum hits villagers each night. Scum counterclaims the other power role and a villager. We have 3 lynches to sort through 4 people of uncertain alignment.
IF WE LYNCH TODAY, most probable scenario:
We'll get to D2 at 5/2 with one cop result, one villager dead from lynch. Assume cop hits a villager, as does scum. Scum counterclaims a power role and a villager. We have 3 lynches to sort through 4 people of uncertain alignment.

Either way, it seems like the worst-case is 3 lynches to hit 5 people (if there's bad syncing between cop results and what'd be useful/scumkills), with a better best-case in the no-lynch scenario (potentially narrowing it down to 3-for-3, if scum hits power roles and cop confirms villagers).

This is also disregarding tracker results entirely, which give us a stronger chance of finding scum, though it can't really confirm townies as such.

I'm convinced enough to do it this way.

Vote: No Lynch

by **DaBigCheez** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 8:50 pm UTC

EBWOP: Hmm, I may be le silly...rules from start state that player with most votes will be lynched, so unless we can get everyone to agree to a no-lynch, it won't work.

Mod: Can "No Lynch" be considered the option/player with the most votes, or will (for example) 8 NL votes and 1 vote on a player cause that player to be lynched?

by **Azrael001** » Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:15 pm UTC

I am, and always have been against No-Lynch. The arguments are logical from a statistics standpoint, but this is a game of tells and reading between the lines. As such looking at just the statistics assumes that player skill is irrelevant, and that we will be picking randomly. This is not the case. This is also why I take little part in the early statistics discussion, because while important, it is more important to be able to have a play history for a person.

I have seen no-lynch votes on day one, and they all fail for one reason: they make day 2 a continuation of day one. If we do follow the cop, we might get lucky tonight and get a good result, but odds are against it, unless the cop is unusually alert. If we go for a no lynch today tomorrow we will most likely have one vanilla town dead, one confirmed town, and no suspects. And that assumes that the scum don't get lucky and hit the cop.

Voting patterns are the way to catch scum, and no-lynch lets them hide more easily.

That said, I've been breaking with my normal tradition of voting early and often. I will remedy that shortly, first, my list of suspects.

Town:
DaBigCheez
webby

In reply to one of webby's criticisms.

webby wrote:Doesn't like people claiming just because they're about to get lynched. Neutral, don't quite agree with the logic.

I would prefer, if we are going to have people claiming, then it should be sooner rather than later. Obviously they should claim if they are about to get lynched, but I'd rather not waste most of a day on a bandwagon that gets stopped just to try to find someone else. Slows things down and makes things confusing.

Did not particularly notice (either lurking or towing the line):
roband
markstonia
PhoenixEnigma
b.i.o
weiyaoli

Leaning scummy:
Lorenz

There were a few things. Firstly, many people are hiding behind the mask of statistics for day one discussion, which is fine, but there were a couple of things that seemed like subtle attempts to get people thinking about things in a way that would create more mud than I trust.

Lorenz wrote:Also, do you guys think it's possible that 1 villager is a miller without that being posted in the opening post? Just came to my mind because of the meta thread.

This complete misunderstanding of the open vanilla game-type seemed innocent at first.

Lorenz wrote:It does seem like a good idea. I can't figure out the cons/pros to this, but what about watcher following the tracker, and cop remaining hidden?

Seems to read "I agree with the current town idea of follow the cop, but what if we did it in a way that is completely useless?"

Does agree with me on the no lynch, but has very little justification for his vote other than the one short line that he posted in his initial assessment. I am of the opinion that votes should be more justified than that.

With that:

Vote: Lorenz

by **webby** » Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:39 am UTC

Hang on, I just realised something. If you look in the role PMs, the watcher and tracker aren't told who targeted the player/who the player targetted, just whether they targetted/were targetted. I don't think the watcher can protect the cop because of this?

Obviously this moves PhoenixEnigma up my 'I want to lynch' list, especially as it makes it less likely that they have one of those two roles.

It also means we definitely don't No Lynch.

Who is online