xkcd

by **BoomFrog** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:57 am UTC

Gah, super-slow ninja'd. @GoP: MN was the first to vote for town skill and he had very reasonable reasons. I don't think scum would be so bold to go for their top choice immediately.

by **webby** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:21 am UTC

Votals:
MostlyNormal - 1 (Gopher of Pern)
TheMaskedGecko - 1 (Boomfrog)

A reminder about the rule for ties - if two players or more players are tied for the lynch at deadline, the one who has had that number of votes for the longest continuously up to the deadline will be lynched. So if the deadline was now, MostlyNormal would be lynched, but if someone else voted for TheMaskedGekko then someone else voted for MostlyNormal, TheMaskedGecko would be lynched.

44 hours, 40 minutes until deadline.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:50 pm UTC

Ok, I'm back earlyier than I expected. Voting time…

BoomFrog wrote: I think I'm going to have to go with my original instinct. I also don't like that TMG was going to go for the lurker lynch (me) and has been very followery besides that.

Vote: TheMaskedGecko

This convinces me. That accusation is ridiculous.

TheMaskedGecko wrote:BoomFrog: He's suggested two plans so far. I've liked neither, the first (NL until scum kill two of us) because it gives the scum too much power as well as the obvious problem of an NL taking away any information we could gain from votals; the second because scum could usurp it easily and through off any information we could've got from it. I also agree with mn that his confession that he would've tried steering us back to cop but he didn't change his vote. All three of these things are consistent with a hypothetical scum BF.

I don't see the bit where I say 'kill BF because he's lurking'. In fact I go and give him time to defend against my accusations, which he then goes and uses to say "I can't find anything particularly scummy about TMG but I'll vote for him anyway. I'm pretty sure that sort of thing is considered a scumtell. Especially when said un-backed-up vote is against the player who is at/near the top of another scumlist.
I did everything I could to give you a chance to defend yourself, I really did. Ah well;

Vote: BoomFrog

Is that what they call an omgus vote?

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:03 pm UTC

Re: GoP's roleblock. I agree he shouldn't declare it. Considering the high chances of mafia being strongman, we can't trust any information from this roleblock.

by **t1mm01994** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:25 pm UTC

So... A threeway tie with 2 people not having voted yet. Suh-weet! I'm not really happy with voting now. My run on MN was some stirring of the pot, which at least has given me some information.
MN went full defensive, which is expectable for either side, so neutral there. Townie creds for being active but please dont make your posts too long too often, or start adding tl;drs.
TMG went on to try and avoid an ill-advised lynch, which causes quite some towniecredz in my opinion.
Then BF comes in with an attitude that is best described by indifference in the first post... That means less towniecreddy to me.

So I'm going to switch my most scummy, and
Vote: BoomFrog

by **Mostlynormal** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:07 am UTC

(This post was ninja'd by timm, so before you judge me read to the bottom)

I guess I owe you guys a vote, not that I'd have a choice anyway if I want to survive. I'll do an informal analysis on everyone and then give my vote.

Timm: While I disagree very much with his reasons for attacking me, I think it's sort of unlikely that he would lead a lynch against me if he was scum. I still don't like his reasoning--I might have to look more closely at that D2. I can't vote him anyway unless someone changes their vote. Scummy-ish neutral.

The Masked Gecko doesn't seem that bad to me. He's been pretty vocal about his opinions. It doesn't make sense that he is going for a lurker vote-- all his reasons are based on things BF did do, not didn't do. Townie-ish neutral

Boomfrog: While I'm very grateful that he's defending me, his reasons for voting TMG make about as much sense as timm's reasons for wanting to vote me. His voting activity on day one is still a bit suspicious, though he did provide some townie veteran advice. I agree with most of TMG's reasons for voting him except the one about going for someone who was high on another person's scumlist. that person was me and I made my scumlist after BF made his. Basically, I'm voting for someone for giving bad reasons for voting, which may seem hypocritical but we don't have much to go on. If someone votes timm I'll probably go for him instead. Anyway, for now I'll vote boomfrog. (Or I would, if it wouldn't be a hammer)

To save my own skin. Also, considering I'm under suspicion for changing suspicions, I think I owe an explanation for my earlier scumlist (TMG, BF, Timm), which has now completely flipped (Timm, BF, TMG). Basically that list was made at a time when I was pretty confused. I was asked to make a scumlist and I didn't have any good canidates, so I went on mostly first instinct. Also, it was made before timm made any big accusations against me and before TMG made a big analysis post. Also, I'm perfectly willing to switch to timm if someone else will join me.

For timm: TL;DR, you look rather scummy but I can't vote for you, boomfrog also looks scummy so I'll vote for him. Sorry about the huge post

Ok, all that was written before timm posted. You can just read the last paragraph and the tl;dr if you want. Whether he's continuing to try to lynch me or not, I still find timm scummy. I've sort of got a choice between two semi-reasonable canidates who only have a badly justified suspicion as a point against them. That's not great grounds for a lynch. So I think, considering the mitigating circumstances for timm (leading a lynch, unjustified or not), along with the other problems I have with him (How was BF indifferent? If anything he was trying to avoid the ill advised lynch), and the mitigating circumstances for BF (defending me, generally seems reasonable), and the other problems I have with him (strange voting on part one) ... I can't decide. My instinct is going with timm at the moment, but that may just be a combination of the fact that he's newer and that he accused me. I think either way it'd be a pretty good situation to give a confirmed townie thet opportunity to hammer, and I don't want to look suspicious for holding back my vote. So, here it goes:

Vote: timm

by **webby** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:36 am UTC

Votals:
MostlyNormal - 1 (Gopher of Pern)
TheMaskedGecko - 1 (Boomfrog)
Boomfrog - 2 (TheMaskedGecko, t1mm01994)
t1mm01994 - 1 (MostlyNormal)

31.5 hours to deadline.

by **Mostlynormal** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:55 am UTC

Mostlynormal wrote:I think either way it'd be a pretty good situation to give a confirmed townie the opportunity to hammer

Just to clarify: somehow when I made this post I got it into my head that timm already had a vote on him, and thus GoP could choose to hammer the one he thought was scummiest (unless he still thought I was) Anyway, my vote stands, as I'd rather see a timm lynch at this point than a BF lynch.

by **t1mm01994** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:04 am UTC

Isn't it funny? You literally asked for someone to think of something to attack you, and when I do, later admitting that it was for no specific reason, I get an OMGUS vote =D

P.S.: TMG, yes, your vote is OMGUS too :p

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:09 am UTC

TheMaskedGecko wrote:BoomFrog: He's suggested two plans so far. I've liked neither, the first (NL until scum kill two of us) because it gives the scum too much power as well as the obvious problem of an NL taking away any information we could gain from votals; the second because scum could usurp it easily and through off any information we could've got from it. I also agree with mn that his confession that he would've tried steering us back to cop but he didn't change his vote. All three of these things are consistent with a hypothetical scum BF.

I don't see the bit where I say 'kill BF because he's lurking'. [/quote]
Hmm, I thought I'd defended against that but I guess that was when I was reading but didn't have time to post. Your totally misunderstanding both of my plans STILL. I never suggested we should NL until scum kill two of us, and the second is not "usurped easily" it would have been an excellent plan if anyone besides GoP had been the rollblocker. It could only be "usurped" if GoP was a scum-strongman and that seemed very unlikely. So your "accusation" is based on you thinking I proposed bad plans when everyone else in the thread understands that they were good plans with the info we had at the moment. If you are town, then calm down and try to see things from another perspective.

@GoP: If you think t1mm is a better lynch then me or MN I'll go for it, he's my second choice. I'm pretty sure TMG is it though.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:23 am UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:Isn't it funny? You literally asked for someone to think of something to attack you, and when I do, later admitting that it was for no specific reason, I get an OMGUS vote =D

P.S.: TMG, yes, your vote is OMGUS too :p

Your thought processes are confusing. He asked for someone to find a reason to attack him. Attacking him for no reason is not helpful. I'm having trouble deciding if not helpful is because you are noobie town or noobie scum though.

by **t1mm01994** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:15 am UTC

Attacking him for no reason is helpful, because it provokes reactions. Nothing was happening at the time, and I wanted to check how people acted when something more than "gee, I don't know" was said. So I picked the most unlikely target, MN, and went on for an attack..

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:35 pm UTC

@BF
a) You seem to be missing the point of that post, which is to say that I'm not going after lurkers.
b) It seems I did misinterperate your first plan, but waiting for them to kill one of us (which you definitely suggested)* made no sense to me as it worsened our odds.
c) The second plan could easily have been got around by (non GoP) scum not killing, leaving them only having to avoid two lynches for a definate win. Relying on scum to do anything is risky, as they decide whether or not to kill etc. when we're in no position to defend ourselves. Any kind of public strategy will favour them unless it's completely watertight and, dare I say, gamebreaking.
d) Besides us two these plans have had very little discussion one way or the other. I'm not assuming that the others see the same flaws that I do but they haven't corrected me there either.
e) Since then I have posted other observations, which you haven't noticeably refuted.

Tl;dr: making any plan public gives scum the upper hand but that wasn't the point of my post anyway.
*

BoomFrog wrote:If we choose the Doctor or roleblocker then scum can withhold their kill N1. We can of course no lynch and they can keep not killing until they randomly one night send in a kill.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:15 pm UTC

TMG, If we lynch D1, and mafia dont kill N1, then it is normally advantageous for town to NL D2, simply because scum can win then and there if they kill N2, if there is a lynch. Of course, it's mostly moot now, as if scum don't NK, it will benefit town. I very much doubt scum wont NK.

Public plans do not necessarily give scum the upper hand. Not if we give them 2 bad options.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:57 pm UTC

You do have a point. Doesn't address my other concerns but maybe I've focused too much on these plans. It would have helped change my mind if one of the others had backed you up. I guess that that was too much to have hoped for and it's too late now.

by **Mostlynormal** » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:49 pm UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:Attacking him for no reason is helpful, because it provokes reactions. Nothing was happening at the time, and I wanted to check how people acted when something more than "gee, I don't know" was said. So I picked the most unlikely target, MN, and went on for an attack..

That makes some sense, but your attack was pretty drawn out if it was "just trying to provoke a reaction" If my initial reaction was scummy, then you should've explained what you were trying to do and attacked the reaction. If it was townie, then you still should've explained yourself then instead of now. Right now you just look like you're backtracking

BoomFrog wrote:@GoP: If you think t1mm is a better lynch then me or MN I'll go for it, he's my second choice. I'm pretty sure TMG is it though.

What makes you so sure? TMG seems fine to me. His accusation was less about your plans and more about your poor accusations of him, or at least that's how it seemed to me. As for his misinterpretation of your plans, that's hardly a scumtell. It almost looks like you've both gone OMGUS on each other without stopping to remember why the other looked scummy in the first place.

by **t1mm01994** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:14 am UTC

It wasn't to provoke your reaction; I'm fine with you. I was checking whether BF or TMG would follow me, so I waited with my reaction till he reacted.

by **Mostlynormal** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:28 am UTC

t1mm01994 wrote:It wasn't to provoke your reaction; I'm fine with you. I was checking whether BF or TMG would follow me, so I waited with my reaction till he reacted.

That just seems so wildly improbable. If you are telling the truth, did it ever occur to you how suspicious you would look if TMG and BF didn't react?

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:43 am UTC

A belated ebwop. I misread who I was replying to in that last post. I thought it was BF, not GoP.

by **webby** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Votals:
MostlyNormal - 1 (Gopher of Pern)
TheMaskedGecko - 1 (Boomfrog)
Boomfrog - 2 (TheMaskedGecko, t1mm01994)
t1mm01994 - 1 (MostlyNormal)

1 hour, 18 minutes to deadline.

by **BoomFrog** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:48 am UTC

TheMaskedGecko wrote:b) It seems I did misinterperate your first plan, but waiting for them to kill one of us (which you definitely suggested)* made no sense to me as it worsened our odds.
BoomFrog wrote:If we choose the Doctor or roleblocker then scum can withhold their kill N1. We can of course no lynch and they can keep not killing until they randomly one night send in a kill.

As GoP pointed out, this is the correct plan. When there are 4 people alive and 1 scum town should NL. The scum kill someone and it is now 1/3 chance to lynch scum. Obviously this doesn't work if scum can withhold the kill. But it would be preferable to town if scum made a kill when in that situation. And if they have pressure form, say, a cop then they will make the kill.

c) The second plan could easily have been got around by (non GoP) scum not killing, leaving them only having to avoid two lynches for a definate win. Relying on scum to do anything is risky, as they decide whether or not to kill etc. when we're in no position to defend ourselves. Any kind of public strategy will favour them unless it's completely watertight and, dare I say, gamebreaking.

If scum can avoid two lynches they have already won. That's it, game over. So if the game doesn't end then that means they were roleblocked. Therefore if we lynch twice and haven't lost twenty dollars and my self respect yet then we lynch the guy who was roleblocked. It IS watertight.

Well crap, deadline is a commin.

Unvote
Vote: t1mm

Either GoP comes on and hammers, or we get a no lynch. Better then me dying.

by **BoomFrog** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:51 am UTC

A reminder about the rule for ties - if two players or more players are tied for the lynch at deadline, the one who has had that number of votes for the longest continuously up to the deadline will be lynched. So if the deadline was now, MostlyNormal would be lynched, but if someone else voted for TheMaskedGekko then someone else voted for MostlyNormal, TheMaskedGecko would be lynched.

Oh, bollocks. Well I guess I'm dead.

I think T1mm and TMG both have poor reasons for voting me, but t1mm has proved himself illogical in other games already. Bah, it's still close to 50/50 which of them it is.

Oh well, I urge people to trust MN. I'll be confirmed town tomorrow so listen to these last words. The scum is either t1mm or TMG. Goodluck.

by **BoomFrog** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:53 am UTC

I'm going to do a last minute change actually. I think it's T1mm. He understood my plans and felt I was really townie, and yet has done quite a reversal on me recently just because my post was "indefferent" when I came back to a long read after I was away for RL reasons. And his attack on MN was bizzare.

Lynch T1mm tomorrow please, thanks.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 7:55 am UTC

I've been having doubts. No time for drawn out post now so I'll just say

Unvote

Sorry tim

by **webby** » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Votals:
MostlyNormal - 1 (Gopher of Pern)
Boomfrog - 1 (t1mm01994)
t1mm01994 - 2 (MostlyNormal, Boomfrog)

After much discussion, the townsfolk decided that the mafia may be skilled at avoiding detection, but couldn't kill anyone if they were kept busy all night. So one of their number was appointed to that role and they then turned their attention to detecting the traitor in their midst. Sunset came before they could reach a consensus, but at the last moment the Gecko changed his mind, sparing the Frog. Instead, the two animals combined to lynch Tim.

t1mm01994 has been lynched. It is night 1. Please PM your actions to me as soon as possible.

by **webby** » Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:23 am UTC

The four remaining awoke in the morning. A quick check of tim revealed that he was, by all evidence, a model townsperson. After quickly mourning him, the town returned to the task at hand - which of the four left was the traitor?

There are 4 remaining players, so 3 votes to lynch. Deadline is a week from now.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:20 am UTC

Interesting.

On the off chance that scum did not submit a kill, I wont tell straight away who I RB'd. In fact, I think it might be best if we do not lynch who I RB'd. If indeed they are scum, and I did block them, I can do so again tonight, and then tomorrow we will win with the lynch, as they wont have anywhere to hide.

So I guess I'll wait for everyone to post their suspicions before I reveal who was RB'd.

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:40 am UTC

Ok, I definatly owe an explanation for that sudden looking change of heart. Firstly the timing; I posted in the five minutes between waking up and being forced out of bed into the shower.
Secondly the reason: as I say, I'd been having doubts, especially after I realised this

GopherofPern wrote:TMG, If we lynch D1, and mafia dont kill N1, then it is normally advantageous for town to NL D2, simply because scum can win then and there if they kill N2, if there is a lynch. Of course, it's mostly moot now, as if scum don't NK, it will benefit town. I very much doubt scum wont NK.

Public plans do not necessarily give scum the upper hand. Not if we give them 2 bad options.

…was from GoP and not BF as I'd first assumed. Futhermore Tim had been acting quite scummy, what with the whole mn-vote fiasco. After reading BFs posts, it hit me that I'd become hung up on his plans, now backed up by GoP and I was sharing a vote with the person who seemed most scummy, for no good reason.
Player analysis to follow at some point today. I just wanted to get that out there because I'm sure it'll come up.

by **Mostlynormal** » Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

Huh. I really thought we had 'em when timm got lynched. Oh well. I'm pretty sure I know who scum is now.

Vote: Boomfrog

Whether TMG understood his plans or not, it was pretty harmless, and BF's reasons for voting him were pretty weak. His two reasons were "going for the lurker lynch," "followery," and "original instinct." I can't address original instinct, but the accusation of going for the lurker lynch is wrong because Boomfrog began to "lurk" only after TMG expressed suspicion. The accusation of being followery is pretty catch-22, as in another post BF critcizes TMG for not understanding his plans when the rest of us already did. So does he want TMG to be followery or not?

Gopher of Pern wrote:In fact, I think it might be best if we do not lynch who I RB'd.

Can I ask that we not avoid lynching someone just because they were blocked? If Boomfrog was blocked, it doesn't mean he's not strongman. He could've held back his kill in an expectation of someone else being blocked or even so that we wouldn't lynch him because we'd assume he's non-strongman. Basically I don't think we can take the risk of assuming it's safe to ignore the person who was RB'd, because they could easily still be a strongman.

by **BoomFrog** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:28 am UTC

I agree we should just ignore the RB for now. If we lynch the person RBed then that's fine if not they get RBed again tonight.

TMG's change of heart is making me reevaluate my stance on MN. TMG knew my agenda was to lynch him and t1mm so sparing me yesterday was quite risky if he was scum.

MN's last post really clinches it though. All his criticisms come from the day before, then why not voice them at the time? I think he is scum who decided last night that TMG looked too town now so he had to go after me. My entire premise that MN must be town was based on the theory that scum wouldn't vote for the skill training first. But MN has proved he really is that aggressive.

I'm going for it.

Vote Mostlynormal

If TMG is scum ill be quite surprised now.

by **Mostlynormal** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:45 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:MN's last post really clinches it though. All his criticisms come from the day before, then why not voice them at the time? I think he is scum who decided last night that TMG looked too town now so he had to go after me.

That's crazy. I did voice them--you were my second choice for the lynch. I didn't elaborate on them because I thought timm was scum. But now that we know that he isn't you seem pretty scummy to me. I never really did go after TMG--he was at the top of my scumlist once at a very uncertain time, and I certainly didn't suspect him while the votes were being cast. His willingness to change his mind only cemented what I already beleived.

by **BoomFrog** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:14 am UTC

Ahh looking back I see your right. I was apparently your first choice actually but you didn't want to hammer. Well either way we agree that TMG is probably town so by elimination you are scum. It's up to the others to decide which is which.

I'd like to remind people that if anyone besides GoP had been the RBer then my 2nd plan would have put scum in a very bad position. I don't think I would have proposed it if I was scum. Since it was a nonobvious plan in a noobie game I doubt anyone else would have thought of it.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:13 pm UTC

Last night I roleblocked Mostly Normal.

Now, should we lynch MN, and I RB my next scummiest, or should we lynch someone else, and hedge our bets that MN isn't strongman?

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:29 am UTC

Ok then, let's see...
Mostlynormal: first one to vote roleblocker. That makes me think that if he's scum then he's strongman. His first few posts bring up reasons why it might be advantageous for scum to not Nk N1. The question is whether he has the balls to go ahead with a plan that he himself told us about at the start or not.

I guess I owe you guys a vote, not that I'd have a choice anyway if I want to survive. I'll do an informal analysis on everyone and then give my vote...To save my own skin.

If he's scum, then he's the most honest ever. He says "this is what I'd do" and then does it.

BoomFrog: Changed his vote yesterday out of self preservation. Accusations aren't the best backed up in the world. I'm going to draw a line under the whole plan debacle. Even so, ATM, of the two I find him the scummier.

BoomFrog wrote:Oh well, I urge people to trust MN. I'll be confirmed town tomorrow so listen to these last words. The scum is either t1mm or TMG. Goodluck.

Quoting for irony value.

GopherofPern wrote:TMG, If we lynch D1, and mafia dont kill N1, then it is normally advantageous for town to NL D2, simply because scum can win then and there if they kill N2, if there is a lynch. Of course, it's mostly moot now, as if scum don't NK, it will benefit town. I very much doubt scum wont NK.

Is this still worth bearing in mind? From where I'm sitting, I can't see it helping. We'd likely lose you or me. However, I've also shown that I'm not a master tactitian

Not going to vote yet. Want to see GoP's thoughts. No point in rushing.

by **Mostlynormal** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:49 am UTC

Gopher of Pern wrote:Now, should we lynch MN, and I RB my next scummiest, or should we lynch someone else, and hedge our bets that MN isn't strongman?

It fels weird for me to point this out since I'm the one who got RB'd but you'll find that my logic is sound anyway.

If the scum is strongman, then there wasn't a quiet night because you RB'd me, there was a quiet night because scum withheld the kill. So, assuming scum is strongman, the information about the target is pure wine, and we should lynch based on merit. If scum isn't strongman then we've got a pretty good chance of winning. We just pick the scummiest and lynch them and then RB the second scummiest. So basically, we should lynch based on who's scummiest either way, and then if they aren't scum you should RB your second scummiest tonight. I've already made clear who I think is scummiest. If my reasons in the post where I voted for Boomfrog don't convince you I don't have much left to say. It's up to you now I guess.

by **webby** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:01 am UTC

Votals:
Boomfrog - 1 (MostlyNormal)
MostlyNormal - 1 (Boomfrog)

A reminder in case you didn't pay attention to the first post that a 2-2 tie when there are four players left will result in No Lynch - reasoning is in the discussion following the Mulanafia game.

The summary is that a bloc of half the players in the game should be able to prevent a lynch from occurring and (although not applicable in this case) lynches should not be decided by which faction can get online first to vote.

by **Mostlynormal** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:22 am UTC

TheMaskedGecko wrote:Not going to vote yet. Want to see GoP's thoughts. No point in rushing.

I noticed this last line after I posted my earlier post and I had to rush off somewhere but the middle part is pinging me. Not going to vote yet? Sure. No point in rushing? Of course. But what's this about GoP's thoughts? Your thoughts are your own right? If he disagrees with you, sure, we'll have to come to an agreement, but you shouldn't be just waiting on his thoughts before committing. I still think BF is scum but that last line made me a lot less certain. I'd feel more secure in town's victory if we decided to RB TMG tonight in case BF isn't scum. Also, he's the only one who has any real big chance of not being a strongman. If he is scum then for all we know, he did know it was past the deadline when he voted and just went with the majority to blend in. Also, because he disappeared early in role selection, we have little record of his opinion on the issue when it mattered.

by **BoomFrog** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:12 am UTC

TheMaskedGecko wrote:If he's scum, then he's the most honest ever. He says "this is what I'd do" and then does it.

For what it's worth, this is exactly how I played scum the first few times. I think it's a common strategy. "Try to completely pretend that I am not scum then I won't act scummy." And when your the only scum in the game and have no one to protect except yourself then it's a good plan.

The main thing that people seem to have felt was scummy was my vote on TMG. The reason I voted is because it stirred up discussion. He was the one I felt was most scummy, but most just slim evidence and instinct. Things where stagnating before I made that post. As GoP knows this is my usual townie strategy when things are stagnating. Better to start controversy mid day then get to deadline and have a "oh well, him I guess" random lynch. Since then TMG and I have kinda headbutted about "the plans" and t1mm flailed around a bit also apparently trying to "stir up discussion."

Mostlynormal wrote:If the scum is strongman, then there wasn't a quiet night because you RB'd me, there was a quiet night because scum withheld the kill.

This is true. If scum is strongman then they're only motivation to kill is if they think the wine would help or not. So we can't gain too much by assuming what they would do.

Mostlynormal wrote:I still think BF is scum but that last line made me a lot less certain. I'd feel more secure in town's victory if we decided to RB TMG tonight in case BF isn't scum. Also, he's the only one who has any real big chance of not being a strongman.

This is incorrect. If scum is not a strongman then they would have tried to kill GoP last night. Therefore either scum is a strongman and/or MN is scum. So if the RB is going to work on anyone it will work on MN. This doesn't effect who we should lynch, but if we don't lynch MN then definitely RB him. It is still possible that he is not a strongman but didn't want to give himself away in the early voting so went with the "better" option even though it was not what he wanted.

by **Gopher of Pern** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:49 am UTC

Vote: Mostly Normal

I do not think there is a Strongman, and I always thought MN was scum. If we're wrong, Hopefully my RB will save us, but if not, well done to scum.

TMG, do you agree with the lynch? Or do you believe Boomfrog is scum?

by **TheMaskedGecko** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:20 am UTC

Firstly, I said I wanted to see what GoP said, not I'll follow GoP blindly.

@GoP: mn wrote a nice post on the first page about why scum might not always kill. Tl;dr it weakens our odds, and causes confusion. I'm still yet to be convinced by the idea that mn is scum. Is telling everyone what scum might do and then doing it a normal scum tactic? The post of his above about not taking chances, kill the scummiest makes sense but it doesn't clear him as it's not the least obvious of ideas and I said something similar when BF wanted to Rb you yesterday.

Oops, not as much time as I hoped. I'll finish this later.

Who is online