2 of 4 Newbie Game OVER! Town Flawless Victory!

[KrO2]

Mostlynormal: I don't think I've actually said that. Unless you count in my first post after the claim, where I was explicitly talking about a conditional of which the antecedent is currently false. So I don't think I deserved that vote. The actual quote, so you know I'm not making things up:

Here's the possibilities as I see them.
1) Snark is scum, Chickenfish is town. This would be a really dumb move for Snark to make. He might get Chickenfish lynched, but then he'd look all kinds of scummy afterward. Maybe he could withhold the kill to frame whomever he claims to block. Actually that's possible under other cases as well.
2) Snark is town, Chickenfish is town. This is the one we have to worry about. Maybe there's a doctor who was the one who guessed right, or maybe the mafia targeted Chickenfish. Either way, it's unpleasantly possible for them to both be town. Please someone convince me this is unlikely.
3) Snark is town, Chickenfish is scum. That's what we hope for. If we can decide the second possibility is unlikely enough, we can just lynch one then the other and win.
Basically, this claim means Snark isn't my most scummy candidate anymore.

To be clear: I do not think Snark is scum, and with the information available now, I would still not think that even given that Chickenfish is town.

I hadn't thought of having the doctor withhold. I guess that's what happens when I think only one level deep all the time. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but are we sure that's a good idea? Supposing the doctor does block the kill, that leaves us unsure of Snark's target's alignment where we would otherwise be sure. Is that more valuable to us than keeping the townie alive? What if the NK target is Snark? If scum try to kill Snark, would we rather they fail and leave someone ambiguous, or they succeed and our jailkeeper is dead but we have someone known to be town with as much certainty as we currently have about Snark?
Questioning agreed-upon strategy might make me look bad, but I'm sure you'll forgive me if it isn't immediately obvious that the pros outweigh the cons.
I don't think a doctor being successful would create that much *more* wine than scum withholding the kill, which of course they can do at will.

I'm going to put on my conspiracy theorist hat for a moment, and ask what if Snark is scum? Suppose he sees wam being lynched and knows he's probably (>50% subjective probability estimate) going to lose from 6-1, so he takes the coin flip of risking an instant loss by counterclaim against being pretty much not doubted for the near future. If I were in that position, I would have at least considered it, though I probably wouldn't have thought of withholding the kill. OK, I'm going to take off that hat now, because tinfoil looks ridiculous on me, and restate for extra clarity that I do not think we should lynch Snark.

[t1mm01994]

Let's give a probability: In Poker, this is called a coinflip. So close to 50% that no one cares (given random lynches). (46,67 for town, for the lols)

[Snark]

I hadn't thought of having the doctor withhold. I guess that's what happens when I think only one level deep all the time. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but are we sure that's a good idea? Supposing the doctor does block the kill, that leaves us unsure of Snark's target's alignment where we would otherwise be sure. Is that more valuable to us than keeping the townie alive? What if the NK target is Snark? If scum try to kill Snark, would we rather they fail and leave someone ambiguous, or they succeed and our jailkeeper is dead but we have someone known to be town with as much certainty as we currently have about Snark?

You don't know for sure that I'm town. If I block CF and die tonight, you'll be sure CF is town. That's not equal to "as much certainty", it's much more certain.

I'm going to put on my conspiracy theorist hat for a moment, and ask what if Snark is scum? Suppose he sees wam being lynched and knows he's probably (>50% subjective probability estimate) going to lose from 6-1, so he takes the coin flip of risking an instant loss by counterclaim against being pretty much not doubted for the near future. If I were in that position, I would have at least considered it, though I probably wouldn't have thought of withholding the kill. OK, I'm going to take off that hat now, because tinfoil looks ridiculous on me, and restate for extra clarity that I do not think we should lynch Snark.

It's worse that 50% odds. From a scum's point of view there's a 3/6 chance of a direct counterclaim, but an additional 2/6 chance of a cop without a jailer. Most likely, I'll get copped tonight if a cop exists. If I were scum, I'd have about an 5/6 = 83% chance of being found out rather quickly.

[KrO2]

I hadn't thought of having the doctor withhold. I guess that's what happens when I think only one level deep all the time. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but are we sure that's a good idea? Supposing the doctor does block the kill, that leaves us unsure of Snark's target's alignment where we would otherwise be sure. Is that more valuable to us than keeping the townie alive? What if the NK target is Snark? If scum try to kill Snark, would we rather they fail and leave someone ambiguous, or they succeed and our jailkeeper is dead but we have someone known to be town with as much certainty as we currently have about Snark?

You don't know for sure that I'm town. If I block CF and die tonight, you'll be sure CF is town. That's not equal to "as much certainty", it's much more certain.

If you block CF and die tonight, we'll be exactly as certain that CF is town as we were that you blocked him in the first place. If you lied, then...then you wouldn't have been killed. OK, I see what you're saying. But what if someone who isn't you gets NKed? Is it just that they're less important because they probably don't have powers?
Even if it is you, is knowing CF is town worth having you dead?
Also, I'm asking about possible future cases again, so if you haven't played much before then consider waiting for someone who has, and if someone says that answering it where scum can see is bad strategy I'll take their word for it and shut up about the doctor withholding.

I'm going to put on my conspiracy theorist hat for a moment, and ask what if Snark is scum? Suppose he sees wam being lynched and knows he's probably (>50% subjective probability estimate) going to lose from 6-1, so he takes the coin flip of risking an instant loss by counterclaim against being pretty much not doubted for the near future. If I were in that position, I would have at least considered it, though I probably wouldn't have thought of withholding the kill. OK, I'm going to take off that hat now, because tinfoil looks ridiculous on me, and restate for extra clarity that I do not think we should lynch Snark.

It's worse that 50% odds. From a scum's point of view there's a 3/6 chance of a direct counterclaim, but an additional 2/6 chance of a cop without a jailer. Most likely, I'll get copped tonight if a cop exists. If I were scum, I'd have about an 5/6 = 83% chance of being found out rather quickly.

If I'm a cop, you're not the person I'd check. I'd go for someone more questionable first. But I see what you're saying and agree it's riskier than 50%, so whether it's even worth considering for scum would depend on how 6-1 newbie games usually turn out and whether 7-1 with 50%+ chance of being caught quickly is better or worse. I don't have those stats and am not inclined to look them up, but in any case I'd be very surprised and more impressed if Snark is scum falseclaiming.

[Mostlynormal]

Technically it could be 33% odds, if he was scum and got lucky enough to find a non-jailer power role last night. I still think he's a lot less likely to be scum than anyone else right now though.

I highly suggest that any cop doesn't cop Snark tonight. If anyone dies tonight, it will be him. If he doesn't die, a cop should have time to cop him later. Let's spread ourselves out a little, and cop someone who isn't KrO2, Chickenfish, or Snark.

Here's the possibilities as I see them.
1) Snark is scum, Chickenfish is town. This would be a really dumb move for Snark to make. He might get Chickenfish lynched, but then he'd look all kinds of scummy afterward. Maybe he could withhold the kill to frame whomever he claims to block. Actually that's possible under other cases as well.
2) Snark is town, Chickenfish is town. This is the one we have to worry about. Maybe there's a doctor who was the one who guessed right, or maybe the mafia targeted Chickenfish. Either way, it's unpleasantly possible for them to both be town. Please someone convince me this is unlikely.
3) Snark is town, Chickenfish is scum. That's what we hope for. If we can decide the second possibility is unlikely enough, we can just lynch one then the other and win.
Basically, this claim means Snark isn't my most scummy candidate anymore.

Yeah, I noticed that. What information do you have now that you didn't have then? The fact that town doesn't like your idea? I always find conditionals based on town's opinion a lot scummier that just straight out suggestions.

Ninja'd, but nothing to comment on.

[KrO2]

I just meant that I didn't think we could discount that second possibility. But if someone knew something I hadn't thought of that would reduce that chance, then we might be able to. That hasn't happened. I was hoping it would, because the game would be much simpler and also much more over if we could narrow it down to one of the two, which is why I was hoping somebody would be able to convince me that that antecedent was true. Since that hasn't happened, I don't have any information now that I didn't have then that says we shouldn't lynch CF-Snark, I just didn't think we should then either. The quote was less "I think this is true" than "I hope this is true."

Also, why wouldn't you want to cop Chickenfish or me? Remove the doubt or win the game outright? Of course, that's assuming I'm alive by tonight. I can see why you'd want to not focus on only the same few players, but a not guilty verdict on me or him would mean much more than a not guilty verdict on, say, you. And a guilty verdict would mean exactly the same amount (instant win) in any case.

[Mostlynormal]

I just meant that I didn't think we could discount that second possibility. But if someone knew something I hadn't thought of that would reduce that chance, then we might be able to. That hasn't happened. I was hoping it would, because the game would be much simpler and also much more over if we could narrow it down to one of the two, which is why I was hoping somebody would be able to convince me that that antecedent was true. Since that hasn't happened, I don't have any information now that I didn't have then that says we shouldn't lynch CF-Snark, I just didn't think we should then either. The quote was less "I think this is true" than "I hope this is true."

I can sort of half buy this. I'm not going to take my vote off because I don't really find Chickenfish scummy and wingedocelot hasn't posted for awhile, but I can at least understand where you're coming from.

Also, why wouldn't you want to cop Chickenfish or me? Remove the doubt or win the game outright? Of course, that's assuming I'm alive by tonight. I can see why you'd want to not focus on only the same few players, but a not guilty verdict on me or him would mean much more than a not guilty verdict on, say, you. And a guilty verdict would mean exactly the same amount (instant win) in any case.

Because the players who look scummy to everyone are likely to be lynched anyway. It's the people who are flying under the radar that we want to check. For example, if I was a cop in a game with mpolo I would probably check him because he always reads so neutral to me that he could get through a whole game as scum. If there's a cop in this game I'd suggest copping fearless (I'm not afraid to say this because the only sensible moves for scum are to withhold or kill Snark, so I wouldn't expect fearless to die) because she's not as active and thus any scumtells would be fewer and farther between.

[KrO2]

I see your point, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. Say you lynch me (which I advise against, btw). So the cop is choosing between, say, fearless and Chickenfish. If you get a guilty result on either, it's an instant win. If you get an innocent result on someone who you thought was more likely to be guilty, that contains more information and is more likely to save you from lynching a townie. So optimizing for copping whoever looks more likely to be guilty strictly dominates, since it's more likely to win instantly *and* if it isn't an instant win it's more information. The only downside I can think of is that you have to convince the rest of the town that you had a change of heart about this person you thought was scummy, preferably without giving away that you're cop. Is that usually hard enough to overrule the benefits of copping players people think might be scum? (It seems like it should be doable. Yesterday I thought that, to take a few examples, matt96 and you were scummy, and if I had copped either of you and gotten innocent results I would have been able to search for exonerating evidence in what wam posted. More skilled players should be able to do this better than I could; this is just the first thing that came to mind.)
Of course, I have a vested interest in following this strategy I'm proposing, since if we have a cop using it on me could get me an extra defender, but even aside from that I really do think using it on whoever you're suspicious of looks better.

[fearless]

I still have a bad feeling about kro2.!

[Snark]

I've heard enough for now. KrO2, it's always better to lynch the scummiest player than cop the scummiest player. If you really are town, then give us a new and improved list of the 2 or 3 people you suspect most. This would be a good idea for wingedocelot to do as well.
wingedocelot hasn't posted in a little over 2 days. I'm inclined to believe that she's the scummy one who's inclined to sit back and let KrO2 talk himself to death. I'm happy lynching KrO2 or wingedocelot, but KrO2 is getting all the attention right now and we have another 4 days to deadline so:

Vote: wingedocelot

I think the unofficial votals are
KrO2 - 2 - (Chickenfish, Mostlynormal)
wingedocelot -1 - (Snark)

[wingedocelot]

Sorry I haven't been posting everyone. This week is quite busy for me.

I have been following the conversation though, or at least trying to. A lot of the talk about the implications of jailkeeper and what that means for the game and the lynch/NK tonight have gone over my head a bit. I didn't really feel like I've had anything useful to contribute to that discussion.

I just read through all of wam's posts on day1 and skimmed through other peoples' in an attempt to find clues to who wam's partner is. This is kind of what I'm thinking at the moment (sorry it's so brief):


CF and matt - I believe to be pretty towny because they could easily have saved wam before the deadline by switching to Mostlynormal.

MN - I'm also leaning town because wam pushed to get him lynched. Wam could easily have tried to lynch matt instead at the time.

Snark - not sure but leaning town. Very gutsy to false claim jailkeeper at this stage, so I tend to believe him. He was also ranked #1 scum on wam's early town-scum list.

KrO2 - not sure. Could've tied the votes on wam's lynch before the deadline if switched vote to Mostlynormal and didn't. But tried to convince others to change their votes from wam to matt.

fearless - currently my top scum suspect (part behaviour and part process of elimination). Absent/Lurking for the majority of day 1 and provided little content. Made the comment that on day 1 it's better to search for pro-town than scum (see below copied and pasted from a long time ago). Wam didn't vote for her in his 3-way votes even though it was his best chance to avoid being #1 on the 'lynch list.'

quote from fearless:
"Anyways I don't think matt's vote makes him look scummy because with only 2 mafia, actively searching for scum (on Day 1) might not be as useful as looking for people are that pro-town."

So I am going to

vote: fearless

Ninja-ed by Snark and already responded to his suggestion.

[KrO2]

There seem to be several people with actual strong positive reasons to believe they're town, which is great. They're not listed here because there's no reason to tell scum what I think. So here's some people I suspect to varying degrees, as requested:

Chickenfish. This is partly based on the fact that Snark thought he was scummiest. Of course believing someone is town doesn't obligate me to trust his opinion of who is scum, but it was backed up with a testable prediction. It's possible to argue that the lack of nightkill is relatively weak evidence against CF, but it is definitely tangible, non-subjective evidence, much better than a bad feeling about someone. On which note,

fearless. Not much content today; if I could defend against a bad feeling someone else has I would probably try to. Suspects me by process of elimination but has some legitimately questionable-sounding quotes to back it up. I think I've answered most of those, but the bad feeling persists. Can you give me something to defend against? I hadn't caught the conspicuous lack of wam being OK with a fearless lynch, but WO is right; at the time that wam made a list, him voting for fearless would have put her higher than him on the tally.

T1mm. He's mainly on the list because I don't really know what to think. Obviously careyhammer didn't give us any useful information one way or the other, so we're extrapolating from less here. He's posted a couple of vague feelings as well, and I can't think offhand of many situations where you'd want to publicly say that you think someone is scum/town without giving reasons. Then there's the doctor statement, which is even weirder. I don't currently want to see a Tim lynch and I'd rather argue against it than for it, but I wanted to comment that I'm considering the possibility that he might be scum. I guess that's what an IGMEOY is for. Of course, most of these are concerns could be fixed just with more posting.

wingedocelot: I still think she's town, but thought I should probably admit that my estimate there has been slowly going down. Most of why I consider WO town is from D1, so without continued similar towniness my opinion would continue decreasing. I still think she's townier than baseline, it's just that the margin is slowly shrinking. I would not vote for WO unless it were a choice between her and me, or her and one of a few other people who aren't at risk here. Actually now that I write that I'm realizing that there are more of those people than I thought.

I think Chickenfish gives us the best chance to get scum tonight. (WO: CF or Matt saving wam by switching to MN would have looked almost as suspicious as if I had voted MN to tie it.) People might disagree about the strength of the evidence (I tend to fall on the side saying it's relatively good) but unlike with anyone else nobody can say there is no evidence. I would be happy with a CF or fearless lynch. Neither of them has posted very recently, not counting fearless' contentless post, so they may have some responses; if so I'd like to see them.

Last, unrelated note: Snark, I wasn't talking about copping the scummiest player instead of lynching them, I meant after the lynch I think it would be better for the cop to cop a scummy player rather than a less scummy one. I know you wanted that discussion closed, but I didn't want to leave that hanging there.

[KrO2]

We haven't had anyone post in a while. So I'm going to
Vote: Chickenfish
to force *something* to happen. Reasons are stated above. I'd be willing to switch to fearless with minimal amounts of convincing, or possibly to someone else entirely with more. I know neither of them has had a chance to respond yet so it's kind of unfair to throw a vote at one of them, but stagnation is bad. Three days to deadline; let's not waste another.

[Snark]

I can understand wingedocelot voting fearless, but KrO2 going after CF does not compute. If he is scum, then I'm gonna prevent him from NKing tonight. Why lynch him today?

Unvote
Vote: KrO2

Unofficial Votals
KrO2 - 3 - (Chickenfish, Mostlynormal, Snark)
fearless - 1- (wingedocelot)
Chickenfish - 1 - (Kro2)

2 more to hammer.

[KrO2]

I don't see that problem. Like you said earlier, we either lynch CF and block non-CF or the other way around. In either case, if either of those is scum then there is no NK, but obviously we'd prefer the lynch to the block. I'm going after CF because I currently think he is the most likely individual to be scum. Getting back into strategy might not be the best use of time, but I hope you can see what I'm saying.

[t1mm01994]

So uhm... I think scum would want to avoid attacking here, which leaves CF, MN and Kr as insta-town. Along with Snark, that's 4 town, especially seeing how MN and CF have played their roles following the guidelines so far, and Kr looks like new town; eager but inefficient. Leaves 3: TMG, matt and wo. I've got townie vibes from wo, matt was the last vote on wam which would be extremely ballsy if scum, so uhm...
Vote: TheMaskedGecko
Snark, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep matt or wo down. CF is playing this too offensively to be scum in a 7v1.

[Mostlynormal]

TMG isn't in this game. Do you mean fearless?

I think Snark should continue to roleblock CF. CF always plays offensively and a roleblock with no nightkill is pretty good evidence. However, he'll either be cleared or we'll have no nightkill, so it's better to roleblock him rather than lynch him right away.

[KrO2]

He'll either be cleared or we'll have no nightkill, so it's better to roleblock him rather than lynch him right away.

I didn't really understand this when Snark said it either. The first part of the above is true of any publicly announced block target. So why wouldn't you want to lynch whoever you think has the highest probability of being scum? I get the feeling that there's something I'm missing here, and it did earn me a vote earlier.

[Mostlynormal]

Ah, you're right. But in this case we still shouldn't lynch Chickenfish. We should lynch the person who looks scummiest to us. Since it seems the only reason anyone wants to lynch Chickenfish is the nightkill evidence, we'd get a lot less vote record information from a Chickenfish lynch. So we should do our lynches based on scumminess and our blocks based on evidence, unless that evidence is something like a cop result. We don't have to win quickly, we just have to win. So it might actually be best to only lynch Chickenfish if we get to mylo without a nightkill. That'll give us the most time to find non-chickenfish scum and still get us the win in case of an increasingly likely chickenfish scum. And of course, if there is a nightkill, scum's just bought us a confirmed townie.

[Snark]

Ah, you're right. But in this case we still shouldn't lynch Chickenfish. We should lynch the person who looks scummiest to us. Since it seems the only reason anyone wants to lynch Chickenfish is the nightkill evidence, we'd get a lot less vote record information from a Chickenfish lynch. So we should do our lynches based on scumminess and our blocks based on evidence, unless that evidence is something like a cop result. We don't have to win quickly, we just have to win. So it might actually be best to only lynch Chickenfish if we get to mylo without a nightkill. That'll give us the most time to find non-chickenfish scum and still get us the win in case of an increasingly likely chickenfish scum. And of course, if there is a nightkill, scum's just bought us a confirmed townie.

This.


@Tim
Voting for someone not in this game? That's aggressive, even for you.

[KrO2]

Ah, you're right. But in this case we still shouldn't lynch Chickenfish. We should lynch the person who looks scummiest to us. Since it seems the only reason anyone wants to lynch Chickenfish is the nightkill evidence, we'd get a lot less vote record information from a Chickenfish lynch. So we should do our lynches based on scumminess and our blocks based on evidence, unless that evidence is something like a cop result. We don't have to win quickly, we just have to win. So it might actually be best to only lynch Chickenfish if we get to mylo without a nightkill. That'll give us the most time to find non-chickenfish scum and still get us the win in case of an increasingly likely chickenfish scum. And of course, if there is a nightkill, scum's just bought us a confirmed townie.

This.[/quote]
I see your point. I guess. So I'll
Unvote.
Vote: fearless
You have to agree a perfect one-two victory would be cool, right? But of course we shouldn't let that decrease our chances of actually winning.

[fearless]

So uhm... I think scum would want to avoid attacking here, which leaves CF, MN and Kr as insta-town.

I'm sorry I don't agree with this. If Kro2 is scum and he is under attack, not saying anything would make him look even guiltier. The only way is for him to act as normally as possible and try his best to divert attention. Frankly what he's said hasn't convinced me at all, and his voting for CF and subsequent change to me just doesnt' seem right.

vote kro2

[fearless]

Also wtf at Tim o_O I'm now having second thoughts about him as well.

[t1mm01994]

I'm currently in 5 games, cut me some slack on the names, k?
Unvote
Vote: fearless
That's better. Lynching active people would still be quite stupi here, as scum wouldn't want to go 1v1.

[Snark]

Town
Kr02 (pretty much agree with everything posted)
Chickenfish (see above)
matt96 (although not much to go on but what was posted seems reasonable)
Wingedocelot (seems to be acting reasonably townie but am suspicous for suggesting a NL.
Fearless (seems to be providing little useful content)
Mostlynormal (see above)
Snark (see above)
Scum

My vote stays on KrO2.

Unofficial Votals
KrO2 -4 - (Chickenfish, Mostlynormal, fearless, Snark)
fearless - 3 - (wingedocelot, KrO2, Tim)

[wingedocelot]

Town
Kr02 (pretty much agree with everything posted)
Chickenfish (see above)
matt96 (although not much to go on but what was posted seems reasonable)
Wingedocelot (seems to be acting reasonably townie but am suspicous for suggesting a NL.
Fearless (seems to be providing little useful content)
Mostlynormal (see above)
Snark (see above)
Scum

My vote stays on KrO2.

When I saw that list of wam's it actually made me a bit less suspicious of KrO2. I feel like scum wouldn't put their partner at either end of a list like that but rather somewhere in between. But of course, people might play quite different from what I think I would do in their situation.

[t1mm01994]

Ehr, if that's all your evidence... If I were scum, I wouldn't go all obvious bromance on someone's ass. If anything, that's evidence, KrO2 is NOT scum.

[Snark]

I don't agree. I think that wam would have felt comfortable putting his scumbuddy at the top of the list that early in the game, when KrO2's posts were mostly agreeable.

[KrO2]

About the scum not wanting to go against active people: I don't think that would apply to me. Since I have the most votes on me, I'd probably have to be trying something like that in either case. So fearless isn't completely wrong about that. I do think Tim is right in general, though; if scum don't have to do anything they'd probably rather be playing it safe.
Also, you may notice that Chickenfish hasn't posted since Monday, when he had to react to Snark's claim, so I'm not exactly going after an active player in any case. He hasn't been very active since it became 7v1, in fact.
And we have other reasons for thinking MN is town, mainly the fact that he was wam's arch-nemesis, so funnily enough Tim's statement isn't really the deciding factor for any of the people listed.

fearless, I switched to you because of what Snark and Mostlynormal said. I had said in advance that I would be willing to switch fairly easily, so why is that surprising? Not that I'd expect a vote against you to seem right to you, but it's not like it's coming out of nowhere.

Ceteris paribus, I would expect a scum making a list like that to give priority to not drawing attention to them or their scumbuddy, rather than always going for top or bottom. So I'd consider wam's list pretty weak evidence, probably in favor of me being town but nowhere near decisive.

[t1mm01994]

Let's make my case the other way. For scum this would be an excellent time to hold back and jump on a bandwagon. The ones I listed were mostly initiative votes. Fearless and matt (and me) are the ones most devoid of initiative, so top of my scumlist. Matt still has some credit from D1, so I'm going after fearless first.

[fearless]

whatevs. My vote stays. If I'm lynched you will all be kicking yourselves tomorrow.

[t1mm01994]

Eeerrm.. That's not exactly helping your alignment, from where I can see it. I personally value arguments, and you've shown a lack of those, for which you are not yet making up.

[t1mm01994]

Could we get a prod on matt? 22 apr was his last post.. And with him being current 2nd on my scumlist, I'd like to be able to get some reads.

[Mostlynormal]

I'm not sure how to take KrO2 being highest on wam's townlist. Personally if I was scum I'd try to judge my scummates on their towniness, so going from my basic "they'll act like I act" model I can't draw any conclusions. I do think that most scum would put their scummate somewhere in the middle, because a scum-to-town list isn't likely to directly affect anyone's opinion so you want to avoid connections with them while at the same time avoiding joining in on lynching them.

I'm actually getting less sure about lynching KrO2. I think if we're going to lynch for low content I'm a lot more suspicious of WO than fearless right now.

Unvote

Vote: wingedocelot

[matt96]

I'm sorry for not posting much, I've been having a hard time getting good reads on people so far this game, but I am a little concerned about Chickenfish's drastic change in posting frequency, Chickenfish was making a good portion of the posts day 1 and was posting analysis, and then today just defended himself until we weren't going to just quickly lynch him because of the lack of a NK and being targeted by the jail keeper, then suddenly stopped posting, shifting focus from townie activity to self-preservation by means of lurking more (although I shouldn't be one to accuse anyone else of lurking)
Also it looks like Mostlynormal just tied the votes, so I'll
Vote: KrO2
mostly because I am not getting a good feeling about Kr02 listing half of the players left in the game as the players he is suspicious of, because it looks indecisive and like he is trying to imply that he doesn't care too much who gets lynched, provided it isn't him, which I am finding scummy as only person in the game who has no chance of winning if they get lynched is the only remaining mafia member.

[KrO2]

Not every person I named there was someone I wanted lynched. In two out of those four cases I said so in the post, and the other two are the ones whose lynch would make me happiest. I think I made my opinion of WO pretty clear, and Tim has since picked up the post rate. CF and fearless are the only ones in that list that I actually wanted to lynch. I can see where the confusion would come from, though, since I did say "here are some people" followed by a list of names.
Basically, that vote is predicated on something that didn't actually happen, but thanks for using something verifiable. That puts you several steps above fearless in my book.

[wingedocelot]

I haven’t posted much this week because I’ve been busy, but to be honest I haven’t had much to say. I’ve made my decision about who I think is the most likely to be scum and I’ve outlined my reasons why. I’ve been reading all the posts and haven’t changed my mind about voting for fearless, so the only reason for me to keep posting was for me to try and convince others to vote with me. But everyone is going to make up their own minds looking through the evidence themselves so I didn’t see the point.

I could list my reasons for voting fearless again, but everyone can just go back and read them anyway. I’m basing my vote on Day 1 behaviour because I think that’s more telling than anything people have been saying/doing in Day 2.

There’s only one scum left, so no need to examine how everyone is interacting with each other. No reasons for buddying and no reasons for players deliberately distancing themselves from other players.

It’s been good that Tim has been posting because of course I didn’t have a read on him in Day 1. But I’m not getting any scummy vibes from him (yet).

[Snark]

Unvote
Vote: fearless

Because I've changed my mind. Because KrO2 will hang themselves later if they're scum. Because fearless will just lurk if they're scum. Because I don't like the fact that I was voting with the lurkers. Because

whatevs. My vote stays. If I'm lynched you will all be kicking yourselves tomorrow.

is not really a defense.

Unofficial Votals
fearless - 4 - (wingedocelot, KrO2, Tim, Snark)
KrO2 - 3 - (Chickenfish, fearless, matt96)
wingedocelot - 1 - (Mostlynormal)

Deadline?

[fearless]

I'm not scum because I'm the cop. You can trust snark.

[Snark]

I'm not scum because I'm the cop. You can trust snark.

Meaning that you copped me N1?

Unvote

Any counter-claims?

Remember if there's a doctor out there, you should also counter-claim, as it would mean (from your point of view) that one of fearless and I is lying, since we can't have three power roles.