Print

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

[Tiruin]

EBWOP: And to that thing @Toony: I'm checking back on all my notes on people given the incidents of today. We've had a lot to debate on regarding specific events, but my thoughts are leaning on Max' scumminess right now because of a slew of details.

Post coming up. Max as of now. Detailing in an hour or so.

[notquitethere]

Imp

Hrm.  NQT, when you say:

If Max is a Seer (good or bad)

What do you mean by (good or bad)?  Do you actually mean Town or Scum, or are you talking about something like sane/insane (like cops can have in some games) or more specifically like a piety rating of sorts, that could give a Seer unpredictable results like resurrections can have?

Town or Cult or Third Party. I'm agnostic about what Max is, but either he's irrational or he's telling the truth about being a seer and Persus is anti-town. With your sudden strange fixation on me being scum when there exists other more likely targets (you claim to have caught Max out in a lie and yet say you'd much rather lynch me?!), I'm not inclined to take your read on Max at face value.

After Max White, you are my next Scumpick, by a vast margin.

See, I know you're capable of looking critically at a game. That you could get things so wrong here lends credence to my suspicions.


Tiruin

NQT: I want to see your main reasons behind why Imp > Max seems better in a list including any pros or cons - if there are situational things you want to add, put them in a different section. Address the matter at hand given how easy it is to branch out to speculation.

I have already given my case in the form of a clear and concise argument. But if you want it in a pro-con list:

Pros for lynching Imp over Max:
- Max has no rational reason to fakeclaim seer (it's so easy to disprove), and may or may not be town, cult or 3rd party. If we accept that Max is a rational human being interested in furthering his wincon (a supposition that some players, notably Toony, have expressed doubts over) then Imp is lying about her claim and should be lynched (or, you know, she was redirected).
- If Max is irrational and Imp flips town fortune-teller, then the hunter can NK Max (which presumably s/he can't do to Persus if Persus is a knight), or we can kill him tomorrow.

Cons
- There might be some factor that I haven't taken into account. Imp might have been redirected to someone else. Hell, Max might have been redirected when targeting Persus. There's a lot of potential unknown unknowns.

It doesn't matter anyway. Max is going to be lynched today. With any luck, he's irrational scum.


Persus

Assumption. And lynching a seer is not really the best way to go about killing him. [sarcasm] But after all, it's not as if the scum could kill a seer a different way, right? [/sarcasm] Scum could be more interested in lynching the hunter, or maybe even something they can't night-kill, like a knight or a sorcerer.

I only mean to say that a non-scum seer is a more powerful ant-scum role than Knight and so higher up the kill list. But sure, I take your point about the means.

If there are in fact two scum, Persus might also be scum.

So suddenly I'm not scum, despite your assertion that Max couldn't possibly have fakeclaimed?

There's an ambiguity about the word 'scum'. I think either Max is irrational or you are a malicious role (either cult or a third-party) or Max is rational and you may be good but Max was redirected.

And because it's illogical for him to fakeclaim Seer, Imp must be lynched despite the fact that he's (Max, Imp is a she) accusing me of being malevolent. What?

Malevolent doesn't necessarily mean cult. Our first duty is to kill the cult.

You know, if you weren't so doggedly defending Max and making assumptions, I'd still think you were town.

I just try to go with what makes sense. I'm not looking to defend Max just for the sake of it. I think he's dodgy as anything with his incessant tunnelling for most of the game, but him fakeclaiming just didn't make sense to me. If something doesn't make sense to you, you shouldn't just follow everyone else.

Max might yet be irrational, or one or more players could have been redirected. I'm not super upset that he's about to be lynched. My own analysis has presented him as top pick, just like it presented Caz as top pick before. Perhaps I should stop getting caught up in these web of words and have more faith in my mafiascience. Still, everyone but me voting for Max seems pretty suspicious to me. The day isn't going to end any other way and we've all voted now, so...

Shorten

[Jim Groovester]

Blawha?

Somebody proposed a shorten?

Very well, I'm down. After finding out that Imp is ready to make impassioned pleas and stirring arguments she won't even support with her vote, I've mostly just been waiting for the day to end.

Shorten.

[ToonyMan]

At least it'll be impossible for an illusionist to claim now without instantly being suspected.

[ToonyMan]

@Tiruin:
My thought process was, "maybe Tiruin is scum because they seemed concerned about their own safety".  I'm starting to repeat myself enough on a point I don't even believe anymore that I want to believe it again.

[Tiruin]

Post coming up. Max as of now. Detailing in an hour or so.

What wasn't given by Max are the details on his N1/2 counts. Given the situation wherein we've a normal scumteam (ie 2 scum and all), there is a common factor on 'why would x risk y'. The idea goes out to Persus, too. However:
> Persus has backing evidence [That is to say, explained evidence] Whoever hit him D1 would've marked it as a reminder--something to be kept in silence given the general disposition.
> If 'tis a bus, then its a real heck of a bus--something I don't detect in how it was played out. The wording is too..intricate in a way that its genuine to see Max bussing his buddy. If such, it would also be a total waste of his role (though seeing a scum Seer is..pretty weird. I'm thinking on him being our illusionist to match up the spare ends?) but it would render scum-Persus only out for the day lynch.
> If Imp is aligned with Persus, then she's defending her buddy and if Max dies, then suspicion will be on the truckload on them two. A HUGE risk to take, and something...fallible, given the amount of detail given to each post and case, including the credibility at stake.
> Max' mutual lynching agreement. It's back there and I can't link it because weird net stuffs but it's there. Somewhat along the lines of 'if x dies then we can have hunter y do z to the other' or something like that. Memory is fuzzy, but its along that area. General belief is that a townie wouldn't propose such a thing because of its manipulative matters, but scum would--if only to convince that there is a logical way out of it. It's...sorta like giving a deal with the metaphorical devil. But I stand on my case that things are... weird. Unless there are any tangents anyone else wants to propose?

   And the notion that Max didn't see Imp's case coming. A scum-Seer is a definite killer to any town-aligned Knight (on why he'd want to out a Knight instead of anyone else woul-..well, he took a risk is the best deal that comes to mind. A risk which entails total trust on anyone else, and points on-Kill a Knight, then we can..pull an illusionis..ugh. Ok, or not that clear. But the risk thing comes to mind on how it pulls out if he's scum. It's too... weird. Like something's still up.) given that prospect. However if he falls town (we still have Imp's case on Max so it would fall to belief that Imp has scried a falsehood, AND Max targeted someone malevolent?!) Yeah. The points don't apply to an alibi of an Illusionist.
...Ok, the prospect just came if Imp/Max are aligned and she's bussing him. But that's..pretty strange given how she's also suspecting NQT and..ugh. Will try to detail the exact quotes later on, but by memory I believe that the state of being bussed is vaguer than the state of empirical evidence at hand, and on how much detail makes it differ from a verbose bus and a genuine accusation/confrontation.

> Bolded point takes precedence on the Illusionist thing. The only note is if NQT got scried, as far as the Changer employs itself, and NQT didn't say nuthin' (double negative metaphor emphasis) about nothing [while it is true that I was an Illusionist in the past..yeah I don't know how my role worked (or in memory, at all) and can't check back to see how it works].


Shorten - I'm guessing the deciding fact lies on the lynch now, unless anyone has anything to say.

Toony

@Tiruin:
My thought process was, "maybe Tiruin is scum because they seemed concerned about their own safety".  I'm starting to repeat myself enough on a point I don't even believe anymore that I want to believe it again.

...I don't even get you at times. How would I be concerned about my own safety back then in that context? Why would I be concerned of my own safety, too?


 I don't even see what or where you're repeating on a rational line that you're losing me in how you even comprehend this. exams in the way, I can understand (thoroughly), but in how this thing makes sense...I really really really can't comprehend what or where are you getting your ideas that I'm on the point on 'maybe I'VE MISSED SOMETHING.' but in reading your posts I can't get MOSTLY ANYTHING AT ALL D:

Whereby I ask you to expound your case.

[Persus13]

Uh sure, Shorten. Don't really have anything to say at the moment. Looks like me, NQT or Imp up on the chopping block tomorrow.

[Tiruin]

...First, second or third door. What do you mean? What do you think of Max and what'll he flip as? That's a confusing train of thought Persus.

[Persus13]

...First, second or third door. What do you mean? What do you think of Max and what'll he flip as? That's a confusing train of thought Persus.

I think Max is scum, as he's stating a false accusation, but I'm not 100% sure about that. But as usual when I'm playing a mafia game, I'm nervous that he's not going to turn out to be scum at the end of the day, and I lynched town by accident. I've gotten that nervous fear every time I've helped lynch someone.

Anyway, if Max flips town, it's highly likely that either me or Imp that will be lynched. I'm going to guess it's me, because our friend the hunter knows I'm a knight and so will go after Imp.

If Max flips scum, and our monster hunter doesn't kill NQT, he's likely to be our lynch tomorrow.

[notquitethere]

If Max flips scum, and our monster hunter doesn't kill NQT, he's likely to be our lynch tomorrow.

Just a note to any monster hunter that's reading: I never made the claim that Max isn't scum, I just think it's more likely that he's a seer than it is that Imp is telling the truth. If anyone doesn't know my role and alignment by now then they haven't been paying attention. (I'm a town priest, I rezzed Nerjin as town, a scum priest couldn't do this: unless I've misunderstood how this works, Nerjin would have ended up either cult or 3rd party if resurrected by Caz, right?)

[Persus13]

If Max flips scum, and our monster hunter doesn't kill NQT, he's likely to be our lynch tomorrow.

Just a note to any monster hunter that's reading: I never made the claim that Max isn't scum, I just think it's more likely that he's a seer than it is that Imp is telling the truth. If anyone doesn't know my role and alignment by now then they haven't been paying attention. (I'm a town priest, I rezzed Nerjin as town, a scum priest couldn't do this: unless I've misunderstood how this works, Nerjin would have ended up either cult or 3rd party if resurrected by Caz, right?)

Despite Imp's arguments that that might not necessarily be true?

[Imp]

There's an ambiguity about the word 'scum'. I think either Max is irrational or you are a malicious role (either cult or a third-party) or Max is rational and you may be good but Max was redirected.

The possibilities that notquitethere fails to consider, that he sounds like he absolutely doesn't notice, are really interesting.

See, if Max is lying about being a Seer - then what he said about both nqt and Perses is made up and should be discarded when you consider lines of thought that consider Max as lying about being a Seer.  NQT is mixing those concepts (even as a liar, what Max claimed as his results are still valid), and NQT has done so repeatedly, not just this time- which I think is crazy and not a 'reasonable' mistake to make.

With LOGIC:  If Max is lying about being a Seer:  What Max said about both NQT and Perses was made up, and says nothing about the truth of either of them.

Thus - NQT and Perses could be benign or malicious, no 'proof' of any sort has been provided either way.

From my observation:  NQT often appears to consider things deeply and from many sides, and his posts include many details to explain his thinking and own observations.

Thus - NQT is making a very odd set of mental choices regarding the 'details' he is and is not including in his posts, and these include some -big- logic failures.

Other 'nqt ignored' possibilities:

1)  If I am lying, Max could also have been redirected when he investigated Perses (assuming a role that can redirect those who do not leave their houses to take actions exists in play  - I believe this would be a never-before-seen role, as Illusionists appear to cause -physical- redirections only from what's been said in their PMs in the past - though this is unconfirmed because no illusionist has as yet ever targeted a 'stay home' role that was trying an action).  NQT appears to be thinking about some, but only some, ways a possible redirect could be used - and doesn't appear to consider the 'both' perspective.  I explain below why this 'failure to consider this point' is so interesting to me 

2)  If I was redirected N2, there is some possibility that there are -two- redirective roles in play.  Max could -also- have been redirected, we could both be telling the truth and both be innocently wrong (I think this is incredibly unlikely).

(whups, LATER in the same post, NQT does mention it - but doesn't appear to have -thought- much about it.  Sure doesn't discuss his thoughts)

Max might yet be irrational, or one or more players could have been redirected.

One thing NQT 'appears' to consider:

Cons
- There might be some factor that I haven't taken into account. Imp might have been redirected to someone else. Hell, Max might have been redirected when targeting Persus. There's a lot of potential unknown unknowns.

If Max was redirected when targeting Perses, then Max is still a Seer, his claim is true (even if his N2 are wrong because of the redirect) and thus I am lying - thus I am certain Scum.  If he was redirected from Perses, then his result for Perses is either false or true (he could have been redirected to someone -else- who would give the same result as if Max had not been redirected.

That means that I'm still lying - thus I am still Scum - but if Perses is actually not Scum and I am - then I know that Perses is likely to be lynched D3 and he was malevolent to Town (probably a SK, probably a threat to Scum as well), and Max can perhaps be killed N3 (given maybe no Guardians in play?) - failing that, no one else is likely to be protected, not sure which way I'd go on that one if I were Scum).

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

You're giving what appears to be 'some thought' to the factors that support or refute motivations for Max's claim/false claim.

NQT, you appear to be ignoring almost all factors that may support or refute my motivations for my claim/false claim.  Why?

You explain repeatedly why Max has no rational reason to fake-claim Seer.

Would you please explain why you have not discussed yet why I do have a rational reason to fake-claim Fortune Teller?

For the same reasons that you say undermine Max's claim, if it is fake, what do you understand about my claim, and what supports or undermines it, if it is fake?

The day isn't going to end any other way and we've all voted now, so...

Shorten

Yeah, NQT.  The only thing really still being discussed is who any other possible threats to Town might be, as well as a little more consideration as to the likelihood of either Max or Imp being liars.  But mostly what's being discussed is who else is highly Scummy.

So since we're not really talking about anything else that matters or has use or meaning to the game, it's a really good idea to shorten, right?  Cause we're just wasting time here, right?

I still say EXTEND.  Not just because I want these questions answered by NQT, but also because:

I see some questions asked by Tiruin in her latest post, both to everyone

Unless there are any tangents anyone else wants to propose?

and specifically to Toony:

Whereby I ask [Toony] to expound [his] case.

I too want to hear more from Toony.  We may just have 2 baddies (with Max probably being the second), but we could have 3 (and the other isn't NQT despite my suspicions), and we could have 4.   Toony is my next Scumpick after NQT (he's not even close to NQT, but a big part of that gap could be because Toony has said so -little- - Toony giving me more to read might make Toony appear very much more Town - I don't know because Toony isn't posting much)

We have limited number of extends each D.  Toony originally gave a time when he could post more.  He then didn't really post that much more, and later said 'oh I have another test I didn't mention before that's still slowing me down'.  Alright Toony.  However much time you need - I want to read your words, because I'd like to get a read on you.  We can't give you 'infinite' time  - but if we end D3 early that's time that we can't get back to give you D4.  So I'm currently opposing shorten, because of the effect that it may have in terms of your being able to properly communicate on D4+.

NQT:

If Max flips scum, and our monster hunter doesn't kill NQT, he's likely to be our lynch tomorrow.

Just a note to any monster hunter that's reading: I never made the claim that Max isn't scum, I just think it's more likely that he's a seer than it is that Imp is telling the truth. If anyone doesn't know my role and alignment by now then they haven't been paying attention. (I'm a town priest, I rezzed Nerjin as town, a scum priest couldn't do this: unless I've misunderstood how this works, Nerjin would have ended up either cult or 3rd party if resurrected by Caz, right?)

Oh goodie:  Another thing we can ask Meph if he will confirm or deny.  Seems weird to me, given that Meph already said:

Meph:  Are Scum priests 100% successful in resurrecting others to the Scum side?

Resurrection is never a sure thing.

So despite Meph saying that it's never a sure thing, -you- are certain that Scum priests -cannot- resurrect someone as Town. 


Meph:  Is it possible for a Scum priest to resurrect a player as Town?

[Toaster]

Was out all day yesterday and no large amount of time today, so I'm skimming a bit for now.


Tiruin:

Toaster: Where did Caz rolefish again?

In the post immediately above my vote to him.  Here:

Well, we're back to Day 1 again. Did anyone learn anything useful?

Right out of the gate D2 he's looking for role results.  That's not a townie action- town should know that power role revelations on D2 typically only come if they're big and the claimant thinks it's important to get out.  In other words, a person will claim if they feel it necessary and not because someone is snooping around.

[Tiruin]

Toaster: ...Ah. I didn't think of that as a non-town action thing (must be your experience?) but..huh. I asked that because..well, that's the only line I got that went along the idea (which didn't click to me) when reading ~D2 and didn't see a direct rolefish.

Nice catch. Thanks. I was thinking on that and relating the idea to the current squabble over what happened right now. [ie: Caz' ideas about the Cult given how things are in a tussle right now and the bets going on scum #]

Busy on working on other Mafias, however I'd like to ask you this:
What do you think about the situation at hand, right now? Will what you have thought change based on the flip if said flip is scum? If town?

Meph: Do we know how many scum are there?
Imp:

I too want to hear more from Toony.  We may just have 2 baddies (with Max probably being the second), but we could have 3 (and the other isn't NQT despite my suspicions), and we could have 4.   Toony is my next Scumpick after NQT (he's not even close to NQT, but a big part of that gap could be because Toony has said so -little- - Toony giving me more to read might make Toony appear very much more Town - I don't know because Toony isn't posting much)

Hm. I believe that empirical evidence points to Max, but I'm curious about you and your case. What if it doesn't end if (I notice Max has..quieted. He must post however, extend.) he flips scum.

What would you do then?

If Max was redirected when targeting Perses, then Max is still a Seer, his claim is true (even if his N2 are wrong because of the redirect) and thus I am lying - thus I am certain Scum.  If he was redirected from Perses, then his result for Perses is either false or true (he could have been redirected to someone -else- who would give the same result as if Max had not been redirected.

The prospect is, why would you lie given a sure case such as MALEVOLENT//BENEVOLENT? There are other factors, but the ideas are clear given the preceeding statements.
Why is this a logical track of reasoning?

[Imp]

Tiruin:

Stepping in on this question to Meph, because it's very close to a duplicate question:

Meph: Do we know how many scum are there?

Meph, how many members did the scum team start with?

That is not known at this time.

Not sure I understand what you're asking me, and if your two questions are linked or separate.

I'm going to answer them as unlinked questions.

Imp:

I too want to hear more from Toony.  We may just have 2 baddies (with Max probably being the second), but we could have 3 (and the other isn't NQT despite my suspicions), and we could have 4.   Toony is my next Scumpick after NQT (he's not even close to NQT, but a big part of that gap could be because Toony has said so -little- - Toony giving me more to read might make Toony appear very much more Town - I don't know because Toony isn't posting much)

Hm. I believe that empirical evidence points to Max, but I'm curious about you and your case. What if it doesn't end if (I notice Max has..quieted. He must post however, extend.) he flips scum.

You are saying, if Max flips Scum but the game doesn't end, what do I intend to do next?

Continue hunting.  I'm not sure if there -is- any other possible answer - that is what you do in a Mafia game to my understanding.  You chase your Wincon until it is won.
There is one other person I strongly suspect:  NQT, for reasons I've both summarized and extensively listed this D.

I have not heard enough from Toony to really have much feel of him, and I do have some sort of better feel from everyone else.

Jim and Toaster are also hard for me to read, but I think Toaster's vote of Caz at the start of D2 is a pretty big Town tell - I think that would be a senseless, though as it worked out highly effective bus if Toaster is one of the Scum.  The only things Jim has done that's actively confused me is how he handled his voting but not really questioning or pushing Perses (and how he didn't bother to answer my question about it), and that he seems a bit quiet, compared to some of his play in other S games.

Perses's play seemed weird to me near the start of the game, but I don't know a lot about how he plays Mafia (I've got a very small sample size) and he's likely to be learning very fast - his play may change quick and greatly - It's not so much 'seems scummy' as 'seems different' from his previous play.  I'm less disturbed by it than I was D1 and D2 and overall his play and intentions seem increasingly reasonable to me.

Your play, Tiruin, seems pretty strong to me.  It's harder for me to understand you than I expected, but what you are doing with your play and your posts seems very appropriate once I study them enough to think I understand your words well.  You really worked to lynch Caz and I believe that was unnecessary if you were also Scum.  Your reactions to everything else seem reasonable and present.

So D4, should I get to be an active player that day too - More of the same.  Talk to everyone, listen to everyone, Scumhunt, absorb every bit of flavor and other information that is provided by Meph and the rest of you, theorize, wonder, work, and vote.

If Max was redirected when targeting Perses, then Max is still a Seer, his claim is true (even if his N2 are wrong because of the redirect) and thus I am lying - thus I am certain Scum.  If he was redirected from Perses, then his result for Perses is either false or true (he could have been redirected to someone -else- who would give the same result as if Max had not been redirected.

The prospect is, why would you lie given a sure case such as MALEVOLENT//BENEVOLENT? There are other factors, but the ideas are clear given the preceeding statements.
Why is this a logical track of reasoning?

I think I may not have worded this clearly, if you are confused in this direction.

Are you are asking me, 'why would Max lie about malevolent/benign?, or are you asking something else?  If that's your question - because the benefit to his Wincon outweighed the risks, at least in his own mind.  After all, what's the odds of there being a Fortune Teller, -and- that the Fortune Teller inspected Max before D3?  As I prepared my answer to 'Why is this a logical track of reasoning' - part of what I did was really, really pretend I was Scum.  A) it was fun.  B) if I was Scum, I -really- want Perses dead unless Perses is also Scum.  And if Perses lying about being a knight - if Perses actually is malevolent, Imp-as-Scum wants Perses dead desperately much (however - I would NOT have made the claim I made... rather, I might have claimed to be a Fortune Teller - but I would have claimed an inspection of Perses, not Max, to ensure Perses's lynch and probably without extreme risk to myself.  That line of reasoning is explained within the spoiler below, along with a lot of other 'if this set of unknowns are this truth, what then?'

Spoiler: The truth follows one of two paths, but it branches from there. (click to show/hide)

Path one - Max is a Seer, and told the truth about the results he got.  (In this path, I MUST be lying or have been redirected; Max may or may not have been redirected but either way Max is reporting honestly)

path one (A) - Max got a 'real result' on Perses, Perses really is malevolent (towards Town I assume).

Path one (B) - Max got a 'false result' on Perses, because Max was redirected.  But this doesn't actually prove anything about Perses, because of the redirect - we can't stop here, this path has two more branches.

Path one (B1) - Max got a 'false result' on Perses (he didn't actually investigate Perses), but Perses actually is Malevolent, so this is functionally the same as Path one (A) (Max would have gotten this result even if Max had not been redirected).

Path one (B2) - Max got a 'false result' on Perses(he didn't actually investigate Perses), but Perses actually is Benign.

Now consider 'Imp is Town' given all possible 'Path one truths' - If I am Town -I- must have been redirected to someone who is a survivor, there's no other possible answer given that I am Town because in this given path, Max -is- a Seer, but I didn't get a result that a Seer would have.

Now consider 'Imp is Scum' given all possible 'Path one truths' - If I am Scum then I know if Perses is Scum, so we need further path branches, one where Perses is Scum, and one where Persus isn't Scum (but could be third party, and could be genuinely malevolent - I believe that would be important information for Scum, because most or all malevolent-to-Town are capable of harming Scum too).

There's really only three paths here - One one path, I am Scum -and- Max is Scum.  One hell of a bus and I'm not sure where that would end up or why I would choose to or agree to make the post I made.  I don't feel ready to explore this possibility because it feels like 'field to large' to me - I believe 'I wouldn't do this under any circumstances', which makes it very hard to explore for me.

The two branches I'll explain though: in one I am Scum and Persus is too - in the other I am Scum but Persus isn't.

'Path one A/Path one B1' (a) -  Imp is Scum, Max is a sage, and Max got a malevolent result on Persus, who is also Scum.  By 'creating' a hugely detailed lie about inspection results, I -could- risk exposing myself to set up a chance for Max to die today.  At the point I'd stepped into the thread with my claim, no one had voted for Max or Perses yet, it was not (in my opinion) very established if Max was being believed or not.  Possibly huge risk for me to take - I can measure it's value to Scum as this - If I can probably be believed - Max probably lynched D4 (and flips Town), I'm possibly lynched D4 (if not night killed, assuming Scum don't control both night kills) or maybe Perses is lynched (and flips Scum) instead even if I'm still alive D4.  It still remains to be seen if the other Scum (be that Perses or myself) will be lynched (or in my case possibly night killed) on or before D5.  Numbers wise, there -could be- 4 baddies, possibly even a 4th Scum (would be the first time 4 starting Scum have been in a S game, but the statistics I looked at suggest it's a possible choice for Meph to consider).  If there's 4 Scum, there's a very outside chance those numbers might work, the math gets fuzzy for me at that point.  If there's 3 Scum though, Caz/Imp/Perses - This is a pretty rediculous risk to kill a Sage and seriously endangers the Scum wincon.

'Path one A/Path one B1' (b) -  Imp is Scum, Max is a sage, and Max got a malevolent result on Perses, who is not Scum (as Scum, Imp knows this - and Imp also now knows that Max is probably really a sage, because Imp knows Max isn't one of the Scum - so he's got to be a third party).  Since Perses isn't Scum and Perses is malevolent - Perses is almost certainly an SK (I can't think of any other probably malevolent third party - but no idea what a devil would show).  He either claimed to be a knight and withheld his N1 kill, claiming a reasonable victim result D2 (smart, I won't want to waste a night kill on a probable knight when there's other targets, so he's pretty safe from drawing my night kill, and when I'm looking for that other night killer, only WIFOM's going to make me suspect Perses), or Perses IS some sort of Town-malevolent third party who really is also immune to (at least some types) of night kills.  Either way, with 8 players left, the smartest thing for me to do (I believe) is to attempt to get Perses dead D3 without attracting too much attention or suspicion.  One of the ways I can think of to do that is to claim to be a Town Fortune Teller - and to have inspected Perses and found him to be a killer (or anything else other than Guardian... but killer is probably scariest and least likely to be a knight's result).  This becomes two claims challenging Perses's claim in two different ways, and the odds of Perses being the lynch is probably -extremely- high - and Perses needs some way to actually -be- malevolent to Town.... saying he inspected as a killer despite his claim to be a Knight is probably going to be a 'true' lie.

Whatever Perses actually flips as - even if it isn't a killer-type, I'm probably going to be alright.  I haven't taken other actions to endanger the rest of my Scum team (if there are any others) and all I'm going to have to do is make some sort of believable claim each D about who I inspected and what results I got - or why I'm not revealing that information because I believe keeping someone's specific inspection result secret for now helps Town more than Scum.  Since inspections happen before kills - and since roleflips happen after kills but -before- I can (or must) report my inspection results - I can actually 'hide' by pretending to pick to have inspected the night kill victim (who just happened to be killed, what a wasted inspection, but how was I to know?).  To be honest - I would probably feel very comfortable doing this, I can see this working really well if this was the true path.

Note though - that requires me to have claimed to inspect -Perses-.  I didn't make that claim.  And claiming to have inspected Max as I have done threatens my wincon - I know Max isn't Scum so he probably IS telling the truth, so I'm a very likely night kill (unless Scum controls both kills) and if not, a very high probability D4 lynch.

Path one B2 - This path is almost identical to 'Path one A/Path one B1' (b), because Perses is genuinely benign despite the malevolent result - that means Perses cannot be Scum.  In this path, I am Scum, Max is Seer, Perses is benign (Town or third party) but Max was redirected.  Unless I know that Max was redirected (unless a Scum did the redirection), I'm probably going to make the 'Path one A/Path one B1' choices if I claim anything at all - because I don't know Perses is actually benign.  It still makes good sense for me to claim to have inspected Perses and gotten a non-Gaurdian result - with one exception.  If the Scum caused the redirection, and -especially- if we know who Max was redirected to and it wasn't one of us - we now know who a malevolent third party is, though no one else knows it.  Verrry interesting, surely.  Not sure how we'd handle it, but I'm sure something would be done about it.

That finishes all the possible paths that I can think of, where Max is really a Seer.

I can do a similar 'tree', with equal logic, for 'path two', where Max lied about being a Seer and the results he got and actually is town(huh? nonsense), Scum, or third party, and the various branches were I am Town, Scum, or third party, as well as what that means if Perses is actually also Scum, Town, or third party.

Path two is actually more complex, but also less interesting to me to type up, as I've already thought about most of it a great deal because I know I'm not lying about the results I got - that means for my own purposes I only 'need' to explore the branches where Max is lying and/or where I was redirected (and I have, extensively).  So it was fun to explore the other paths where I was Scum, and to realize how much I'd want Perses dead if Perses isn't also Scum with me.  Even if Perses is lying about being a knight - in fact, -especially- if Perses lying.  Yeah, I'd want him dead, if I were Scum.  And -especially- if a non-Scum made a claim of 'he's malevolent'.

So I'd prefer not to type up all the possible Path twos (where Max lied about being a Seer) - there's more of them and I've already done that work in my head, at least to my own satisfaction.  Typing them wouldn't be very much fun and a lot more work.

But you'd asked me:

The prospect is, why would you lie given a sure case such as MALEVOLENT//BENEVOLENT? There are other factors, but the ideas are clear given the preceeding statements.
Why is this a logical track of reasoning?

This spoiler (spoilered for length) explains the logic as best I can.  I challenge NQT on this issue because he seems to be 'making a tree' too, but his is stunted and looks broken.  He's 'avoiding' certain branches, at least in what he chooses to post about.  He avoids most of the branches where Max is lying and he avoids all of the branches where I am neither lying nor misdirected.

Though he sure looked quick to say this, which looks impressively self-protective to me (and lacking any other motive I can detect):

If Max flips scum, and our monster hunter doesn't kill NQT, he's likely to be our lynch tomorrow.

Just a note to any monster hunter that's reading: I never made the claim that Max isn't scum, I just think it's more likely that he's a seer than it is that Imp is telling the truth. If anyone doesn't know my role and alignment by now then they haven't been paying attention. (I'm a town priest, I rezzed Nerjin as town, a scum priest couldn't do this: unless I've misunderstood how this works, Nerjin would have ended up either cult or 3rd party if resurrected by Caz, right?)