Print

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

[Persus13]

To elaborate on the end, birdy didn't see being roleblocked as an issue because the only person he could revive happened to be a third party SK.

[origamiscienceguy]

Supernatural Mafia 4 cites an example of such an occurrence. After the Town Priest mislynched another Town Priest, his subsequent resurrection of said Priest went horribly wrong and he came back as a Demon. Other occasions point to any death causing issues, as in Supernatural 5 where a successful lynch of a Werewolf resulted in a Vampire being spawned. As such, I don't want to take any chances with my planned reviving of either Toony or Deus Asnoth tonight.

I'm completely certain of this, but I believe that the outcome of a resurrection is determined by the piety of the priest at game start.

Jim's word on the topic.

Priest can resurrect a dead player, and they have a piety value that is hidden from them. Pious priests bring a dead target back to life to his original role, while impious priests revive the target as a demon, which has a kill and wins when everybody else is dead.

There's no way to know which is which until the following night, when either somebody dies or nothing happens. There are also some roles that get vague hints about whether it was a normal or demonic resurrection during the night it occurs (according to memory of previous Supernaturals), but the Priest himself is unaware what kind of resurrection it is.

This is my first time playing Supernatural, and though I watched the last two the specifics may be a bit lost on me.

This may have changed however, but I'm pretty sure this still applies with some changes.

...But... I'd prefer to actually be able to leave the house. ;.;

Why? You said yourself that you ability doesn't require you to leave your house?

Last night, me being roleblocked was no issue,

Did you see anyone get revived last night? Priest have a 1-shot revive.

Ah! Birdy, you could tell me right before lynch if you want to revive anyone though, right?

[birdy51]

It is as Persus13 has said.

As entertaining and ironic as the thought may be, I wasn't about to revive a Necromancer. Anyways. I find Groovesters' analysis of the priest is interesting, though perhaps dated. For instance, we know now that Lone Vampires can also be made from botched resurrections instead of just straight up Demons. It also doesn't address whether the value can be changed over time. If there is any way that the hidden Piety value is effected by my actions, then I'm going to do whatever I can to keep myself Pious.

And Origami, I'd rather you make the call whether to jail me or not. No matter what happens, I'm going to try to revive a Townie. That is a given. What you do tonight is your own choice.

But, if I do succeed in reviving a Townie, I ask you to Jail them repeatedly. Neither of the resurrected Town Roles need to leave the house to do their job, so being Jailed only helps keep them alive. On the off-chance that they are a Demon, this also means that they cannot hurt anyone. A Win-Win.

[origamiscienceguy]

What do Demons do exactly?

[birdy51]

They are straight Serial Killers. They want us all dead, both scum and town.

[flabort]

Flabort: I want your reads immediately.

Teneb Dead, confirmed third party necromancer.
Epenguin/Tiruin: Null read due to no meaningful information. One RVS question about priests.
Toonyman: Dead town. Mostly reactionary in life. However, observant.
Deus Asmoth: Dead, confirmed town at this point.
Roo: I'm not sure I trust him. Low content, tunnels on Birdy, seems suspicious of me but doesn't act on it.
TheDarkStar: A fair amount of content. Follows genuine scum suspects, and seems to be mostly town.
Cheesecake: Short answer section (not a bad thing). Spent most of their time defending themselves, not really spending any time pursuing their own suspects. Or asking questions. Neutral-to-scum read.
Peradon: A short RVS, then says he's going to question someone until he finds a flaw. Procedes to not ask questions, just answer. Until he hops on the wagons; he's still not following his declared strategy. Soft claims having an active action, as opposed to passive, and not being bothered at night. Scum lean.
Oragami Science Guy: Non-serious begining to the game: "Let's get this party started", "Magma", "The point of the humor was really just for humor". Drops to low activity for a while. Activity really starts on day 2, where he softclaims, and then Birdy claims for him. He then asks some questions about the set-up. Mild scum lean, maaaaybe neutral.
Persus13: Succesfully predicted claims would start D2. Multiple focii, capable of hunting more than one target at a time, and generally competent. Mild town read.
Jack A T: I'd have to say the most observant player here. Does tunnel a bit on Cheesecake early on, but it's justified by CCake being dodgy about answering his questions. Eventually starts the wagon that kills Teneb, with a genuine attack. Does a good job of attracting other players to his point of view. Hard to say which way he leans, so neutral.
Flabort: Yours truly, the most powerful time traveling demilich in the multiverse.
Spruce: I'd guess his last mafia community was RP heavy and full of sillyness. He does serious-up starting around page 2 (50ppp), so from then on: he's more observant and competant than he appears, and seeds his observations even into his least serious stuff. His interaction with Birdy51, for example, where they speak of detachment. I hadn't noticed that he was actually contributing there earlier. He even pushes a real case. He gets lost again when flavor analysis starts day 2. Mildly town.
Birdy51: I like the calm detached Birdy. He gets to the point, is fairly active (evidenced by having the most posts in the game), and goes back to review and reread the game every so often. Definitely one of the clearer-headed players. His reads are consise and clear, making sense. Does out OSG, and reveals his own role; this is one suspicious thing out of a lot of positive posts. Mildly town.

[flabort]

Or, in order of most to least town:
Flabort
Toony + Deus (dead)
TheDarkStar
Persus13
Birdy
Spruce
Jack AT
Tiruin
Oragami
Cheesecake
Roo
Peradon
Teneb (Dead)

[birdy51]

Uh-huh. Thank you for your reads. They were insightful. Now let's get this party on the road here, shall we?  I've got a third claim to make this day.

Flabort. You are scum. Here is why.

---


Soft-Hunting

By this, I mean that you have not shown initiative in creating cases, preferring to stay on the sidelines of the conflict as opposed to the thick of it. That way, if something goes wrong, you still have your options to escape implication. Anyways. Onto the meat and potatoes.

flabort: How do we know there isn't?

I don't. At this stage of the game it's too hasty to decide what kind of scum team(s?) we're facing off against. All I know is that anyone who DOES know at this stage is part of that team.

I don't want to needlessly vote Cheesecake when there's already a lot of pressure on him for one single slip, when there's a slim possibility that he could be telling the truth at this stage, especially given that I pointed out the thing that caused everyone to wagon on him; I feel like I already cast a dark shadow of doom onto him, and my vote is therefor already on him; but it's not, so I can save it to vote someone else.

If you really thought Cheesecake was scum, why didn't you vote for him when you had the chance? You were more than willing to flaunt the fact that you were the first to 'expose' him, but you were not willing to actually vote for him when the time came along.

Peradon: A short RVS, then says he's going to question someone until he finds a flaw. Procedes to not ask questions, just answer. Until he hops on the wagons; he's still not following his declared strategy. Soft claims having an active action, as opposed to passive, and not being bothered at night. Scum lean.

I'll agree with you that he hasn't stuck to doing what he said he was going to do. His word is Investigation, which is ironic considering his lack of question players. However, his 'bandwagon' vote also broke a tie between myself and Teneb. I'm fairly certain at that point he simply wanted to prevent a no-lynch and saw myself as less scummy than him.

Secondly, this is the first time you've mentioned his name as a suspect of yours, which leaves me inclined to think that you're still looking for an easy lynch. Since the other players have been relatively productive and/or accounted for, you decided to place your suspicions on the 'obvious' target in order appear productive.

That leaves a couple people with zero-to-no activity, EPenguin and OSG coming readily to mind.
In fact, Oragami has been even worse than spruce when it comes to being serious and answering questions straight. His two highest content posts are here and here: "I'm not going to base any arguments of of flavor text" and "My posts will be sparse", though up to that point they already were very sparse. There are a large number of questions directed at OSG which he hasn't answered, at least one of which are mine, and out of six posts four of them were completely shitposts.

Oragami Science Guy: Non-serious begining to the game: "Let's get this party started", "Magma", "The point of the humor was really just for humor". Drops to low activity for a while. Activity really starts on day 2, where he softclaims, and then Birdy claims for him. He then asks some questions about the set-up. Mild scum lean, maaaaybe neutral.

Hehe. I think you know that your case against him is gone. Completely. Utterly. Gone. Now you're just trying to save face, since you had assumed that OSG would have made an easy lynch. But holding on to suspicions of someone who has already been marked as Town isn't sensible, especially after I had "done out" OSG. On the errant chance of an OSG wagon, you still want to be ready to off him. Which doesn't make a lick of sense to any sensibly minded Townie.

---

But this last one is my favorite. Because it involves me, and I love talking about me.

Buddying:

Self-Explanatory. The first two quoted examples also fall into the realm of Soft-Hunting, but that is not the expressed focus of this section. Read on.

I wouldn't say he got an entirely free pass... though he has been lucky so far and not attracting huge amounts of attention, either.

Does this indicate you were at some point suspicious of birdy?

I'm always mildly suspicious of people who open with only one question or less. It usually amounts to nothing, but it's a pet peeve of mine.
But that was unrelated to my comment that you quoted. In that context, I had meant that everyone gets questioned in their own time, and Birdy was lucky that his turn to be grilled hadn't come yet.

Birdy51: I like the calm detached Birdy. He gets to the point, is fairly active (evidenced by having the most posts in the game), and goes back to review and reread the game every so often. Definitely one of the clearer-headed players. His reads are consise and clear, making sense. Does out OSG, and reveals his own role; this is one suspicious thing out of a lot of positive posts. Mildly town.

This illustrates a most wonderful growth of thought that I feel is very, very important. Day 1, there are exceptionally subtle undertones that you wanted me to be grilled into oblivion. Day 1 Birdy is 'lucky' that he's not the one in the spotlight. You're suspicious of me, but unwilling to outright target me as yet. Fine.

Come Day 2 however, that suspicion is completely gone. Suddenly, my activity Day 1 seems to make sense, with my role claim and subsequent release of OSG's role being  'one suspicious thing out of a lot of positive posts".  Now I'm, 'Mildly Town'. It's hilariously false, since a lot my early posts are soft, meaningless questions and I held my vote on Epenguin for what was admittedly too long. Hah! You're buttering this old horse up and whispering sweet nothings into my ear  as you ship me off to the glue factory.

You know my claim is true, and as such, you know that a sudden case against me would be suspicious. So you want to do the exact opposite of conveying suspicion. Buddying.

---

Anyways, I think this is enough for now. I look forward to your responses.

[flabort]

I counterclaim as Town Sexton. I have left clues as to my identity earlier, and I'm getting spruce's stuff (mainly his body to watch over) when he dies.

I can't counter your claim that I haven't been doing my job hunting properly; I've always been bad at doing this genuinely instead of making up shit like I do as scum. However, I can counter individual points.

If you really thought Cheesecake was scum, why didn't you vote for him when you had the chance? You were more than willing to flaunt the fact that you were the first to 'expose' him, but you were not willing to actually vote for him when the time came along.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt; he is a novice after all. I was not flaunting that fact. I was pointing out that I felt bad for creating "cultgate 2015" as somebody so eloquently put it, and marking him as not completely innocent yet. Yes, I guess you could call it exposing, but it was not my intention to create an out-of-control wagon. Hence why I voted someone else; someone who at the time I found more suspicious anyways.

I'll agree with you that he hasn't stuck to doing what he said he was going to do. His word is Investigation, which is ironic considering his lack of question players. However, his 'bandwagon' vote also broke a tie between myself and Teneb. I'm fairly certain at that point he simply wanted to prevent a no-lynch and saw myself as less scummy than him.

Secondly, this is the first time you've mentioned his name as a suspect of yours, which leaves me inclined to think that you're still looking for an easy lynch. Since the other players have been relatively productive and/or accounted for, you decided to place your suspicions on the 'obvious' target in order appear productive.

Easy lynch? hardly. I don't see anyone else voting for Peradon. You also noticed I said "wagons", plural? His tiebreaking vote wasn't the only wagon he joined. He was also on Cheesecake much of the time. I'll give you the second wagon vote did prevent a no-lynch. But he could easily have voted you instead, and this entire day would be different.

Also, you asking me for reads? This may be a weak point, but your request for reads forced me to go over everything again because several players had fallen off of my radar and reevaluate everything. My reads list? Effectively "Flabort has replaced in for Flabort". New suspects, including Peradon who yes I hadn't even considered before. I hadn't even engaged TDS or roo before my reads list, but you see how I evaluated them, too? Fresh eyes, friend.

Hehe. I think you know that your case against him is gone. Completely. Utterly. Gone. Now you're just trying to save face, since you had assumed that OSG would have made an easy lynch. But holding on to suspicions of someone who has already been marked as Town isn't sensible, especially after I had "done out" OSG. On the errant chance of an OSG wagon, you still want to be ready to off him. Which doesn't make a lick of sense to any sensibly minded Townie.

Maybe I just don't know when to give up. It's won me several scum games and lost me a fair number of town. I have one town win under my belt because I was saved by somebody else. So why would I try to save face? I know I look suspicious as hell, at least as painted by scum if not by everyone else. It's a part of my being towny. My only course of action then is to do my best to find the scum as quickly as possible before I lose. It's still possible for OSG to have a jailor type role and be scum; most potential town roles can be part of the Cult scum team. It would also make sense for that to be a fire-and-forget power where he "draws a name out of a hat" like he said. I don't care that you confirmed him or that I rated you as potentially a member of the town. You could even be buddies, or you could be misguided. I know I've been misguided by scum leading me around as town before (see also: my only town win). I still don't see the town motivation in revealing OSG's role. if he's town, of course he'll be the first guy killed by scum now. If he's scum, he'll survive.
I know that now that I've marked OSG as a suspect, though, and you have marked him as town, there is no chance in HELL that he'll be lynched. Whether or not he's scum, nobody will trust a word I say and refuse to lynch anybody I mark as a target; it's the pattern of things; when I am town, my suspects are never lynched, or on the off chance they are it happens before I have a chance to notice and rescind my position; in both those cases, the scum survive. So I know the chance of a wagon on OSG is slim. I agree with you there. and I WILL jump on it. My motivation for considering him a suspect, though, is completely not what you said.

But this last one is my favorite. Because it involves me, and I love talking about me.

Buddying:

Self-Explanatory. The first two quoted examples also fall into the realm of Soft-Hunting, but that is not the expressed focus of this section. Read on.

Ooh. Heheh. I knew I should have rated you lower; but I did leave the obvious bait in my reads, I guess. This is where you inevitably mess up.

This illustrates a most wonderful growth of thought that I feel is very, very important. Day 1, there are exceptionally subtle undertones that you wanted me to be grilled into oblivion. Day 1 Birdy is 'lucky' that he's not the one in the spotlight. You're suspicious of me, but unwilling to outright target me as yet. Fine.

It's true. you were lucky to not be in the spotlight. Like I said, everyone gets their turn. Right now it's mine. Wishing for you to be "grilled into oblivion"? No. I'm just stating that inevitably you're going to do something that SOMEBODY finds suspicious, or if that doesn't happen it will be because you've already been nightkilled. It's a fact of mafia, not any intent of mine. What do you think of this, then, that it's my desire for you to be grilled that way now?

Come Day 2 however, that suspicion is completely gone. Suddenly, my activity Day 1 seems to make sense, with my role claim and subsequent release of OSG's role being  'one suspicious thing out of a lot of positive posts".  Now I'm, 'Mildly Town'. It's hilariously false, since a lot my early posts are soft, meaningless questions and I held my vote on Epenguin for what was admittedly too long. Hah! You're buttering this old horse up and whispering sweet nothings into my ear  as you ship me off to the glue factory.

Once again, fresh eyes from making a reads list. And as I said earlier, my suspicion over people who open with just one question is a pet peeve, NOT anything relative to actually playing the game of mafia. I have to put aside my personal grudges, peeves, and annoyances, and stick to the game. Isn't that the same as your new detachment strategy?
And it wasn't me who said "A lot of positive posts", you're just letting a little encouragement go to your head. Not every point I made about every poster applies to every post they made. If it had only been the one mistake only, I may have overlooked it entirely and just said "Definitely town, most positively". You yourself pointed out apathy on moving your vote from Epenguin, but I'd also like to point out that you requested a prod later, too, and you yourself pointed out your soft questions. They were still questions, and while you didn't ask a whole lot of them and many of them were callbacks to previous questions, it's a good thing to ask for clarification, a good thing to pursue people who refuse to answer you no matter how trivial the question. So some good, some areas that could use improving. Obviously while combing through your posts for the sake of forming a read on you, I got a little ticked off that most of your questions all led back to that first one that annoyed me personally, but in order to play the game I ignored my annoyance at that.

You know my claim is true, and as such, you know that a sudden case against me would be suspicious. So you want to do the exact opposite of conveying suspicion. Buddying.

I can't confirm your claim one way or the other right now. Maybe in the morning after you've res'd someone I can. Your claim might be true, and if it is that's great! But everyone wants to claim town. Except for jesters, but I don't think there are any in Supernatural. And I don't give a shit as to whether a sudden case against somebody who I previously had no case against looks suspicious. I'm gonna look suspicious no matter what I do, I may as well pursue anything that catches my interest. Including you if I have to.

My turn.
Please reply to all orange stuff above.
5) Have you picked a word for Roo or forced one out of him yet?
6) Do you consider Roo suspicious? If so, why haven't you pursued a case on him yet?
7) Are you going to take the bait in question 6?
You mentioned "For now". What could you possibly have that's still hidden up your sleeve? I'd have though you'd have exhausted
 everything you can if you were a towny.
9) Who else do you suspect?
10) What happened to "Innefectual town"? I'd like to point out that in YOUR reads list you had me listed as town. Why the sudden change of heart?
11) Why didn't YOU vote for your suspect when you posted your reads, since you're so confused by my not voting for cheesecake?
12) Revise your reads list, please.

[Peradon]

Oh boy, claims ho!

Peradon: First: this is basically the classic "Well, it could happen or it could not happen, so it must be a 50% chance" error.  While you don't have much information to base your guess of the chance on, you could have at least taken into account some of what we do know.  There's no reason whatsoever to think every outcome in the sample space is equally likely, and some good reasons (the lower number of scum than town in any game, the historic dubiousness of 'scumslips') not to.  There is information to get you beyond "eh, all outcomes have the same probability" in a Bayesian handling of scumhood chance.  To not take it into account in your analysis, while making it easier to give solid numbers, will lead you to silliness and wrongness.

Second: You can easily come up with more plausible scum scenarios for anyone than town.  There's usually only one really plausible scenario explaining any action as town (the guy's telling the truth and did things to catch scum), though there are a few rare exceptions, and more plausible scenarios for scum.  I can easily pull together a you-style scenario analysis that shows every single player is more likely than not scum, but that would be ridiculous.

Anyway, what do you think of the arguments to lynch Cheesecake now?

I disagree. Yes, there are hidden variables that we dont know about, but thats why its chance. If we knew all hidden variables, we could figure out everything about cheesecake. But we dont, thus why its chance.

Anything that is not that straightforward that is a town action, qualifies as a Gambit in my book. I dont think that Cheesecake would be pulling a gambit, being new to the game, though that is just speculation.

On the cheesecake lynch now, I dont think its a scumslip on his part, because it doesnt look like we have a cult on our hands. If we did, I would be extremely suspicious of him, enough to warrant a vote.

For those of you who say I havent been investigating(Glares at flabort), this is how I investigate. I look at possible scenarios and motives of the person I suspect, and judge how many can be scum-motived and how many can be town-motivated. Then depending on their scumslips or other such things, I'll vote for them. So dont you say I havent been investigating, its just that I dont publicize everything thought I have, only the ones I think are worth mentioning. Combine this with the fact that I dont have as much time in the day devoted to typing up responses as you guys, you get short posts and low post count.


On the Birdy claim: Well, that is interesting. What makes you so sure that OSG is the Guard? I also visited you last night, so how do know it wasnt me?

Not that it was me, but I think you're being a little too trusting of OSG right now.

Everyone: Since some people seem dead set on revealing part if not all of their and everyone else's roles, what are your thoughts on a mass claim? Personally I think it's too early since we may face a Cult, but I want to know your thoughts.

I dont think we're up against a Cult, but I dont think mass-claiming right now would be a good idea.

Peradon

Ok, then do any of you have clues from your night results? Nothing happened to me, so the only stuff I got was in relation to my night action...

Why are you softclaiming here and rolefishing?

Er, I'm not. I'm under the impression that flavor in night actions can give lots of details about what we're up against. I was asking if anyone had any flavor worth noting. Also, how is this a soft-claim? I didnt even claim anything.

Yes, and flavor in night actions usually requires that the person in question claim. You claimed you had a night action. There are plenty of roles who don't have night actions, Townspeople, Dreamwalkers, and Knights being three of them.

Well how the heck was I supposed to know they had passive abilities? This is my first supernatural game, so I made the assumption that every role had an accompanying action.

I was not asking for the flavor from a persons night action, but rather the action performed on them. I thought I said that.

Peradon: A short RVS, then says he's going to question someone until he finds a flaw. Proceeded to not ask questions, just answer. Until he hops on the wagons; he's still not following his declared strategy. Soft claims having an active action, as opposed to passive, and not being bothered at night. Scum lean.

Yeah, I know I havent been asking questions. I have been reading the thread, and have been forming idea's though, so even if I cant post huge posts like you guys, I am investigating. The reason I havent been able to post as much as I like is because I can only really post right before bed, due to summer coming on.

Also, guess what? I started that wagon on Cheesecake. Dont make me look like a wishy-washy scum by getting your facts wrong.

[flabort]

Indeed. I was viewing your posts in isolation and did not have the reference of when each vote was cast.
I appologieze for this mistake and miscasting you as joining a wagon.
I'd like you to ask some questions of your own. But for now I'll unvote.

I am unsure whether to pursue a retaliation against Birdy or to vote Roo or OSG at this time.

Roo, OSG: Reads lists, please.

[origamiscienceguy]

I had an obligation come up suddenly.  I will be gone until Friday. Sorry everybody.

[birdy51]

1).So why would I try to save face?

Scum Instinct. I should know, since I fell for this one before and nearly lost my head for it in a past game. You set up a case against someone, and suddenly it's now not one that can be pursued. Either they put up a damn good defense, or they become claimed in one way or another. But you want to pursue it anyways since you still smell blood, and you make another case. And as soon you stick your head out, someone cuts it off because you've extended too far.

You still want to make that case against OSG, when it's just not in your interest to do so. You feel as if you can't back down from the fight, because Townies don't run, and you want to be a Townie. But they do. Townies run all the time. Here's a little ammunition, look at my case against Persus13. I was suspicious of him, but ultimately I never backed it up with a vote. To be frank, he presented a pretty fine rebuttal that I couldn't hold a candle to. So I disengaged. And that's just my moment. I'm sure other players have had them as well where their points are addressed and they move on.

You haven't moved on. You still want to fight that case against OSG. To me, that's just damning.

2). I still don't see the town motivation in revealing OSG's role.

Then you should have asked. OSG revealed his role as early when he asked whether I had a visitor. Note visitor. Guards are hammy like that. As far as my knowledge goes, they are the only character that 'visits' and announces their presence to another character.

3). What do you think of this, then, that it's my desire for you to be grilled that way now?

Every dog has it's day in the sun. I do feel a certain tinge of fear whenever my name comes up in red. Because that usually means that it's now my turn in the hotseat. But whenever I play this game, I accept that at one point or another that my name will fall under suspicion.

As for what I make of it, I think you're freaking out a bit. That's even close to a well constructed sentence. Anyways.  I consider this statement both as a threat and as an indication of your mental state. You're very much stressed to hell by my case against you. I'll leave the details of that stress to the interpretation of others.

 

4). You're just letting a little encouragement go to your head

I'm not really sure how you want me to respond to this one. So instead of myself  giving a half baked response, I'd like you to clarify just what you're asking here.

5) Have you picked a word for Roo or forced one out of him yet?

No. I have not found a good word for him.

6) Do you consider Roo suspicious? If so, why haven't you pursued a case on him yet?

I do find his behavior suspicious. Particularly his lack of case work. In Vengeful Mafia, he was a good deal more active. This round is different, though I can't put my finger on it yet.

Anywho. I find value in seeing what people have to say before I throw down the gauntlet. A light question, then the whole sandwich. It gives me a little something more to work with. In your case, your reads were important to me as I needed to know just what your larger picture of the game looks like. Once I had that, I could formulate how the wheels in your head are turning.

It is the same with Roo. But first, I need him the game. Only then can I really get down to business.

7) Are you going to take the bait in question 6?

This sounds like a question you need to answer for yourself.

You mentioned "For now". What could you possibly have that's still hidden up your sleeve? I'd have though you'd have exhausted
 everything you can if you were a towny.

You thought wrong.

In my opinion, throwing out everything at once is silly. You can easily muddle your arguments with superfluous naggering if you're not careful. Attention spans are short, and while you may think that your mass information bomb is effective, sometimes it just confuses the hell out of people.

So, if you want to make a point, make it simple. My two main accusations against you are the crimes of 'Soft-Hunting' and 'Buddying'. Any further points can wait until those two accusations have been exhausted.

9) Who else do you suspect?

Roo has been mentioned early and by a loose, loose connection to him, I am suspicious and wary of Epenguin/Tiruin.

10) What happened to "Innefectual town"? I'd like to point out that in YOUR reads list you had me listed as town. Why the sudden change of heart?

A very good point. You're absolute in the right to ask this of me. My response is similar to yours. I did a reread after I was done with my claim spree. My list of suspects was trimmed by last night's deaths. Teneb, Toonyman, and Deus were all potential suspects of mine. All of them are dead now, so I can't exactly press a case against them.

Yours was name that I didn't know much about, so I looked into the matter further. What I saw, I didn't like, so I began to construct a case and requested your reads. Your reads didn't match up with past behavior, so I went for it.

11) Why didn't YOU vote for your suspect when you posted your reads, since you're so confused by my not voting for cheesecake?

Easy. I'm a Priest. That, coupled with my absence at end of Day made me wish to abstain from voting. However, on the off chance that I was killed overnight, I wanted to leave something that explained my thoughts. Hence, the reads.

12) Revise your reads list, please.

Yeah, I'll get that done.

---

I'll leave off for now, since I've ran out of time for this post. See you in a bit.

[flabort]

'm not really sure how you want me to respond to this one. So instead of myself  giving a half baked response, I'd like you to clarify just what you're asking here.

Would you agree or disagree that you misinterpreted what I was saying about you?

This sounds like a question you need to answer for yourself.

It seems the answer is no. You did consider the question above it carefully, and did not rise to a hasty vote.

I'll leave off for now, since I've ran out of time for this post. See you in a bit.

I look forward to your next post.

[TheDarkStar]

Peradon: First: this is basically the classic "Well, it could happen or it could not happen, so it must be a 50% chance" error.  While you don't have much information to base your guess of the chance on, you could have at least taken into account some of what we do know.  There's no reason whatsoever to think every outcome in the sample space is equally likely, and some good reasons (the lower number of scum than town in any game, the historic dubiousness of 'scumslips') not to.  There is information to get you beyond "eh, all outcomes have the same probability" in a Bayesian handling of scumhood chance.  To not take it into account in your analysis, while making it easier to give solid numbers, will lead you to silliness and wrongness.

Second: You can easily come up with more plausible scum scenarios for anyone than town.  There's usually only one really plausible scenario explaining any action as town (the guy's telling the truth and did things to catch scum), though there are a few rare exceptions, and more plausible scenarios for scum.  I can easily pull together a you-style scenario analysis that shows every single player is more likely than not scum, but that would be ridiculous.

Anyway, what do you think of the arguments to lynch Cheesecake now?

I disagree. Yes, there are hidden variables that we dont know about, but thats why its chance. If we knew all hidden variables, we could figure out everything about cheesecake. But we dont, thus why its chance.

Anything that is not that straightforward that is a town action, qualifies as a Gambit in my book. I dont think that Cheesecake would be pulling a gambit, being new to the game, though that is just speculation.

On the cheesecake lynch now, I dont think its a scumslip on his part, because it doesnt look like we have a cult on our hands. If we did, I would be extremely suspicious of him, enough to warrant a vote.

For those of you who say I havent been investigating(Glares at flabort), this is how I investigate. I look at possible scenarios and motives of the person I suspect, and judge how many can be scum-motived and how many can be town-motivated. Then depending on their scumslips or other such things, I'll vote for them. So dont you say I havent been investigating, its just that I dont publicize everything thought I have, only the ones I think are worth mentioning. Combine this with the fact that I dont have as much time in the day devoted to typing up responses as you guys, you get short posts and low post count.

Peradon. The reasoning behind voting for Cheesecake still doesn't make much sense. You said that you carefully considered how scummy people were based on their actions, but your reasoning yesterday didn't argue that at all. Instead, it assumed that all scenarios were equally likely and used that to show that Cheesecake was probably scum. Why the discrepancy?

On the Birdy claim: Well, that is interesting. What makes you so sure that OSG is the Guard? I also visited you last night, so how do know it wasnt me?

Not that it was me, but I think you're being a little too trusting of OSG right now.

Why did you FOS when the question is directed to Birdy? Why did you FOS and not vote, and why is your observation a reason to vote?

Everyone: Since some people seem dead set on revealing part if not all of their and everyone else's roles, what are your thoughts on a mass claim? Personally I think it's too early since we may face a Cult, but I want to know your thoughts.

I dont think we're up against a Cult, but I dont think mass-claiming right now would be a good idea.

Why not?

9) Who else do you suspect?

Roo has been mentioned early and by a loose, loose connection to him, I am suspicious and wary of Epenguin/Tiruin.

How do you manage to get something suspicious out of Epenguin's single RVS post?