Musical Chairs Mafia, Town Wins, the Mod Loses

[Elieson]

You're trying too hard to look for something that isn't there. An old saying goes "the eye see what it wants to see, the mind sees beyond the eye", so I strongly suggest you clarify exactly what's so scummy about me thinking claimed actions are fakable, or else go ahead and just shoot me tonight so I don't have to endure listening to you call me scum for thinking differenty than you.

[Zkirsche]

Also Strege, mafia will jan to give them an easy claim.

[Elieson]

To clarify, kirsche, try thinking of all the possible motives I have to why I'm saying what I'm saying, instead of just picking one and blindly following it.

[Zkirsche]

I've already explained Elie, by sitting idly on our roles it allows scum to give a clear pass early on which is what they want because noone would question why they didn't use the cop because they could say "I agreed with Elie so I didn't use my role".

[Strege]

I messed up the format for my quote of kirsche. Also, it took me way too long to realize but you're right that clearing earlier would probably be worth using the one-shots in a perhaps unideal fashion. I support using them all on N1 now.

Lonely Wallcrab's response seems null to me, as is Elie's confusion here.

Mafia can't use those roles so if they claim they do and someone else gets it then we know they're lying. Fakeclaiming would be hard for scum.

Hmmm, in fact, asking people to not use their one shots is kinda iffy because scum literally couldn't use their one shots so it's like trying to hide the scum by making everyone do it.

##Unvote

##Vote: Elieson

I don't understand your logic in the second paragraph. If scum have a town power role and don't use it N1, and that information becomes public, then at best we can infer that scum had that role D1/N1. It doesn't implicate a specific person, so discouraging the use of one-shot abilities doesn't hide scum, unless people claimed their current one-shot abilities during the day (which I don't see scum having a reason to do). Using the one-shot abilities would produce clears but that doesn't appear to be your logic here.

[Zkirsche]

Elie you do realise that this is D1 and that even if there's a single scummy angle to something it's better than an RVS vote.

[Zkirsche]

Yeah but Strege it is forcing scum to claim vanilla or else the town will find out that they had a role they couldn't use.

[SB.]

the flaw in it is with doc/hooker, especially since most of the time the two aren't confirmable

[Strege]

Bleh cut.

You're trying too hard to look for something that isn't there. An old saying goes "the eye see what it wants to see, the mind sees beyond the eye", so I strongly suggest you clarify exactly what's so scummy about me thinking claimed actions are fakable, or else go ahead and just shoot me tonight so I don't have to endure listening to you call me scum for thinking differenty than you.

This seems like a bit of an overreaction. You don't have a lot of votes on you right now or anything.

Also Strege, mafia will jan to give them an easy claim.

Sorry, what scenario would this happen in?

Also @kirsche: Doesn't scum just claim vanilla in basically every situation? I can't tell what you're replying to with that.

@SB: I don't think it was ever advertised to clear doc/hooker,.

[BBM]

I would support the use of all but the Vig on N1. I'd rather not waste a Vigshot on a night when a misvig is more likely just to confirm someone when that can be done later anyways (unless the Vig believes they might be a NK target). Plus, the mafia can't use the Vig, so if we tell someone to use it later and there's only 1 kill that night, we have a scum.

[BBM]

Also, ##Unvote, ##Vote: Strege

What is scummy about not laying down an RVS vote? Not voting anybody stands out a lot more than "lol vote: x". He also handwaves Bearclaw's response as "null" and chooses to keep the vote there despite finding Elie's responses an overreaction.

[Da Bear]

I'm not liking SB's plans. The idea using all the 1-shots at once isn't that great (imo), what happens if we want one of those later on? I also find it kind of odd that he backed off his first plan fairly quickly (it did start discussion. though...).


Don't really have much on Elieson or Kirsche atm.

Mafia can't use those roles so if they claim they do and someone else gets it then we know they're lying. Fakeclaiming would be hard for scum.

What happens if scum gets a role that isn't 1-shot? They also could easily get a vanilla/already used role (the latter isn't applicable atm) or even just say that they didn't think it was worth it to use the only shot. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to get a fakeclaim through. (unless I'm reading you wrong)

Now I'm leaving because of a doctor's appointment (and I'm not even fully caught up..) so because I have nothing better to say...

##Vote: SB

[Zkirsche]

Sorry, what scenario would this happen in?

Also @kirsche: Doesn't scum just claim vanilla in basically every situation? I can't tell what you're replying to with that.

You said yourself: you would be clear if there wasn't a janned person last night. As everyone is using thier roles to clear each other today, mafia will jan to give themselves a claim if the person who died had a role. (They would claim the roel of the guy who died)

No, if we're mass claiming what we did scum can say they had role X and just didn't use it. Thinking about it I'm not sure what the difference is now though.

what happens if we want one of those later on?

What happens if they die and we wanted to use it? What happens if we want a clear early on? Regarding fakeclaiming, I think you've missed my point a little. Scum can't claim what they don't have because of the open set-up.

i am fine with the vig not shooting N1 but it seems to be prims and he always shoots N1.

[SB.]

I'm not liking SB's plans. The idea using all the 1-shots at once isn't that great (imo), what happens if we want one of those later on? I also find it kind of odd that he backed off his first plan fairly quickly (it did start discussion. though...).

Don't really have much on Elieson or Kirsche atm.

so pretty much you just disagree, but don't have any real reasons to find me scummy?

i'm content with my vote here.

[Terrador]

Aight, just noticed Day 1 started; apologies for lateness.

I'm gutreading SB/Elieson as scum; they just seem too smart to be proposing "out ALL the PRs!" and "Let's not use our roles guys", and I could definitely see them duking it out in-thread to establish cred if one dies. Further, Elie claiming doc... I dunno. It seems like something he might do to avoid a mislynch and draw mafia fire away from a PR on the first night, but at the same time I could see scum!Elie having the role, claiming it to reduce odds of randlynch Day 1, then claiming he was being cagey about doctoring.

DISCLAIMER: This is Day 1. This is in no way a definite read. This is just the person I currently think is scummiest.

##Take Elieson's Chair

[Zkirsche]

Why bother with a disclaimer? Surely we know that you find Elie teh scummiest by the fact that you voted him?

Wait, did Elie claim doc?

[Terrador]

Well, yes, but I was accused of taking RVS too seriously last game, so I wanted to take pains to note that I'm not all "THIS USER IS ABSOLUTELY SCUM" in advance.

And Elie said he was doc in a throwaway line earlier--let me find it...

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=41999&page=5#entry2539621

Second paragraph. Might've been just a case study, but I very much think that would've been phrased with "Say I'm" or "Suppose I'm". 10:1 he was saying he was doctor, in my humble opinion.

[SB.]

I saw eli's "i'm doc" as a hypothetical thing, to explain his point, not as a claim. agree with kirsche's distancing point, looks like terra's trying to distance himself from his own scumread. Also how were we "duking it out?" we had a difference of opinions, but i didn't find eli scummy from the exchange and i don't think(?) he found me scummy from it either.

[Terrador]

I dunno--I read that as a claim, myself. And with regards to duking it out, I meant having a long discussion in-thread, and seeing as you both started out with fairly scummy ideas... I dunno. I feel paranoid as all hell at the moment. Rasdfasdfasdfasdf.

[SB.]

also you're trying to draw associative reads up without a flip, which isn't good.

[Terrador]

I'm trying to take a holistic look at things--see which combinations of players make sense and explain why they're acting as they are. That said, I'm mostly just confused at the moment.

[Strege]

Also, ##Unvote, ##Vote: Strege

What is scummy about not laying down an RVS vote? Not voting anybody stands out a lot more than "lol vote: x". He also handwaves Bearclaw's response as "null" and chooses to keep the vote there despite finding Elie's responses an overreaction.

My Wallcrab vote was a weak RVS case. I said that the entrance felt fumbled, like scum overthinking their post and not doing the obvious thing of voting. The argument of standing out or not is bad because a) yo potential WIFOM and b) my argument was that it seemed accidental, not purposeful. I see what you mean about handwaving -- I didn't recognize that his comment made my argument even weaker, but I didn't have much else to go on so eh.

I wouldn't have voted Elie for a mild overreaction, particularly as he's expressed frustration with getting lynched recently (and in the signup phase, in fact) -- it would just be trading one weak vote for another. I find Elie mildly scummy and did consider voting him both for the overreaction and being called out for mistakes about the setup and correcting himself only by saying "I didn't realized the cop was one-shot" which seems irrelevant to the points of confusion and doesn't push discussion forward.

That said, Wallcrab's reason for voting SB looks more contrived than weak to me (weak would be fine if he's headed to a doctor's appointment) and I now find him a little scummier than Elie. SB's initial plan got enough flak that saying "he backed off his first plan fairly quickly" plus what is possible qualification in parentheses seems bad, and the rest is disagreeing which isn't scumread material (I assume it isn't being presented as such though). I don't like that SB disregarded the bit about backing off, though; his response seems to generalize Wallcrab's reasoning in a way to make it look even less justifiable.

@NNR: If a townie were to use a one-shot role and be jankilled on the same night, would the janitor see a vanilla PM or that of the one-shot role.

[SB.]

I already explained that I was suggesting the plan as a means of promoting discussion, so I didn't feel the need to repeat myself.

also suck it bbm i have way more posts that you

[Terrador]

@NNR: If a townie were to use a one-shot role and be jankilled on the same night, would the janitor see a vanilla PM or that of the one-shot role.

This brings up a question I've yet to see the answer to: do one-shots that are used up become plain ol' vanilla, or are they specified as "depleted one-shot" in chair assignment and cardflip?

[SB.]

become vanilla, according to the op