Musical Chairs Mafia, Town Wins, the Mod Loses

[Strege]

Additionally, my feeling is that the mafia chose to use Ninja last night, since the plan was for T/W to act last night. This required them to outpredict the Doc, and as Refa was, I think, the person most people in the thread thought was town, they chose to go for Prims, who also looked town IMO. So I think there's a pretty decent chance you blocked the NK.

If I blocked a night kill on my first doc target then I'm basically amazing. I don't think the possibility really affects anything until we get some flips or somefin' though. Also, the ninja thing makes some sense, and I didn't consider Refa as a target because he was pinging me and I didn't notice that he was townread by anyone other than Prims (I guess no one voted him but that doesn't mean everything). The only thing I was worried about with Prims was that he'd be too obvious of a choice, but I still thought it was the most reasonable given that I had like one townread that maybe some other people shared.

I may or may not be using this post partially as an excuse to procrastinate on my promised quote-trawling. (sorrrrrry)

[The Objection!]

Hey, sorry for not being around. I do tend to make weird posts when I'm tired, so I decided not to post yesterday.

Since everybody's wondering about my last night's target, it was Darros/Gregor. His posts just gives me the impression of lazy somewhat like not really trying. I only noticed this at night. So, I decided to roleblock him.

Re-reading will come in a bit, maybe.

[NekoRex]

The "I should really update the OP with more links" Votecount

Kay (1): BBM

Refa (1): Strege

Gregor (2): kirshe, Refa

Darros (1): SB

Voteless Scum: Objection, Shinori, Elieson, Prims, Kay

In Need Of Subs: Prims

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch!

There are less then 48 hours remaining!

[Strege]

Scorri's case on Terra was:

You don't comment on the entire thing here. How did/do you feel about scorri saying that Terra overqualified his vote with "I might be wrong" kinda things, backed off too quickly, or tried to change subjects?

[...]

I don't think I like how you are criticising someone for making a long post. Can you find anything there(when you have time) that looks like padding?

I found the clarification of Refa's position on inactivity to be overexplained, and some extraneous bits thrown around in the post (I can quote it with some stuff bolded for emphasis if you want), but I suppose this point of mine is kinda bad. It just seemed like an overreaction, and worse in the context of what I saw as artificial hesitation to join a wagon, but it's not as bad as I thought and also could just be symptomatic of a newer player reacting to the first real vote on them.

[...]

Gregor, when you get back could please you describe your current reads of SB and kirsche?

Gonna take a run at responding to Refa and I promise kirsche an explained read on him from me tomorrow. I'm sorry for putting that off.

[Strege]

I don't know how to do nested quotes so this should be fun.

[...]

--Some roletalk omitted because I think it was covered by kirsche and I. Lemme know if not.

You're over-thinking this, I just found your reasoning shaky.

--The reason I think it was vague is that you said "strege's reasoning seems shaky, HOWEVER i think bearclaw seems more scummy." Saying bearclaw is more scummy in that way makes it look like you think I was scummy.

This is ridiculous, give me a good reason for why my RVS vote needs more explanation than the rest.

--It was your first vote but it was decidedly not random. You also hold it for a while, so it's very relevant to the case against you.

Why is agreeing with previously held views "hardly fair"? Especially when said views had not been refuted satisfactorily?

--Hrm, this makes sense. I got caught up thinking about the potential effect on Wallcrab without realizing the potential cause (pressure from SB and I) and your reasoning were the same. Dropping this point.

I don't know about the meta, but I think it's hardly fair for you to assume that I took Prims seriously when he was all like I'M VIG GUYS LET'S KILL US SOME BEARCLAW. In addition to that, if I did indeed take his statement seriously, why would I have voted for bearclaw? Surely I would've assumed he'd be shot?

--Fair enough regarding Prims. Also dropping this point.

I named off everyone who was suspicious of SB, you were definitely associated with it. Then I gave a reason as to why you were not suspicious, doesn't that seem wierd? If I was scum, what possible motivation could I have for mentioning that you're not suspicious? It would've been a lot easier to just omit that part entirely. The only explanation I can come up with incriminates both of us.

--You might mention that I am not suspicious to make the comment not false and to not draw attention thereby. You actually say "well strege not so much because iirc he voted SB for another reason altogether" though, which in addition to not being absolute regarding my association with the comment shows that you're paying attention to my content (a carry-on from your earlier comment) and associates me with supposedly flawed arguments, however subconsciously. Quite a minor point I guess but words stick with me in odd ways. I suppose I'm wondering why you mentioned me at all here when omission was an option?

It's not specific, it was a general paraphrasing of his argument...

The Wallcrab vote was an RVS vote, and the chances of him actually getting lynched were pretty damn low. In contrast is Objection, who people were already beginning to lobby against, and I wanted to make sure that voting for him was the right choice.

Your fencesitting perspective is implausible. I've primarily pushed two people. The only time I've ever mentioned others is in off shoot comments. Prove me wrong.

--I meant fencesitting on Objection but I might be using that phrase wrong (particularly as in this case there was no counterwagon and so no theoretical Other Side of the Fence to land on). Your response here basically supports my point that you displayed hesitation about lynching Objection while looking at none of the other people who could possibly be lynched at that point.

I didn't think it merited a response. It would be insulting to suggest that Objection wasn't really being considerate of his personal issues.

--That is completely fair. I was confused because I thought "like with your flaky stance on elieson" at the end of that post was about his "I'll let this slide", not his initial vote, but I see that now. Dropping this point.

Now you're trying too hard. My point was that lack of quantity of posts is not an issue in and of itself. By relating that supposed issue to myself, I'm stating that voting on that alone is an absurdity, as why would my position ever be "I'm suspicious as fuck". How does this reflect badly on me?

--Mmk, I didn't fully grasp the hypothetical 'cause I'm dumb or something and it just seemed... like passive-aggressive, but more like passive-thinkyou'reascumlord. Dropping this point.

Lack of qualitative posts, his shaky stance on Elieson.

--In the parenthesis in the thing this is responding to you have "lack of activity" though, which is relevant because of the following:

You're repeatedly misinterpreting me (whether intentional or not), lack of activity in and of itself is not a reason to be suspicious, but it is certainly NOT a reason to put someone in the clear. You'll remember that I used the same reasoning against bearclaw, and even then, I had other reasons to vote him (whether you agree with them or not).

--This seems to contradict the "lack of activity" reason for finding Objection scummy expressed in the above bit, which is my issue.

Firstly, I never considered the criticism on my position to be an attempt to discredit me. Of course I find the criticism itself to be flawed, but it was I was referring to the part below, where he said I was making a cheap excuse to jump on his wagon. And then later on where he said I changed my opinion a lot.

--Wow, dunno how the heck I missed that. Dropping this point.

Elucidate me, then. What is the basis of Gregor's suspicion of SB?

--I meant the first thing he said in his initial suspicions of SB, saying SB dismissed Wallcrab's suspicions, but I realize now that that had been addressed by then and Gregor hadn't updated his read. My mistake; dropping this point.

ughhhhh...i think this post could use like 50 more revisions but i've spent like almost 2 hours on this whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy just posting whatever

So basically I'm dumb. I am still weaking scumreading Refa but I there are much better people I could be voting, although I still need to get an ordered list going. Kay seems pretty scummy but a vote there doesn't do anything atm. Similar with Gregor who's climbing a bit for me based on rereading his SB and roletalk stuff. But those peeps have votes on them so let's do something more interesting!

##Unvote, ##Vote: Objection

We haven't forgotten about you bro! If you want us to get a more favourable read on you then post more. As it stands I do find you fairly scummy despite being scared of another mislynch on you.

[Refa]

[...]

--Some roletalk omitted because I think it was covered by kirsche and I. Lemme know if not.

No, it's all good.

You're over-thinking this, I just found your reasoning shaky.

--The reason I think it was vague is that you said "strege's reasoning seems shaky, HOWEVER i think bearclaw seems more scummy." Saying bearclaw is more scummy in that way makes it look like you think I was scummy.

Yeah, that was poor wording on my part. At that point, you were a null tell for me.

This is ridiculous, give me a good reason for why my RVS vote needs more explanation than the rest.

--It was your first vote but it was decidedly not random. You also hold it for a while, so it's very relevant to the case against you.

Fair enough. I held onto it for a while because I wasn't confident enough to jump onto the Objection bandwagon (at least, at the time), and I didn't really have any other suspicions.

I named off everyone who was suspicious of SB, you were definitely associated with it. Then I gave a reason as to why you were not suspicious, doesn't that seem wierd? If I was scum, what possible motivation could I have for mentioning that you're not suspicious? It would've been a lot easier to just omit that part entirely. The only explanation I can come up with incriminates both of us.

--You might mention that I am not suspicious to make the comment not false and to not draw attention thereby. You actually say "well strege not so much because iirc he voted SB for another reason altogether" though, which in addition to not being absolute regarding my association with the comment shows that you're paying attention to my content (a carry-on from your earlier comment) and associates me with supposedly flawed arguments, however subconsciously. Quite a minor point I guess but words stick with me in odd ways. I suppose I'm wondering why you mentioned me at all here when omission was an option?

I was brainstorming ideas at the time, but then after looking back at posts, I realized you had a different reason entirely; honestly not sure why I didn't just omit it. Anyways, I don't think it was my intention to associate you with flawed arguments in that specific case.

Your fencesitting perspective is implausible. I've primarily pushed two people. The only time I've ever mentioned others is in off shoot comments. Prove me wrong.

--I meant fencesitting on Objection but I might be using that phrase wrong (particularly as in this case there was no counterwagon and so no theoretical Other Side of the Fence to land on). Your response here basically supports my point that you displayed hesitation about lynching Objection while looking at none of the other people who could possibly be lynched at that point.

Aha, I misunderstood what you meant. FMPOV, Objection did seem like the only one seemed suspicious enough to lynch, as everyone else was either a null tell, bearclaw, or...I just didn't really know (referring to the inactive people here). But yeah, I will concede that your point is correct on this one.

Lack of qualitative posts, his shaky stance on Elieson.

--In the parenthesis in the thing this is responding to you have "lack of activity" though, which is relevant because of the following:

You're repeatedly misinterpreting me (whether intentional or not), lack of activity in and of itself is not a reason to be suspicious, but it is certainly NOT a reason to put someone in the clear. You'll remember that I used the same reasoning against bearclaw, and even then, I had other reasons to vote him (whether you agree with them or not).

--This seems to contradict the "lack of activity" reason for finding Objection scummy expressed in the above bit, which is my issue.

Aha. Regarding his lack of activity, I meant that it shouldn't be used as an indicator that he's not scummy, because he had less arguments to pick apart, and ergo, less chances to be considered scummy. However, I didn't find him suspicious because of that, as there were many other people with even less activity, such as Kay for example, who I barely mentioned because quite frankly, I just wasn't sure.

[NekoRex]

Elieson, Kay, and Shinori have been prodded

[Zkirsche]

You don't comment on the entire thing here. How did/do you feel about scorri saying that Terra overqualified his vote with "I might be wrong" kinda things, backed off too quickly, or tried to change subjects?

I agree with the "I might be wrong" thing, which I believe is what waffling means; the other two points are there but I consider them weak. It's the sort of thing an unconfident townie would do as well as scum. It's not really pro town though.

I don't like "even though I'm scared of another mislynch on you". It sounds really waffly and if you think it's going to be a mislynch why vote him?

@NNR: Darros and Gregor are the same person. Also it hasn't even been 24 hours since Shinori posted last and he's playing catch-up so be nice.

@Objection!: What are your scum reads and why, and can you throw down a vote.

I was vanilla last phase. Also either prims is town, Gregor is scum or scum NK'd bear. Think the first is most likely.

[charlie_]

Either way we have confirmed town in either Objection or Prims+Strege, more inclined to believe the latter for now.

[Elieson]

I had this dream that Scorri/Shinori was scum with the tracker role, after reading while in bed and falling asleep. Regardless, my motivation to play has taken a nosedive after my eviction notice, as well as APPARENTLY missing a court date that I was unaware of.

Maybe I'm being lazy or missing something but at the moment I'm half-believing Vig!SB, but waiting on Prims to show up and clarify is proving to be fruitless.

##Vote Darros

Theories: town!objection hooked scum!darros

Town!strege doc'd scum!kill

Scum!objectoon and scum!strege rolled roleblocker/doc and have an entirely too easy out, and TARGETTED bearclaw along with Vig!SB (explaining the single kill).

Scum!SB was Vig and no one is here to CC him (not very likely but another thing in my dream so eh)

So FMPOV regarding claimed actions, and based on a combination of early game suspicions and strange activity that I view as active lurking, I'm leaning more on Darros being mafia than anything else.

[BBM]

We haven't had the Tracker claim yet. That should be one of Prims/Darros/Kay/Shinori, as those slots haven't claimed yet.

Their inactivity is slightly frustrating because PoE is giving me the feeling that those last three might be the scumteam.

[BBM]

If SB was mafia and pretended that his NK was a vigshot, the 1-shot Vig role would still be in the game, and someone would have it today, and would therefore have CCed him (unless another scum received the role, but he'd eventually get CCed when a townie got the role). He's almost certainly town. It is possible that both him and the mafia targeted Bearclaw, but I think that's unlikely, because Bearclaw doesn't strike me as a good NK target or even a good Day Rolecop target.

[The Objection!]

How did we come to that conclusion?

So yeah, a few things grabbed my attention so I guess I'll go straight to the point:

- SB, that bit with Darros was lazy, mind giving more explanation for your vote?

- Strege, call me whatever. But what are your reasons for voting me?

- Darros' posts are still lazy, I'm expecting to hear more from him.

- Inactive players, please post more...

I can't really pin down a vote right now, my head hurts. I would vote for Darros but I want to hear more first.

[The Objection!]

Either way we have confirmed town in either Objection or Prims+Strege, more inclined to believe the latter for now.

And I was referring to this in case someone asked.

[charlie_]

nobody is ccing me as vig so the mafia's kill failed, so it was either hooked or docced

objection fencesitting on darros in his last post while feeling ballsy enough to hook him does not sit well with me honestly, and he calls my vote on darros lazy even though i'm conf town and gave the reasoning a few pages back (strege gave reasons too, i think)

##Unvote

##Vote: Objection

if one of objection/darros flips scum we should definitely look into the other, imo.

[The Objection!]

Few pages back? Mind linking me, I'm not in the mood to search the whole game right now. I understand everybody's suspicion on Darros but maybe I'm not looking at everything. I just hooked darros out of lack of better target and since roleblock isn't one-shot.

As for the confirmed townie thing, I'm not asking it for your sake. Just more reasons to vote Darros.

[charlie_]

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=41999&p=2549904

[The Objection!]

This is the "I should read more before posting" post. This is what I get for skimming past long posts.

Anyways, after reading everyone's reasons for voting Darros, I feel a bit more confident in voting him.

##Vote: Gregor

While his posts are a bit lazy as I mentioned, he appears to have left some questionable remarks. I'll stick to this vote for now until he gives a satisfying explanation or I find a better target.

[Elieson]

First, notice I did my theories on a column scaling down to least likely, with the SB!Vig thing at the bottom.

If SB was mafia and pretended that his NK was a vigshot, the 1-shot Vig role would still be in the game, and someone would have it today, and would therefore have CCed him (unless another scum received the role, but he'd eventually get CCed when a townie got the role). He's almost certainly town. It is possible that both him and the mafia targeted Bearclaw, but I think that's unlikely, because Bearclaw doesn't strike me as a good NK target or even a good Day Rolecop target.

Lastly, welp this is a nice little change of thought, BBDork. IIRC, your stance on the Day Cop was;

Bleh.

Well, as Bearclaw made a very odd choice of nightkill, the two likeliest possibilities are:

a) He was Day-Rolecopped by the mafia, and they killed him since power role.

b) He was Vigged, and the mafia's NK was blocked by either the Doctor, the Hooker, or the BPV.

Anyways, we should all claim our roles from last night and what we did with them if we could. I was a vanilla.

For now, ##Vote: Kay. Reasons from last day stand, since she didn't post anything after. Unfortunately she's unlikely to do so any time soon since it's the weekend.

Mind clarifying this flipflop of thought processes?

@underlined@ since I was BPV and wasn't hit (or at least I wasn't notified that I was hit), I'm fairly certain BPV still exists. No confirmation from Neko, though. I should ask.

[BBM]

It's not a flip-flop. I said those were the two likeliest possibilities in my first post because the other, third, possibility was that the mafia just chose to idle their kill, which I didn't think was worth considering even in the least. So Bearclaw getting DayCopped is likeliER than that, but still not all that probable IMO.

[Strege]

I agree with the "I might be wrong" thing, which I believe is what waffling means; the other two points are there but I consider them weak. It's the sort of thing an unconfident townie would do as well as scum. It's not really pro town though.

I don't like "even though I'm scared of another mislynch on you". It sounds really waffly and if you think it's going to be a mislynch why vote him?

Pardon me wrt the bolded.

I think he's scummy; I'm just afraid of making the same mistake twice. My fear is causing me to give him a little more benefit of the doubt than I would otherwise, but isn't worth ignoring things I find scummy of course. If you want to criticize me for waffling go look at the end of D1 where I was actually waffling. ;/

Anyway, read on you coming soon! Not sure if my scumvibes were as justified as I thought, based on memory right now, but there's some stuff I was wondering about.

Either way we have confirmed town in either Objection or Prims+Strege, more inclined to believe the latter for now.

I think it was BBM who pointed out that scum and vig!you could have both tried to kill Wallcrab. It might not be as likely but I want to emphasize it because it might be relevant in *YLO or thereabouts.

We haven't had the Tracker claim yet. That should be one of Prims/Darros/Kay/Shinori, as those slots haven't claimed yet.

Their inactivity is slightly frustrating because PoE is giving me the feeling that those last three might be the scumteam.

ugggghh I've been stupid in roletalk as usual. D1!scum!tracker is a possibility, and they might claim vanilla. Prims/Darros/Kay/Shinori should just claim what they were D1 even if it was vanilla. I think doing so might be useful down the line?

How did we come to that conclusion?

So yeah, a few things grabbed my attention so I guess I'll go straight to the point:

- SB, that bit with Darros was lazy, mind giving more explanation for your vote?

- Strege, call me whatever. But what are your reasons for voting me?

- Darros' posts are still lazy, I'm expecting to hear more from him.

- Inactive players, please post more...

I can't really pin down a vote right now, my head hurts. I would vote for Darros but I want to hear more first.

My reasons for voting you is that a Kay vote would be useless (as would be a scorri vote, though my read on her is less significant) and a Gregor vote would have been worse than useless imo, likely promoting a consolidation-y attitude earlier than is ideal (seeing as Gregor looked like he would be today's main wagon). As for why I find you scummy, I actually had to look back to find out why and my D1 suspicions of you were evidently weak as heck. I will address this in my next post!

I thought SB was confirmed town too, unless I'm missing something. He's un-CC'ed and if he were scum he wouldn't put himself in a position to be CC'ed on D2. The only way scum could effectively fakeclaim vig is if they day-rolecopped the vig and then jankilled them as they shot that night.

[BBM]

If none of them claims Tracker, we also have a confirmed scum between those 4, me, Refa, and Kirsche (for whatever that's worth).

I should look at Darros's posts but /effort.

[BBM]

Skimming over them, I don't think he ever responded to the point that someone or the other made- He kept attacking SB for his plan to use all the PRs N1, except it was actually Kirsche's plan, and SB was just agreeing with it. Yet he never attacked Kirsche for it or found Kirsche scummy, which doesn't make much sense to me.

His other reason for finding SB scummy, that he says in his first D1 content-post, says that SB's Objection vote is bad because he says that Objection is voting him just for disagreeing with the plan rather than finding him scummy, even though according to Darros, the plan itself is scummy and therefore Objection's vote is valid. So this rests on SB's "plan" as well, except again, it wasn't his plan.

Even though this has been pointed out, and even though he said earlier that he hadn't realized that a vanilla town also meant a more or less vanilla mafia, meaning it's not actually bad, he hasn't updated his SB read, either during late D1 or in his D2 post. In fact I don't think his D2 post had any scumhunting other than a line about Strege having a lot of scumreads.

[charlie_]

@Mods, can mafia kill and use their roles in the same night?

[Strege]

Objection Post: (shorter and possibly less punctuated than my argument against Refa!)

--Early reasoning on Elie of him lacking scumreads in as much content as he had being unique (I'm pretty sure it is anyway) is a plus, but Terra and Elie were both pretty safe targets of suspicion at that time.

--doo doo doo some fine stuff, then an appeal to emotion which pings me a bit.

--Keeps vote on Elie for quite a bit, though it's supported a bit and Objection is just inactive here. Objection coming back when he started garnering suspicion looks like lurking, and he actually admitted he was lurking to protect his role. Not sure what to think of this honestly.

--Misunderstanding with Refa, but an understandable one, and null. idk about the idea that Objection was deflecting toward Kay; I've never noticed that happening in other games and it seemed here more like Objection was just illustrating a perceived contradiction.

--I don't understand post 223 actually. What opinion seemed to have changed?
--Comments on Refa's position on Gregor and Wallcrab is okay I think.
--Could you explain your reasoning for blocking Gregor a bit more than you have in post 352?

--Not much scumhunting on D2.

Also, man, I know it doesn't work from anyone else's perspective but the fact that no one tried to defend Objection except me or to wagonshift onto Terra or someone at the end of D1 really makes me think he's town. I forgot about that...

##Unvote

because Objection wasn't even my top read at the time when I voted, and this post has made me lean townie.

##Vote: Gregor

for stuff I've mentioned. I hate helping this wagon grow as quickly as it is but I think he's my biggest scumread.

My order would be Gregor > Kay > scorri > Refa >> Objection. The only thing I'm not 100% on is my read on scorri versus my read on Refa. I also still need to reread kirsche (I will address this is my next post no matter what) as well as Elie and Prims at some point.