Ace Attorney Mafia - Game Over (Won the Lawsuit!)

[Zkirsche]

Roger that, that makes a lot of sense.

[Kriemhild]

So many posts...

lol thats a modconfirm

##Unvote

##Vote: Proto

Why did you think that's a joke?

Because of the way he claimed, plus the fact that there was an explicit rule about investigation roles not being tampered with. Because I did think that Miller would be a violation of that rule. If the rule implied "No Millers" and somebody goes "I am a miller don't lynch me pls" as their first post, then it would look a lot like a joke claim to me.

After that though, a) Kirsche confirmed that it wasn't a joke, and b) Green Poet told us of her communication with the mod which I interpreted as confirming that the rule does indeed eliminate Miller possibilities, which led me to believe that Kirsche was scum. Note that all of this was well before Enigmar clarified that the rule actually does NOT exclude the existence of Millers/Godfathers.

Also @proto why was my explanation of tailors counting as tampering not good enough for you?

In general, if I see a Mafia game that carries the rule about investigation results not being tampered with, I interpret it as being that the information received from investigations is always correct. A Miller would be investigated as "Mafia", which is incorrect. An Alignment Cop is supposed to obtain their target's alignment, and the Town Miller is aligned with the Town, so the correct result for the Cop's investigation would be "Town". But if the Cop gets a "Mafia" result instead, then the result obtained is not accurate, regardless of whether it was caused by active Lawyer/Tailor roles or passive Miller roles.

That being said, I did consider the possibility that the rule only excluded roles that actively tamper with results while allowing passive deception, as you suggested, but Green Poet's clarification from the mod suggested that the investigations themselves are accurate, i.e., the rule protects the investigations from having inaccurate results, and a Miller can passively causes investigations to have inaccurate results, thus excluding Millers from existing.

In fact, even after Engimar's public clarification, it still seems really fishy. The rule says investigation results aren't tampered with, and the mod further told Green Poet that investigation results are always accurate, and yet it's possible for Miller and Godfather to exist? Enigmar's clarification only talks about "tampering", which clarifies the related rule, but Enigmar supposedly told Green Poet that investigation results are guaranteed to be accurate. I cannot imagine a mod giving such an answer if a Miller/Godfather does exist. I still suspect that Kirsche scumslipped by not noticing the rules until it was too late to back down. But I do have to admit that Enigmar's clarification looks like it was done for the purpose of preventing people from misinterpreting the rules, which suggests that he did not intend for his wording to incite suspicion on Kirsche's Miller claim. So I'm willing to drop the case on Kirsche now, but I still don't think the Miller claim is legit.

##Unvote: Kirsche

@Proto- Why the Kirsche vote? You don't seem to actually be bothered by him.

I thought the quotes in my vote post made it clear enough, but I explained it now anyway.

Yes, you can quote it.

Normally I would expect this to be said through PMs, but since Enigmar posted it publicly in the thread, it suggests that Green Poet's quotes of conversing with the mod are legit. This makes me strongly feel that Green Poet is Town, or at least non-Mafia, because I can't imagine scum asking the mod about that.

I still want Proto to say why he thought kirsche was joking. It feels kind of like he just said that because he wanted to look good by being right and staying away from a potential rvs wagon.

Um, what? First of all, if I was Town, and Kirsche's claim was indeed a joke, I think it makes perfect sense for me to express my opinion that it's a joke in order to dissuade people from bandwagoning a joke claim. There's nothing about looking good here.

And if I were scum,

a) if Kirsche is also scum, then me stating that he was joking would make me look bad if Kirsche ever flips, since I was discouraging a Kirsche bandwagon.

b) if Kirsche is Town Miller, then Kirsche's claim is not a joke, so I would be wrong and that never looks good.

c) if Kirsche is Town notMiler, then how the hell could I have known that Kirsche wasn't a Miller? If I inferred based on the rules, such a deduction would have zilch to do with my alignment. Indeed, it was because of the rules that I thought it was a joke, but what does that have to do with "looking good by being right"?

Yes. As scum he would've "known" based on the rules that it was a miller fakeclaim if kirsche is town.

Last time I checked, the rules were publicly displayed to all players, not just scum, so I couldn't have "known" that it was a joke any more than other Townies could have "known". The only relevance to the "As scum" bit is that I'd know that he's not my scumbuddy, but that only excludes the possibility of me knowing definitively that Kirsche would have something to gain from a serious Miller claim, so your logic doesn't make sense to me.

Alternatively it allows him to avoid wagoning him if they're buddies and gives him a way out.

If he was scum and gets lynched, me trying to avoid wagoning him would only look bad on me, especially if he insists that the Miller claim was serious (which is what Mafia would try to do to avoid getting Cop-screwed).

It honestly feels like you're actively trying hard to find scum intent in my wording to make me look bad.

##Vote: SB

Why do you have such a big problem with me initially thinking the claim was a joke?

i'm not fully feeling anything regarding Elie? I see a lot of overthinking & rolespec but that's not necessarily a scummy thing to do.

now i can totally get behind a ##Vote: Proto because i dislike the logic behind that vote

1. says he thinks kirsche is joking about the miller claim

2. kirsche says he isn't joking

3. votes kirsche

first off, ignoring some information that actually affects the game in favour of continuing RVS, then backtracking to throw down a vote on kirsche (after a SB vote onto kirsche). that's not exactly helpful to us?

I wasn't continuing RVS though. My vote for Kirsche was a serious legit vote. Kirsche saying that he wasn't joking means that it was a serious Miller claim, and combined with Green Poet's post that the mod confirmed 100% accuracy of investigation (which I quoted in the vote post btw), Kirsche seemed pretty much confirmed scum. If Kirsche's claim was an actual joke as I initially thought, then I wouldn't have considered him as being scummy for making such a claim, so I did not vote until after he confirmed that it wasn't a joke claim and with Green Poet further providing evidence that incriminated him.

4. Don't quite understand this question towards the miller role. It has (and may always be?) been noted as a passive role that makes a townie (or otherwise non-scum team member) read as scum to a scan by someone else? What else is there to know about whether someone is a miller or not- it's not something that can just be toggled on/off (and there would be literally zero reason as to someone wanting to turn something like that on)?

Though I was not expecting a satisfying answer, it was still possible for Kirsche's claim to be consistent with Green Poet's post. Joshaymin suggested that maybe the Cop's investigation result would be "Scum/Miller" (or something like that) when scoping either scum or the miller, which would allow Kirsche's Miller role to exist (while having Miller effects) in a game where investigation is guaranteed to be accurate. Kirsche later answered that he shows up as "guilty" (like traditional Millers), which is an outright incorrect result (since he's not guilty of being scum), thus contradicting what Enigmar told Green Poet about investigations being accurate (i.e. correct results). Had Enigmar not provided the clarification about tampering (which makes me question whether Kirsche's Miller claim is inherently scummy), I would have continued to bandwagon Kirsche.

Nope. Every role passively scans as something. Miller scans as scum. Godfather scans as town. When you target them, you have an expected result, and you get that. Something that tampers with that result would be something like a tailor which targets someone and makes them scan as mafia for the night - tampering with their passive.

The fact is that the result a Cop gets from scanning a Miller is incorrect, since Miller is not scum. It was the passive characteristic of the Miller role that caused the Cop to get an incorrect result, so it can be considered tampering. Of course, it's the mod's interpretation that matters, and the clarification post suggests that your interpretation is the correct one, but prior to the clarification (or for people like Elie who didn't see it), I believe it is perfectly reasonable for people to consider Miller as being tampering with investigation.

And even with the clarified definition of tampering, it doesn't explain how a Miller can exist while investigation is supposedly guaranteed to be accurate, according to Green Poet (which I believe is legit, since the mod publicly permitted her to direct quote it).

I'll debate on that.

Context: It's Day 1---> No 100% leads

---> No real scum confirm

---> Possibility of lynching Town is very high on a random vote.

Solutions: Lynch inactives ---> Possibility of lynching Town is very high

---> No real information gathered from voting patterns

---> Easy excuse (just did it because everyone else did)

---> Poissibility of lynching a power role is medium

Lynch Kirsche ----> Suspected by quite a lot of people to be Scum

----> Claimed a role that is impossible to test

----> Possibility of lynching Town is uncertain

----> Miller claim grants him the validity of a VT, the least harmful Town lynch for Town

Objectively speaking, Kirsche is my best bet on Day 1

fyi I really really REALLY hate it when people use "objectively" to describe their own subjective opinions. Why the hell are "inactives" and "Kirsche" the only options? There's still plenty of time left in the Day, I think. Lynching Kirsche for your reasons gives us very little info on associative reads. You seem to be far too eager to lynch Kirsche just because he claimed Miller. You argued against his definition of tampering while ignoring Enigmar's clarification post about it, and didn't seem to have any other reasons to pick on Kirsche beyond that. Which imo makes your vote on him a subjectively terrible vote.

[SB.]

Yo chill the only time I did this was with Elie who has convinced themselves that despite the mod confirm the only way I can exist is if the rules are talking about redirects. Also you played in Criminal so you know I value misinformation.

I admit I haven't been asking people what they think of you but I had bigger fish to fry trying to convince people miller isn't tampering, especially considering my case on you is obv super weak. The last statement I made was meant to goad you out a bit (hey look at who's here) while being a semi-serious inactivity callout. I am determined not to let people flake after Bluedoom's game. Well, all being said this is a good point, and I thought something similar w.r.t Proto as his vote post makes it seem like he thinks he should be on me rather than wanting to be on me. If I was town why would I be fakeclaiming miller though?

##Vote: Elieson

Get back here please, I need an explanation of the thought process.

Yes, this is the only time you've done it, but it doesn't change that you did it. I don't think that the way you value misinformation factors into anything here. I can buy not wanting to hard push a weak case, but it feels like you're trying to shepherd town in generically helpful ways ("I won't let us become inactive!") rather than actually helping them.

In hindsight I really don't like the "keep this up and I'll lynch you Eli" comment either.

Not sure if the last part is @ me but I'll answer it anyway: I'm not saying that I thought that. I'm saying that scum!Proto may have thought you were gambitting or something (I've claimed miller as town rolecop before iirc which would be similar).

I think Elieson read the first few words of my vote and ignored it though. Why is the behaviour I described not scummy independent of the player it's directed towards?

##Unvote

##Vote: Elieson

Willing to pursue this for now. I also think that his vote is uninspiring and that he's forcing the reasoning because he feels pressured rather than particularly feeling the vote.

I ctrl+fed "SB" and it isn't in Eury's wallpost so I'm not reading it! You can't make me!

I'm not worried about Riptor's intentions with his post but it feels like he's taking kirsche very literally and doesn't know him that well. kirsche always words things strongly just because of his posting style; there are ways to read him around them but this isn't it.

Cut by Protopost. Reading.

[SB.]

So many posts...

Because of the way he claimed, plus the fact that there was an explicit rule about investigation roles not being tampered with. Because I did think that Miller would be a violation of that rule. If the rule implied "No Millers" and somebody goes "I am a miller don't lynch me pls" as their first post, then it would look a lot like a joke claim to me.

After that though, a) Kirsche confirmed that it wasn't a joke, and b) Green Poet told us of her communication with the mod which I interpreted as confirming that the rule does indeed eliminate Miller possibilities, which led me to believe that Kirsche was scum. Note that all of this was well before Enigmar clarified that the rule actually does NOT exclude the existence of Millers/Godfathers.

"The way" isn't a real answer here though - people have claimed negative utility roles like that in previous games, and there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that kirsche didn't just slip up. If anything, it's stranger that you would vote for kirsche after he confirmed it wasn't a joke, because he would know that whatever he was saying was contrary to the rules.

Um, what? First of all, if I was Town, and Kirsche's claim was indeed a joke, I think it makes perfect sense for me to express my opinion that it's a joke in order to dissuade people from bandwagoning a joke claim. There's nothing about looking good here.

And if I were scum,

a) if Kirsche is also scum, then me stating that he was joking would make me look bad if Kirsche ever flips, since I was discouraging a Kirsche bandwagon.

b) if Kirsche is Town Miller, then Kirsche's claim is not a joke, so I would be wrong and that never looks good.

c) if Kirsche is Town notMiler, then how the hell could I have known that Kirsche wasn't a Miller? If I inferred based on the rules, such a deduction would have zilch to do with my alignment. Indeed, it was because of the rules that I thought it was a joke, but what does that have to do with "looking good by being right"?

I can kind of see you not wanting people to pursue a false lead, but why were you so vague about it then? I had to ask you three times about this to get any kind of response because you literally blanked me (but seemed to have noticed that I kept badgering you in your last post!) which doesn't add up if you wanted to dissuade others from wagoning.

a) People don't place a lot of stock in RVS suspicions in later days though. The payoff here would be that you look better early on in the game anyway, which is why I could see scum!Proto making this play.

b) kirsche being town here would not change the fact that the rules implied that millers weren't real. Unless you decided he was a neutral you would have to assume he was lying if you were mafia.

c) The rules! As town, I would tend to assume that the guy lying about being a miller is scum, whereas mafia would be able to skip that step and consider other possibilities instead.

Last time I checked, the rules were publicly displayed to all players, not just scum, so I couldn't have "known" that it was a joke any more than other Townies could have "known". The only relevance to the "As scum" bit is that I'd know that he's not my scumbuddy, but that only excludes the possibility of me knowing definitively that Kirsche would have something to gain from a serious Miller claim, so your logic doesn't make sense to me.

If he was scum and gets lynched, me trying to avoid wagoning him would only look bad on me, especially if he insists that the Miller claim was serious (which is what Mafia would try to do to avoid getting Cop-screwed).

I've explained this already in a previous post. Scum can skip the step because they know who scum is. You don't need to know if the townie fakeclaiming miller is a good idea to recognise it as the most likely possibility based on what you thought the rules meant.

It honestly feels like you're actively trying hard to find scum intent in my wording to make me look bad.

##Vote: SB

Why do you have such a big problem with me initially thinking the claim was a joke?

Explain to me how I'm forcing it. I've explained my reasoning already and you're just ignoring it, for whatever reason.

At first I wanted to know because anything is a good lead in RVS. Afterwards, I thought it was curious that you ignored my post and thought that you might be struggling to come up with a response.

I'm okay with this lynch too.

[Percivalé]

hey bros I'm really sick and not gonna be able to post anything super substantial until later today, I'm headed to the doctor right now, sorry for not being here much. reading through the thread though

[Percivalé]

@jb where did i meta people???? i hate it when people poke me ed1 like that

[Percivalé]

oh if you meant wrt kirsche that's fair but literally why would he make a mistake like that dude i didn't think he would scumslip THAT easily is all.

sorry for the twitterposting. still reading

[Ken Masters]

fyi I really really REALLY hate it when people use "objectively" to describe their own subjective opinions. Why the hell are "inactives" and "Kirsche" the only options? There's still plenty of time left in the Day, I think. Lynching Kirsche for your reasons gives us very little info on associative reads. You seem to be far too eager to lynch Kirsche just because he claimed Miller. You argued against his definition of tampering while ignoring Enigmar's clarification post about it, and didn't seem to have any other reasons to pick on Kirsche beyond that. Which imo makes your vote on him a subjectively terrible vote.

Fine, mr Hate.

From my point of view, a claimed miller is a good lynch on day 1, yes.

Do I think that we should insta lynch, no, not really.

But you can be sure as hell that I will vote Kirsche by the end of the day, and I think that everyone should consider it a safe bet if no "better" targets are selected.

From my point of view, anyone absolutely eliminating the chance of Kirsche being scum is fishy as fudge to me.

Now, adressing some points.

Mod-drama: Missed it. Cool beans, miller it's not a tampering role (even though it's wrong). Does that mean that Kirsche is actually a Miller? HELL NO. It's a super convenient claim, that cannot be proven false in anyway unless we have a lie detector, which I seriously doubt we have all things considered.

Why not more option on my Solutions stuff?: Because those were the two main solutions given at the moment. I think I don't need to explain why No lynch is a terrible idea, and other suggestions didn't catch my eye like Kirsche did.

[Elieson]

I think Elieson read the first few words of my vote and ignored it though. Why is the behaviour I described not scummy independent of the player it's directed towards?

##Unvote

##Vote: Elieson

Do you mean this?

This is exactly what scum kirsche does: calling things stupid in order to make people doubt themselves. The way he phrases his reads is also scummy as fuck because they're just statements like he already decided what he thinks rather than showing him trying to figure shit out.

Doesn't he call things stupid all the time? I guess I see your point on the latter but i'll hafta reread him with that in mind because I don't inherently read kirsche as super-committal right as of now

[Eurykins]

Just as a head's up- long wall post of quotes to make things easier to note/respond to. My apologies to your eyes in advanced- if they bleed a little, be sure to have some tissue on hand for that.

That aside, I'd rather lynch an inactive on D1 than lynch nobody on D1, and I don't have enough confidence in any reads to really dive into a case that I could define as my own, because there's little on the table that isn't Discussion of Mechanics .

Over that though, I'd rather lynch an inactive who says they'll be back with reads, and isn't back with reads.

One thought. Until we have people getting results back from the mod, for all we know, any cop would just be told that their results of X action are "kirsche is aligned with Mafia" or they could just get "Mafia result" (using kirsche as the example). The latter implies that a redirection could've occured, and because of the ambiguous wording, we wouldn't know. It's impossible to pursue right now but needs to remain fresh on everybody's minds until it's confirmed because it's potential case material until proven otherwise.

Also a question: Do you think I was trying to push for kirsche=lying scum & not miller even after acknowledging the mod post? I didn't see it and admittedly wasn't paying that much attention during the early stages of the game, but if you think I was pretending to ignore a mod-post, that is a stretch.

Bolded: Why not find a better read amongst the more active playerlist? Would you rather strike down an inactive- someone who has not yet really expressed their thoughts, cases, etc. over someone currently playing the game and putting forth posts/content, whether it's legit or scummy? This reads odd to me, because aiming at inactive folk vs. the players actually saying/doing things strikes me as lazy gameplay that lacks initiative/interest in active scum hunting. Unless you're assuming at this point that the scum are all within the inactives and no one else currently typing up posts/reads are viable as scum targets.

Underlined: I suppose that's fair enough. But does me actually speaking up about, "Hey, had a long day, will get stuff up in a bit," and then only later getting content up when I have time, worse or better than the inactives who are saying nothing at all? Depends on how you look at it IMO, but again, I don't necessarily find the train of logic odd to find off in someone's gameplay.

Italicized: Well, for one, there is something I'd like to say in direct context to everyone here in the game: Why do you assume that the Moderator has to completely highlight/specifically state every aspect of the rules? If something is vague or has wiggle room for gray areas, it could be fully intended for various reasons. This is another reason why I find the complete mess of theory-crafting to be a waste of time, because it's getting caught up in semantics and/or the specifics of rules and role speccing.

Secondly, there is a limit (or should be- if it's not an obvious/accepted rule, it SHOULD be) to how much mods can and CANNOT answer players in terms of some specifics of roles/rules, as it may unintentionally leak out information that us players are meant to find out throughout the game ourselves. And if it so happens to leak out or break out someone's role in the process of him trying to unnecessarily clarify things, then that just ruins the aspect of gameplay for someone playing the game for little to no reason. Stop trying to be spoon-fed answers by the moderator, and stop trying to role/theory craft as opposed to actually scum hunting and trying to break open the game that way.

In addition, the ruling of "This is not a bastard game" also therefore implies that everything happens for a logical reason, role wise or otherwise.

So having read this wonderful shitstorm regarding Mafia-meat and words definitions, I'm mostly sure that we have a day-1 Mafia slip and it's glorious.

Except Millers are, by the very definition of the role, investigations tamperers. It's the whole deal of a miller. Resorting to diminishing the "meta" as a way to guilt trip the people against you is just a nice little bait.

Again, diminishing language to attempt to make a solid argument seem "feeble" based on assumptions of the mod's intention.

Implying we should assume that a person playing a game about lies and fake-outs will always retain the same characteristics no matter the situation like a robot. This statement is not only, again, attempting to guilt trip the accusers, but also to stablish himself as the "logic" side of the balance, when in reality, Occam's Razor tells us that is far more likely that Mr Kirsche is the one at fault, and not athe mod.

Implying someone's confirmed anything on day 1
Adressing previous behaviours of players as a solid argument, when it's been proven time after time that it's never a solid lead because people will intentionally change behaviours to mislead.

Lampshading the mod instead of adressing the obvious conflict in the hypothetical situation that he himself created.

This whole affair of argumenting by not argumenting is a classic damage control on Mafia players. I'm more than willing to take all the blame if this backfires.

Honest town mistakes happen, but people forget that honest mafia mistakes happen too.

I'm inclined to belive that this is an example of the latter.

And even if Kirsche ends up being a mistake, it's a Miller that we would lose. It's a win/win for the Town regardless.

##Vote: Sad Kirsche

Bolded: Yes, Millers do affect how they are scanned. However, as a PASSIVE role (and more often than not, it's the flavor of the chars behind them that are most often MISREPPED by everyone else AROUND them, which means that the fact that they read as MILLER is NOT their actual interest or INTENT to do so in the game), there is no control over how the END RESULT of the scan would occur.

In the end, the only result you can get from them, which is exactly how they are meant to APPEAR as, is scum. They do not objectively skew the scan, nor do they ever WANT to (which is why Town Millers claim generally right off the bat to avoid confusion and conflicting scans) to be noted as scum, but that is how they appear regardless of what they want to be seen as. So whether they are aligned to Townside or Scumside, I believe, doesn't affect the accuracy of a read. Therefore, it should not be within conflict of the rule.

> TL;DR: It's not intentional changes to the scan, and the scan itself will NOT change even if you repeatedly scan them over and over again. A Miller character/role will NEVER scan as a town, period. Therefore, the accuracy in them being scanned as SCUM is 100% accurate. The same thing can be said about Godfathers, though in the reverse scan read.

I'll debate on that.

Context: It's Day 1---> No 100% leads

---> No real scum confirm

---> Possibility of lynching Town is very high on a random vote.

Solutions: Lynch inactives ---> Possibility of lynching Town is very high
---> No real information gathered from voting patterns

---> Easy excuse (just did it because everyone else did)

---> Poissibility of lynching a power role is medium

Lynch Kirsche ----> Suspected by quite a lot of people to be Scum

----> Claimed a role that is impossible to test

----> Possibility of lynching Town is uncertain

----> Miller claim grants him the validity of a VT, the least harmful Town lynch for Town

Objectively speaking, Kirsche is my best bet on Day 1

> Lynch inactives - So you want to kill off people who haven't said anything D1. Okay, this is pretty damn easy if nothing else. Lazy too.

> Lynch Kirsche - From what I can tell, most of the people suspecting him is purely off of Role and Rule spec'ing.

- Secondly, if a Miller exists, then it's highly likely that a cop does as well. If that's the case then it's not impossible to prove/test.

- Yes, losing someone basically a VT isn't as high of a loss as a power role, but it's still a loss. And what associative reads are you expecting to come from Kirsche's slot, if he ends up flipping town? There's more to lynching him than "Oh well it's just a Miller role" going down the drain. It's the player behind the role/slot.

I feel like this post in general is pretty much just tunneled on lynching Kirsche. I don't like it, and it shows very little to no interest in even trying to case the more active players currently in this game, and also pans off inactives as another easy lynch option.

I ctrl+fed "SB" and it isn't in Eury's wallpost so I'm not reading it! You can't make me!

STOP BEING LAZY SB.

Fine, mr Hate.

From my point of view, a claimed miller is a good lynch on day 1, yes.

Do I think that we should insta lynch, no, not really.

But you can be sure as hell that I will vote Kirsche by the end of the day, and I think that everyone should consider it a safe bet if no "better" targets are selected.

From my point of view, anyone absolutely eliminating the chance of Kirsche being scum is fishy as fudge to me.

Now, adressing some points.

Mod-drama: Missed it. Cool beans, miller it's not a tampering role (even though it's wrong). Does that mean that Kirsche is actually a Miller? HELL NO. It's a super convenient claim, that cannot be proven false in anyway unless we have a lie detector, which I seriously doubt we have all things considered.

Why not more option on my Solutions stuff?: Because those were the two main solutions given at the moment. I think I don't need to explain why No lynch is a terrible idea, and other suggestions didn't catch my eye like Kirsche did.

1. Why is someone claiming miller a good lynch? A legitimate Town miller is basically stating, "Do not waste scans/night actions on myself, and I am telling you NOW that I will read as scum wrongly. However, there is NOTHING more I can do except to put it out in the open, and to then focus on scum hunting for the rest of the game", and saying that they're a good lynch target completely reads wrong to me. It's basically like a town-sided role like a Bomb or any other reactive role (IE. Paranoid gunner) to not target them, because anyone on townside to do so would suffer the consequences and it's much better to put it out in the open ASAP to avoid conflict like that, than to have to explain it come D2. (In which cases, it would then seem a hell of a lot scummier, IMO.)

2. Why are there no 'better targets'? Since this game started, you've ONLY literally have said/typed posts about Kirsche and why you find him scummy. Why are you not looking at any of the rest of the player base in this game? The lack of interest you're displaying for the rest of the players here- active or not- creates a tunneling aspect to your posts that highly limits the amount of thoughts/cases that could be made during this time. What about Refa, or SB, or Elie, or GP, or me, or Quote? Or anyone else here that you could ISO surf and get a feel for?

[Elieson]

Welcome back Eury!

Bolded: Why not find a better read amongst the more active playerlist? Would you rather strike down an inactive- someone who has not yet really expressed their thoughts, cases, etc. over someone currently playing the game and putting forth posts/content, whether it's legit or scummy? This reads odd to me, because aiming at inactive folk vs. the players actually saying/doing things strikes me as lazy gameplay that lacks initiative/interest in active scum hunting. Unless you're assuming at this point that the scum are all within the inactives and no one else currently typing up posts/reads are viable as scum targets.

Underlined: I suppose that's fair enough. But does me actually speaking up about, "Hey, had a long day, will get stuff up in a bit," and then only later getting content up when I have time, worse or better than the inactives who are saying nothing at all? Depends on how you look at it IMO, but again, I don't necessarily find the train of logic odd to find off in someone's gameplay.

Italicized: Well, for one, there is something I'd like to say in direct context to everyone here in the game: Why do you assume that the Moderator has to completely highlight/specifically state every aspect of the rules? If something is vague or has wiggle room for gray areas, it could be fully intended for various reasons. This is another reason why I find the complete mess of theory-crafting to be a waste of time, because it's getting caught up in semantics and/or the specifics of rules and role speccing.

Many [All] of my reads on the more active playerlist range from Forced Null->Town. I know you're coming back, so I'll give you something to respond to. There's still 23 hours left in the phase. You're clearly able to make promises, so if I give you something to respond to, I'm sure my read on you will change. Notice how I didn't throw down a vote on say, Arctic Fox, who's MIA for ?reasons?. I'm aiming at "inactive folk" that are likely to be around and/or react.

Yep. It says you'll be back eventually, (anticipated sooner rather than later).

Knocking out this stuff early on prevents people that could be say, a vig or arsonist or something, from getting antsy and blowing their load on somebody due to a misunderstanding of mechanics. The spec that is of value from earlier is Can a miller exist? It should not be Is kirsche a miller. This is a big deal, because it lets us pursue kirsche for his play, rather than a "scumslip" which might not actually be a scumslip. I could build a burning word.doc torch and wave it in the air at people playing the game to get that point out there, but I think that's been beaten in our heads by now.

[Green Poet]

Poly, please start existing...

Lynch Kirsche ----> Suspected by quite a lot of people to be Scum

----> Claimed a role that is impossible to test

----> Possibility of lynching Town is uncertain

----> Miller claim grants him the validity of a VT, the least harmful Town lynch for Town

I don't think this is always the case. Kirsche's take on it is confusing though.

Yes let's lynch one of the most active townies, what could go wrong? This is also assuming that I am not just a miller which is false lmao. Miller is just a passive role usually accompanied by an active role in this community fyi.

But Riptor's proposal assumes that you are just a miller...? Please explain.

The extent to which Riptor is tunnelling Kirsche is pretty scummy. Riptor emphasizing how Kirsche is not cleared by the modconfirm and his pursuing a Kirsche lynch because he's the least harmful mislynch (my paraphrase) do not explain why Kirsche is actually scummy. They're justifications that you would raise during deadline consolidation (or on D2 after lynched miller!Kirsche has flipped town...) but do not expose any scum intent.

And even if Kirsche ends up being a mistake, it's a Miller that we would lose. It's a win/win for the Town regardless.

This is quite a loaded statement. Mislynches are not a win for town. You're equating what you assert to be the least harmful mislynch to a scum lynch. To a lesser extent, I also question the value of lynching one of the more active players in a game with as many inactives as ours. And speaking of which, my vote on Arctic Fox is clearly doing nothing...

##Unvote

##Vote: Riptor

[Ken Masters]

God, so many words, yet so little weight held when you have no real stance on the situation...

1. Why is someone claiming miller a good lynch? A legitimate Town miller is basically stating, "Do not waste scans/night actions on myself, and I am telling you NOW that I will read as scum wrongly. However, there is NOTHING more I can do except to put it out in the open, and to then focus on scum hunting for the rest of the game", and saying that they're a good lynch target completely reads wrong to me. It's basically like a town-sided role like a Bomb or any other reactive role (IE. Paranoid gunner) to not target them, because anyone on townside to do so would suffer the consequences and it's much better to put it out in the open ASAP to avoid conflict like that, than to have to explain it come D2. (In which cases, it would then seem a hell of a lot scummier, IMO.)

Someone claiming Miller ON DAY 1 is always a good lynch when that person also happens to be the center of your suspicions.

Granted, those are my supicions and not yours, but really, at this point the Kirsche-defense is basically saying "but he's always like this" which I find hilariously desperate.

I already explained my reasons and I will not repeat'em.

Also, be careful with you word twisting.

I don't want to "lynch a Miller". I want to lynch a claimed Miller that I suspect to be Scum.

Little changes like that are really important.

2. Why are there no 'better targets'? Since this game started, you've ONLY literally have said/typed posts about Kirsche and why you find him scummy. Why are you not looking at any of the rest of the player base in this game? The lack of interest you're displaying for the rest of the players here- active or not- creates a tunneling aspect to your posts that highly limits the amount of thoughts/cases that could be made during this time. What about Refa, or SB, or Elie, or GP, or me, or Quote? Or anyone else here that you could ISO surf and get a feel for?

Sorry if I like to prey on someone for a while instead of jumping around with my vote. I like to tunnel vission my suspect, yes, because the focus is held on the person I suspect, and not some random stuff I don't care at the moment.

Sue me.

[Zkirsche]

Yes, this is the only time you've done it, but it doesn't change that you did it.

Calling something stupid that is stupid isn't scummy dude. Elie was working on something and didn't read the post from a mod, of course I'm going to throw shade on it.

in generically helpful ways ("I won't let us become inactive!") rather than actually helping them.

You seem really intent at looking at one thing here and there. What about my actual arguments and logic? Why should I keep pushing an ED1 case when I have answers hanging from someone else that need answering?

Of course, it's the mod's interpretation that matters, and the clarification post suggests that your interpretation is the correct one

Great, but when people are still insisting that this is not the case even after the mod clarification then that is super dumb.

I don't have a lot to say about the rest of the post, he addressed what I said fine and I no longer see where SB is coming from. Worse is that it confuses me, but I may just be trying to think about mafia too much.

Mod-drama: Missed it.

Cool beans.

##Unvote

##Vote: Riptor

Could you answer the questions I asked at the end of my previous post please? Do you still think I should be lynched solely for being a miller?

[Zkirsche]

Mega cut.

[solrocknroll]

Votals will come eventually, but you have 23 hours until phase end

[Green Poet]

I don't want to "lynch a Miller". I want to lynch a claimed Miller that I suspect to be Scum.

Could you list what it is about Kirsche and his posts that lead you to believe that he is scum outside of roles?

It could be a difference in opinion but I'm not recognizing where in your posts you talk about why he's scummy or vote-worthy, independent of his claim.

[Zkirsche]

But Riptor's proposal assumes that you are just a miller...? Please explain.

Ken thinks I'm just a VT who scans as scum. I have claimed no such think. I claim a regular member of the town who scans as mafia, which is subtlety different.

@Eury: There is actually more than rule and role spec to my wagon. People are taking offence to the way I have presented my arguments as well. SB/Ken are good examples of this.

Don't really want to keep quote walling considering quotes are literally satan right now. Also brain is fried so I'm gonna call it quits for today. Ciao.

[Ken Masters]

Kirsche, if you refer to this as "your previous questions", then I have to say, no wonder I never responded, after all, I'm just applying your ways

Honestly I'm so annoyed at having to explain this so I'm just not going to bother anymore.

Now tell me how "scummy" I am again....

[solrocknroll]

Votals 1.2: Cindy's counting on you

Riptor (2): Kirsche, GP

Elieson (2): SB, Refa

Proto (2): Jaybee, Quote

SB (1): Proto

Eurykins (1): Elieson

Kirsche (1): Riptor

Refa (1): Eurykins

Not Voting: Arctic Fox, Polydeuces, Toren

Edited August 15, 2016 by Enigmar

[Elieson]

Unofficial Votals?

Riptor (2): GP, kirsche
Rainbow/Proto (2): Quote, JB
Elieson (2): Refa, SB
Eurykins (1): Elieson
Sad kirsche (1): Riptor
SB (1): Proto
Refa (1): Eury

[Elieson]

Wait hey mod why isn't Eury listed as voting refa? She never unvoted

[Elieson]

Derp nvm i saw you edit your votals

[solrocknroll]

Wait hey mod why isn't Eury listed as voting refa? She never unvoted

missed it, edited it in now though

[Elieson]

Actually hey eury

Why didn't you unvote Refa?