Discworld Mafia is go!

[Sierra]

Update!

Mad Fnorder (3): Excal, Carthrat, Strago

With 9 alive it takes 5 to lynch.

There are 45.5 hours until the deadline.

[Kilgamayan]

All right, in case anyone is curious...

I decided to roleblock Strago last night because he suggested we not believe Cranbud's name dropping. I wouldn't have given this much thought if I hadn't already tried to reason out why Cranbud dropped the names he did and the reactions from those involved beforehand.

Cranbud's claims, by themselves, are understandably suspect. He was scum. Scum lie. And so on. What caught my attention, however, was how both Otter and Strago confirmed what he said was true.

- Otter claimed vanilla townie. Even before his flip I was inclined to buy this claim, because Otter is a very Lynch All Liars guy and thus not likely to claim vanilla when he wasn't. (This was all assuming he was town to begin with, of course.) His card flip confirmed what both he and Cranbud said but that wasn't available to me at the time of my thoguht process.
- Strago said that he didn't want to reveal his role unless absolutely necessary. What's important here is what he didn't say: he didn't say Cranbud was wrong. If Cranbud was indeed wrong about Strago having a passive role Strago would have (or at least should have) called him out on it immediately. Someone might say "but then we know if Strago has a role or not!", but that's not entirely true, as Cranbud told town he was a passive role investigator. Strago could have had an active role, or he could have had no role at all. Either way, Cranbud would be wrong, and Strago could have ended all speculation immediately by saying "I do not have a passive role." This catches Cranbud in the act without giving away if Strago has a role or not.

This led me to three possible conclusions:

- Cranbud was telling the truth.
- Cranbud guessed and got crazy lucky.
- Cranbud picked scum buddies that he knew wouldn't call him out for being wrong.

I refuse to believe #2 happened: If Cranbud had already investigated two people then there was ZERO reason to guess at the roles of two others when he had two investigations he knew to be true on hand. He had incredibly little to gain (the hope that someone would stupidly role claim to confirm his guess) and a lot to lose (any chance of spinning things back on Yakumo). This leaves #1 and #3, with a couple of small wrinkles.

- Obviously Cranbud could have guessed at one and used solid info for the other, but I think it still wasn't a risk worth taking given the two people he named because I highly doubt either Otter or Strago would be stupid enough to roleclaim in that situation.
- Also obviously, Cranbud could've used solid info for one and picked a scum buddy for the other. Unlike wrinkle #1, this is perfectly feasible.

Now initially I brushed this off as "well okay I just narrowed my thought process down to Otter either being town or scum and Strago either being town or scum" which is a HURRRRRRRR of monumental proportions. After sitting down and giving it some more thought, however, I realized that the conclusion this train of thought would give me would be completely cemented by whether I thought Cranbud was worth believing or not. If I thought he was telling the truth, I thought Otter and Strago were town. If I thought Cranbud wasn't worth believing, then I thought (at least one of) Otter and Strago were scum.

Then Strago comes in and says that we'd be best off not believing anything he said, and even goes so far as to suggest that Cranbud did not, in fact, inspect either person he named. The latter I very much disagree with unless they're scum, as I've detailed. It struck me as odd that Strago would suggest not believing Cranbud despite not claiming Cranbud to be wrong when his name was dropped, and if I'm not to believe Cranbud as Strago is suggesting, then I'm to believe Strago is scum.

So after all that, I decided to roleblock Strago and hope for the best. Evidently I accomplished nothing, although at least my use of my role was confirmed by my target. Maybe I missed another possibility in my Day 4 thought process?

[Shale]

Just a note that while I support lynching Fnorder, I'd like to avoid hammering until everybody has at least gotten a word in. Right now we're missing Tai, Kilga and Sopko.

Edit: Okay, not Kilga. And you're missing one possibility - Sopko has an active role with limited uses, or one with a risk of impeding town if he targets the wrong person, and he didn't choose to act that night.

[Shale]

"Sopko"? I'm retarded. I meant Strago, obviously.

[Kilgamayan]

Also, I see no reason to not vote Fnorder again, though he's two away from hammer and I would like to give people (Strago in particular) a chance to look at my above post before anyone else gets cut off from talking for the rest of the game.

Shale: I sort of assumed a "can use it but doesn't have to" role was active when used and passive when not.

[Shale]

Ah. When you said "passive role" I figured you just meant something like bomb, bulletproof or standard doublevoter.

[Strago]

I've seen it, Kilga. I... hrmm.

The fact is that, from the beginning, I didn't buy it. Cranbud's counter-claim, that is. Yakko's claim looked a lot better to me than Cranbud's, and Cranbud's defense seemed like a last gasp to get more information out of us before he was axed. I mean, was anybody even voting for Yakko at all, at that point? Even now I have enough doubts about Cranbud's claim to not want to divulge anything about whatever my role is. Of course that's a lost cause if you're right and Cranbud wouldn't have gone out on that limb, because in that event the scum already know everything they want to.

Sorry, I guess I'm sort of unsure how to respond to your analysis, since I've been honest with my reasoning so far. Ask me any specific question, though, and I'll answer it. Short of a roleclaim, that is. Which I suppose I'd still do, if everyone really wanted it.

[Shale]

There is one other possibility I can think of - the scum have a Watcher, and Strago has an active ability that he used night 1 but not night 2, or vice versa. If he was seen both of those nights but Cranbud never investigated his role, they could know he has one but not what it is, and use Cranbud's claim to draw one out of him.

[Taishyr]

First, mang, am I that non-present, Mad Fnorder? Shiii.

Secondly, aigh, Otter -was- town? Shit. If it weren't for the cop, I'd be glaring at Excal heavily at this point (and Corwin, if he weren't dead); even now, that pretty much removed my trust toward him. Though it's not as if I don't have egg on my face... cha. I went with reason and reason lost.

On the other hand, we have Shale, with... the investigation on Fnorder revealing a ghost? Mmm. While I can understand the votes... ...mrrr, I'm actually gutpulling away from Fnorder being scum. I can't explain it, but... (SK + Two Town) just feels... far more likely to me than (SK + Scum + Town). While Fnorder may be something else, I... aiya. Give me time to look this over and finish a current analysis, this situation... just feels off. Nitori got eliminated with no help from BC, and then BC fell... why do I have the feeling this is all a sacrifice game?

[Shale]

If it's a sacrifice game, how would that account for Nitori being hammered by a townie, and then Cranbud being shoved into the spotlight by the same townie?

[Kilgamayan]

Strago: I don't plan on asking you for a role claim (and I debated putting this in but I felt it wasn't worth risking insulting your intelligence over something so easily clarified), so don't worry about that.

If you are looking for a question, however, I do have this:

Given you knew if Cranbud was telling the truth about you and could have called him out on lying immediately without giving away if you had a role or not, why do you now suggest that he wasn't telling the truth when you didn't suggest that on Day 3?

Shale: If a scum Watcher saw Strago doing something, they would assume him to be an active role (or at least I assume they would). I don't see why they'd choose to watch him twice, and I don't see why they'd have Cranbud claim Strago was a passive role when they had evidence he wasn't.

[Kilgamayan]

*I debated putting this in my first post

[Shale]

You don't have to actively watch somebody to see them act. They'd also see him if they watched the person he targeted.

[Excal]

That, again, begs the question.  If they knew he had an active role, why did they claim he had a passive one?  I suspect this could very well be true though.  I don't think many of us would accept a simple 'he's full of it' and would be more interested in details then.  Even if it was just to get us to think more about what Strago might be.

Right...  this all feels like it's going in bloody circles.

Case a) Cranbud told truth.  Which means, Strago's town, and he has a role.  Passive or not, don't know, don't care.  He's using it for us.  That said, the scum know what he is, so hiding it is of no value to town, as revealing his role tells the scum nothing, and town something.

Case B1) Cranbud lied, but he was using it as a fishing expedition to find out the true nature of Strago's role.  Either that, or simply to try and cast suspicion on him.  In this case, Strago again has a role, but this time, revealing it is merely giving the scum what they want.

And, Case B2) Strago is scum, and his name was tossed there to give him some cover.  Otter's name was also tossed there to show that we can trust Cranbud, really.  Pair this with Strago using the claim and his very public distrust of it to get Otter lynched to both gain another day and shore up his cover at the same time.

Honestly, all of these arguments feel  like we're trying less to read Strago's actions, and more like we're trying to pick the brain of the scum, which...  yeah.  Feels like we're running in bloody circles.  Which is where I started this...

[Taishyr]

Mrrrgh. I don't know, Shale; perhaps Bobbin Cranbud wasn't expected, but... nrrgh, I get the feeling Nitori at a minimum was a sacrifice. Maybe Cranbud was or wasn't? But the way the game played out... nya. I'm quite possibly completely wrong on this, but... mrf. Working on analysis. Lemme think while I do that.

But yeah, I think all the Cranbud arguments are getting into massive WIFOM territory: they make pretty conspiracies, but I don't know that they lead anywhere, honestly. Mrf.

[Strago]

Strago: I don't plan on asking you for a role claim (and I debated putting this in but I felt it wasn't worth risking insulting your intelligence over something so easily clarified), so don't worry about that.

If you are looking for a question, however, I do have this:

Given you knew if Cranbud was telling the truth about you and could have called him out on lying immediately without giving away if you had a role or not, why do you now suggest that he wasn't telling the truth when you didn't suggest that on Day 3?

I'm not sure I realized, back at the end of Day 3, the sort of fishing expedition I later presumed it was. When that possibility did occur to me, I didn't keep it to myself. And it helped get Otter lynched, so yay for me, but still. I'm not pulling it out of thin air right now.

For the moment, I tend to agree with Excal that this particular line of reasoning is just circular and potentially damaging. Then again I realize that doesn't sound as convincing coming from the guy who's sort of on trial, so I'll continue to answer what I can.

[Shale]

If they knew he had an active role, why did they claim he had a passive one?

Cranbud didn't claim he could only detect pure passives, just people who didn't act that night. One night the watcher looks at someone and sees Strago acting on them. The other night he looks at Strago directly, and sees him do nothing. Boom, proof of an unknown role, but with a night of nonaction that covers Cranbud's claim. Of course there's no evidence at all for this, but it's possible. We're not looking at a binary situation, is my point.

[Taishyr]

... And it helped get Otter lynched, so yay for me, but still...

Uhhh... Is my internet sarcasm detector not working, here, or...

[Shale]

I definitely got sarcasm from that.

[Excal]

Yeah, that is possible.

Still runs into the whole idea that we're trying to piece together the scum's thoughts and actions and determine what they likely did.  This still seems a good deal more like rampant speculation than anything that will actually provide anything of worth.

[Excal]

Yeah, Tai.  I also sense sarcasm, for all that I needed to look over that a couple of times just to be sure.

[Strago]

Presence of sarcasm confirmed.

[Taishyr]

I didn't and still don't, but okay. That was just a "...wait what", reading that and the way it was presented.

[Shale]

He's pointing out that he said something similar before, and then notes that, given the circumstances of when he said it before, part of his defense is "look at how I helped get this townie lynched!", which is maybe just a bit ironic.

[Kilgamayan]

Excal: I'm not trying to read into Cranbud's actions. I've already done that. At this point, given Cranbud's actions, I'm trying to read into Strago's actions, or, more specifically, his reactions.

Shale: If that's the case, then they had evidence to back up Cranbud's claim, which would revert back to scenario 1 as I presented earlier.

I believe you're far too focused on Cranbud. Why Cranbud did what he did, while it is important,  is not my #1 concern. The whole point of analyzing what Cranbud did was to notice that Strago's reaction didn't seem to make sense. Think of the scenario not if Cranbud was lying or telling the truth, but if Cranbud was right or wrong. The questions I initially raised to myself were these:

- If Cranbud was right, why is Strago telling us to not believe what he said when he knew Cranbud was right?
- If Cranbud was wrong, why did Strago not call him on it immediately if he knew Cranbud was wrong?

Strago: That doesn't really explain why you didn't call Cranbud out immediately.