Touhou Mafia - Main Topic

[AndrewRogue]

QR: The problem that I'm seeing there is... well. Let me put it this way. You were the one willing to risk one of the most powerful townie roles on what could well have been written off as bad townie play. No, roleclaims should not be an instant, get out of jail free card. But that also doesn't mean we should totally disregard them, especially where GOOD power roles are concerned. Tom was a bad vote day one, and I stand by it.

As for my vote of you... well. Let us look at this from an objective standpoint. I'm sitting here, with no knowledge of who is being honest and what not. However, I see you adamantly pursuing an individual, on day one, who has, unopposed, claimed one of town's best roles. Doesn't it look a bit off to you that you would, on the day that is essentially random votes, continue this particular line of voting that risks sinking a good power role?

Tonfa: Honestly... I do see why it doesn't look good, I just don't think it looks particularly bad either. I did care about who I lynched, the trick is that between sleeping, pouring over arguments and what have you, it is quite possible to miss something you've done accidentally. I will go to point out how long it took someone to catch that, despite being in a position where they should be looking close at my posts. I'm obviously not going to try and justify it, just state that I don't think it is a scummy tell.

Hal: No, I didn't. I try to avoid the consideration that townies could be lying, since I like to actively believe that town is trying to play well. Working under the other assumption makes things worse, as it wrecks the typical paradigm of being able to trust town aligned individuals, which causes the whole logic of the game to start falling apart in some serious ways. So no, it didn't cross my mind he could be lying as town. I'm still trying to believe that he had cop power secondary and it wasn't revealed on the flip.

As for the other thing... I could be mistaken, but I believe it IS important to catch scum impersonating cops ASAP as they can screw up the logic of the game really badly, really quickly. So yes, I do believe once they have some substantiation, real cop out to ought the liar as quick as they can. They have the potential for protection and they out a scum. And like I said, when we're going one for one, we're winning. This could well be wrong, but I'm basing this off personal experience with the case of the game where Tai claimed cop day one (lying) and Otter outed him right at the beginning of the day two. Sp if my logic is faulty, please do correct. (Also, please note, I did say once he could substantiate it. An immediate counterclaim is bad, my point was more that we had no conflicting evidence saying Tom was not cop).

[Smodge13]

First things first.

Personally i dislike the train on Patch, i have always disliked the idea that bad town = scum, it gets too many of our own lynched, maybe its just because i'm usually on the receiving end of this but i don't know, it doesnt seem scummish to me just....... thoughtless.

Tonfa - ...... Thanks Corwin for asking for my thoughts on this one. (Changed before posting, there was a vote for tonfa here, then i read his day 2 stuff) here i am reading through the posts i'm up to page 18 and i'm thinking, where are the posts?.
Hmm finished reading, honestly, gut says scum, reason says neutral, Seems suspicious of almost everyone to me, could just use the shotgun approach and everyone does do suspicious things every now and then or could be scum grasping at straws, honestly i have no idea.

Now its about time i placed an actual serious vote.

##Vote: Shale

A few people have done this already, but how about a post shale other than 1 or 2 lines of response ot people, you don;t list your thoughts on people just on the occasional things a person says.
So heres my reasons for this vote
1. Wasn't on either train
2. Lurker
3. When posting doesn't even give thoughts on people, just responds to 1 or 2 lines of what someone has typed.
4. Honestly, i get no scumtells from anyone, Shale i get a very very minor feeling from.

So Shale consider this vote as a way to show
1. i suspect you
2. i want to hear your thoughts on others.

Also i'm curious about this, not sure whether this is one of those lynch on site scum-tells but i'll ask anyway.
i want thoughts on myself, i have had a much lower post count yet no one has seriously considered me for anything.
Regardless of whether your playing Town or Scum being low on peoples scum radar is a good thing so i'm wondering, why haven't i been called out, what exactly am i doing right for once?

Am i new now, hell no, but i still have a fair bit to learn and i never am able to discuss out of game without risking revealing something in-game so i might as well ask in-game. This question is lowest priority though, i don't want it distracting anyone from the real job at hand. Catching scum.

Once again an apology for poor spelling in the previous few posts (i think i'm getting worse but then again i have typed a lot in a short time).

[Corwin]

The short answer (for me), smodge, is that Tom dominated day 1 to my immense dissatisfaction, to a point people slipped past my radar to a degree despite an earlier attempt to stay on the lurkers. Day 2, by the time I caught up to be in any position to start looking for scum and lurkers, you've posted enough to not be considered a real lurker. I'm still watching you, pretty much, but I'm not seeing anything too scummy so far. As long as you keep your current content quota without prompting from other players, I'm satisfied on this front.

[Corwin]

Wait, what.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=329.msg4907#msg4907

Andrew, just a couple posts above. In his last paragraph, do my lying eyes deceive me, or is he not only continuing his train of thought "REAL cops should counterclaim when there's another cop claim" but actually thinks it's the preferred option for day 1 cop claims? That made me blink so much on rereading.

As for the other thing... I could be mistaken, but I believe it IS important to catch scum impersonating cops ASAP as they can screw up the logic of the game really badly, really quickly. So yes, I do believe once they have some substantiation, real cop out to ought the liar as quick as they can. They have the potential for protection and they out a scum. And like I said, when we're going one for one, we're winning.

That's the most relevant portion.

Look, I can see the logic of lynching someone day 2 who claimed cop day 1 but didn't deliver the goods the next day. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it as a hard rule, since we should take player personalities and playing styles into account, as well as scumtells, etcetc. But the quoted portion just doesn't sit well with me, and you've been arguing that viewpoint even previously.

And then, we have this, closing that same post:

Also, please note, I did say once he could substantiate it. An immediate counterclaim is bad, my point was more that we had no conflicting evidence saying Tom was not cop

So either you're saying our real cop should out himself day 1 based on other cop claims, or waste the investigation he'll get day 1 (the only one, given that Tom perished for claiming cop that very night) on the other player who claimed cop? The one we'll probably lynch for lying or otherwise tripping himself anyhow? And, hell, what if there's more than one cop? Not impossible for a large game like this.

I hate getting into arguments like this, especially since they have the potential of doing scum's work for them, but really. How can anyone just ignore Andrew's behavior? The harm from his continuing suggestions is great, should people listen. The flaws in his proposed plans, many. Oh yeah, that's where my vote's going, not on some likely townie who doesn't play well and just went along with the herd.

##Unvote: Taishyr.
##Vote: Andrew.

For the record, I still think Tai is incredibly suspicious for lurking, but we are in this to hunt scum first, scummy-seeming behavior such as lurking next.

[Smodge13]

My posting should be up to scratch from now on.
Anyway sleep time for me so none for 12 hours.

A question before i leave
Can a few ppl reiterate why there voting for patch for reaosns other than what can simply be explained as bad town?.

[Taishyr]

My silence today has nothing to do with illness or business.

It's because I'm sitting here, staring at what's been going on today, and not being able to pick up much of anything useful that others aren't catching themselves in multiple rereads of this topic (I've slowly - slowly! compiled this over... well, shit. Estimated five rereads, front to back, of the topic).

Looking at Andrew's recent post: lolwhat? I've never claimed cop falsely, nor have I even had a normal cop role of any sanity in IRC or board mafia. You're thinking Carthrat, assuming -my- memory serves me correctly.

Looking at Patchycloud: Ai. This feels like a Day 1 lynchpress more than anything else. The hammer seems to be a void tell to me, but the confusion regarding whether or not she knew what the votecount was is... well, the main thing is that she said "to -help- lynch someone", which gives the impression to me that she did not know the precise votecount at the time she clicked "post", but instead the votecount around when she began typing; looking at the timing and the second-to-last official votecount, this would have been... eight-eight.

...okay, yeah, I'm suddenly not seeing her defense here; a vote for Tom or Strago would have been appropriate with that timing and the fact that her entire wall of text (yes, I read it) seems to rail against the Tom possibilites but then votes Strago... zhuifdsb. That... okay. I need to think on that, but yeah, this is probably the most suspicious of the current cases, in retrospect.


Looking at Nitori: He's posting even more than he did when he was scum (and Excal/I were punching him to post something). If I had known telling him that his brevity or slight lack thereof in every game was how I've been able to figure out which side he was on in in said games would get him to actually be something resembling active (better than I, I'm afraid), then I should have done it as soon as I figured it out. Blah. Downside is I'm not sure how to take New Nitori. A few statements have struck me as odd here and there, but nothing much. Also, the fact that he seems to actually be giving fresh looks on things? I think it's the apocalypse. Hold me, Flandre.

Looking at Alex: Shale and Patchy have both at least indirectly raised the point that Alex seems to be taking on different stances than usual this game (I, too, was kindasorta surprised to see a "don't vote claimed cop day 1" comment, but since it's policy I agree with...) This being said, I'm not seeing anything directly suspicious thus far here, either.

My attention has mainly been at the last two people to jump on Strago after EvilTom's cop claim - the people who could conceviably hide under "additional pressure" while still hoping to cause trouble for people who don't agree with the EvilTom lynch. People after the cop claim have the excuse of avoiding lynching a claimed cop, people on EvilTom... mrr, I've not the slightest of what to think regarding the votes for EvilTom right now. And a few votes on a lurker don't surprise me (again, pot, kettle, black, hi), so I'm not that greatly worried about the initial few ones (though they, too, merit examination - reference my behavior in Discworld Mafia against Nitori, though he was scum too... well, hey, it still kinda applies. >_>).

So. Right after the copclaim, we had the votes...

Strago (6): Nitori, Gatewalker, AndrewRogue, El Cideon, EvilTom, Anonymous. (patchucloud had unvoted Strago at this point.)

EvilTom is a confirmed townie. He also made me drunk on Master Spark.

Nitori started the press, from all appearances, and Gatewalker seconded.

AndrewRogue and El Cideon are, thus, the two remaining people I'm fairly suspicious of.

Andrew's post (for reference, two pages after Gate's and 3 hours afterward):

I'm going to step up and defend Tom very gently here by saying that, as bad as he can look, that is the way he ends up playing. Yes, it has problems, but he's getting jumped on for the stuff he always does, which... feels problematic to me. Does it seem scummy? Yeah. I've been on him in the past for it, but... mrgh. He's playing the same way he always does, which doesn't quite sync with scum.

So for now... bleh. I guess... pressure Strags. I'm not comfortable with QR's response regarding "I know I'm not scum," but it isn't enough to press at this point

##Unvote: QR
##Vote: Strago

After a post by patchy, El Cid also jumped in...

##Unvote: Oblivionknight

OK started talking, which was all I wanted out of him.

I'm hesitant to jump on the Tom train, for a couple reasons. Hal made some excellent reasons for voting Tom, which I do agree with. It can be used as a smokescreen...but that can work either way. My fear is that it makes an excellent excuse for scum to jump on a train without appearing suspicious. Almost every game I've seen with Tom has started out like this. The fact that he's acting no different than usual tells us what, exactly? In my experience, going after the most talkative person day one rarely turns out well.

I have to agree with Nitori's perspective here. The guy's being very vocal and getting other people talking. Somewhat acrimoniously, in fairness, but there are worse things to do on day one--like lurk incessantly. If you're voting for Tom saying his behavior's a distraction and lets the quiet folks slip through the cracks, well, fair enough. I can understand that. But why not prod the people who are doing exactly that at the same time. Is it that hard to do so?

I'm just wary of the whole endeavor right now. I will join the train if we've reached the end of the game-day without a better candidate, because I believe the deadline shouldn't have do the work for us and I feel my vote should reflect this policy. But there's close to a day to the deadline still, and right now I'd really rather nudge some lurkers into activity. So, Strago? Barely exists in this game (apart from making an admittedly amusing opening post, but that doesn't count for much). Got a couple votes on him already, but needs the pressure. Really, I feel more comfortable dropping my vote here than on what looks to me like the usual day one townie bitchfest.

##Vote: Strago

And... mrrr. What do I read from this? Well... El Cid's commentary gives me nothing read-wise, town or scum. Andrew's... the whole "defend very gently" thing feels like defense without really wanting to associate name with, which... ai, I don't know.

This being said.

To Corwin's response, AndrewRogue's latest post: Uh. Um... I'm missing why what Andrew said is a bad thing, here. I really am. He is saying that: presuming the realcop investigates the claimedcop day 1, and learns they are town, they -should- out them.

...this is a reasonable suggestion. I understand your hesitation about talking about this, but remember how limited scum are to town. A one-for-one hit is a good thing, and there is indeed the chance for protection at night, letting the cop act again.

He did NOT say to out the false cop day 1 at any point in this post, unless I am greviously missing something. In fact, he said that wasn't a good idea - or is that not what he meant by

An immediate counterclaim is bad

?

Your "lying eyes" do indeed deceive you, there.

For now, this is the weirdest thing out there to me.

##Vote: Corwin

[Corwin]

Looking at Andrew's recent post: lolwhat? I've never claimed cop falsely

AndrewRogue and El Cideon are, thus, the two remaining people I'm fairly suspicious of.

So, uhh, you're saying Andrew is wrong about the facts he claims support his theory of outing cops early, then you're saying he looks suspicious for his voting pattern (along with Cid), and you conclude this... with an OMGUS vote?

At first, Andrew was talking in generic terms of outing cops as soon as possible to hit the lying scum. That was ambiguous enough for me to see as a desire for a day 1 counterclaim, especially his previous posts on the issue. The other alternative from his post (from which your out of context, partial quote used against me comes) is to do so day 2 after investigating the other claim night 1. Which... yes, pretty much is the same thing. You lose a townie day 1 to lynch since you're not lynching the person who claimed, then you're outing yourself and will die, so it's a 2 for 1 exchange already, 3-1 while counting any night kills from night 1. And your real cop hasn't actually investigated anyone who wouldn't be caught in a lie soon enough. And, again, neither he nor you want to consider the possibility of more than one cop, which is extremely puzzling, and would rape this entire theory you two are supporting to bits and pieces while hurting town's chances even more.

How do you see this as a reasonable suggestion is beyond me. Please explain yourself, Tai.

[Carthrat]

I read the two big posts from Chisa and Nitori where they list people and rate them on how townie they are.

I can't seem to identify the criteria they use to differentiate good townies from bad ones. I mean, Chisa gave QR a negative read, for instance, and for... what, exactly? That one line about Tom? Sure, it was a bit harsh, but I don't think it's entirely undeserved. Part of this is that I did an awful lot that QR has done; found Tom looking the worst, keeping my vote on him, hating neutral reads... and I've gotten just as defensive as her in prior games (Discworld) when people come after me. I don't feel the presentation of her counter-argument was particularly scummy, and she didn't actually OMGUS Andrew or anything, so... I'd like to hear about this negative read and how she's different from me.

Corwin likewise had many similarities to my play so far (despite being a HATEFUL LUNARIAN BITCH PRINCESS, ##Hate: Kaguya) and you're not getting a read in either direction from him. *Why*?

Nitori... has included NUMBERS! I actually find myself nodding at most of what he's saying, particularly drawing similarities between Chisa and cloud (and mirroring my vote pattern for them.) Said it before, people who seem to think like I do generally look good to me (except at endgame, hi, Tai, <3.) As for why I jumped off Chisa... actually, you're right, it IS because Patch looks a fair bit worse than Chisa. It's also because on rereading Chisa's posts, I noticed a detail I hadn't before and it made him look somewhat better in my eyes.

So. Yeah, I'd like Chisa to talk about why he thinks the people I mentioned above look different, namely myself, Cor, and QR, and the varying ratings therein.

<->

Andrew looks sort of bad after his latest post, but not.. as... bad as Cor has made out. I don't really think cops should out themselves- at all- until they've made a sizable number of investigations/are getting lynched, but I can't read his advice as an attempt to fish. It looked pretty weak in day 1 (as it was just part of a larger argument that I admittedly disagreed with, but certainly didn't seem like a fishing attempt); and in day 2, it's *after the fact*, isn't it? I strongly doubt any cop is going to immediately claim to defeat some fake cop regardless, and I don't think this policy is entirely flawed- after all, if Cop A investigates Cop B and turns him out scum, and his other results would be useful, then... go for it.

In general, your investigations will look much better if you *breadcrumb them daily* in the form of accusals/defences, and this is a core thing I think that seperates fakers from the real thing. I've said this in Discworld Mafia and I'll say it again here. It's your job to substantiate your results and play devil's advocate if they clash with what the town thinks! Don't claim blindly, but don't be shy about putting stuff out!

<->

Smodge, I, uh...

Almost any scum play at ALL can be explained as 'bad town'! I mean, you even have extreme cases like Tom, and lying about being cop! If someone lies about being cop, you'd think they were scum, right? NOT IN TOUHOU!

In Patch's case, it's because she came out with this long emotional rant at the end of the day, hammered Strago with little to no justification, slipped up and contradicted herself on why and how she made the post (was she aware she was hammering or wasn't she?), and has done very little to present herself as anything but a victim in this thread.

[Ranmilia]

Smodge:  That's pretty much impossible, as anything and everything short of roleclaiming scum can be brushed off as 'just bad town' if people are of a mind to do so.  This incidentally happens to be why I don't buy 'just bad town' in the general case. 

The most empirical point against Patch so far, I think, is her waffling on what she knew or thought about the vote count when she hammered Tom.  Did she know the count or did she not?  What did she think the count was, and what did she think the effect her vote would have was?  Her answers have spanned a wide range from "I just saw it was close" to "I was casting my vote into a specific 7-8 split to have a specific effect" to "Strago was clearly getting lynched" to "I just wanted to get the day over with."  This feels to me like she's changing her story, aka lying, lynch all liars, qed.

I also have not seen a better lynch case for the day so far, although Tai and Andrew are disturbing me more and more.  I keep coming back every few hours expecting a Tai post and there keeps on not being one.  I don't know what his deal is. 

Ninja edit - Tai finally appears!  And he has some analysis!  Hm hrm.  I... well, can't fault him for me-toism, at least.  I kind of agree with Corwin re: Andrew (more on that down below) and I'm not sure why the thing he finds fishiest and votes on is the issue he speaks the least about... and in fact is regarding a calling-out of Andrew, whom he called suspect a few paragraphs above.  Thanks for giving us something to look at, though.

Since it's being remarked on, yeah I'm trying to be a little less zealous this game.  If you can't figure out why, go read Random.  I'm not entirely sure why "don't lynch the guy claiming cop" is an unusual Alex stance, though.  Don't *trust* him, no, he may well not be the cop, but for crying out loud don't lynch him day one, that's the *entire point* of calling for roleclaims before lynching.   

Andrew... I remarked earlier that he seemed to be trolling for claims, I still hold that feeling, although admittedly there's not much I can say to defend it.

FOR THE RECORD:  Counterclaiming a day 1 cop claim is INCREDIBLY STUPID.  First!  Counterclaims are shaky to begin with.  Nothing stops there being multiple cops, or multiples of any role.  Discworld had multiple sane cops, as well as a few other duplicates.  Second!  Cops should never out themselves without benefit.  They may be killed, or have a scum roleblocker sit on them, or any number of things.  Especially bad to claim day 1 when they don't even have any investigations to give out, but *still* bad without some other sort of reason.  Like, say, investigating the other guy who's claiming cop yourself, to make sure of their alignment.  And even then, it's dicey.  Trading 1/1 town for scum is a win, yes, but trading 1 cop for 1 scum in a large game is not so hot (and no, you should never rely on doc protection - as perhaps supported by Tom's death?)  Take a lesson from Super and Meeple in the NR game, if you're the cop and someone else is claiming it and you think or know they're scum, guess what - they're not just saving their skin, they're fishing to find you and it's a bad plan to give them the satisfaction.

I agree with Andrew that QR's stance is also not exactly the most town-helpful one, but saying a real cop should counterclaim just because is almost as bad in terms of sacrificing the cop early, and pressing the point at this time seems fishy.

---- further edit - I am ninja'd by Rat, who says... just about everything I'm saying.  o_O

[Taishyr]

Firstly, a correction to my post that may help some people (and it's rather embarrassing):

I really am. He is saying that: presuming the realcop investigates the claimedcop day 1, and learns they are town, they -should- out them.

should read

I really am. He is saying that: presuming the realcop investigates the claimedcop day 1, and learns they aren't town, they -should- out them.

Hopefully that helps, don't know how the typo slipped past me.

Looking at Andrew's recent post: lolwhat? I've never claimed cop falsely

AndrewRogue and El Cideon are, thus, the two remaining people I'm fairly suspicious of.

So, uhh, you're saying Andrew is wrong about the facts he claims support his theory of outing cops early, then you're saying he looks suspicious for his voting pattern (along with Cid), and you conclude this... with an OMGUS vote?

...No, that game happened. I further mentioned that it was CARTHRAT that claimed cop day 1 in the game he referenced:

lolwhat? I've never claimed cop falsely, nor have I even had a normal cop role of any sanity in IRC or board mafia. You're thinking Carthrat, assuming -my- memory serves me correctly.

His faulty memory lies in -who it was-. Do not start twisting my own words,  I said this myself. ...and you even yelled at me for not fully quoting Andrew's line. Sheesh.

The second line you point out was A) typed before your post and B) addressing the two remaining people of the collection I was looking at. The line itself? A bit ambiguous, yes, I'll grant that, but construing it as "I think Andrew is the most suspicious period" is uh... yeah, no.

...and how is the vote OMGUS? I pointed out what seems like a flat-out contradiction in what you were saying; that counts as OMGUS nowadays? I honestly don't give a shit about your vote on me - proves people are damn well paying attention to who's actually posting and who isn't, and for a long time I was in the latter group.

At first, Andrew was talking in generic terms of outing cops as soon as possible to hit the lying scum. That was ambiguous enough for me to see as a desire for a day 1 counterclaim, especially his previous posts on the issue.

Firstly, I flat out don't see the implication you seem to see of him saying day 1 reveal is ideal - or even good, really - in the topic. Reference this post you're drawing this from, for the love of heaven, so I can see what you're actually talking about.

The other alternative from his post (from which your out of context, partial quote used against me comes) [...]

...the part that spoke against your theory, that you seemed to glide over without noticing in your post? Seriously, he said the part I quoted (out of context, yes), but your post... was written as if it weren't there. That's the reason behind the vote. You raised the point of multiple cops - that's why you investigate the other cop claim first! If he is scum, you catch him and let him hang (ideally, you wait and see if he hangs himself, but assuming he doesn't). If he isn't, the second cop now knows there are two out there. Uh, where's the problem here?

[...] is to do so day 2 after investigating the other claim night 1. Which... yes, pretty much is the same thing. You lose a townie day 1 to lynch since you're not lynching the person who claimed, then you're outing yourself and will die, so it's a 2 for 1 exchange already, 3-1 while counting any night kills from night 1. And your real cop hasn't actually investigated anyone who wouldn't be caught in a lie soon enough. And, again, neither he nor you want to consider the possibility of more than one cop, which is extremely puzzling, and would rape this entire theory you two are supporting to bits and pieces while hurting town's chances even more.

...wait what. Firstly. Even if you choose not to lynch -the claimed cop-, you can still, you know, hit scum on your first lynch not going on him. This is not impossible or even beyond the realm of fantasy. You are exercising the town's prerogative; kill all that is not town. A claimed cop? If the claim's true, then town benefits! (Assuming they aren't killed in the night, but you know.) If the claim's false, then the other cop can fell him. And the misinformation a good falsecop can spread can be -quite- nasty, a point Andrew has raised before.

Secondly... how do you know he would die? Thirdly, yeah you're dealing with nightkills, but 1 for 1 refers to outing yourself to killing a scum. If you can get 1 for 2 and it looks like the false cop will hang himself, whatever; that'd be why I'd wait like, say, Yakumo from Discworld Mafia, and see if the aforementioned party actually slips up. Furthermore, there is always the chance of a doc; you cannot be sure the cop will actually be killed that night, and if he isn't, yay more investigations. This is good. This helps town.

The lack of killing scum for the first day shows that... the next target town lynched was town. If the claimed cop is truthful (...let's leave EvilTom's falserole rightside claim out of this, since that's just mindraping), then you -didn't lynch the cop-. This is good. Else, yes, you avoided lynching scum... and will lynch him when the real cop has proof. ...I don't see much of the problem here.

I think your problem with this situation may lie in the term "one-for-one", on reflection. This is simply referring to the practice of (expecting to) sacrifice yourself to out scum - assuming no doc/roleblock of scum/whatever, and presuming you know he's scum with, you know, the investigation that Andrew -did- mention the realcop should get first -and- presuming it gave him scum as a feedback.

Then you step forward and kindly suggest to the scum to GTFO. >_> Or do you allow scum to live? A scum's claimed investigations will muddy the waters -long- after he is gone - see Bobbin Cranbud, and note that we had hoped it would cause such controversy in that game.

How do you see this as a reasonable suggestion is beyond me. Please explain yourself, Tai.

'k. Anything else you want to know or desire explained?

[Taishyr]

...bold tag should have ended at "I think your problem". blah formatting.

[Corwin]

Your post felt really offensive to me on a first read, and my original instinct was to lash back. But thinking back, I'm not convinced you're scum, just concerned over your apparent slip in logic, extensive lurking with an excuse I don't buy, unlike Alex (if there's nothing to weigh in, press lurkers to talk more, at least!), and the way you're going after me. I suppose it helped work was hellish until now, giving me some time.

...No, that game happened. I further mentioned that it was CARTHRAT that claimed cop day 1 in the game he referenced:

Okay. I can accept that the game happened, sure. It didn't seem certain, referring to Rat instead (you may use caps now and claim it's certain, but at the time you were far more hesitant in your terms, please recall), and at the time Andrew latching onto an example you said was faulty (not entirely wrong as I implied) didn't look good for me, nor your disregard of it during your vote. I don't really think you have a leg to stand on by going on about twisting your words when most of the content of your later post seems to do just that to me.

The second line you point out was A) typed before your post and B) addressing the two remaining people of the collection I was looking at. The line itself? A bit ambiguous, yes, I'll grant that, but construing it as "I think Andrew is the most suspicious period" is uh... yeah, no.

It's an interesting explanation, but my post to you called to light that no such explanation existed in your post itself which carried your vote. It might be apparent to you, I dunno. But I'm not supposed to guess at whatever you might possibly be thinking and not putting to ePaper, so asking for clarifications is very valid, and your entire behavior when I do this very basic thing doesn't leave me comfortable. And yes, it also makes it more clear for why your vote seems OMGUS since you spend most of your post looking at Andrew and then go after me without explaining your shift. You see something wrong with my argument? That's legit. But the way you disregard your own in the same post is, well, one of the things Patchu's being hounded over in her massive block of hammer text affair.

I pointed out what seems like a flat-out contradiction in what you were saying;

It's not a contradiction, as my follow up post mentioned. You choose to ignore it, so I'll reiterate.

At first, Andrew was talking in generic terms of outing cops as soon as possible to hit the lying scum. That was ambiguous enough for me to see as a desire for a day 1 counterclaim, especially his previous posts on the issue.

I did account for the second option of cop investigating another cop claim night 1, then coming forward, and addressed that as well. I think it is also a bad option, and stated why.

You're responding to it with:

Firstly, I flat out don't see the implication you seem to see of him saying day 1 reveal is ideal - or even good, really - in the topic. Reference this post you're drawing this from, for the love of heaven, so I can see what you're actually talking about.

So here's the thing, I see it and you don't. I'd like other people to weigh in on whether they got the same impression I did, that Andrew was suggesting either a day 1 counterclaim or the night 1 investigation/day 2 claim. Am I the only one who walked away from Andrew's post with this impression?

...the part that spoke against your theory, that you seemed to glide over without noticing in your post? Seriously, he said the part I quoted (out of context, yes), but your post... was written as if it weren't there. That's the reason behind the vote. You raised the point of multiple cops - that's why you investigate the other cop claim first! If he is scum, you catch him and let him hang (ideally, you wait and see if he hangs himself, but assuming he doesn't). If he isn't, the second cop now knows there are two out there. Uh, where's the problem here?

You ask at the end of the post if I'd like to see anything else explained. This is something I would like you to devote a sole post on, please, so it stands away from the rest of the arguments, in part because the farther we go down your post the less it seems to have with my case on Andrew. Also, this seems the core of your reason to vote for me, and I'd like to understand it more clearly.

Would a theorethical cop 2 investigate a claimed cop 1 for night 1? Going as a private case of the cop behavior you're suggesting above, the answer would be yes. Myself, I'm not sure it's such a smart idea. I'm also not sure we should be having that particular discussion on cop behavior while the game proceeds, if it comes down to a matter of preference/playstyle.

I think part of the problem is that you seem to be commenting on things in a more general way, while Andrew seemed pretty adamant while talking of the situation that happened with us (days 1/2).

...wait what. Firstly. Even if you choose not to lynch -the claimed cop-, you can still, you know, hit scum on your first lynch not going on him. This is not impossible or even beyond the realm of fantasy. You are exercising the town's prerogative; kill all that is not town. A claimed cop? If the claim's true, then town benefits! (Assuming they aren't killed in the night, but you know.) If the claim's false, then the other cop can fell him. And the misinformation a good falsecop can spread can be -quite- nasty, a point Andrew has raised before.

This... actually doesn't relate to the discussion. What I'm calling Andrew out on is his apparent desire to have a cop counterclaim day 1/day 2. We are not discussing lynching/not lynching those who claim cop on day 1. Also, that 'assuming they're not killed in the night' is so laughable I won't comment on it.

Secondly... how do you know he would die?

Wait. So, like, right after going "(Assuming they aren't killed in the night, but you know.)" you're asking "how do you know he would die?"? I don't know this, no, but I find it bizarre that you would go after me for making a very likely (going by a precedent from past games) assumption you yourself make in that one paragraph. And then, to make it all the more puzzling, you go back on it in the next paragraph. How does that even work?

The rest of the paragraph deals with the definition of 1-for-1 and such. I'm willing to admit I could be wrong in defining it the way I did. Fine. I still think losing a cop early on in a large mafia game is worse than getting a scum of unknown power at that early time in the game, though it clearly isn't as bad a disadvantage as my previous numbers showed.

The lack of killing scum for the first day shows that... the next target town lynched was town. If the claimed cop is truthful (...let's leave EvilTom's falserole rightside claim out of this, since that's just mindraping), then you -didn't lynch the cop-. This is good. Else, yes, you avoided lynching scum... and will lynch him when the real cop has proof. ...I don't see much of the problem here.

Agreed. So? That's not what we're talking about. If you're trying to point to me staying on Tom despite the claim, then you can't divorce it from the claim coming from Tom who acted erratically. I strongly felt he was lying.

But that's beside the point, because we're discussing Andrew and fresh cops counter-claiming early on. Or are we? It seems you're moving farther and farther from that, while pressing on me. By all means, do the latter, but please keep it separate from your defense of Andrew.

On the latter, bolded paragraphs: I actually like the third option of the theorethical cop bravely fighting against scum and to support town based on the results of his investigations, without counter-claiming. You seem to believe there's either staying silent and letting scum fool town, or revealing yourself and going out in a flash of glory. There's surely another way.

[Shale]

Okay, I really should have checked in on the topic yesterday. Sorry, it was a busy day and I wouldn't have had time to do much constructive anyway, but not posting at all was stupid. Give me some time to look over what I missed and I'll get my thoughts together.

[OblivionKnight]

DON'T HURT MY DOLLY!!! ;_;

First up:

Chisa (re;Vote Count): Bad counting on my part.  I honestly think I misread text in them as votes, and didn't think to check it.  I did that one real quick right after Random Mafia, so it was a bit rushed.  Vote/Unvote fun.  Sorry for confusion.

That being said...after reading from whence I last left off (page 20, last post Tai's on page 24):

Mia...promised to post thoughts about people, to focus arguments against people she see's as worse.  There's been nothing yet.  She's also given up and roleclaimed as vanilla.  Calling herself the best person to vote for as a point of just "getting a vote and content in for the day" is...argh.  You're inviting the perfect, perfect defense for scum.  That's horrid towniness - you're simply inviting people to vote you and not have it look bad (which, in this case, there's a lot of defense supporting that thought process - there's plenty of legit arguments for scum to hide behind if they vote for you).  This makes you look much, much worse - in fact, pretty scummy in general, I'd say.  A call out for people to hide behind...why?  That's not town play at all, or very, very apathetic and defeatist town (which is just as bad).

I can see where the frustration comes from, but you're taking it a bit far, and to an extent, it kind of grew into a smokescreen in itself (as you did mention).  The hammer and not reading posts was bad - but I think this is worse.

Do I think Mia is scum?  Eh...possibly moreso than before.    I...I really am not sure how to read this.  It's another good smokescreen, and one filled with far more emotion that the last one, which makes it worse.  I think she's still probably more frustrated, green town than anything.  

Oi.  

And as I think of things:

Smodge: Post #342
Rat on the reason of stating my gut suspicions, it's usually because their more accurate than my thought out suspicions hence i state them for future reference and you never know what may come in handy, i'll still give them occasionally but i will try to keep them seperate fromt he core of my posts, so if you don't like them they can be ignored.

Your gut suspicions are more accurate than thought out ones?  Eh...just more of a warning, I had the same thoughts during the NR mafia, and it bit me in the ass.  Did not do great with it.  What Yakumo says (have a gut, see if there's anything to back it up) is the best way to go.  I really wouldn't post a gut opinion unless you have something to back it up.  Period.  That can be misconstrued (as I've learned) as an actual attack, and bring unneeded fire on a townie (or scum, but I think in general, townies are more likely to go by gut, since scum KNOW who is and isn't town, so they don't need gut opinions).  Just be careful with that.

Random other thoughts:

Tonfa and Hal are lower on my thought radar, since they've contributed pretty damn well so far (though, primarily towards each other).  Both have been pretty civil and generally good at providing commentary about the grand scope of things.  I think they're both good for now.

Smodge posting is good, though there's a lot of info there, and generally it's mostly been said before, but there's some new thoughts there, and at least he's getting his thoughts out.  So I'm happy with him.

SHALE!  WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU!?  You kind of disappeared, and it's making me sad (and other suspicious).  Has the evil arm of the media devoured your soul again?

Nitori...I...still see a lot of generalness with some...new thoughts.  But not too much original, still.  But it's improved, and he's answered some of my concerns...satisfactorily.  I'm a bit wary, but...

##Unvote: Nitori

He does bring up a good point about Chisa I didn't notice earlier - "I'd vote for me too" is not good in that regard.  Not a huge scumtell or anything, but it vaguely reminds me of the Mia smokescreen and her own "Might as well vote for me" thing.  Need to be watched.  So he does bring up other thoughts that are relevant so...works for me.  

Mr. Yak.  What...do you think of others now, of current arguments?  Right now, you said you don't have any good leads, but you put a vote on me for lurkerness, but I don't remember much from you (forgive me if I'm wrong) being said so far.

Ciato - You've gone kind of quiet.  Granted, I suppose there wasn't much earlier besides Mia, but what do you think of Andrew now?

Speaking of Andrew now: Mmm...I can see some issues, but I don't think he's calling explicitly for people to role reveal.  I...just as a question, what IS considered fishing for role reveals?  Obviously, calling for all cops to roleclaim to counter Tom would have been a fustercluck, but is musing about potential roles and what could happen with them considered fishing for roles?  Musing to put thoughts out there doesn't seem too dangerous, and could be helpful (just saying, "oh, a doc might have protected him" is what I mean by that) in some cases, though yes, fishing too much is scummy.

In general, I think Quietrain is town - she's hard to read - a lot.  But she's been very aggressive and pro-town, so yays.

Alex also has been very tough and pro-town, so I'm not wary of him at all.

So, with my current vote, I do feel a need to pressure my fellow Pennsylvania...

##Vote: Shale

Please do talk good ma'am.  

[OblivionKnight]

And there's Shale.  Still keeping the vote until I hear from you!  Mia and Andrew being the hot topics (not related to the store).

This is my usual post pattern, just as a reference.  One to two large posts a day or so is about what I'll be doing with my schedule, though I will try to get more out of them later.

[Kilgamayan]

Let's Play Danmaku Detective Game! Vote Count:

Patchcloud (6): Ran, Otter, Chisa, Carthrat, Gatewalker, Nitori
Chisa (0): Carthrat, Nitori
Tonfa (1): Corwin, Halbarad
Nitori (0): OblivionKnight
Halbarad (0): El Cideon
QuietRain (1): AndrewRogue
Shale (4): Tonfa, El Cideon, Smodge13, OblivionKnight
OblivionKnight (1): Yakumo
Taishyr (0): Corwin
AndrewRogue (1): Corwin
Corwin (1): Taishyr

Love Count:

Chen (1): Ran
Everyone (2): OblivionKnight, Taishyr (drunk)
Nitori (1): Nitori
Reisen (3): Corwin, Taishyr (spark bullets), El Cideon
Strago (1): Taishyr (spark bullets)
Ran (1): Yukari

Hate Count:

Kaguya (1): Mokou

With 19 people alive, it takes 10 votes to lynch.

About 11.5 hours to go. If people want to start sending me night actions, that'd be good, though if you want to hold off to see how the day plays out I understand perfectly.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Still alive, friends. End of Random Mafia was generally my focus last night (and yay, caught scum!) and indulging in the sweet deliciousness of Fire Emblem. If Meeple were here he could tell us about that.

*winks and gives a thumbs up* I'll be posting in a bit, right now I need to wake up and get some breaskfast~

[Corwin]

Well, it seems at least one person (ie OK) doesn't get the excessive roleclaim-pushing vibes I'm getting from Andrew, so time to quote from Andrew's posts. I'll go back from the present, since the last posts feature is geared towards that. I'll also be bolding the sections that jumped at me when I read his posts.

His last post to date (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=329.msg4907#msg4907) :

However, I see you adamantly pursuing an individual, on day one, who has, unopposed, claimed one of town's best roles.

Later on in that same post:

As for the other thing... I could be mistaken, but I believe it IS important to catch scum impersonating cops ASAP as they can screw up the logic of the game really badly, really quickly. So yes, I do believe once they have some substantiation, real cop out to ought the liar as quick as they can.

(Also, please note, I did say once he could substantiate it. An immediate counterclaim is bad, my point was more that we had no conflicting evidence saying Tom was not cop).

I'm not quoting the entire posts. That would be ridiculous. Those who believe the quotes I'm using are out of context are free to follow the links I'm providing to the posts themselves.

From this post alone, I'm getting this sense of urgency. Just look at the terms he's using, the way he's pushing for any cops to immediately counterclaim ASAP once they have proof. Not once they've collected enough information, but from the get go.

His post before this one (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=329.msg4781#msg4781):

And idly, the problem with a hugely delayed counterclaim is that it allows misinformation to spread and become harder to get yourself accepted as the proper cop. It also means you can start playing the protection game as well as quite likely take out a scum in the process. In other words, if you can generally get scum killed, you should. We win with exchanges and what have you.

Again, I'm getting a sense of urgency. If you're a cop and can bury the other claim? Stand up straight away, or it's bad! Which I agree with, to a point, but like I argued with Tai a cop would be better served not claiming and  going after confirmed scum the way all other regular townies do (with arguments) this early on and in a game of this size. And Andrew is certainly talking in reference to our case of a day 1 cop claim, and what he would've liked our cop(s) to do.

The post before this touches upon the votecount hijinks. Idly, Andrew never commented on how I saw this as a minor scumtell (ie inattention to detail, usually a sign of scum play), and later on went to say that he saw no problem with it, not seeing anything scummy here. It's true that we all forget things, but to just ignore my argument? Eh. That's not what I'm looking at, here.

Moving further back, into day 1 territory. I don't believe the move of votes from Patchu to Strago needs to be included, I don't see anything particularly relevant to this there. Defends Tom, which is a valid POV (I didn't believe Tom, a few others didn't either, but it wasn't the One True Way).

Another post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=329.msg4601#msg4601):

Yeah, sure, we can get along with a cop. But why on earth would we do that when we don't really need to? We hammer Tom now, we get either dead scum or dead cop. If we wait, we can (potentially) later confirm his actual alignment and deal with him, all without smacking down an (uncountered, might I add) cop claim?

I suppose this is at the core of my suspicion of Andrew wanting a day 1 counterclaim from cops. This was clearly posted on day 1, and tried to argue for Tom's sake while mentioning no claims to the opposite have been made (and seeming to invite any). So no, he never said "HAY COPS CLAIM ON DAY 1" and I never argued such. But his words and the pattern of his posts certainly felt like he was trolling for claims or, at the very least, felt a cop counterclaim on day 1 was acceptable.

Looking farther back, I see nothing else really relevant to my case. However, here is that update that Tai seemed to want, of what exactly Andrew has said that seemed scummy and how it was said. Please comment, people. If this remains just between Tai and myself I fear Andrew's scumminess would fade into the background.

[Shale]

Okay, first things first. People have already hashed over Miasma's ranthammer from Day 1, and reading over it I don't see anything noteworthy that hasn't already been mentioned.

So. Stream-of-consciousness writing like that when under pressure can be a town tell - viz. Ciato in FFT. But Miasma wasn't under pressure. She had...what, two votes? One of which was the wacky Andrew vote, and the other of which was my "talk more" prod?

Suspecting Tom and voting Strago is more suspicious, but at the same time if there was ever a case when you can excuse suspecting one of the leaders more but voting the other, it's when there's a cop claim in the mix. Buuuuuuut that's not what she said at all. She didn't even reference it as part of the dilemma. Her justification involved casting a vote so we could lynch someone and trusting the majority, etc...except that if she didn't know the current totals, then as far as she'd know Strago was in the majority, and why vote Tom then? And if she did...well, she could still vote Tom and make it 10 to 9 with time left on the clock. This really, really does not add up for me. It looks like she's voting first and coming up with retroactive justifications when asked for them. I wish I could compare her hammer post to how she normally plays town, to better assess the "stream-of-consciousness townie rant" possibility, but I've never played this game with her before.

Andrew post in a bit, although my gut reaction is that the thought of a cop counterclaim is absurd, because you can't counterclaim a cop when there hasn't been a night phase yet! The only "counter" that could come out on day 1 is "you can't be the cop I'm the cop," which would presuppose that there's only one cop in the game, which in turn is stupid.

[Shale]

...dangit forgot the last sentence.

"The only "counter" that could come out on day 1 is "you can't be the cop I'm the cop," which would presuppose that there's only one cop in the game, which in turn is stupid. Honestly, that makes me more suspicious of Andrew than not, because given that the idea of a second cop claim disproving the first is fairly ludicrous, scum have a much better reason to wonder about a counterclaim than town."

[VySaika]

Well, Cor and Tai seem to be getting into it over Andy and his roleclaim fishing...hmm. I'm not really sure what to think on this, as I didn't get the feeling of trolling for roleclaims out of him before, but reading back to what Cor has linked and quoted/bolded has...yeah. Now it does look like Andy was trolling for claims, which really grates against my earlier town read on him. Hell, he was probably the person I was most willing to defend as Town a few minutes ago, but...ugh. Trolling for roleclaims is BAD JUJU. But...he does say that immediate counterclaims are bad, and that I certainly agree with...but the wording of the rest almost seems to invite an immediate counterclaim. That could just as easily be poor wording as trolling for roles, but that puts us back into the "townie mistake/scum how can you tell the difference" thing.

I suppose at this point I'm highly interested in seeing Andy's responses to Cor and Tai now. Because at the moment, I'm not sure whether Andy's behavior here is a scum tell or just playstyle logic that I disagree with. I'm leaning towards the latter though.

Re: Smodge
Yay for content. As for the reason I, at least, wasn't on your case for lurking right now is because it's the weekend, and as I am someone who isn't around much on the weekend, I'd feel like a critical hippo if I were to come down hard on anyone else for it. Now if you'd skid through the whole weekend and into monday with little to no content, I'd come down on it, but just on Saturday? Meh, people have stuff to do on saturday.

Re: patchu
Patchu patchu~ where are you? I'm not going to regurgitate what everyone else has said about what to do when you're looking like you're on the way down, but I do still want to see more from you. It isn't as impossible to change our minds as you seem to think.

Re: ...everything else?
Conversation seems to have been dominated by the Andy/Cor/Tai "role fishing" thing lately, so there really isn't much else to talk about.

So, in closing, uh... ##Love: QR Mine! ^_^;

[Chisa]

Well, the difference between my "I'd vote for me too" and Cloud's wholesale shutdown is just that.  I said that I had acted very strange with my vote the first day, and it was understandable in my mind why people would stick votes on me.  I then went on to talk about other things.  Where as Patch got defensive, contradicted herself, then just shut down and seemed to accept the lynch.  While we're on the subject, I don't find the vanilla claim to point either way, because while vanilla town is plausible from well, anyone, scum don't and shouldn't know roles this early, and vanilla is safe.

Corwin, QR, and you, Rat?  Well, for Corwin I guess it can be that while he'd done a nice amount of posting, I just didn't see that much that hit me as a tell.  Acting suspicious of the other train is natural from either side of the fence.  He has looked into the cop fishing pretty hard since my mega post of death, which does raise him a few points in my esteem, and also makes good points about Andrew.
You, now, have been a kick in the ass to town all game.  By that, I mean the best thing I see about you is that you actively set out to get other people speaking, and not just on a specific target.  This isn't something I associate with scum.  Also, your analysis has not only been present from the start, it's been pretty good looking as well, making me think.
QR, well, has been saying a lot, and pointing things out.  That's good.  But she's said suspect things in there as well.  That quote wasn't an isolated incident of Tom hate.  Her next post says she doesn't believe Tom to be a town asset even if he is town.  At that point, it's logical to think that lying about cop -> scum, so it's the same statement, basically, without the magic C word.  In the analysis post, says she probably would have gone along with Alex if it hadn't been Tom.  As I said, yes, bad player.  But if you think he's so bad that even if he is a cop, you'd rather lynch him anyway...it just seems off to me.  The defense to Andrew was a bit defensive, yes, but by itself I wouldn't see it as a big deal.  I suppose it came of reading her posts in isolation, comparing them to what came before.

Now, I need to look at this cop fishing argument and see what I think of it.  Give me a little bit.

[mia~]

Patchu is here but has been sleeping forever and ever. Wearing pajamas 24/7 induces sleeping, or something. I'll eat lunch -> write post ORRRR multitask and write post while eating lunch. xXxTREME TYPING.

[Chisa]

Alright, looked over both sides.  To be fair, there are good points on both.  For one, I do think that trading one-for-one with scum is a good thing, there being much less scum than town, and if there's someone to save the cop's ass, it's even better.  But counterclaiming this early in general is not such a good idea.  For one, what if the target's a miller, or you turn out to be paranoid?  Yes, if you can be sure the first claim is a lie, drop the bomb.  But day two, no one has that much information.

In the specific case here, Andrew, who's got a bit of town cred from his semi-claim, wants to see false claims punished as soon as possible.  While the main thrust of the argument is something I agree with, Corwin's analysis of what he said and how he said it does make me uneasy.  The day two stuff isn't as worrisome as the one thing he points out from day one, noting Andrew's possible look for a counterclaim that early.  I really want to hear from Andrew regarding that post before this day ends.
Tai's invovlement here...well, once again, the main thrust is punishing false claims from scum.  Which is a good thing.  He just seems like a player advocating good town tactics.  I think the vote is misplaced, but I can also see why he did it.  The lurking is a strike on him, but that's a separate issue.  We've got more lurky people than him, just look at Yak.

So, fellow servant, the ball's in your court.

[QuietRain]

Wow.  Took me 3 hours to go back and re-read the thread start to finish, stopping here and there to write notes.  So, below are my thoughts on people/situations that most caught my attention:

---------------------------------
The frontrunners for votes today so far are Shale and Patchy.

Patchy: I am really reading her as erratic and way too emotional in her responses to people aiming at her, but I don't know whether I think it's a townie tell or scum tell.  I think it might just be a patchy-tell which doesn't help me at all.  She has said that she's writing up a response post and I am looking forward to reading that.  I'm not sold one way or the other, but there are enough warning signs in her inconsistancies and behavior to warrant watching.

Shale: In reading back over, I am not getting any sort of scummy read.  In fact, the opposite as I'm finding myself agreeing with much that he's saying, especially as it regards the TYom/Strago voting from day 1.  I'm getting a townie vibe atm.

Now, as for my vote today.  Outside of Tom, there's no one that is really reading as scum to me yet.  There are a few people who have caught my attention by odd things (Patchy's behavior, Andrew's comments about cops and the Corwin/Tai thing revolving around that), but none of it says Scum to me, just the usual fall out of Day 1 paranoia.  I am saving my vote for now.  I'd like to see Patchy's response before I make a final decision on that.
---------------------------------

As a note, in reading over the whole thing again, I think I got a little skimmy towards the end.  If anyone has asked me to respond to something specifically and I missed it or if there's something you want me to say more on, please let me know.