Cthulu Mafia - TOWN (drunk) WIN, MADNESS SOMEWHAT AVERTED

[Chiaki]

Wait, I take that back, Kolmogorov is a Miller according to Hargreaves, so he CAN'T be Scum if Hargreaves is telling the truth.  Flipping either Kolmogorov or Greaves will tell us Hargreaves's alignment, Kolmogorov certainly, Greaves almost certainly.

There might theoretically be scum with the power to return false results to rolecops (if any even exist), and that may include (fake) Miller; but they wouldn't actually be a Miller, and wouldn't be informed of anything special if targeted by Chad's power.

I don't think it's likely, but it is possible.

[Chiaki]

Also, I disagree with taking Hargreaves off the table. His claim proves that he is very likely a rolecop, but that's not enough to clear his alignment.

[Asuka Langley]

Still don't have much time on my hands, and it will be like this until Saturday, most likely. Might be able to follow up with a proper (re)read and thoughts later this evening, else I really ought to have the time to catch up in about 24 hours from now.

Personally, I would have been willing to believe that scum miller would be a perfectly sensible role to exist given the set up, but if the mod will insist it doesn't exist then great, there goes the last thread of doubt on Jack.

Peyton I never had a problem with barring the tl;dr-scapades. Never thought his role was overpowered, especially once the slow-kill came up scum.

Nathan I'm willing to clear all bar a huge gambit involving him and Samuel, and even then that would be a horribly unnecessary risk. A scum reviver would have been so much better off raising Ethan to waste town an extra day, or otherwise just not raising anyone, either of which he could have gotten away with unless he was expecting to get hit by a rolecop or similar. This assumes no counter-claim, but go figure no. Not completely convinced, though.

But yes, there are now enough details on the board to confirm that townSamuel => townNikolai.

Peyton: so far as your plans go, I'm certainly far, far more interested in the other four than from picking from within the three. I'd actually forgotten about Seamus, who had been shooting up the list as I was turning in my grave.

I'm also wondering about this weird paired powers thing that's emerging. Revivers and rolecops, and possibly even doctors, cops, millers and bulletproofs. As much as everything that's happened as shrieked to keep me away from set up meta.


Anyway.

The night 2 action. That's the important part. Go figure I don't have a night 3 action to report about.

The core of it first: Samuel knows scum's secret, one way or another.

Which would of course work out if he is scum, hence my asking for his flavour in a way that implied I knew something about his flavour and he'd have to tell the truth of it even if he is scum. I don't think he is (if he is, scum's gambit has been so heavily pushed towards making him untouchable, and risking it failing so badly, especially if anything happens to Nikolai, say, even a rolecop or similar), and in which case I believe he doesn't inherently know that he knows the secret, but better safe than sorry. I haven't digested his story well enough to think about it, but I'm guessing the monster in a chapel thing could be it? I'd certainly expect it to be the confession of one of the people along the way or the like.

Not that I'm sure how much use it can be even if we can extract it. Likewise still don't know what the information from the first night was supposed to mean, other than that 'inside' clearly was intended as number of scum. Millers seems less likely now, and it looks rather unlikely to mean ITP on top.


My position is still pretty ragged given that I still have lots of reading to do, but you'll forgive me for playing to my own pace when I'm stretched for time and confirmed town. I'd mostly be down for voting Kyle or Seamus at the moment, so you know, but will at least have the grace of getting myself back up to speed before accusing them of days past. As much as Kyle has already confused me today by writing himself into a trap, which I'm rarely able to reconcile as being scum.

[Excal]

Blarg, hate this stage of the game.  No real idea of who's who, leading to no real ability to work out a proper post, so I'm just going to force this and hope it works.

In general terms, I'm hard pressed to disagree with what Peyton had to say.  The people who are cleared are cleared.  And while he isn't quite cleared to me, I'm not about to challenge his cry of slowkill, meaning unless someone is holding back on something it's pointless to hold back on, he's it.  However, I'm not sold on the solid acceptance of the trio.  My reasoning is as such.  I know my alignment, leaving three other people in the crosshairs.  And...  honestly, given the interaction between Hayles and Dale I'm thinking they're not two scum together.  Dynamic between them isn't quite right.  This leaves Martin and the salesman.  Both of whom I'm perfectly happy with going for.

But the pLYLO shows perfect numbers for four scum, not three.  Which means that one of the three in that trio has to be scum.  Honestly, Nikolai could just be lucky enough to be some kind of rolecop godfather.  Though it could also be a scum gambit, which it would have to be for either of the other two where it could just be a Scum Reviver or Scum Rolecop putting their hand out there for Town in order to blend in.  Hargreaves I'm especially worried about since there a Scum gambit makes an odd amount of sense.  With everything that's already come out, adding more to the pile just makes it that much easier to convince Town to let out the rest of the setup and save him the work while at the same time giving him credit.

Of the people who are currently getting scrutiny, I'm heavily in favour of Kyle.  Dale, I've generally found to make sense, and after his exchanges with Hayles I put him above the trio.  And Martin...  while I was critical of him, his posts in the time since my last serious post have all been solid stuff.  More so than Nikolai's been pulling out, which has oddly swapped my views on them.

So...  if I had to post a suspicion list, right now it'd be....

Handley > Hargreaves > Nikolai = Grave = Martins > Dale > Peyton > Town

And with that, might as well vote.

##Vote: Kyle Handley

Also, a final note for Peyton.  While I did say I would be around for one of those day ends, if you take a look at Jack's post right after that, you'll note that I was horribly off on when day end was, and was expecting to be back after day ended.

[Hunter Sopko]

Correction on my previous post. Seamus has not spoken up today at all either, which is very suspicious given the case on him. So lurk lurk on Nikolai AGAIN and now Seamus.

Something I noticed on a re-read of Seamus is this post: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php/topic,4828.msg105152.html#msg105152

He calls out Ethan/Ronald Day 2 as being a possible scum gambit... no offense, but who the heck saw that? This seems like a call of too much information to me. I can't see how anyone would make this connection AT THAT JUNCTURE. After the flip? Yes. Day 3 when the train was running? Sure. Day 2? Pretty suspicious, given the rest of Seamus' behavior. I'm actually more inclined to believe the whole Ethan/Ronald/Seamus gambit I mentioned in my previous post, as doing it with 4 scum alive is more likely than Sam trying to pull something with only the three alive. Wouldn't you know it too? Both Ronald and Seamus are in that 4 person grouping. If Seamus continues to not post, he's the only person out of the 4 that I'd advocate lynching today. There's still a chance Ronald is innocent in this, as if Seamus is scum, then Ronald may just be the victim of getting tied to scum by proxy, but I'm leaning the scum gambit at this point.

If anyone out of the 3, I'd say Nikolai. Yes, it doesn't give us as much information as Sam would, but... scummy play is scummy play. What new stuff if there even to SAY about Nikolai of the "Haven't bothered to post yet today"?

To Ronald: First you call me too aggressively scummy today here due to evening out the trains yesterday. Now I was too passive and careful during LYLO? Which is it? These things contradict themselves.

GODDAMNIT Ninja'd by Seamus. Oh well. Nothing to change really...

[Asuka Langley]

Oh, if it's not been completely accepted here yet, then yes, there are pretty much definitely three more scum to find, for a total of four. I'd worked out from the sidelines that it'd be game over from 11 people if you lynched the reviver (very specifically, so no one would be revived that night), and the fast kill and slow kill both took out townies, leaving 4:4 left for a scum win. It's no longer LYLO of any form, which makes sense given that a mislynch plus two townie deaths at night still only puts it at 4:3. Scum would need way too much power to have potential LYLO yesterday with only three.

Doesn't quite clear Nathan on its own, as the other way to simulate no townie revival would be with a scum reviver (and any mislynch), but I just don't get the angle at all.

The big issue is that the game does seem to be wrapped up in a pretty ribbon - four lynches left in the game for four obvious people. Even more so when people inside of the box agree with this. So yeah, of course I start by trying to unwrap that. I'm still getting to grips with playing with holes in the box, but I keep on running into issues with scumSamuel (largely instrumental in most theories outside of the box) - it involves scum gambits that are horribly paced, horribly weighted and massively flawed, at least without knowledge of the game set up. It's like sure, maybe lots of the first level problems I can put my finger on (like, I don't think Samuel's been playing scummily, and was instrumental in getting Ethan lynched yesterday) can be explained by bussing, trade offs or generally playing a long-term gambit on Samuel (a relative newcomer at that - even if he's the godfather I'd have trouble believing a scum team strategy that involves him being alone and perfecting the end game) making it to the end, but it still only works assuming a long list of powers known and unknown don't screw them over in the meantime.

I'm pretty sure there are people in the box who need frying. I'm just not certain about that ribbon.



As townSamuel => townNikolai, we also have scumNikolai => scumSamuel. There is, I believe, no point in lynching Nikolai ahead of Samuel. If anyone is absolutely sure of Nikolai, then they need to convince themselves of Samuel as well and if anyone gets that far, then definitely vote Samuel over Nikolai. It is a strictly superior move, short of something crazy like weird role concerns. Not that I'm personally advocating voting Samuel, but voting for Nikolai here is a waste of time. Ignore that, Martin's mod quote from hours ago reminds me that there is a possibility for {townSamuel, scumNikolai} that renders this faulty. I'd say the situation is contrived, but then so goes a lot of the set up, and passing off as fake miller to scans in this game would be useful enough that I can't disregard it at a game build level.

Oh, and whatever has happened to the fast kill? I still haven't read the posts in full yet, but I didn't think I saw anyone claim to have taken that bullet for last night.



Yeah, guess it'll be tomorrow evening where I get to actually be useful, rather than just this faff without an actual read.

[Princess Leia]

Mo Bike: I'll have another look and if anything pops out I'll mention it, but there's not a lot more to say; no detailed confessions and certainly nothing that obviously stands out as the scum secret. As regards the monster, I didn't get too close a look at whatever it was, it was actually in the basement of the chapel, but there were lots of tentacles - and then afterwards, a lot of ichor, that burned unholy quick. The priest, or whatever looked like the priest (not that there was anything in the flavour to suggest he wasn't a normal human, but who knows; I burnt the place down around both their remains) had been keeping it there, it seemed, feeding it on the wounded and orphans given into his care. ((The situation reminds me of nothing so much as a certain oriental tale of those who sought the holy grail, but in that case it would've been Hadley's nemesis I'd expect to find there, not this... thing)). Maybe the scum are raising something similar here, but I've no idea what that would mean mechanically or how knowing it would help us.

Time for a proper look; apologies that I'm repeating things already said. Bike is absolutely cleared, and Daniels, Kolmogorov and Greaves are as good as (at least as far as I'm concerned), and in the unlikely event that Hadley is lying we can afford to spend today looking elsewhere for the rest of the scum and string him up tomorrow.
Which leaves me looking at O'Malley, Dale, Handley and Andrews.

First, Dale. In this post, he calls Hayles on an "offhand comment", and mentioning him "so he can jump on me if there's a case to be made" - and then proceeds to do much the same himself at the end of the post, with a one-line mention of Greaves. Minor, but odd. I give him a little credit for finding the cast-iron confirmation that Hayles was lying; even though anyone could've done that, it helps town.  Some weird things tacked on the ends of his posts that might be breadcrumbs in which case whatever or might just be random flavour, in which case they're not interfering with his actual posts. All in all I feel strangely non-suspicious of him; he's been flying pretty low, but nothing in his posts has smelt scummy to me. Which is no guarantee, but when each of the other three has felt wrong in their own way, I don't think I can support a lynch of him today.

The case against Andrews is simple enough; ultra lurking. But I think he's actually contributed a decent amount of insight in the last day or so; e.g. this attack on greaves is correct, if easy. Point about scum also wanting to kill Pietro is original, and his reasoning here is correct; whatever you think of me it makes no sense to go after Kolgomorov or Greaves today, because if they were scum then I would have to be too, but the reverse doesn't hold. I think he may actually have made more of a contribution than O'Malley or even Handley.

Handley looks worse on a reread. His case on Andrews is at best a playstyle difference and at worst getting into misrepresentation. His vote comes at the worst possible time, and now I see he doesn't even mention the day's big case, instead talking about... three guys who it emerges are all town, not that I can fault him for being on Greaves. Today's first post is all roles, and the followup is delayed longer than he seemed to imply it'd be (and much as I hate to use this as an argument, he misreasons a clear of me (see Andrews). I was about to give him credit for solid reasoning in his most recent post, and then I see that he STILL WANTS TO LYNCH NIKOLAI ARRGH.

O'Malley, meanwhile, has been a ghost. Day 3 he was on Hayles early and clearing Greaves at the same time. Which I would say was town, but, frankly, Greaves looked pretty bad. Couple that with the premature assumption that the slowkill was scum and I'm starting to see Handley's case of knowing a little too much. And wait, now he's completely reversed his position on Hayles/Dale, going from thinking they were a scumpair on day 2 to using their interactions to clear Dale now? What?

I think that does it for me. Handley has given us a lot of bad, but also a decent amount of good; O'Malley has given a little bad and a whole lot of nothing. (Of course, odds are they're both scum, but that's a lazy way out). ##Vote: Seamus O'Malley, and I can't see myself voting for anyone outside of those two barring major revelations.

I guess O'Malley's right about one thing: with three scum among four possibilities, it's time to start thinking about possible teams, but that would need an even bigger reread and I've already spent literally all evening on this post. Bike ninja unread.

[Bardiche]

Ronald Dale;

Sopley: You were too passive. What I posted earlier is still holding against you your passive attitude until you voted Kolmogorov when a proven scumtrain is the other alternative. Before that you only voiced suspicion, said you needed more than usual to vote and... proceeded to do absolutely nothing until voting Kolmogorov insofar as getting involved and, y'know, steering the lynch any direction.

Bike: The fastkill has indeed not been claimed today. My personal feelings on the Greaves-Hargreaves events are mixed and conflicted. It just feels a little... too coincidental that Hargreaves scanned Greaves on the night of nights that revival happened. Given that Hellsnake was given a conditional time for his revival I wonder if Greaves' suffered the same, or that his only penalty is "You can't protect someone" with what sounds like a useless Doctor role...

Which is also fishy: why does Hargreaves refuse to divulge full information on Nikolai, but is perfectly happy outing a Doctor assuming that those Doctor powers would just be useless based on his own powers.

... ESPECIALLY because of this flip:

Chad Hutchins, Town Squeaky-Clean Doctor, went crazy and disappeared!  (Can protect one person a night from normal nightkills.  Can protect self only once ever.  Returns just 'doctor' to rolecops.  Unknown to self, always returns a sanity-independent and mod-guaranteed town to cop investigations due to trustworthy All-American nature.  Doctor targets also lose Miller status permanently.)

Can protect one person a night from normal nightkills.  Can protect self only once ever.  Returns just 'doctor' to rolecops.

Can protect one person a night from normal nightkills. Even knowing this, can he really justify outing Greaves the way he has?

Ah, Hargreaves himself pre-empts me. Explain yourself please.

[SnowFire]

Votecount.

Nathan Greaves [1]: Ronald Dale (Bardiche)
Seamus (Excal) [2]: Nathan Greaves, Sam Hargreaves
Kyle Handley (Sopko) [1]: Seamus (Excal)

With 10 investigators, it takes 6 to lynch.  Day 4 will end in ~43 hours.

[Hunter Sopko]

Handley looks worse on a reread. His case on Andrews is at best a playstyle difference and at worst getting into misrepresentation. His vote comes at the worst possible time, and now I see he doesn't even mention the day's big case, instead talking about... three guys who it emerges are all town, not that I can fault him for being on Greaves. Today's first post is all roles, and the followup is delayed longer than he seemed to imply it'd be (and much as I hate to use this as an argument, he misreasons a clear of me (see Andrews). I was about to give him credit for solid reasoning in his most recent post, and then I see that he STILL WANTS TO LYNCH NIKOLAI ARRGH.

Multiple people have broken it down to the group of 3 involving you and the group of 4 (me, Seamus, Martin, Ronald). Maybe Ronald is right and I am being too cautious, but you yourself say that I'm misreasoning into clearing you, so why is at least holding a shred of doubt on Nikolai still that bad? Where is he? He has your clear, yes, but what about his behavior backs up your claim? He's below Seamus at this point, but there comes a point where you still have to question it. Maybe not now, but possibly sometime in the future. Also, if you read the post again, I say that there are reasons people are saying they are off the table and here's why, not "ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE UNTOUCHABLE! PERIOD!". It was more meant as a summation than a definitive statement. Why call me out and not Peyton for it?

But you're right. The more I think about it the less and less doubt I can cast on you at this point. There isn't enough evidence to reconcile that it's all some insane gambit for all involved, whereas Seamus at least has a strong case against him.

##Vote: Seamus O'Mexcally

[Nathan Greaves]

Just posting to say O'Malley's done nothing in particular to convince me to move my vote. Can't say much has emerged today to convince me to shift on any of my suspicions, except for Bike's little tidbit about Hargreaves. Still not enough to get me to class him as being scummier than O'Malley, though.

[Tanaka]

* Jack Daniels takes a deep drink.

Chad, Chad, Chad.  What did I tell you?  What did I tell you?

* Jack Daniels snorts, sighs, and sets down the bottle.  "You should have stopped lookin' into what your sumbitch father done... told him nothin' good could have come of it."

Sorry, folks, I's been a bit silent.  Chad's death's weighin' on me pretty hard. ((Reality: I have been too tired to deal with Mafia until this evening.))  But... now's not the time fer it, is it?

I been mullin' it over, and I done think Hargreaves is a pretty solid candidate fer town.  I have very few issues with his play, and he comes off especially townie in light of his early day 3 play.  I was a little bit wary of him not considering the possibility of scum Nikolai, but given what he knows of ol' Nik it makes a bit more sense t' me.  Nah, I don't agree with a lot of his judgments (namely trusting Nikolai and Greaves), but fer those of yew questionin' why he done outed Greaves:  if he hadn't, he'd-a been a right fine candidate fer lynchin' come t'day, and frankly the outin' of our reviver comes with quite a bit more credibility comin' from an established rolecop ('specially by his day 3 dealin's with mehself).  Seein' as noone else has claimed the reviver position, Greaves seems right towny t' me as well in light o' this.  As far as I'm concerned at this point, both Hargreaves and Greaves are town er this is the trickiest dang gambit I done since Barnaby got shot and...

...

* Jack Daniels takes a good, long drink.

I done said too much.  Let's... let's ferget about that, shan't we?

Anywho, given my suspicions o' Samuel bein' town, I'm pretty dang sure he and Greaves are clear to me.  What I AIN'T sure o' is Nikolai bein' clear.  Mayhaps I'm readin' too much into the "Hargreaves knows scum's secret" bit ol' Bike brought up, but could it 'a been a clue 'bout Nikolai's alignment?  Maybe no, maybe yes.  Given that Nik's full role ain't been divulged I don't think think it's wise to vote on 'im, 'specially since at the rate he's goin' he'll get struck down by the God all mighty... ((at least this time I don't think I've seen him active in chat?))

And regardless o' that I've always thought that when Nikolai opened his ruskie mouth he brought somethin' t' the table, so in light o' that, I'm goin' ta focus on the "other" group, as has been divided all in my mind, in Peyton's posts, and in Kyle's posts.

Martin Andrews.  Problem with this feller is that he ain't got much sed, and what he's brought since bein' able to give his attention t' the game has been pretty good.  One o' my criticisms is that, yes, while Pietro's kill looks far more towny in hind than it do in the fore, recall that Pietro had been implyin' that he weren't sane AND found that Hellsinki were scum (so naive's out, and the only possible sanities were insane or paranoid. After Hellsnake claimed Miller... well, scum KNEW Hellsnake were town, so they knew he had no dang reason at all to claim Miller 'less he was.  They also KNEW Pietro were town, so the obvious scum deduction was that Pietro was Paranoid.  So scum killin' Pietro don't make much sense t' me.  Again, I ain't positive on this, but I'm pretty sure the instant kill comes from a town-friendly role.  Er at least a role that were town-friendly at the time 'cuz it done benefitted them ((I don't really know Mafia 3rd party roles, so yeah.))  Still, this is such a thing that don't strike me as scummy

Aside from that... we got...

Kyle "Sopko" Handley. 
Ronald "Bardiche" Dale.
And finally, Seamus "Excal" O'Malley.

((I'm gonna read through these folks soon.  I'm tired right now, but might be reading Mafia anyway, so if I am I'll do those one of 3.  I don't work 'til the afternoon tomorrow, and though I've got intern stuff and homework to do I'll probably be able to read through these 3 before deadline.  I'm not putting a vote down yet because though I'm pretty sure it'll be on one of them (probably Kyle or Seamus), this will force me to check back up on the topic before deadline at the very least.

Oh, yeah, re: Excal:  What 4 scum are left?  If you'll recall, we got rid of Ethan Hayles quite handily already.  So, 4 scum, minus one already = 3 scum left.  That doesn't necessitate that one of the Hargreaves trio is scum to work out even if you're in the second grouping.  Maybe I'm putting too much trust into that trio based on Hargreaves alone, but... I don't think so, at least at this juncture. 

On a side note, if the remaining three scum are the ones who didn't use an alt. account for ease of last post review I will enjoy lynching every one of you sumbitches.))

[Li Syaoran]

This is a placeholder anti-modkill post while a literal wall containing analysis of the what is it now, multiple claims including that of another rolecop-like role, a resurrecting doctor, and confirmed-townie-Bike come back from the dead holy shit this game just got downright bizarre.

[Princess Leia]

Briefly before work

Dale: Normal nightkills, i.e. the town-aligned one, not slowkills, i.e. the scum one. At least that's the way I read it.
Even for this game, two doctors who are actually effective seems outright crazy; four protective roles that don't do a blind bit of good fits a lot better, just like how it seems we have all these millers and no actual cops.

Handley: I'm paying more attention to you than to Peyton. Your clear of me is misreasoned because as Andrews said, even if you do trust Nikolai and Greaves all I've proven is that I'm a rolecop, not that I'm town. Keeping some suspicion of Nikolai yes, but there's no sense at all going after him today; if you think he's scum either you think I'm lying in which case you should be on me, or he's got some kind of crazy godfather role that returns miller to rolecops when the mod has explicitly said there's no such thing as a scum miller, in which case frankly you should be on SnowFire.

[SnowFire]

Votecount.

Nathan Greaves [1]: Ronald Dale (Bardiche)
Seamus (Excal) [3]: Nathan Greaves, Sam Hargreaves, Kyle Handley (Sopko)
Kyle Handley (Sopko) [1]: Seamus (Excal)

With 10 investigators, it takes 6 to lynch.  Day 4 will end in ~25 hours.

[Chiaki]

Jack: Hm. I didn't think of it like that, but as I recall Pietro only said he might not be sane. Leaving a town cop around to investigate is a pretty huge risk for scum to take, even if he has a higher-than-usual chance of craziness. Not to mention that he might have had a variant role! (Wokka wokka wokka! I'm here all week. Tip your waitress.)

Anyway, time to get down to brass tacks. I think we all know how I feel about Kyle at this point. what we, including I, don't know is how I feel about Excal O'Irishguy over there, because I haven't looked too hard at him all game. Let's fix that.

Day 1: He dismisses the case on Tyrone with some rather odd reasoning:

As for Callahan.  He is oddly stubborn about his attack.  But I'm not sure if I see that as a scum trait or not.  I do find his own single-mindedness to be worrying though.  Especially the way he portrays the way the day's gone as a 1v1 between him and Moses, when it's actually him railing at Moses (even when he tries to get away, it's all centred around him) whereas Moses has been keeping his attention on a lot of different things.  So that chracterization as a 1v1 really does feel wrong.  Especially since there's been times when someone else might have come close to starting a train of their own.

I guess the main reason why I don't feel strongly towards Callahan is because outside of that one post, he hasn't been trying to start anything on someone besides Moses.

So Callahan's single-mindedness is worrying, but it's tempered by the fact that he's been single-mindedly focusing on Moses without floating any other cases, which makes him look less scummy. Okay, that makes perfect--what?

He goes on to vote Pietro, a decision for which I cannot fault anyone.

Day 2: Another vote on Pietro, and then a whole lot of noncommittal uselessness on everybody else. Mild prods for clarification directed at a few people, never getting harsh enough to actually call one suspicious, and a whole lot of maybe-this-is-scummy-but-who-knows about Ronald. Then the switch to Hellsnake, and that's...a bit loopy.

Specifically, the rolefish.  The way it played out just screamed I want an excuse to claim miller when he told the whole story.  And while I could buy it when he first made it (Bike made it sound like the Mistaken Town option simply wasn't, so he's either Town about to die, or lying scum, and both of those you want to get as much info out of as possible, if only so it either doesn't die with 'em, or so it hold's 'em tight so they can't change their tale later), he apparently didn't believe Bike was dying when he asked.  And now we've got Payton saying he's got reason to think Bike's not dying at all.  So...  yeah.  Strike the first.

Not to mention, I think Bike's one of the people I'm willing to trust.  Which means that if this story of his does refer to non-town and millers, then we've got one too many.  And if that's true, then while I do have a bone or two to pick with Daniels, it's nothing compared to what I've got on you.

I can't make hide nor hair out of the reasoning behind Hellsnake's questioning being scummy. I really just can't. He even accepts that counting miller claims and comparing them to Bike's info might be a good strategy, while simultaneously attacking the guy who first floated that idea...for floating that idea. Be...cause Hellsnake apparently wasn't convinced that Bike was dying, so it becomes scummy to try to figure out what his night-action puzzle means? Is that the logic? This just makes my head hurt.

Day three. He again opens by throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall. He uses much more aggressive phrasing here than he did on Day 2, but it strikes me as a similar tactic. Goes on to declare BardDale devoid of scummitude, and gripes about how the role setup makes no sense (AGREED!).

Then he switches to Hayles, for...wait, what?

Hayles - Still first in my mind for what I've said before.  I definately think there's something to find between him and Ronald, and he's looking the worse of the two.

There's a nice little flip-flop. First he floats the idea of a Dale-Hayles scumteam, using this as the basis for his stated suspicions of Hayles. Then he says Dale looks fine to him after all. Now there's "Definitely" something between them? that doesn't sit right.

And now I have to run to cover a tennis match, so I'll post what I've got and come back to it when I can. Not sure when that will be - hopefully before the end of today (real-life day, not game day).

[Asuka Langley]

Okay, maybe as much as two hours to catch up to pace. I'll try and order everything, but mayhaps not.

I'm really having trouble not just succumbing to hubris and following the path of least resistance. It's just so easy to take Sam's plays as townie, and then any other holes can just be conveniently blamed on set up should they come up. Trouble is I shouldn't be relying on scum being so thoroughly caged. It makes the world of difference if we catch scum today or not, as drawing more information before LYLO really ties up the Sam+ scenario a lot tighter if we do, among other things.

Anyhow, here's a gambit I've been turning over in my head. May be good, may have holes in it. I'll at least put it on the table.

It doesn't take much mental legwork to work out that the fast killer is almost certainly amongst the same set of four people that are taking the most flak today. Maybe you just haven't thought about it before. How certain are we of the fast kill being !scum? I'm strongly inclined to it given the 11:4 start (four scum is over the odds for a game of fifteen already, giving them a second kill would be silly), and the Pietro attack removes the remaining reasonable doubts that maybe they'd be allowed it because it's massively nerfed by all of the bulletproofs and doctors. I also think it would be massively frustrating role to play if it's an ITP Serial Killer, given how little it would be able to play properly given all of the nerfing, so I'm happier than others to disregard it as a strong possibility. Even some sort of ITP Serial Killer Survivor theory doesn't stand up given they could have just backed scum to an easy win.

My proposed gambit is for the fast killer to claim now.

Hear me out.

The exact mechanism for this gambit, if accepted, would be for the three who aren't the fast killer to admit to not being the fast killer, probably in any order. This would be in case the fast killer has a drawback - say, only two shots - that scum could safely counter-claim against. After the fast killer then claims, we've basically narrowed the possibilities further, and definitely then have a night phase in which to check the claim out. If the fast kill is scum then they won't want to claim given how easily and immediately it will tie them down. If the fast kill is town then scum will not want to counter claim as if they do then we just leave them both alive and let the real one kill the fake one overnight (although, really, if you're the fast killer and town then please make things easier for us and don't claim until the other three have anti-claimed, given the aforementioned possibilities).

But wait, I hear you cry, if we out the fast killer then scum will just get him next! Well. For one thing, Ethan's death didn't speed their kill up at all, so the fast killer'd be dead at best at the end of night 5. Scum have already got two confirmed townies to deal with, so frankly them having an extra 'must kill' target doesn't really shake our boat much. Also, considering our assumed position of 7:3, the fast kill's only got one guaranteed use left for us, so two nights would already be more than enough, even assuming an unfortunate bulletproof hit on the first attempt. It'd buy us more time if it does hit scum, but then if we do hit scum with it then we're already cruising to a win anyway.

Also, given day 3 was potential LYLO I really don't believe the fast killer is out of shots, so I want him made accountable, so he does then follow the script one way or another. Not that anyone should direct the kill in any way whatsoever, of course.

Coming sort of full circle, I want to catch scum today so tomorrow isn't LYLO either. Adding the fast kill tonight to our lynch, that gives us two shots at achieving this. This could mostly still happen without the fast killer revealing themselves, but this method reduces the possibilities in general, and stops the possibility of losing the fast killer in the meantime.

Thoughts?

So far as I see it the worst that can happen is for the fast kill to be scum's, they just plain don't claim it. No loss. Even if it was Ethan's (except no, really don't believe that). No sign of any roleblocking or power redirecting or any of that sort of crap that would have stopped me from suggesting this gambit. Entirely willing to believe that there's something horribly wrong with it that I just haven't seen, though.

Recommend a speedy turn around on it either way, though, given I want it done and dusted by the end of today, and don't want it to be a mess at day's end. Would prefer the three of the four who aren't the fast killer to be anti-claiming with more than 12 hours left.


Speaking of which, except for a check up in a few hours I won't really be back before the day ends. I'll do what I can to get on in approximately 17 hours from now, but it will be just to get my vote down, pretty much. Go figure I've managed to waste all of my promised free time thinking through and typing up this stupid gambit and still haven't actually read up on people. I've got just about enough time to read through a chunk, but no more to actually comment on anything.

[Asuka Langley]

Random minor side note that doesn't really matter: the slow kill can't suddenly have become fast, else we'd be in potential LYLO now. Lynch + fast kill + night 3 slow kill + night 4 new and improved faster slow kill all on townies would see tomorrow as a 3:3 scum victory. Only exception to that would be if Peyton's lying about being slow killed, but no, I don't believe that for a second.

[Princess Leia]

Not a whole lot been said today. I'll stick my head in tomorrow, maybe before work/at lunch and certainly a couple of hours before the deadline, but I won't have time for a full post.

Nikolai's placeholder has been standing there getting on for 16 hours, which pisses me off, but facts are facts.

Bike: Not that I think this is what's happening, but do we have solid confirmation that we're not looking at two scum + third party SK? (To my mind that would make yesterday still pLYLO, in that once it was 4:3:1 we would not have been able to secure a lynch today without the cooperation of nontown, but I don't know what the strict definition is, if there even is one). In which case we don't want to be clearing the killer.

[Chiaki]

No, that's not a guaranteed loss. Unless the SK knows who the scum are, in that situation there's nothing stopping him from voting with town to lynch one, and then killing another at night, giving town a 3:1:1 ratio the next day. Small chance of that happening, probably, but as long as there's any chance at all of town surviving the game's not over.

[Xanth]

Martin has the right of your case, Samuel, but the point is that we wouldn't be clearing the fast killer just for claiming. That's the whole point of doing it now and maximising the chances of hitting scum - it would give an extra night of actions to resolve loose ends without worrying about LYLO implications. It'd pin him down and presumably eventually clear him, but not just for claiming.

It's part of why I'd expect the fast killer not to bother claiming at all if non-town.

[Nathan Greaves]

"Honestly, Bike, I'm pretty sure that if the fastkill was Town-aligned he'd have already claimed at Lylo. I really don't see your plan getting anywhere."

[Asuka Langley]

Potential LYLO is always shaky for role claims, especially when it's been stated that it's really on the far side of potential, especially when the fast killer would be fairly certain that he could always ensure one more day for town simply by not killing that night if everything else went tits up. I don't see everyone else falling over each other to claim yesterday. That's without considering the vulnerable position whoever it is was in, the fact that the prevailing winds yesterday were that the fast kill was scum, and the plausibility of a counter claim even if that was explained away.

So no, I'm unconvinced. I can't see what they'd have expected to gain by revealing then.

[Tanaka]

Re-read stuff.  I'm tired, and at work on a break.  Did most of the re-read earlier but I need to get a vote down soon.  Dropping flavor etc etc.

Seamus I still have much the same opinion on as I did before; nothing's jumpin' out as outright scummy, aside from his jumpin' on Hellsnake right at the beginning and even then that's not that bad.  Frankly still looks less scummy than Greaves, but I've been over why I've taken Greaves off the table.

Dale strikes me as pretty good.  Correctly caught Ethan on his scumminess early, and I don't have too much of a reason to believe that this was an attempt at shipping so early on.  However, initially on Day 3 he seems to have forgotten his case on Hayles, and focuses a lot of attention on Peyton.  This doesn't worry me too much since he narrows back in on Hayles later, but it doesn't strike me as that good of play.  I am also a little worried about exactly what his role PM says that causes him to believe that there's a godfather in the game, but that's the only other thing that's really brought up any warning flags.  The broken English is a little annoying, though. >_>

Of the four in the not-Hargreaves camp, Kyle Handley looks scummiest of all.  His first two days of play are lolwhat, and most of his day 3 play is analyzing who was on the first two trains (neverminding who was on the Pietro train), though he himself acknowledges that he would have been on both trains, had it not been for being "beaten to the punch" on the D1 hammer (even though I distinctly remember that going closer to deadline than I liked).   Of the people I've been scrutinizing... well, he certainly looks scummiest.

##Vote: Kyle Handley.

Oh and Nikolai?  You need to talk more.  Christ.

From memory, and ignoring roles (going entirely off play), Kyle>Greaves>Seamus=Nikolai=Andrews=Peyton>Hargreaves=Dale, as far I can see.  Taking into account the claimed rolemadness we've had so far, that bumps Greaves off.  I'm not sure I'm comfortable lynching Seamus just yet but we'll see. 

[Hunter Sopko]

On the subject of the amount of scum, I'm willing to bet that the Davidson Report that Bike mentioned in Day 2 was telling the truth. 4 from the inside, 5-6 from the outside? Or something similar? It doesn't seem like a bold faced lie (emphasis on the bold), especially considering his guaranteed towniness. It does feel like there are third parties present, though I won't point fingers as of yet. Catching scum is more important. So yeah, we're dealing with 4 scum here (3 now).

I said it in the beginning of the day, but I'm still boldly behind the idea that scum only have the slowkill to work with. It just seems to make sense at this point. I'm torn on the idea that the finding of the fast killer is THAT important though, since I'm pretty sure they're not scum-aligned. But Bike's idea is at least sound in that it would be good to figure out who they are so that we can make a more informed decision. It only makes sense since I think that the fast killer is not scum aligned, so I'll at least say I am NOT the fast killer.

I'm still behind lynching Seamus, and curious to see what he has to say if and when he comes back. Nikolai talking about anything would also be fantastic.