Alright, so we're lynching meeple because he's an indecisive flip-flopper speaking in ambiguous language? Considering Jugan was just modkilled and flipped green, I don't think we should take his 'team player' comment to seriously. I like Incognito's idea about forced post analysis, though I'm still digesting the results of Night 1. Seriously, 3 blues dead and no one bats an eye? Granted we (or rather, Foolishness) got TheLardyGooser, but I'm still feeling things are a bit more stressed than I'd like going into Day 2.
Summary of arguments from dead people, taken from the archives. I'm fairly sure that the archive needs to be updated, so it could be updated with any other posts in the thread, but I'd rather sleep first.
CynanMachae - suspects TheLardyGooser - pro-inactive lynching - agrees with Incognito on Osmoses - dislikes RoL bandwagon
Radfield - contributes to double-lynch discussion (use double lynch early?) - advocates inactive Day 1 lynch - anti-BM plan, suspicious of him - takes notes of particular bandwagoners (darththienan, meeple, infundibulum, scamp, jadefist) - speaks in defense of RaGe - FoS on AcrossFiveJulys
Foolishness - is fairly critical of meeple re: lynches (though this was a misunderstanding?) - FoS on TheLardyGooser (and eventually killed him) - misunderstanding between him/Incognito about spam posting - FoS on RaGe for previous discussion
[nyc]hobbes - against double-lynch on Day 3 - argument with Jugan - for lynching inactives on Day 1
Any common threads here? Both Foolishness and CynanMachae spoke out against TheLardyGooser; Foolishness and Radfield both took note of meeple - albeit for different reasons, and one of those reasons potentially being faulty. More importantly though, I think Radfield had the right idea with looking at the vote list for bandwagoners. We're discussing meeple right now, whom I feel we have a good case for; I'd also like to look at Darth, Scamp and Inf, all of whom I'll leave for the morning unless some kind soul decides to do it for me. As for JadeFist... well, no matter what color he flips his action was just really, really DUMB and he should be probably be killed for it.
Good morning; sorry if this seems a bit rushed, but I've got less than 10 minutes before I need to leave and I probably won't be posting until the evening again. Most of my post will be some quick thoughts on KF91/Scamp/Inf/Darth, as I said I was going to do last night. As for the current situation before us, given Ace's Detective claim last night and his recent claim that Caller checked red this one is actually a fairly simple decision, unless Ace is bullshitting us all.
Summary of arguments: - Agrees with early double-lynch; actually gives some solid reasoning as why to do so - Against BM's plan - Picks out Jugan and Osmoses for later analysis - Thinks Caller is mafia due to his erratic behavior - Analysis made on infundibulum as possible mafia
Comments: Everything he's said so far seems to be logical. Follows Incognito's lead in agreeing with Osmoses and doing next-person analysis (but then again, so am I). I agree with his analysis on Inf, and so we should keep an eye on him. Fairly pro-town player IMO.
- Scamp - posted quite a bit in the early game, dropped off the face of the planet later. Picked out TheLardyGooser early but hasn't said much since. Keep an eye out for him. - Inf - See comments above. Also, Inf has posted since then, and I think he's in the clear for now. - Darth - Bandwagoning early on, but makes some okay posts. I'd say he's actually green and just making common newb mistakes, except my perception of him is colored since I happen to know him. Don't think there's much to worry from him though.
Of these three, I'd say we should be most careful of Inf, then Scamp, then Darth. There's nothing much to suggest that any of them are scum.
On April 21 2010 20:58 Scamp wrote: And now for the centerpiece: Ace and Caller. I actually really like Caller's defense but as he noted there really isn't any defending him now. If Ace is mafia trying to BS us then I'll happily take one mislynch now for a dead mafia the next day, whether by lynch or by vig shot. And if Ace is a townie or assassin or whatever trying to BS us, then I'll seriously have to think about playing with him ever again.
Given how erratic he's been so far, I wouldn't be surprised.
Since there's a rather large surplus of time before the day actually ends, I think we should turn to who we want to be lynching tomorrow and who we want to check tonight. We've had RaGe and meeple on the chopping block before, and here and there people have suggested inactives and the like we could look at. It kind of continues to irk me how many people are still blindly voting for Caller (even though he's been LYNCHED already) and going for double-vote. In particular, JadeFist - who's already been noted for dumb/inattentive play in my book, and love1another who's posted only 3 times so far, only one of which has been after the game has started.
Current thoughts on the situation: Ace is DT, small probability that he's Assassin, very very small probability that he isn't. At the very least we can trust his checks even if his judgments aren't spot on (though Caller hadn't really been making much sense at the time). At this point we really need to look at the dynamics BC/RoL. I'd also like to go back to judging Meeple since I thought his indecisive language could be a tell, so a follow-up on that would be good.
@AcrossFiveJulys, a few things to point out about your logic of lists. Does it occur to you that the mafia would deliberately spread out votes as to avoid being lumped together? Furthermore, does it occur to you that we'd have some mafia on the first list to speed up the Caller lynch since we're operating on a majority-lynch system? Let's be fair here, the majority of players on the first list are likely pro-town, but it seems odd that you would advocate dropping the first list altogether from analysis. Instead we should probably be comparing a combination of vote/post/activity analysis as per each list. What are your thoughts?
One more comment/question before I turn in for the night: I did a quick count and think we've reached the needed majority to have a double-lynch (or maybe just 1-2 votes more?). Is the day still going to go on to Friday?
On April 23 2010 07:16 Ace wrote: Don't worry Brown Bear I'm following your train of logic. The problem with calling RoL scum is that BC is just as scummy. Hell they could both be scum or it the more reasonable explanation that they are both not pro-town.
Either way it all gets resolved soon. Aside from BC being scummy we have the unfortunate evidence that if RoL is a DT he damn sure isn't gung ho about getting BC killed. You'd think a DT with a guilty result would be ready to lead the wagon especially since our last situation got resolved. Hell, he even roleclaimed right after me in a game when Mafia have 4KP, 1 medic dead, 1 DT dead and he as far as I know was never in danger of dying.
*shrug*
Wait a second, RoL claimed DT? When did that happen? Is it in reference to this post? ZBot hasn't been updated and I've been in bed sick today, so I'm asking y'all to forgive me if I missed something critical recently.
On April 21 2010 13:27 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote: Great, so I have to nail a mafia every day or you will kill me?
So as I understand it, we're shooting BC and his flip determines RoL's role/alignment. Supposing BC flips green (not Miller), we lynch RoL for lying; if BC flips red/Miller then RoL is in the clear. Third possibility - both BC and RoL are assassins, in which case it's a moot point, except for the fact that we're no closer to lynching any mafia. Actually, I find it kind of odd that we would have >2 DTs in this game. Jury's still out for me on whether or not we have 3 Medics in the game (counting the one that's dead) but I like the idea of randomly picking a amongst Ace/Incog/RoL to protect.
Some points to consider: - BC hasn't posted for a while, whether that's due to some form of protest against the 'idiocy' of the town or for some other reason. Given all of the suspicion laid upon him recently I'd expect him to be posting more, not less if he's actually mafia (but maybe he WANTS us to think that?!) so it's hard to say. - Inf brought up a good point a few pages back, that Vigis don't work the same way they do in other games - they only have ONE hit at night. So don't do as Ace says and stack all your hits on BC or else we'd be wasting shots. Actually, that makes me start to wonder about Ace. Hmm...
That's it for now; going to be out for the rest of the day. Hopefully I'll be back in time to see the night post, and this weekend should be primetime for some rigorous analysis.
@Ace: How about this - I actually thought Caller was innocent. Guess it means my scumdar's better than yours?
Actual reasoning: out-of-game behavior comparison, back from when me and Caller were on the same Mafia team in WaW. In chat he kept suggesting ridiculous things (you might even remember some of them) to say or do, and we kept telling him no... in comparison, this game he was ridiculously chatty and playing far more aggressively, like he had nothing to lose. I didn't really care that he used improper terminology or whatever but I guess it's because I'm not that careful of a reader.
As for RaGe, I missed his post where he said to keep accusations out of Day 1, read some other arguments against it and then agreed with said arguments. I was doubly wrong, since I didn't actually read RaGe's post as carefully as I should have in the first place, and then failed to read the responses carefully to see if there was some sort of discrepancy.
That being said, if you'd like to check me to prove how useless I am, go ahead.
@Korynne: my reasoning for Day 3 lynch was a mathematical inference based on having 2 Assassins, not based on any sense of good play. We can afford to double mislynch on Day 3, and in the case of 2 Assassins we needed to hit 1 Mafia. With 3, 4 it would have been less safe in that we would need a double and hit both, but I was hoping that by then we would have been able to root out some mafia.
Going to eat breakfast, brb. We're going to need a plan for tonight/tomorrow.
On April 25 2010 04:45 d3_crescentia wrote: @Ace: How about this - I actually thought Caller was innocent. Guess it means my scumdar's better than yours?
Actual reasoning: out-of-game behavior comparison, back from when me and Caller were on the same Mafia team in WaW. In chat he kept suggesting ridiculous things (you might even remember some of them) to say or do, and we kept telling him no... in comparison, this game he was ridiculously chatty and playing far more aggressively, like he had nothing to lose. I didn't really care that he used improper terminology or whatever but I guess it's because I'm not that careful of a reader.
As for RaGe, I missed his post where he said to keep accusations out of Day 1, read some other arguments against it and then agreed with said arguments. I was doubly wrong, since I didn't actually read RaGe's post as carefully as I should have in the first place, and then failed to read the responses carefully to see if there was some sort of discrepancy.
That being said, if you'd like to check me to prove how useless I am, go ahead.
@Korynne: my reasoning for Day 3 lynch was a mathematical inference based on having 2 Assassins, not based on any sense of good play. We can afford to double mislynch on Day 3, and in the case of 2 Assassins we needed to hit 1 Mafia. With 3, 4 it would have been less safe in that we would need a double and hit both, but I was hoping that by then we would have been able to root out some mafia.
Going to eat breakfast, brb. We're going to need a plan for tonight/tomorrow.
instead of saying "we're gonna need a plan", why can't u actually do something and propose one?
Maybe you should stop pointing the finger at other people and actually post something yourself? I've been waiting since Day 1 for you to actually start looking for scum and what have you done since then? Make some half-assed post about how you're going to 'step up' because no one else is, while claiming you're green every other line? Hypocrisy at its' finest here. Then there's an amusing little diversion about how Ace actually could have been an Assassin - but it's not like it really matters, as even you yourself note. What ARE you good for, then?
You know what, maybe you actually ARE town this game and just trolling around. Maybe you'll be town next game as well, and maybe for the one after that. But one of these days - and the day WILL come, mark my words, Bill - you'll turn out to be as red as a baboon's behind, and full of just as much BS. And on that day, you'll let something slip, or you'll make a mistake, or someone won't put up with your crap anymore - and suddenly you'll realize that you're very, very screwed.
And I'll be waiting for that time to come, just so I can enjoy every moment of watching you squirm as it all comes crashing down around you.
Mark my words, Bill.
Current thoughts:
First, Ace's list. The task he's asked everyone to do is to pore over Incognito, Scamp and madnessman's posts before/after the jpak vote while he looks to clear the first 7 of the list. By the way, Ace, l2count - there's 10 on your final list, not 8; and then, CynanMachae is dead. Since BC flipped Miller and not mafia the validity of the reasoning for analyzing this list becomes slightly weaker, though it's still a good place to start as far as checking people goes.
Actually, let's take a look at the last three on the list - specifically, madnessman has a couple of rather large gaps in posting. The first one is around *gasp* the jpak vote. After that, he puts his doubts on Ace's claim, before doing a complete 180 in opinion as soon as Ace names Caller as mafia. He makes a few one liners after that and then vanishes until attention was brought back to him by Ace's list. And even then, he comments on why he voted jpak again as opposed to anything else before then.
Scamp - I am thinking Ace wanted to call to attention to the "either it's jpak or nothing, so I'll go with jpak" comment and subsequent silence afterward. I don't really read much into this comment, actually. What actually bothers me more is the lack of posting here.
Incognito - I actually don't see much to latch onto here as far as the jpak vote goes. As for recent events... Incognito claims he took a hit last night. Depending on what he actually claims this can confirm the presence of a medic in the game, which is good, and the protect goes on Ace; at the very least we get less dead people and thus a little more leeway to lynch. While we're talking about Incognito - let's stay at least a little skeptical of his claim, though based on my gut I'd like trust him.
Second, our plan for tonight: medic(s) protect Ace. At best he lives, checks someone else, and we only lose two townies. Somewhere in the middle is losing 3 Townies; somewhere after that is losing our medic. Worst of all would be losing our medic AND DT (though we only suffer two deaths then).
Let's take that worst-case scenario. We'd be 11-6 with a double-lynch on the way, and not as much information to go off of. Missing both lynches would be completely unacceptable; going 1-1 is still winnable though we'd have to have the town completely unified and go for a double-lynch again. Stop. Is it advantageous to use a double-lynch tomorrow? Only so long as we can get two mafia. Do we have two candidates for lynch? Ace had mentioned a mass-roleclaim tomorrow, which I think if implemented should help greatly in that regard... but do we still want to go through with a double? I'm not sure anymore - anyone else want to chime in on this?
Both Osmoses and madnessman have been somewhat MIA; I am thinking there's something odd about this. Osmoses has cited that he's going to be busy a while back; I'd like to hear from him before we make any judgments. My thoughts on madnessman you can read above. Fishball's accusations look particularly questionable, as Ace is pretty much all-but-confirmed. I'm thinking the latter two are the ones we should be looking at in particular from this list, and maybe Osmoses if he doesn't check in with us soon.
Last thing I want to mention - though I've been looking at this from Ace's approach, I think there's a different way of going about it, which I'll try sometime tomorrow morning.
On April 26 2010 01:07 Osmoses wrote: Wow... BC a miller too? Seriously, what are the odds? I don't know, but unless we're all millers the odds of Ace getting lucky twice in a row must be infintesimal, he's a detective for sure. His analysis doesn't seem very brilliant (though to be fair I suspected both Caller and BC too :p) but he does have rc, so all medics on Ace and... Then what? What do we do with our next double lynch? KF91 has been convincingly pro-town throughout this game and his arguments make sense, so how about his list? Scara, Fishball and Scamp? We can't just go for Ace's rcs, we'll be dead long before we get half of them.
If everyone role claims now, does that really help us? What's stopping mafia from role claiming too and confusing us to hell? We don't know how many blues there are and as previously stated confirming role checks takes at least 2 days (check, kill, confirm).
I was hoping you'd come back and post something that would be a bit more thought out, but alas - my hopes were dashed, and you're going to have to go on my super special awesome list.
First of all, I'm not entirely sure we should actually double-lynch anymore. We don't seem to have any candidates; after tonight's deaths we will have SOME additional information to work with but I'm not entirely sure if it's ideal for double-lynch. Secondly, we have some pretty accurate information already about whatever blues we have left in the game - 1 Medic and 1 DT (Ace), likely no more Vigilantes/Hatters and MAYBE a Veteran. The point shouldn't be to individually check everyone but to narrow down our list of suspicions and hammer those people. We can potentially solve conflicting blue claims by double-lynch; then we can narrow down between our jpak list and those that claim townie.
What happens if it draws out our medic into the open (assuming he/she survives tonight)? Tomorrow we'd look at an 11-6 situation knowing two people are clear at the very least. Ace has been pretty good at finding scum but at this point we need to watch who's pointing fingers and who ISN'T pointing fingers at whom. This is the kind of approach that I was thinking about taking in regards to analysis, but I've been holed up in bed for most of the day, and there's actually a good amount of time before the next Day comes up.
On April 25 2010 13:19 d3_crescentia wrote:Scamp - I am thinking Ace wanted to call to attention to the "either it's jpak or nothing, so I'll go with jpak" comment and subsequent silence afterward. I don't really read much into this comment, actually. What actually bothers me more is the lack of posting here.
I don't think Ace wanted to call attention to that comment. He just made a note of it and moved on. I didn't think there was anything wrong with it, hence I didn't say anything. I do have a problem with you going: "Ace wanted this, I'm bringing it up but I don't really care."
Sorry, I am a pretty bad chronic misreader, apparently. This is all in reference to the fragment quoted below:
On April 24 2010 14:41 Ace wrote: Sooo how does this all work? Simple. I want the town to go back and check out the posts->votes of Incognito, Scamp and madnessman right before the train on jpak was started by BC. Check all their posts around that time and then slightly right after the lynch. If you find anything scummy point it out. This is not meant to accuse them of being scum right off the bat. This is meant for tomorrow when the role claims come out .
I thought Ace wanted us to check out three peoples' posts and see if there was anything scummy to note during the jpak lynch, though now that I reread it he was actually talking about before the vote.
On April 26 2010 07:31 Korynne wrote: d3: Uh, we have 2 medics/veterans no? Considering 2 hits were avoided last night.
I thought one of our medics died. Incognito claimed he took a hit... did someone else claim?
Okay. Let's start with some numbers here, as numbers are good and can't really be contested:
If our lynch hits a mafia today, it's 12-5 into 9-5 in which case we need to lynch at least one mafia tomorrow. If we vote for a double and go 1-1, that's still okay for us because we're alive the day afterward at 6-4. Not the best condition, but at least it looks winnable. In the worst case scenario, we lynch a townie today and we're at 11-6. Then, we lose 3 townies and get 8-6, and then we absolutely NEED to hit a double-lynch to get to 8-4, and then we need to hit the rest of our lynches to win.
This depends on absolute 100% participation from all townies, because then it should become pretty obvious that where the mafia are hiding amongst the less active.
Now, let's look at motbob below:
Analysis of motbob: - Rejects the BM plan - Makes a useless post about how he doesn't think about saying anything - Contributes a post about how mafia votes are likely divided - Is a negative Nancy for saying we can't win at this point - Corrects/defends himself in regard to posting times
Notes on the voting record: Day 1 vote on Bill Murray, Day 2 vote on Caller, Day 3 on both Inf and BC. Seems fairly in-line with the majority vote except for Day 1, but since he hasn't really been posting enough to explain himself it's more than a little suspicious. His position on the vote list is around the middle for Days 2 and 3, but he doesn't vote for double-lynch on Day 2. Given our discussion of shooting BC occurred during the night it's more than a little troubling to me that he'd miss out on the vote. Then there's this comment:
On April 21 2010 14:42 motbob wrote: ##Vote: Caller
Caller and then Ace if Caller flips green
Which suggests to me that he could have had an inkling that Caller actually *was* green (technically black). Of note here is that Scaramanga agrees with him, and Scara's also been MIA and on a number of suspicion lists. But, can we actually positively conclude anything from this information? Maybe not; he might just have an actual reason for being less active. The matter of the fact is that we're significantly short on information as it stands, so it does us better to actually accuse based on what hunches we have and analyze our responses... and it just so happens that I've got a hunch.
The FoS is poking you, motbob. Your response better be damn convincing of your innocence.
Something else of note: Fishball has been voting for him, and then BC and Caller on the day before. Since the latter two actually turned out to be town, I'm going to do a little search through their archived posts to see if there's anything to hint at their reasoning for motbob besides "I'm getting lynched so I'll waste my vote". As for Fishball, he's been voting for him two days in a row, and with very little explanation but also very little incentive. He hasn't been actively trying to push for motbob in the thread, so either he's Mafia trying to get away with placing dumb votes or there's actually something there that he should share with the rest of us.
Here's my problem with this kind of analysis Korynne suggested - is it really the best thing to be doing? So far it just seems that we'll end up with a bunch of inactive people calling other people out on their own inactivity in this analysis exercise, and though we'll suddenly have more posts I don't think they're quite going to tell us what we need to know. What we really need here is focus. If we decisively conclude that none of our active players have the potential to be Mafia, we should then move on to the less active players.
Going to sleep on this and hope a plan comes to me...
On April 26 2010 01:07 Osmoses wrote: Wow... BC a miller too? Seriously, what are the odds? I don't know, but unless we're all millers the odds of Ace getting lucky twice in a row must be infintesimal, he's a detective for sure. His analysis doesn't seem very brilliant (though to be fair I suspected both Caller and BC too :p) but he does have rc, so all medics on Ace and... Then what? What do we do with our next double lynch? KF91 has been convincingly pro-town throughout this game and his arguments make sense, so how about his list? Scara, Fishball and Scamp? We can't just go for Ace's rcs, we'll be dead long before we get half of them.
If everyone role claims now, does that really help us? What's stopping mafia from role claiming too and confusing us to hell? We don't know how many blues there are and as previously stated confirming role checks takes at least 2 days (check, kill, confirm).
I was hoping you'd come back and post something that would be a bit more thought out, but alas - my hopes were dashed, and you're going to have to go on my super special awesome list.
First of all, I'm not entirely sure we should actually double-lynch anymore. We don't seem to have any candidates; after tonight's deaths we will have SOME additional information to work with but I'm not entirely sure if it's ideal for double-lynch. Secondly, we have some pretty accurate information already about whatever blues we have left in the game - 1 Medic and 1 DT (Ace), likely no more Vigilantes/Hatters and MAYBE a Veteran. The point shouldn't be to individually check everyone but to narrow down our list of suspicions and hammer those people. We can potentially solve conflicting blue claims by double-lynch; then we can narrow down between our jpak list and those that claim townie.
What happens if it draws out our medic into the open (assuming he/she survives tonight)? Tomorrow we'd look at an 11-6 situation knowing two people are clear at the very least. Ace has been pretty good at finding scum but at this point we need to watch who's pointing fingers and who ISN'T pointing fingers at whom. This is the kind of approach that I was thinking about taking in regards to analysis, but I've been holed up in bed for most of the day, and there's actually a good amount of time before the next Day comes up.
I seriously don't have time for this (I got the job, yay!) but guh, analyzing 16 steps down from me, d3:
Uuuuh, OK so posting stuff that's not brilliant is scummy, obviously I can't be that I'm either lazy or unable to provide an in-depth analysis at the time of writing. True enough we don't have any sure-fire candidates to lynch, but look at the townie numbers: we're dead if we don't do something drastic. It's like when the clocks running out on a losing game in hockey and they replace the goalie with another player; you take a shot at winning by risking to lose harder.
If you want to get better evidence against someone before lynching, you better hurry up.
I call suspicion on d3 for going against this very obvious hockey-logic. This reads to me like an attempt to slow down the town. Sure the risk is great, but we're one foot in the grave already. Are you a helping hand or a mailed fist? (props to anyone getting the reference)
Do something drastic? You've got to be kidding, or are *you* just trying to rush the town along on a mislynch?
The only mailed fist I'll be bringing down is on the skulls of scum. I've noted in a post above that we're in a better position than I thought we would be - the difference between 12-6 and 11-6 is that in 12-6 we can actually afford to lynch a townie today so long as that tomorrow we would have all the information we need to lynch two. Whereas in 11-6 if we fucked up today, the game would be virtually over.
On April 27 2010 13:36 Osmoses wrote: We can be fairly sure that we have some blues left, this much is obvious, what are you getting at here? The truth of blue claims will become evident in the course of the game, the way I see it anyone can call blue (that includes townies that want to draw fire as well) and Ace could've either wasted a rc on him/her (dead now I see so moot point) or you can make an assumption on the credibility of that person based on post history. I'm not blue, but if I were a medic I would've protected Ace as he was a high priority target (due to his bonafide rc's) if nothing else then to make the mafia waste hits on him. But wifom and all, you never know how they're gonna think so you could protect anyone really, they might as well go for the least likely target on account of it probably not being medic blocked. Mafia want fast kills before enough people have died to provide decent information, but they also want to kill off trustworthy outers. It's anyone's call who the medic should defend, tell me again how he/she would risk getting drawn into the open?
What you are saying is very painfully obvious. I was operating under the idea if we mass-roleclaim today we resolve any conflicting claims between blues using a double-lynch, starting with the scummier-looking person. I've since changed my mind, if you actually cared to read the thread.
On April 27 2010 13:36 Osmoses wrote: We're checking who's pointing fingers, but also who's not pointing fingers. That's everybody. It doesn't matter where the fingers point as the mafia are probably mixing in some accurate accusations with their fabricated ones. No offense, but are you perhaps being purposefully useless?
Are *you* being purposefully useless? I guess that's the real question here - is your nonsensical posting because you're actually nonsensical, or because you want to hide something?
The kind of analysis I wanted to get to is this: we check our active posters for information - voting records, post histories, and thoughts on other players. If there's some sort of egregious inconsistency in their accusations (i.e. an active player is completely ignoring the existence of another heavily suspicious player) then we have something significant to discuss. If we can get all of our accusations out in the open we can actually zero in on common suspicions.
On April 27 2010 13:36 Osmoses wrote: My verdict: shit, I don't know, I know from personal experience nonsensical posting doesn't necessarily mean mafia, but this isn't d3's first game, is it, so he ought to know better.
My verdict: you don't contribute in a game where already half of our posters are somewhat useless or nonsensical, and you respond only to defend yourself and point the finger back at me. In short, it doesn't matter whether or not you're town or scum, because it's people like you that will cost us the game.
We're grasping at straws here, after BrownBear flipped blue.
Who do we have as candidates? Scaramanga? nbtnbt5? I've outlined in a previous post that we should be okay lynching a townie today so long as we get two tomorrow, but the logic no longer applies because BrownBear's already dead. We're now looking at a situation where if we mislynch today we lose, even if we manage to hit both lynches tomorrow and all of our subsequent ones.
As for Scamp, it's posting like this:
On April 29 2010 07:09 Scamp wrote: I really really don't like Scaramanga's play at all. All he does is do whatever he can do to avoid getting killed. This is terrible townie play. However, just about every person that I suspect is voting for him, so I've decided to go with Incognito on this one.
That gets you cast under suspicion. It essentially amounts to "I guess Scaramanga could be mafia but maybe not??"