43 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Actually you said something that made me trust you, at least for today.

Well, I was thinking on the permutations and I should rethink my position about trusting you.

Not something incriminating but useless as the best. The thing that concerns me is the reason to hide the identity of the other member of your networks.

At first I thought that it could be a plan to catch a scum but after thinking on it is a bad plan as the best.

Let's say you are townie. You hide the identity of you mate and choose another one at night but you die. We don't know the identities but those two could counterclaim any attempt for the scum to claim being your mate.

Problems I see:

1. You flipping town give us less guarantees about your choices than flipping scum.

2. What means that there is a chance of at least one scum inside the net.

3. For both reason, scum don't win anything claiming to be in the net, so he/they won't do that.

On the other hand, if you were scum, and get lynched we won't be able to discard one suspect. Your scum mate just have to kill whoever you added last night and take his place. "Ey! He was scummy and chose me at N1. As long as there is no reason to open two chats for scum I have to be townie!". That's good scum play!

I don't ask for the identity of the other guy. I would like to think from others if hiding the identity could be useful for the town. I think is not, or at least I don't see the point. What people think about it?

Of course if they were just 2 scum, hiding the identity has no reason and Truthiness would be, probably, a bad tactician but townie at the end.

I'm trying to avoid getting them killed in my place. Frankly I'm playing so badly that you're better off with two other people able to communicate in private besides me. If the other people thinks it's a good idea to reveal, then I'll let them have at it.

Asking for my chat buddy is also a bit scummy for someone involved in voting for Biggs.

2 minutes ago, Truthiness said:

Asking for my chat buddy is also a bit scummy for someone involved in voting for Biggs.

I asked for reasons, not for the identity.

That's what I get for half reading while playing with a toddler. Like I said, playing like **** this game. I think they're better off anonymous so they can continue to do good work without drawing any extra attention. A scum claiming to be in the chat really won't make a difference on whether you trust them or not. I'm making the same judgements on trust for the chat as you are within the thread. I'm as fallible as the rest of you. My hope, as evidenced by the excerpt with Nippy, was to create a unified voting block with a means to communicate in private.

Christ, you even said " I don't ask for the identity of the other guy." I'm useless this game. I think this new job has me more fried than I realized.

I am really at a loss. Sorry I haven't been posting much, watching the kid.

Truth looks clean to me. It would be a cute bit of design for the neighborizer to be mafia, but if so it would have made a ton more sense for the mafia to wait on killing gnips, especially as the network expands. Plus I think if he were scum he would appear to be playing better. Look how good I looked last game. I sure was right about Visovics

Caldias has the most obviously scum play of anyone on this board, but it reads, as I've said before, to be equally plausible newbie play.

Biggs for leading the charge, and Visovics for hammering, both more or less get a day pass unless they say something incredibly stupid.

Broba I have no read on. He did vote Gink tho, and thats good.

CNinja voted wrong. He's also subtly pushing the Biggs/Ginkapo mind-f*ck angle. And heres the thing...Biggs is f*cking nuts. This is totally the kind of crazy bananas nonsense he gets off on. So while pushing the Biggs angle says scum to me, at the same time...I kinda see it. I can totally buy that he and gink would run this game by sac'ing a mafia pawn (gink-basic goon) to cover the queen (biggs-moustachoid menace). Did @Onidsen ever confirm mafia didnt get daytalk on this one? Do they have daytalk? This is semi-open setup, and I think we get to know, but I'm more receptive to this angle based on the answer. If the answer is no though...gonna look good and hard at that beep-ing Ninja.

Smurf is getting a pass from me for now. First vote on gink when there was no threat othewise might just mean he got stuck on a vote that he was trying to use to establish distance, but i think its far more likely it was just a good vote.

Ovi claimed strongman. We know that we had a doc.

Are we sure it was a town strongman? I still feel pretty good about it, because Gink put a big vote (3 I think, always a nice slot for scum. I've said this before) on him despite, as I alluded to earlier, spending most of the post blasting Truthiness and, to a lesser extent, myself.

If I were an unbiased observer, this would lead me to believe Ovi is likely town and Truth and myself should ratchet up a bit on the threat scale. But I know that I'm town, so that interpretation is at least partially flawed.

It could be that Gink was, as I've said before, was placing a distance vote.

I'll also say this tho, and I've been debating it; I'm a town aligned strongman. So for Ovi's claim to be true, we have to have two. Its why I think they have a jailkeeper, because its partially balanced by our demolitions and doubles as a roleblock. I think its also so our own doc couldnt save us from our own stupidity if we used our kill poorly. Something to consider in the calculus.

I have more to say but wife/child aggro has been pulled.

26 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Did @Onidsen ever confirm mafia didnt get daytalk on this one? Do they have daytalk?

Mafia do not get daytalk and village comms don't get nighttalk.

6 minutes ago, Onidsen said:

Mafia do not get daytalk and village comms don't get nighttalk.

beep.

Interpretation:

Well ****. My "Biggs Epic Game" meter went from 25% to 5%.

(And I still say its possible!)

Plausible but not likely.

We have a double claim though, and that needs to be addressed. Two town strongmen seems awfully imbalanced. Is it possible that we have a 50/50 shot at hammering a scum here?

2 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Plausible but not likely.

We have a double claim though, and that needs to be addressed. Two town strongmen seems awfully imbalanced. Is it possible that we have a 50/50 shot at hammering a scum here?

Something I wrestled with last night phase. When I first read the claim, I thought "great! Either he dies in todays lynch, I kill him tonight or I let him live and I get to read everything he writes through the lens of knowing he's scum."

But then it came out that there can be multiples of roles, something I confess I missed in my first read of Oni's post.

I still figured I might kill him at night, but Gink flipped scum and that made Ovi being scum considerably less likely to me, for reasons I've already discussed.

Anyway I'm completely lost at this point, so I'm putting as much on the table as I can. Maybe it helps someone else put some pieces together.

Just got back from the store championship and man I am beat. Seems there hasn't been a ton of movement on suspects, other than myself, which I totally understand how my last-minute vote looks. I am 90% unsure of everyone except Biggs, who I am pretty sure is not scum. I'm interested in hearing his thoughts.

Vote Count - 9 Players, 5 to hammer:

1. @Visovics
2. @Madaghmire
3. @Truthiness
4. @BiggsIRL
5. @ovinomanc3r
6. @BrobaFett
7. @CaribbeanNinja
8. @Caldias
9. @SmurfWedge

As always, if I've missed a vote, ping me.

Sorry I haven't posted as much ad I said I would, Gink must be screaming in the observers.

What I will say is

##Vote BrobaFett

You look the more suspicious to me right now

4 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

Plausible but not likely.

We have a double claim though, and that needs to be addressed. Two town strongmen seems awfully imbalanced. Is it possible that we have a 50/50 shot at hammering a scum here?

This in particular is what turned on my attention on you. I mean, if I was the scum, I'd be worried about the town having night kills and would want to reduce that as much as possible.

On a side note: Having 2 strongmans leads me to believe there are 3 mafia

It's not trying to elimate a threat to scum, questioning a double claim is just playing good mafia.

I highly doubt there are 2 town aligned strongmen. That would mean that at the onset of the game there was the potential to go from 11 players to 7 by the end of night one. I would have believed double cop before double strongman. At least under the same alignment.

I could be wrong in this case, but the suspicion of a double claim should ALWAYS be a warning to the town. That is why we claim in the first place, to try and catch the mafia in a lie because their claim will always have to be a lie. Now we need to push for proof one way or another, but unfortunately for this claim, the only way to get proof is for someone to die, and at this stage in the game, even if one is let's say a mafia aligned strong man, all they have to do is kill a town and say, "oops, just didn't have enough information" and now their claim can no longer be questioned. That weakens town because they have a safe claim without actually having to provide proof of alignment.

Anyway, I think you are on the wrong track Visovics, and I hope that my sleepy brain explained it well enough that your suspicion for me is cleared. Definitely not trying to weaken town with my suggestion.

I am not a strongmen. It doesn't mean Madaghmire is a strongmen. However if someone think that 2 seemed impossible, well, we haven't 2, or at least 2 didn't claim it.

What I am starting to worry about is why the hell everybody is claiming when, Biggs already pointed about the useless value of claiming for the townies. And we even have not anyone close to hammer!! That was the reason Gink was lynched.

10 hours ago, Truthiness said:

Which ones? The Highlander votes or the Ovi votes?

I have a feeling that there is something in the Highlanders that we are overlooking, or I'm going paranoid

Now I have time to develop my thoughts a bit.

@Visovics : I am not completely sold on his innocence. His vote could be opportunist when he saw Gink wanted a no-lynch resolution (more if we think they cannot talk each other during daytime). But as scummate he could just let pass the chance and argue lack of connection. He did all the time with his mobile phone adventure. I could say I trust him.

@BiggsIRL : the lack of scum char during daytime doesn't tell me too much about the possibility of he selling a mate. I could imagine veteran players catching the other play with not much info about it. However, I cannot see a reason for that at the state of our day 1. Things were starting to turn to a policy vote against quiet people. They could just wait to d2 to make this performance. It is not like Gink or Biggs were against the ropes before they started to pursuing each other.

@Truthiness : not sure why he claimed. And not sure why he want to keep the identity of the members top secret. I mean, I read his reason but is not a really good one IMHO. There is no reason for scum to kill him at first place. He cannot harm them. And if they keep him alive there is a chance of being elected getting access to every chat in the game. They don't have a reason to think that the chosen ones are better shots (see possible roles) than any other. I like to think that there are good scummy plans around rather than bad townie ideas. And he being scum makes it a good plan. But again, only if there is a third scum. If not, he has not any reason to claim neighborizer.

@Madaghmire : another one that claimed without any reason. He even pointed that he being strongman doesn't make me suspicious as there is a chance of several roles. So why he brought that info to add that precisely that info doesn't help?! However I cannot see a good scummy plan behind that. The best he could get is change a 50% shot between he and truthiness for a 50% shot between he and me. Though he got another (Broba) player looking for the true behind that what is not bad at all.

@CaribbeanNinja : he was not on my first list but my logic said that at least one scum was on the joke vote game at the same time that at least another one wasn't. He wasn't there and he was on Bigg's wagon. Two scummy points for the ninjad ninja. But he conscientiously ask for the scum chat stuff. Not 100% exonerating but a good point for him.

@SmurfWedge : he voted Gink. He did it the first. I did it too when Biggs and me were scum and it wasn't a planned move. I did it just for fun and hoping that maybe it could help me later. I had to use it at d1 that was all. But the odd thing was he said he thought the same Biggs pointed against Gink. I did not. We are facing a talented townie or an opportunist scum?

@Caldias : he voted Biggs and he was one of the last votes. A reason why I vote Biggs as soon I could was to avoid being pointed as opportunist. Of course I could do it as scum but I would probably wait a bit until figure out what was going to happen. They have no chat so he could be unsure about how to play at this crucial moment. All Gink could do was asking for a tie. He asked to Broba but I can't imagine him asking directly to his scummate. Caldias did it and that was his reason. A reason that was proved wrong. But he is new (does he?).

@BrobaFett : voted Gink what is good at the same time he defended him what is odd. It seems a bad scum play cause if I was scum and had to vote my mate I would put my best serious face and go ahead with he lynch.

And those are my thoughts. I am going to start voting for Caldias. I suspect about Truthiness but it seems he cannot help himself more than he did and I think is time to hear more from other voices.

## vote Caldias

I would take that talented townie title but I think it's undeserved......more like beginners luck townie.

I too have a suspecting of Truth and Caldius.....hmm

##vote Caldius

11 hours left and all is quiet. I've been saying Caldias is my top suspect for a while now, so I should put my money where my mouth is. Ninja is my next most suspicious.

##vote Caldias

54 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

A reason why I vote Biggs as soon I could was to avoid being pointed as opportunist. Of course I could do it as scum but I would probably wait a bit until figure out what was going to happen.

This to me screams scum. I get that I looked suspicious, but I just wanted to buy time to get a better assessment of Biggs and Gink, both of whom were very suspicious, but I wasn't 100% on, and was trying to get a no-vote. It was a great move by @Visovics to make the call to get Gink, and I applaud him and @BiggsIRL for obviously being much more experienced than me.

So you voted early, but you didn't change your vote, either. I was a tad suspicious of the ones that suddenly went dark as soon as Gink was looking like he was going down. You're making me think my 2nd vote was correct on Day 1.

##vote @ovinomanc3r

1 hour ago, Caldias said:

This to me screams scum. I get that I looked suspicious, but I just wanted to buy time to get a better assessment of Biggs and Gink.

Then, lynch one of them, see what flips and make the pertinent correction if the lynch was wrong.

I didn't change my vote. I thought was Biggs not being sure between those two when I voted 14' before hammer. I wanted to change my vote when Gink asked for a tie, 7 min before hammer but I read it after the hammer.

And look! I voted Biggs after he put me in the confortable zone of fortuitously friendly . If I was scum I had too many reasons to lynch my mate instead of Biggs.

16 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Then, lynch one of them, see what flips and make the pertinent correction if the lynch was wrong.

I didn't change my vote. I thought was Biggs not being sure between those two when I voted 14' before hammer. I wanted to change my vote when Gink asked for a tie, 7 min before hammer but I read it after the hammer.

And look! I voted Biggs after he put me in the confortable zone of fortuitously friendly . If I was scum I had too many reasons to lynch my mate instead of Biggs.

Okay, that's a fair point. I don't know, though, because if your reasoning for yourself being town is sound, how is it I am so suspect to you? I changed my vote on Day One because I was indecisive, unsure of who to accuse.

My vote remains, for now. Biggs seems very skilled at this game, and is almost certainly town, so whoever he votes for I'll vote for as well.

7 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I am not a strongmen. It doesn't mean Madaghmire is a strongmen. However if someone think that 2 seemed impossible, well, we haven't 2, or at least 2 didn't claim it.

What I am starting to worry about is why the hell everybody is claiming when, Biggs already pointed about the useless value of claiming for the townies. And we even have not anyone close to hammer!! That was the reason Gink was lynched.

Then I'm really at a loss for wtf that phantom line could possibly have been a claim for.