[Galain]

200 posts before Amp shows up. Comments on the major issue first, the reveal.

Ampelas, on 09 May 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

Ballsy reveal. I like the approach though and agree it would work nicely. And if it is a fake reveal, we can watch Nim for a time and see if he gives us clues to presumably his masters. Either way, Nim's "reveal" gives us an edge. We just need to focus on those around him and their responses. Rereading.

His second posts highlights a possible early signal on SR from Denul.

Next he comments on Kilava's cautious play.

Ampelas, on 09 May 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I like the gumption - really started the game proper off quickly!

I'm all about game breaking.

I don't always have the perfect answer, but that's why the rest of town is here... to help figure that stuff out.

lol, it's like going in the fridge and cupboards, throwing all the ingredients for dinner out all over the kitchen, and then saying, 'well, I've done my part!'

Just because you have the ingredients in front of you, doesn't mean they're being wasted.

No, but why am I always the one who has to clean up?




In any case, this could prove useful even without further reveals. Killers aren't now likely to take the risk of targetting you. Which leaves you free to do your thing if you are a healer.

Reading through, and what catches my eye is how people react to Nim. Kilava starts with a wtf and arguing against, then backs off and says it really gets the game going. This seems to be a good pattern to play both the cautious then amicable townie, someone who doesn't polarize to one side or the other just in case it attracts the wrong kind of attention.

Still reading. Just writing some of these thoughts out.

Kruppe/Denul gets quite defensive over the possible signal from Denul, I think at this stage SR is on one vote.

Amp further points out Kilava's "town" post. Then points out that SR or Denul may have signalled their master.

[Galain]

Possible symp or killer comes along.

Kilava, on 09 May 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

Ampelas, on 09 May 2017 - 01:31 PM, said:

Kruppe of Darujhistan, on 09 May 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

Ampelas, on 09 May 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

Denul, on 08 May 2017 - 02:45 PM, said:

Silchas Ruin, on 08 May 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

One's a lonely number

Two's the first loser

Two can be as bad as one, it's the loneliest number since the number one - ber.

I wasted valuable time reading the roles and scenario.

Just a quick note, this was what first caught my attention. In a scenario with paired killers, anything saying "pair" or "two" immediately catches the eye. Two (killers) can be as bad as one (killer). Indeed.

Well, ya caught me. I wasn't just responding to the first line of a cheesy Three Dog Night song from the 70s with the second line to a cheesy [/i]Three Dog Night[/i] song from the 70s. I'm scum through-and-through; signaling my master in my second post of day 1. You, sir, are a Mafia genius.

Out of character.

Huh, and here I thought it was Aimee Mann. As signalling cases go, it's not a bad one in terms of the wordplay, I can see what Ampelas is saying. But who would they be signalling?

It looks like Kilava is wanting to paint SR as a possible symp here.

This case and vote on Kilava put them on 2 vs 2 with SR

[Galain]

Ampelas, on 09 May 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 03:24 PM, said:

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 03:23 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

1:1 is always a town-sided trade.

I also don't really know what you mean by this. Do you mean revealing one town for one scum? But they're not revealed as in confirmed - because the rest of town (and the other roled town) do not know which one to believe.

No. I mean death.1 Town death is a worthy price if it results in a scum kill the next day.1:1 trade.Edit: fu autocorrect

But how would it do that? Your original proposal was that the healer and bodyguard effectively stay alive for the duration of the game by protecting each other through revealing. I'm saying that likely won't work because scum can fake-reveal. So then you change your stance and say that well, we effectively vote to lynch the revealer and the counter-revealer in an effort to get rid of scum. In which case, yes, the scum is dead - but so is the roled town, for the rest of the game. It's not a great trade because the scum who dies is most likely the symp, who doesn't even need to be rid of for town to win the game. So in a sense it would be two days spent talking about that, rather than finding the two killers, no?

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 04:04 PM, said:

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 03:58 PM, said:

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 03:54 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I like the gumption - really started the game proper off quickly!

I'm all about game breaking.I don't always have the perfect answer, but that's why the rest of town is here... to help figure that stuff out.

lol, it's like going in the fridge and cupboards, throwing all the ingredients for dinner out all over the kitchen, and then saying, 'well, I've done my part!'

Just because you have the ingredients in front of you, doesn't mean they're being wasted.

No, but why am I always the one who has to clean up?In any case, this could prove useful even without further reveals. Killers aren't now likely to take the risk of targetting you. Which leaves you free to do your thing if you are a healer.

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Any town that feels the need to discredit town through such insidious measures are playing directly against their win con.

So anyone who questions or criticises you is scum or working against town, because you're town?And the rest of us know that for certain because...?By that same logic, you accusing me of being scummy is scummy and/or acting against town, because, you know, I'm town myself.

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 05:00 PM, said:

Also, in my experience, scum tend to sit off to the sidelines when events like this happen, and let town eat themselves, rather than directly engaging.

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

Galain, on 08 May 2017 - 07:23 PM, said:

Lots of posts, keep them coming. I will look forward to reading up in the morning and getting my teeth stuck into the game. I have not read any of it yet but it looks promising.

Vote Galain Just the kind of thing I would say when I HAVE read all the posts but don't want to interrupt town shouting at each other.

Here is a sampling from Kilava's content. As I said early, he caught my attention as a little too, dare I say it, smooth. The second to last quote really cinches it for me. Isn't that what Kilava was doing up to that point. And the only vote is a case based on what he would do if he was scum?

There isn't much interaction in regards to actual cases (as was pointed out when pressing him for an opinion on Merrid) and what SR may be referring to is the lack of commitment to what other people say (e.g. backing up or tearing down a lynch case). Yes, Kilava was very argumentative with Nim early on, but it was all speculation on mechanics. Nothing really focused on one person or another. Dodgy, even by his own standards I'd say.

vote Kilava

One thing for 100% sure on at this stage is Amp is NOT Kilava's symp.

By offering an alternative to SR, Amp could certainly be SR's partner. The post were he says to Denul, in fact I'll quote it.

Ampelas, on 09 May 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

Denul, on 09 May 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

Sorry about the alt reveal.

@ Ampelas. I know the lyric (from listening to the radio in the 70s and not from the Simpsons) and it was close enough to reference the song.Go bark up some other tree.

So defensive. I was also eying SR, but you seem so much more responsive. Again, keep your panties out of a bunch. If you were a symp, I wouldn't waste time voting you off right away. Not like your death would tell us anything.

This posts suggests he knows Denul will CF innocent.

[Galain]

Ampelas, on 09 May 2017 - 07:36 PM, said:

At this rate, I would say both you SR and Denul are shitty symps, which I guess works to the favor of 4 scum!

Ampelas, on 10 May 2017 - 01:01 AM, said:

I am around to hammer if needed. I want to still hear from Rashan though.

This does look like reluctance to hammer scum but he was present and Jalan's hammer came quite quickly.

In conclusion to Amp, I do not see him as a symp to either Merrid or Kilava because he was prodding in both their directions early on or landed his vote their.

I could see them as SR's partner though, with being off the train and labelling him symp.

[Galain]

So, looking through day one with the idea that all three of the suspects could be scum I see reasons to vote them all.

So sorting through the major points;

Merrid

Merrid, on 08 May 2017 - 03:44 PM, said:

If there's a counterclaim then I'm voting you first of the two claimants.

Silchas Ruin, on 08 May 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

Silchas Ruin, on 08 May 2017 - 11:05 PM, said:

Rashan, on 08 May 2017 - 09:00 PM, said:

SR: umm, second vote on a revealed healer: that's just daft. Not only are you voting on the train that Merrid himself expected to get no traction, you are voting a revealed healer . Like, why?

I was obviously trying to catch the scum attempting a quickhammer!

(by scum I mean the whole scum team)

Merrid, on 08 May 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

Silchas Ruin, on 08 May 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 11:21 PM, said:

Please tell me that doesn't actually happen on d1.

Only couple of times a year

What do you mean, those are some of our finest moments!

and once again Denul joining in with them

Denul, on 09 May 2017 - 12:22 AM, said:

Silchas Ruin, on 08 May 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

Merrid, on 08 May 2017 - 11:30 PM, said:

Silchas Ruin, on 08 May 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 08 May 2017 - 11:21 PM, said:

Please tell me that doesn't actually happen on d1.

Only couple of times a year

What do you mean, those are some of our finest moments!

I know! It sounded sad in my head.

The last time we caught Scum on Day 1 (Blend) I got lynched on Day 2 (or close to it) for hammering!

-----

Regarding Symp coaching: Whether the Symp is a rookie or a grizzled vet, Scum doesn't know who they are one way or the other. It's irrelevant.

The interaction with SR and Denul's I am the symp post, quoting both killers.

His reason and vote for SR

Merrid, on 09 May 2017 - 07:09 PM, said:

Silchas Ruin, on 09 May 2017 - 04:08 PM, said:

Yes, FOUR (4)

I'm thinking SR is implying NG is helping scum ergo effectively scum too.
Although, reading further on, no, they're actually still not answering why you'd be 2nd vote on a claimed town role.

Vote Silchas Ruin

This hides him quite well, good distancing from his partner.

[Galain]

Kilava


Possible connection to Merrid

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

Actually, being reasonable on day 1 tends to be a vote magnet
I thought that when Merrid said it's "no-risk" they meant their own vote on you as you're unlikely to be lynched currently - I may be wrong?

He does not address Nim's vote on SR for quite some time/a lot of posts

When he comes back he places a vote elsewhere, offers an alternative.

Likes my vote on Osseric,says this a few times.

Questions Amp's signalling case on Denul/SR.

Backs off me, says they "may" vote SR later. (probably looking to see where the thread goes, if he is Merrid's symp then following his vote/course of action would be the right move for him)

Removes vote but does not vote straight away, hesitant.

I find his day one play scummy, but not like a killer, I see it very sympy.

[Kilava]

Galain, on 15 May 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

Kilava


Possible connection to Merrid

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

Actually, being reasonable on day 1 tends to be a vote magnet
I thought that when Merrid said it's "no-risk" they meant their own vote on you as you're unlikely to be lynched currently - I may be wrong?

He does not address Nim's vote on SR for quite some time/a lot of posts

When he comes back he places a vote elsewhere, offers an alternative.

Likes my vote on Osseric,says this a few times.

Questions Amp's signalling case on Denul/SR.

Backs off me, says they "may" vote SR later. (probably looking to see where the thread goes, if he is Merrid's symp then following his vote/course of action would be the right move for him)

Removes vote but does not vote straight away, hesitant.

I find his day one play scummy, but not like a killer, I see it very sympy.

So - offers options, input, suggests their own choice, questions other choices, offers an indication of what they will do on the day, does so...I find this day one play very towny

[Nimander Golit]

Kilava, on 15 May 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

Galain, on 15 May 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

Kilava


Possible connection to Merrid

Kilava, on 08 May 2017 - 05:44 PM, said:

Actually, being reasonable on day 1 tends to be a vote magnet
I thought that when Merrid said it's "no-risk" they meant their own vote on you as you're unlikely to be lynched currently - I may be wrong?

He does not address Nim's vote on SR for quite some time/a lot of posts

When he comes back he places a vote elsewhere, offers an alternative.

Likes my vote on Osseric,says this a few times.

Questions Amp's signalling case on Denul/SR.

Backs off me, says they "may" vote SR later. (probably looking to see where the thread goes, if he is Merrid's symp then following his vote/course of action would be the right move for him)

Removes vote but does not vote straight away, hesitant.

I find his day one play scummy, but not like a killer, I see it very sympy.

So - offers options, input, suggests their own choice, questions other choices, offers an indication of what they will do on the day, does so...I find this day one play very towny

So what?

Actions are NAI. Anything town can do, scum can do.

It's the motives behind the actions that have to be sorted.

[Path-Shaper]

It is Day 4. The clock has been frozen with 35 Hours and 01 Minutes remaining.

6 Players still alive: Ampelas, Galain, Kilava, Merrid, Nimander Golit, Rashan

4 votes to lynch, 3 votes to go to night.

3 Votes for Night ( Nimander Golit, Rashan, Galain )

Players not voted: Ampelas, Kilava, Merrid


It is now Night 2.


Night 2 passes without event.


New rule - first amongst town or killers to vote Night/submit a no-kill a third time in a row will automatically lose the game.


It is Day 5. 35 hours and 59 minutes remaining

6 Players still alive: Ampelas, Galain, Kilava, Merrid, Nimander Golit, Rashan

4 votes to lynch, 3 votes to go to night.


Players not voted: Ampelas, Galain, Kilava, Merrid, Nimander Golit, Rashan

This post has been edited by Path-Shaper: 15 May 2017 - 12:55 PM

[Galain]

So if town let the timer run out the day ends and there will be a NK attempt. Not saying we are going to do that but it is possible.

[Kilava]

Yeah, letting the timer run out is an option based on PS' wording...it's kinda what I suggested back when Silchas was lynched, i.e. let the killer play Russian Roulette with us.

If we're not doing that, then my vote will be for Ampelas I reckon.

[Merrid]

Galain, on 15 May 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

So if town let the timer run out the day ends and there will be a NK attempt. Not saying we are going to do that but it is possible.

Oh FFS would people please use their brains.

That is a clear instruction from PS to get our shit together and LYNCH. I wholeheartedly agree with it. Nims fucking "I'll never get tired of this" is stupid. Lynch is towns weapon.

What setup do we have: Healer. Bodyguard. Scum. Healer is targeting Bodyguard, Bodyguard targeting Healer. If scum target Bodyguard too they've submitted a NA that isn't no-kill therefore meeting the terms of the new rule also. So we continue ad infinitum, just 36 times slower.

Nim, do you get confirmation of a successful Heal? Have you had it if so?

For people keep pulling up my "I'd lynch Nim first" quote, get with the program. I think Nims play has been awful. I think they've played against town as much as they possibly can whilst having a town role. Were someone to have piped up with a counter claim on Day One too I'd have happily lynched Nim first because they're not doing town any advantages and we'd still get scum on lynch of the fake claimant after Nim CFs.

FWIW I'm reasonably sure symp is dead by now. Any with half a brain would have counter-claimed Rashan or pre-emptively claimed it. No-one did. That was the only way to break the Nim/Rash pairing and they didn't take it, leaving an unkillable pair. That sucks for both solo scum or scum/symp. I'd also suspect that's the reason behind PS' "get the fuck on with it" post, because telling Nim/Rash they can't target the same person more than <x> Nights this far into the game is a bit of a crippling blow to town to spring, regardless of it just being done to scum.

I've been stupidly busy so far today so not managed to read up properly. I'm leaning towards Galain based on what I'm reading into the posts up near the top of this page. I'm not sold yet. I want Rashans opinion on everyone as they're the only one of our CIs who have active thinkymeats.

I will be voting today regardless of what the rest of you numbnuts decide to do. If you go to timeout I'll be self voting for the remainder of the game or requesting a modkill because fuck that for a farce of a game.

[Kilava]

Merrid, on 15 May 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

What setup do we have: Healer. Bodyguard. Scum. Healer is targeting Bodyguard, Bodyguard targeting Healer. If scum target Bodyguard too they've submitted a NA that isn't no-kill therefore meeting the terms of the new rule also. So we continue ad infinitum, just 36 times slower

This is a good point. Lynch it is then - hooray!

[Nimander Golit]

The new rule is scum-sided because it punishes town for forcing scum to allow town to live.

Not killing town is playing against scum's wincon because killing town is the ENTIRE REASON FOR SCUM'S EXISTENCE. If anyone is getting punished here, it should be scum.

I'll see you folks in a couple days.

Edit: typo

This post has been edited by Nimander Golit: 15 May 2017 - 02:21 PM

[Kilava]

Nimander Golit, on 15 May 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

The new rule is scum-sided because it punishes town for forcing scum to allow town to live.

Not killing town is playing against scum's wincon because killing town is the ENTIRE REASON FOR SCUM'S EXISTENCE. If anyone is getting punished here, it should be scum.

I'll see you folks in a couple days.

Edit: typo

Lynching scum is town's raison d'etre. Can't do that without lynching. The crux of the game is to come to a consensus about who to lynch - whether that turns out for the good of town, bad town decisions, or a decision manipulated by good scum play.

I'd be happier to lose when playing then to, uh, not play when not playing for eternity.

[Nimander Golit]

Kilava, on 15 May 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 15 May 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

The new rule is scum-sided because it punishes town for forcing scum to allow town to live.

Not killing town is playing against scum's wincon because killing town is the ENTIRE REASON FOR SCUM'S EXISTENCE. If anyone is getting punished here, it should be scum.

I'll see you folks in a couple days.

Edit: typo

Lynching scum is town's raison d'etre.

Nothing to hunt when nobody is getting murdered.

I'm not budging.

[Kilava]

Nimander Golit, on 15 May 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

Kilava, on 15 May 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 15 May 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

The new rule is scum-sided because it punishes town for forcing scum to allow town to live.

Not killing town is playing against scum's wincon because killing town is the ENTIRE REASON FOR SCUM'S EXISTENCE. If anyone is getting punished here, it should be scum.

I'll see you folks in a couple days.

Edit: typo

Lynching scum is town's raison d'etre.

Nothing to hunt when nobody is getting murdered.

I'm not budging.

You do you, Nim. The rest of us will play.


So I will

Vote Ampelas


and hear everyone's thoughts on that.

[Galain]

I'll vote Merrid, then I know who i'd lynch if I die or if one of Amp/Kilava die, I am voting the other. Seems simple.

[Kilava]

Nimander Golit, on 15 May 2017 - 02:29 PM, said:

Kilava, on 15 May 2017 - 02:27 PM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 15 May 2017 - 02:21 PM, said:

The new rule is scum-sided because it punishes town for forcing scum to allow town to live.

Not killing town is playing against scum's wincon because killing town is the ENTIRE REASON FOR SCUM'S EXISTENCE. If anyone is getting punished here, it should be scum.

I'll see you folks in a couple days.

Edit: typo

Lynching scum is town's raison d'etre.

Nothing to hunt when nobody is getting murdered.

I'm not budging.

Also, that's like the cops saying, "well, that guy hasn't murdered anyone for five years, so there's nothing we need to really do about it."

[Galain]

Kilava "could" be Merrid's symp so no way would I follow his vote. I'll follow Rashan's vote though, if he thinks Amp is the right call I would follow that.