Interestingly enough, the only remaining player that WASN'T on the <π lynch wagon D1 was --- voting for Rockin. In and of itself, this isn’t alignment indicative, but it is weird that he never mentioned <π’s vote count despite posting while he was at L-1. --- also was on the Mediocre wagon Day 2 as the second vote, after he himself had reached L-1!
What does L-1 mean? Lynch 1?
’s roleclaim stuff is weird, has always been weird, etc. It’s been a sticking point the whole game to me for a variety of reasons and I’d like to see where everyone stands after I go through it with a fine-toothed comb. The roleclaim stuff is actually his very first posts of substance in the thread. I think the roleclaim stuff is at the heart of the issue, and most other things about --- stem from it. If --- (or bystanders) are able to convince players that the roleclaim was genuine, most else about ---’s play this game is easy to conclude as towny of not alignment-indicative. The main thing though is that there’s an unshakeable association that --- and <π have with each other from the very beginning phases of the game.
At the beginning of the game, Werekill voted ---. <π's reaction is what ultimately sealed his fate. Following this reaction to RVS, he never said jack **** about --- outside of a town read in #153/ #190, until #221 and #243 when he was already at hammer status (this flailing tends to be full of WIFOM, so I won't try to actually read something, but it is notable that there is little mention of --- throughout the day). What I’d like you to ask yourselves is: do we think <π would have reacted that way to a vote on a townie?
Let’s take a closer look at the interactions from Day 1. Here’s what my re-read got me.
March 27th
#47 chocolate
#64 strawberry
#110 Vanilla
#130 Votes Mediocre
-This is just RVS stuff.
March 28th
#144
Was --- ever truly “active”? He had posted a few times, but with little substance. Worth noting is that prior to this post, no one had said anything regarding posts #47 #64 #110 as being indicative of his role. I’d say it’s possible that --- brought up his clues and night PMs to force the playerbase to think of a roleclaim on his part.
Why would I attempt to go out of my way to correct you if my goal was to force players to role claim on my behalf?
#161
--- more or less prompts the field of players to search his posts for clues (once again after #144, following most of the players being more concerned about Night PMs talk), and since he’s made like 8 of them with 0 readlists at this point, it’s easy for anyone to find the intended clues. He claims his strategy is to be blunt, but he refuses to elaborate on what role he is claiming until another person does so. (Werekill in #162).
There’s a pretty big gap here where he’s answering questions that aren’t that important (like what his mafia experience is). He acts very cordially and does not create conflict. While this is going on, <π’s vote count skyrockets from 1 to 4 between post #176 and #209. --- had posted in post #181 after only one vote on <π had dropped (with the mafia experience reply), but other then that does not participate.
Most of Day 1 I was operating under the assumption that Night PMs were apart of regular mafia, and as such, showing one's hand completely would not be helpful until Night where you can barter for info/is where most detective work happens. That said, I made a mistake.
Then:
#217
This is ---’s first scumlean list. This is after <π’s at hammer range, but he asks <π for more reads. ---’s list is mostly nulls with scumleans on <π and Rockin and a very slight lean on TewnLeenk. He also “corrects” my read of his breadcrumb in #162. This correction is performed after it’s clear that <π is getting lynched, he had been at L-1 since #209. Why didn’t he do this in post #164 or #181? And in none of these 3 posts does he comment on the status of <π’s vote count.
In this post, he also refers to <π’s Mafia win brag that happened earlier in the game (#74), which hadn’t been referred to in quite a while. It seems odd to me to bring it up over 100 posts later.
For his next post, we need <π’s post #221 since --- directly replied to it.
Noteworthy is that <π is at L-1 here when he does this, pretty soon after #217.
“I would be of better service to town in being as upfront as possible”
If --- finds himself most useful by being “as upfront as possible,” why not directly claim vanilla townie then?
It’s possible that this is a bit of a disconnected setup for scumbuddies since at this point it’s really clear that <π is going to be lynched. <π can ask questions to the field or to ---, allowing him reign to discuss what he wants to prior to the day coming to a close. Between #217, #221, #228, this isn’t too farfetched.
I would argue there is a greater disconnect than you're making out. I had already attempted to correct your Neapolitan claim despite <Pi continuing to push it themselves. Additionally I never properly responded to his dying posts where they attempted to give me a chance to further explain myself.
Following pressure from
Matunas,
--- Claims Vanilla Townie in #279:
Why repeatedly mention being upfront and blunt D1, be vague when it actually comes to your role D1, then immediately roleclaim Vanilla at the start of Day 2? After Town Tracker/Mafia Rolecop are revealed, it’s known that Neapolitan is not a possible role, allowing a pivot to Vanilla Townie. In either case, “vanilla townie” is a safe claim for scum to make because there are 5. At the point where
--- actually prodded the player group toward “vanilla townie,” it was when
<π was obviously being lynched (as reasoned above)
His response to my post
#316 in post #358 was not satisfactory to me, either.
--- drops breadcrumbs on his roleclaim and tells people to check his clues. Then he gets into arguments over the correct interpretation of his clues. In conjunction with the repeated statements about being blunt and upfront, this feels really wrong to me. Why would you even mention chocolate and strawberry in the first place if you always wanted to claim Vanilla townie? Which of us is truly wordsmithing here? I still don’t believe your logic as to why you weren’t claiming Neapolitan, the “chocolate” phrasing is indeed about you here, contrary to your reasoning. I can’t resolve this behavior with anything other than your being scum.
Neapolitan isn't a role I had seen/heard of in prior games. That aside I felt my worthsmithing was much more clear given the context, especially after I directly referred to myself in my last breadcrumb.
Why did you scumlean Matunas for participating in RVS...? Several others did that Day 1 around that time. You voted Mediocre only 3 posts before he voted for Rockin. Your wording is “opportunistic,” even, it’s similar to how <π reacted to myself and Werekill. This is off to me.
Mostly given the rapid changes in his responses. It stood out a bit more for me than some of the other RVSs like Werekill's which felt less serious.
Opportunistic is probably a word I picked up while re-reading Day 1 posts not unlike your #post formatting.
In addition, why reply to <π’s flailing? This is just invalid WIFOM about <π’s scum motives when he has little reason to grant Town anything useful while at L-1 and isn’t in a position to hurt Town significantly. Your links to <π posts don't really conclude anything either. They're riddled with caveats which reads as trying to not push an agenda while still bringing it up in case someone latches on. What's up with that?
I didn't think at the time that it wouldn't be too farfetched that a scum member would group their partner in with a mix of townies, especially since they seemed insistent by having posted it twice. With Pythag dead and myself being town, that leaves onto Matunas (and to a lesser extent TL/Mediocre as they were left off).
In #401 --- sets himself up as a player who has a scumread on both Mediocre and Matunas. Since the Mediocre wagon had already begun via Werekill, voting Matunas wouldn’t have accomplished much.
Pretty much, especially since Mediocre wasn't taking a stance on anyone and was resorting to emotional responses to Werekill's replies.
DAY 3
In both #427 and #429 following Mediocre/Matunas flipping town, he is quick to reference his proposed 50/50 in #401.
Why bring up your own post as a reason for our Town Cop being targeted...?
There's an argument to be made for why you'd set up Matunas as your scumlean then night kill him.
Mostly out of surprise and the overall confusion regarding Pythag having been targeted on Day 1. Mediocre had leaned on Pythag's town lean for his defense and part of that helped start Werekill's bandwagon. Bringing it help as a theory I figured would help keep the town focused.
What argument would their be for me setting up/killing Matunas? Unlike Pythag's town read on Mediocre, Matunas at best had me as a null read. What benefit would there be to me killing them at Night after pushing for a 50/50 cop/jailkeeper between the two of us? Such a move only brings more attention to myself upon being the only survivor. And should I had continued to push for a Matunas lynch Day 3 and they came up clean, that would not benefit me going into Day 4.
More or less, uncertainty and null reads have been the name of the game for you. No one can claim that you're setting up subsequent lynches after the townie role flip if you do it like this and wait around for a target to surface from the more active players like myself and Werekill.
Some WIFOM to this, but given all the other context I think you’re playing a very cordial, non-confrontational, and “cautious” game while you allow the game state to progress to a point where other players become lynch targets.
I'm not sure what you mean by null reads, as after Day 1, bar Mediocre's non-committal playstyle, I've been moving away from nulls overall.
I think I'm cautious in my evaluations, but that's definitely the opposite of how I've played the game so far. Breadcrumbing, correcting, directly role claiming, and calling for narrowing down a group of three, are antithetical in some regard in your evaluation.
You’ve been careful to bring up seemingly normal things about other players who aren’t on the chopping block as if they are questionable, without enough conviction for people to call you out on it but with enough for people to think that way. Provided you’re scum, you’re also careful to do this with players you plan to night kill, making yourself “wrong” when you never communicated that you were sure to begin.
Re-reading and asking players for clarification? I'm not sure what makes that scummy? It's one of the main reasons I committed to a Mediocre vote rather than a Matunas vote Day 2.
