He says it was a false claim. Therefore unless he's counting lying about alignment (in which case all scum claims are false) that one should not be included.
Ergo, if he's town he's not the doctor (as if he's town he shouldn't be lying) and if he's scum he's not our Doctor even if he is a Doctor.

The list really isn't that long... Yogs started playing 7 games ago, that's a possibility of 3 - 4 false claims a game (and in reality a lot less as some games had no false claims, like CSPVGs, and Yog's game only had 1) so a max of about 28 different roles. Minus the amount of times Jailer has been claimed falsely by scum you're probably only looking at between 10 - 15 actual possibilities.
Minus again CPR Doctor which he's already said he's not, and you can probably discount Lynchproof, Bulletproof Govenor and Bailiff (I believe that's what Krypsyn claimed in RWarehall's game?) and there's not a lot left.

Which leads back to the point that yogs is basically saying "Look, I've got a power role" and knowing what scum false claims tend to be (Flavour Cop, Role Cop, Jailer etc.), what could be a fairly useful role.
Now either he's scum and wants us to believe that's the case so we don't vote for him, or he's town and genuinely has a role which meets the stated criteria.
Now people hinting they have a useful power role but not actually claiming is generally seen as a pretty scummy move, and I see a few people have already jumped on that wagon here, and I can't say I disagree.
And if he is town then it's not a very pro town move as there's a strong chance he may be lynched or NK'd and we lose whatever role he does have.
But I'm very aware that last game town lynched their Doctor, and don't really want to repeat that mistake now I'm on the other side...

I would vote yogs to avoid No Lynch (as we saw last game, that's a very bad thing), but as we are days away from that possibility I don't see myself voting him any time soon.

Lol. I'm going to presume that happening is quite unlikely at this point.

On that note, we do seem to be out of RVS. Is it time to suggest that people with votes that are entirely RVS (Cristi, e.g.) pull them back? My impression is that the votes for Yog and the vote for me are the only votes that were "true" votes. Are there other votes that are really intended to be where they are?

Refreshed and saw longer posts from Yogs/Adalia including a response to me but haven't read them as I post this.

*cough*

You were saying?


I can't claim to know the reasoning behind Bookwyrm's play, but my day 1 game starter had two purposes; to put forward an alternative to stupid pointless waffling day 1 (one which I still believe in), and to try and draw out some scum
And (for my own entertainment) to try and correctly guess the scum team.

So what benefit is your play supposed to have for town? Where is the pro town motive?

Heh.

...

Heh.

(one 'heh' just wasn't enough)

Look just because 7 is half of 14, it doesn't mean you have to double down. (hint: check the enumerated player lists of this and the last game)

I made no strawman.

You soft claimed an important role. Now you attempt to throw it back as something I made up.

I'm not trying to keep my hands clean, I'm trying to ferret out scum. And you reek of it.

Probably.
Unvote: Krypsyn

Good question. It comes down to whether you believe yogsloth has any idea what he is doing. He does seem to have a knack for really starting discussion... as well as leading town to their own demise and his victory.

Traitor! After post 193, I thought you had my back in this competition. :(

Quite.

I'm sorry, try claiming some super important role. That would help.

The only benefit I see is it stimulates conversation, but is it a smoke screen because he's scum trying to look town or is he really town trying to move things along. If he's town why would he give up a power role is what bothers me, I see no reason for it. It's been tried several games now and it always ends bad for town.

@yogs, if you are town why reveal a power role to move the game along? I can't think of a good reason.

Bad post format. Sitting on this post for 10+ min to be safe.

Yes, D1 is a problem. Agreed.

But this line of argument sounds familiar. My memory of August is fuzzy, but IIRC this sounds a lot like Adalia's argument when he was in your shoes. And at least he was vanilla.

I agree I'm not wild about Flub's logic, nor am I really on board with Trent's burning need to vote any/all claims like it's a crusade. But neither of those plays is particularly out of character for them either (which you seem to acknowledge by unvoting Flub with little/no comment).

Which mostly leads one left to analyze me or Ix, right, or perhaps voters 5-9. Why did Ix vote the biggest wagon and then hastily turn around and mention the prospect of unvoting (#207). Why was I reluctant to join Adalia's wagon but spending the most energy on yours?

And as for last game, keep in mind it's quite possible there would have been a lynch (maybe several) but for PM madness and QA posting. Just because there are also 16 players this game, I don't see anything that suggests going quite as far out as you did, as early as you did, was necessary to avoid the possibility of no lynch come deadline.

I do think it fits with your explanation of throwing caution to the wind given your larger circumstances, but again, that narrative fits regardless of alignment. So yes, you got us talking. The question is whether we're actually talking about anything that's helpful.

I confess, I found this a bit hilarious. Not sure if it's a bit of blindness or a spin. IIRC that's exactly what you DID do in RW's game, and then claimed as a grand success when it struck gold, no? Or am I mischaracterizing that?

Which was interesting since you were arguably lynching CSP for his meta- lurking arguably more than his actual lurking to that point in that particular game. But that's a whole other conversation.

*looks around*
Nice that RVS has kind of endet. I just noticed: I don't like RVS. Even as mod. But now we're fine. :-)
*gets popcorn*

Is "I'm a suicidal moron" a reason? Do you get the feeling we're all missing something obvious?


Well it is a grand success when it works, right? lol! But both points are valid - when there is no better alternative, lynching a lurker to avoid later distraction is still the right play.... but also something Scum can seek to exploit. Welcome to Forum Mafia!

OK, I've littered the thread enough. I'm shutting up for a while.

Don't think we're not noticing those of you with your lights on deliberately avoiding confrontation, btw!

I'm not avoiding it. I'm just not really interested in getting into this never ending debate. I'll vote for you to avoid a no-lynch, but currently I'm looking for more likely targets.

Talking about missing people, where is HijacK? I thought he said he was catching up... like, yesterday.

I'd expect a post from him just before a lynch is achieved addressing points long since forgotten by the rest of us that make no sense in the context of whatever the current conversation is at the time...
But I could be wrong...