Agree with this.

Waiting until L-1 and the last minute, as we usually do, is less than strategic.

Claiming at L-1 is still viable as long as we have active voters/players aware of exactly where things are.

Does anyone think Scum have voted for each other already to create distance? Or is a D1 misslynch more tempting?

Yes and no. This in itself doesn't because if Bler is Neutral Lyncher and I am his unknowing enemy he may jump on any opportunity to misslynch me if it presents itself. But having reflected on it I alongside maybe Joe, who I read as Neutral, are the only 2 who read Bler as non-town. Taking such an action he did against me is very risky for non-town. In retrospect it was overly bullish to say I'm sure he's not town, because he might be.

This below bothers me from Bler though. I have already had a discussion with Bler where he said 'why didn't you reply to Flub's question' to which I replied I had responded to it and now he's made the following incorrect observation again after being corrected:

Hmm hasn't it already been pointed out that this question was answered in post 63 by myself?

This is a good question. The ambiguous deadline is a bit of a pain. I will likely be able to log on early tomorrow morning (my time), but I probably won't be around for the actual deadline.

SirPrimalform has a good point in discretionary claiming. There may be extenuating circumstances around a particular claim. I'd suggest claiming sooner rather than later, since people will be less intentional in showing up for a deadline if they don't know when it is.

I mean, they're both possible. Thing is, the WIFOM is so deep the question is almost useless.

I inclined to think he's making a jab at your lack of experience rather than an incorrect observation, but it's a good point. @bler144?

cough... cough



I'd "heh" here, if it weren't for:

That's his reply to cristigale's question about his top suspects.




cough... cough

Perhaps next time, any time you've got on your hands is better spent on actually reading the thread than doing reads? Or is it a problem only when others fail to read the thread carefully, and even then, is it a problem only when some fail but not when some others do?

Equally, if not more, interesting is that ZFR himself basically concedes in post #134 that his reason for his vote wasn't public until that point.



That's also how I understood his question, hence my inquiry in post #94. I wonder now why he didn't bother to reply, and clarify this wasn't what he was asking.

So, @supplementscene, care to answer my question from post #94 now?

Funny how you bring that up. I missed that sentence while reading the thread, focusing instead on the first sentence in the post. My bad. I know I miss stuff, make of it what you will. I point it out whenever I see it. I was also interested in seeing ZFR's reaction after I noticed my mistake.

Mmmm... Care to specify which question?

What's interesting? I noticed your post, thought maybe I wasn't clear in my post hence you missed it, and clarified.

I'm more used to people sarcastically coughing at me to bring my attention to a missed point. Your clarification is appreciated.

Sorry I missed this at the time

Re-reading you didn't and I hate to see this but I believe I mistook HSL for the other 3 lettered SPF, who did joke, which I know is very poor on my part.

I was referring to Neutral Lyncher and I actually meant if we know if the enemy is dead. Lift informed us we do and the Neutral Lyncher leaves the game on a win.

*casts Joe summoning spell*

Witch! Wiiiitch!!!

So your father's afraid to go to sleep while you're in the house...


Let me see if I got your sequence of events right:

You show up way late in the game state, see Lift's post #15, and your panicked reaction was... to cast an RVS vote on supplementscene. Instead of checking what the current (at the time) game state was. Apparently, having an RVS vote on record was important enough at the time that you thought of casting one in your panic. And I suppose the fact that you didn't bold that vote was to demonstrate it was made in panic.

Then you read the thread, and made post #104. The content of which shows that bler144 stood out to you, so much that he got a prominent spot in your TRUFAX - Mafia.
Apparently not enough to vote him, however, even though you wanted to change your vote:

Instead you changed your vote to SirPrimalform as:

That was a more genuine one (does this mean that your initial vote on supplementscene was also genuine and not panic RVS as you said earlier?), because as you replied to muddysneakers:

Because you liked the idea of post #78 being him supporting his mafia-buddy...

... wait, didn't you say just above [emphasis added]:

So everything... except for the at the time vote standing, even though the most recent count vote was in post #99, i.e. just two posts before your #101, your point of being caught up back then.

A day later, you change your vote again:

In contrast to the decent reason for your previous genuine vote, apparently.


Do you think the reasons behind the votes you've gotten aren't decent? If so, which ones, and why?

Yes: Here is a fair argument -

It's wrong, but it's fair.

Here are some unfair arguments:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I made a connection between Ixamyakxim and supplementscene?
At the time I declared bler, sprim and ixam to be a team, ixam had made a single post, and I hadn't mentioned him. The declaration was preceeded by the word 'trufax', which, I agree is misleading, but does not mean facts that are true, but tends, rather, to mean wild speculation. Which is just what it was. Not dissimilar to RVS, but it's a fun excercise that me and zfr have enjoyed the last few games (and now he snakes me out over it. :( )

It's unrelated, but I have reservations about the suggestion in the final line, that somebody who is factually inaccurate is more likely to be mafia. A very wise man once said "Anybody can be wrong" (and then twaddled on a bit, slightly undermining the majesty of the statement)

PRE-EDIT - apologies, I did link ixam and scene - it's because scene stated that he didn't have any read on ixam because he'd not posted much, which piqued my interest as I'd only posted thrice and scene was all over me. HOWEVER, I was assuming that ixam had posted at least thrice, which he had not. So it was a fair point of scene's and I retract my very-tentative-connection-provided-that-scene-is-scum-which-i-don't-think-he-is.


Firstly, that meddlesome 'trufax' misunderstanding again. Please don't think that I had any faith that bler, ixam and sprim will turn put to be the scumteam. I just want to be able to go "see??" if they do. The misunderstanding is my own fault, though.

Secondly, the idea that having three people on two votes means that you are limited to lynch those three people. Hmm, I guess is Ixamyakxim has limited time then the dreadful decision toll would mean that he has to join a wagon... maybe it's not fair of me to call it unfair.


This one I can argue with - bler surely has more time for mafia than ixam. Why are you restricted only to the players with two or three votes? vote for someone with one vote, and then they are open to consideration by others. If everybody restricts themselves so we create the dreaded False Trichotomy of Lynchees (FTOL)

Lack of reasoning for mafia predictions - if referring to TRUFAX, see above. If referring to my list, meh.

Playing for the crowd - fair. Although I tend to piss as many people of as I amuse, so maybe it should read 'playing for A crowd'.

Pushing double lynch - Calling it 'pushing' is a bit harsh. I suggested it twice in one post, and haven't posted since. You're the only person who has mentioned any problem with it, and ZFR seemed skeptical of that problem. (incidentally it occured to me that we'd have two lynches but less votes on each, so theoretically mafia have greater control over two lynches, so maybe that's a problem) (tell a lie! bler mentioned that a shorter game makes parity cop much weaker, but took an overall neutral stance on it) ANYWAY I'm sure if I said that I'd gone off the idea now somebody would say "as soon as you got criticism for it you changed your mind", but in fact, I haven't gone off the idea. Bler's summary; If we want a high risk high tension game we should do it; makes me want to do it all the more.

Posting IIoA - I stated the players that I thought were town, and the players that I would be willing to vote for. I would call that sorting players. I'll admit that my reads aren't much, but I don't think much of anybody's reads so far.

Alright, that's enough attempting to defend myself.

I'll post this, and continue trying to address questions and etcetera.
If I don't take too long doing that I might have some time to do scum hunting. Maybe I'm prioritising the game wrong and I should just ignore the things people say to me...

But, but... I only make it when I'm about to die anyway and it's a team I really believe to be scum... Not at the beginning as an RVS.

Dude, sorry :(

I still think you're scum (or also likely a gogtrialless neutral), but I'm sorry for appearing to snake you over that.

why is cristi less safe a vote that spaff, zephyr or joe?


Hum. P1na's being likeable and not drawing much attention to himself. Generally people seem to be focusing on the ones doing the most shouting (FOR EXAMPLE MEEEEE!!!!). I think a lot of the more visible people are town (bler, supplementscene, agent) so I picked someone who I reckoned could be playing mafia.

It's just occured to me that P1na's been going on about commonly not making it to night 2, so it may be that he gets this a lot. Maybe he;s just an easy target. Hm.

I'll try and read more game.


You were giving ZFR evil eye for random.org vote, Sprimal says "You're wrong! although maybe you're right..."

Right, I've just read it again and that's not what it says. Hm. I totally misremembered everything even as I was reading it, is how I got myself into this position. I did have over 100 posts to catch up on in a shot time.

Yup, I absolutely did. For the moment I'll trust you that flub's behaving contrary to his subtitle.

Because she's not given me a reason to not vote for her. Would you not vote for her?

Free pass for zfr because I think he deserves to have me play in a game with him where I don't spend the first day going for him. Bad tactically but whatcanyoudo. You're asking me to hypothetically challenge my own integrity, and I haven't the courage to do so. Make zfr a challenging wagon and we'll see ;p


Oh I should have put this with the other post, but... Hm. I disagree. likely we would get two towns, but I reckon it's worth the risk. But you seem sure of yourself and no-one else seems to care and I can't imagine trying to organise such a thing now.


I wouldn't have it any other way ;) If you're gonna snake me, better make it in a game of forum mafia.

Wouldn't you be? ;)


Hm. When you put it that way, it does sound pretty bad. You're starting to convince me I AM mafia.

I didn't vote bler, because I only have one vote. It was sprimal that did the thing that turns out I was totally wrong about and it really shouldn't be an issue. My fault. It doesn't mean that my supplementscene was also genuine. Something that is genuine is more genuine than something that is not at all genuine.