I already explained that to Joe, but I'll repeat my reasoning for your benefit. Don't worry, I'll type very slowly, so you might be able to follow.

-we KNOW that GR survived
-we KNOW that no one died that night
-so we can conclude, that some protection occurred.
-we KNOW the kill wasn't prevented by a role blocker, because that blocker would have said so, revealing the scum that attempted a kill.
- the missing kill in the Night before is easily explained by SPF's death. Probably he was the one who was supposed to perform the nk, but Joe was faster for some reason.
-GR had revealed himself as Cop and had already contributed to yogs lynch.
-a claimed and uncontested Cop is way more dangerous than an IC.
-so it was natural to assume that GR was the target and was protected. Which accounts for the missing NK.
-Joe claimed to have protected GR, which fits everything else and wasn't contested. That was the entire point of that post which you attack.

Keep in mind, that that post was AFTER Joe's claim. Not without Joe's claim, like you imply.


@Pooka: I think that should have been obvious from my post. I won't remove my vote from you without your claim. Unless the deadline and the danger of a no lynch forces me to. So yes, I want that claim unless you have a good reason to withhold it. And I find it VERY scummy that you try to push the responsibility of ther decision whether to claim or not on others.

Good, that's what I wanted to hear.

Again, revealing my role won't help Town and won't save me from a lynch. In fact, Joppo's assessment of my post is spot on, and I'm already afraid that scum no longer have me on the list of future nightkillls. So I'm naturally not going to claim unless a good chunk of players ask for it.

Don't be nasty, Lift

@all: with the aim of keeping the conversation as smooth as possible (and save thankless work for everyone), let us double check, when we ask something from someone, that the actual reply is really not satisfactory, before asking fro more.
The reply on #1129 is clear enough. JUST BELOW the snippet that you quote, this portion comes:

(underlining added now for clarity)

In case the format comes out flunky:

>>Re-reading, the harshness was directed at Micro. For Flocke he adopted the "avoiding the no-lynch" stance with yogs [...] So, only to Micro (remember that it was written with slash and the qualifier "if memory does not fail") and yes, it was definitive and a complete change of stance from D1

It has been surprising to see the above part quoted and then demanding information that was right BELOW. Let us double check before asking for more, fellas.

Also, since we are nitpicking. Joe's behaviour was NEVER linked to that of SPF. SPF's was LINKED (although that word was never used in #918) with yogsloth's, and yogsloth's with trent's. Meaning they were apparently collaborating and reinforcing each other's action and the fact of onfe being scum made more likely the other being scum too. For Joe, it was expressed that there was a PARALLEL between Joe's change in behaviour from Days 1 and 2 and the way he was posting on Day 4 (he has explained later that he had less time on D1, D2, and possibly there are other reasons, too). No direct link nor collaboration with SPF on the same Day (contrary to yogs, trent). SPF's change in behaviour was considered as a reference and pattern. The difference is meaningful.

_________________

@all: The posts that Joe accurately looked at... If they are meaningful (and not just the typical nonsense that we all make sometimes), it might mean more townie points for Lift, not less....

_________________
:'-D

We are only human =)

=> From Joe's own posts, they might be suggesting that Joe performed some actions that did not involve targeting GR with any spell, and that he believes that said actions did protect GR on N3.

If that is not the case, then we might all have been in a rush and getting lost. But it is OK, paranoia can be healthy in certain environments, sometimes :-)

Why not? Being nasty is sometimes fun and since I'm not scum, I don't have to pretend being nice. ;-)

That being said, I understand that my use of KNOW was unfortunate. So before you all get hung up on semantics perhaps it's better if you just lynch me. We have the leeway for a mislynch today and perhaps you can analyze tomorrow who of the unconfirmed players behaved most scummy while that mislynch was going on. I would prefer, of course, not to be lynched and I'm not going to self vote or give up in frustration. But like trent, I don't want to be too much of a distraction. You decide how much emphasis you put on semantics.

Actually imagined Lift typing with a furious countenance, but very slowly, one key at a time, with great care =)

We all have make mistakes now and then, both reading others's posts and writing ourselves (leaving ambiguous statements, etc).

In any case, bets are not allowed, but... it is raw haggis vs chocolate cookies that we still do not know everything that happened in all these nights. Who knows what might happen yet, too.

OK. Where is the camera that you hid in my office?! ;-)

Nope, sorry that's not what I meant. I was unclear. When I said "no-one said they targeted GameRager" I SHOULD have said "no-one said GameRager was targeted with a kill"

My point was: Lift was either neglecting to consider that GameRager was NOT the kill target. Or Lift knew that GameRager was the kill target.

From Lift's response, I'm not sure which it is. I'm leaning toward an innocent misunderstanding, but then his statement "Joe's vig shot must have taken priority over SirP's kill" is highly questionable... I don't know.



...

...

ò_σ

Ooooh I get it now. You did make a mistake indeed. When you said that SPF was pushing Flocke's lynch it was Micro's wagon you were thinking of. I was just reading it as a different mistake.

I was all "but I don't remember that. Lemme check... Nope, barely any mentions of Flocke in SPF's posts... Could he be trying to cast shade on Joe based on an invented behaviour?"
I also considered you were maybe drawing parallels between Joe and Yog but misnamed the scum.

You can't blame me for thinking there is something odd when you say one name meaning another like that. Leaving unchecked statements like those fly would be a great tool for scum to direct suspicions towards townies and away from their buddies.

Why is that questionable? I think it's a reasonable assumption. In each game I've run I had to consider sequence of resolution of Night Actions beforehand. What happens if a killer is targeted himself?

-We know that we didn't have any death besides that of SPF in that Night. So the scum kill was somehow prevented. Before your claim, there were several equally valid theories possible: either a PGO was targeted by SPF or the scum-kill was redirected to SPF or SPF was killed before he could perform the scum NK or the scum NK was somehow prevented and SPF's death was unrelated to the missing kill.

After your uncontested claim only the last two remain. A PGO or a redirector would probably have challenged your claim to have been the one responsible for SPF's death. Therefore the assumption that SPF's death had something to do with the missing NK is quite reasonable, I think. Of course a separate protection of someone who was the target in that Night is also possible. But the correlation SPF-dead --> no NK is the simplest assumption. Often the most simple explanation is the correct one, so, again, I think it is reasonable to assume that you prevented the N2 NK by killing SPF. At least no one has stepped forward to claim anything else.


Something completely different:
There was some repeated speculation whether there is 1 or 2 scum left (for balancing reasons) or 1 scum and 1 neutral. But that doesn't really matter right now. We have 5 more or less confirmed players. If there are 2 scum left, our chances of hitting one of them when targeting one of the unconfirmed players only increase. And then we will see if the game is won or not.

For me that means: lynch Pooka, trent or Joppo. I'm quite confident that there is (at least) one scum among these three. Consul is possible too, of course, but I went over that in the past. His clarification that he is actually not derp-cleared seemed quite towny to me. So I'd like to exclude him from the lynch-pool for now.

Everyone other than me will of course have to include me in the lynch pool as well. So that would make the pool Pooka, trent, Joppo and me for today. It's just important that we get to an agreement before the deadline.

If you read my previous posts you'll know that I've suspected Lift since the beginning. But I don't see how this discussion is going to lead anywhere. How could anyone consider that Joe did NOT protect GR N3 after reading his claim post?

As has already been mentioned, about half of remaining players is cleared as town. Even if one of them is a godfather, the town is bound to lynch the remaiming scum sooner or later if the confirmed bunch coordinates to avoid a no-lynch.

I'd expect 2 remaining non-town, either 2 mafia or 1 mafia + 1 neutral. I wouldn't worry about a neutral to be honest: with no additional night kills, we know there's no serial killer, and ZFR said there are no cults. I don't see anyone as a jester. That leaves what? A survivor? It would be in their best interest to side with the currently OP town.

And a final thing: earlier this "Day" trent seemed to be heavily under suspicion, but has managed to more or less fade from discussion. I would like to hear his claim (or Lift's, although not for yesterday's events) more than Pooka's.

I think I missed that post. Thanks for pointing out?

BTW if you claim I promise not to forget. ;)

And I'm not a survivor nor a neutral. But if there is one, with no killing or recruiting powers, would they be that dangerous right now? Catching mafia as soon as possible would be their best bet to win.

After consulting with Professor ZFR, it turns out that if someone, for example, is casting a spell and on the same night he is being targeted by a NK, the spell will be cast nonetheless.