I feel ya' home skillet.

I'm now attempting to saturate my feelings with brown drink......and it appears to be working.

Yes, in my limited experience, a player should be given the chance to claim. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I hope others will correct me. If they do, I'll apologize and move on. You're reacting to this stronger than I expected. If no one corrects me, this raises more suspicion.

I voted for Bookwyrm because I thought there was a decent chance he was scum. I was wrong.

btw, thanks very much to Sage for organizing that info above. Following up on that is the correct course of action. I'll try to do it as soon as I can be coherent.

The interesting part of that wiki I thought was this phrase: "This is usually ascribed to roles that are pivotal to the setup."

I think you're right that this pretty definitively points to dedo being killed by an arsonist (appropriately, given his role) of either town or independent persuasion, and that Kryp was killed by town. My theory that maybe they both killed themselves by accident doesn't seem to hold up.

As for it being pivotal to the setup, that's interesting. Where does that point? Not certain, but my initial instinct is that it means two things:

1) Presumably he was not free to perform the NK
2) Nor could he choose no action if he thought he was likely to be tracked on a given night.

It could also point to the arsonist being compulsive and this a forced counter, but in theory you could have achieved almost as much balance on that score by just making his actions unlimited. The trade-off would seem to be that, had the game played differently and run down to n=2 with dedo + one non-shot town, or dedo + one arsonist, you'd seem stuck in a draw.

My interest in trent initially focused on the hammer itself, and as flub notes, the speed with which it all went down. For a vet player it didn't seem to make sense. But my analysis spiraled out from there - it's not just that he did it, it's that there's a particular gambit in which that play makes a ton of sense if he's scum.

Breadcrumbs for now.

(Emphasis added)

Was this a typo? If not, why would town kill Kryspyn?

I have played two games and watched one. Before I joined the first game, I skimmed another. So yes, compared to you, I have limited experienced. If you are correct about not allowing players to claim, then I want to know. If not, it's now clear where my vote goes.

Yes, that was an error. I meant Kryp killed by mafia.

Interesting theory. Let's assume you're town and that cristi and I are scum working together. If M(start)=3 it would be pretty suicidal for the two remaining scum to join forces on Day 2 just to lynch you. No? One or both of us would be investigated (by the compulsive trainee incompetent cop) and almost definitively plays out to a town win.

If M=4, with M=3 currently it would still be an outrageously risky gambit.

I think you're reaching. You do make an interesting observation on Cristi's mention of her inexperience. It potentially would make good cover, sure.

But reading back through the scum chat of the last game, it doesn't strike me as inconsistent - she routinely deferred to JMich's greater knowledge and experience, even in cases where maybe she shouldn't have in retrospect.

That said, there is something I find interesting about her being the first on board my theory that's actually part of my analysis against you. So if I am wrong on Trent, and could potentially be persuaded of that in a certain scenario (you know, aside from the one that is him getting lynched and flipped), she'd probably be my next in line.

But again, I'll tease this out since I'm assuming we're not getting 6 votes on anybody on the table in the next 24 hours. My theory does have one potential out buried in it - even if I don't think it's a particularly strong out, it's still there.

lol

Don't you think the game would get boring using the same roles over and over? I do wonder, though, if this is a role-madness game.

This is true, very true.

We would have more information. That is always good. Granted there is no point in a claim if the person has already reached the lynch, but before it could still conceivably be helpful.

I feel bad about this. It sort of screws the game. Sorry everybody :(


I'm wondering right now about the two night kills. Maybe incompetent means he dies as well as bringing his target down. There's a couple problems with this though,
Firstly, the fact that dedo was killed by fire suggest arsonist.
Second, why was Krypsyn shooting at all? He apparently had nothing to go on so it seem like a risky shot in the dark.
Thirdly, what happened then to the real NK. Do we have a doctor, or a jailer, or a roleblocker, or some other weird role I've never heard of?

Also I really have no idea what the "property owner" description means. Anybody have ideas. I noticed JMich pointed it out, but didn't comment on the actual meaning.

As for your rate of posting in Day 1 while away, that's certainly something you can address in Day 2.

I'd been thinking of property owner bit as purely narrative color, in the same way that dedo was reportedly killed by the Ice King. From a narrative perspective it is funny that this Ice King is suspected of murder-by-arson (perhaps his name is ironic) and that the penalty was a two week ban.

Thus I've treated it as having no strategic value as information. But perhaps that's wrong. Still, the only alternative theory I can think of relates to property vis-a-vis arson, and dedo's death by fire doesn't mention property at all, does it? So I'm not sure how that would tie back nor what we'd glean from it.

My whole point with that comment was to illustrate how her logic is as weak as your vote with no reasons. And in my opinion you are giving too much credence to how people are playing this game compared to others. We are not playing any other game but this one. It's hard not to want a comparison of previous games, but you are being to narrow sighted if you judge someone's play now on previous games too much.

Ugh, sounds like work. Oh wait... I remember I wasn't talking to you anymore after that terrible assault on my character. :P

I got about halfway through my wagon-analysis post and realized it sucks, because I call everyone's vote scummy except mine. What a crap bag full of crappy reasons and timing to vote, people.

I'm chucking it in exchange for this summary:

Crappy reasons: JMich (purely to go after yog), CSPVG (just to “jump on”), flub (avoid no-lynch)

Crappy timing: RW, flub, trent (lightning three-headed scumhammer, especially trent), agent (vote-pull and promised analysis that never came)

With no quality read on my part on cristi or Sage, which means they’re probably it and I have no idea what I’m doing.

JMich’s vote is the worst – just the pits. He’s waiting for me to vote for him. It’s so aggravating. And lord help me, I'm probably going to end up obliging. Want to try a fun exercise? Use adalia's script to isolate JMich's posts from the last game. Then do it again for this game. Notice anything?

Analyzing dedo has to be next. Be back later.

Of course. But it seemed relevant in regard to the particular question of how one aligns her claim of inexperience with the perception that her play itself is deft.

In any case, this line of pursuit seems a bit of a smokescreen.

Her question, which I do support, is for the other more experienced players in the group, and whether your claim that hammering with no time for a claim is generally going to be perceived as scummy or pro-town, whether from the standpoint of specific strategery or just gog-mafia custom.

What??
So whether or not "more experienced" players agree with what I did or not determines if it's scummy? LOL, what a load of BS. If you feel the need to have your hand held to be guided in your decisions then I suggest you join Yogs in playing candy land. I'm not sure how many games I've played now, maybe 6 or 7, but I can tell you it was only once in those games that a request for the lynchee to claim was given, and it was by JMich.