If you're voting Ix, case please. Quote it if you've already written one.

He was already second on my shortened list, and I deem his evasions and apparent refusal to help in any real fashion as anti-town behavior.

Okay, now tell me what the scum, motivation for that is.

Would you agree the question assumes all players play rationally (and not only rationally, but optimally given the gamestate) at all times, despite presumably having witnessed players actually having played irrationally at times?

Do nothing, reveal nothing. Blend in, and wait for any pressure to go away. He's playing just barely defensive, with no scum hunting at all.

What does it mean to act rationally?

You asked "what's the motivation." Motive can be driven by id or by ego, but in any case implies a goal and conscious action.

Sometimes people just react to shit on instinct with no motive or long-term plan at all. That's the point I was driving at.

Let me flip the question though: can you see a town motivation is for what Ix is doing?

You're not the least bit curious?

If this were a small (or smaller) game I'd never entertain it but we have 17 people. It's not the total loss / waste of a day as it should be and it fits.

Plus I imagine tomorrow might be a bit interesting - hardly the reset of Day One that a No Lynch usually causes.

I saw that argument earlier.

Don't entirely buy it since the ratios probably don't change much if at all, and I think Vitek's last tiny game was actually a better case of where buying time suits. To the extent it moves the needle at all town can probably absorb a mistake here very slightly more.

And there's the other problem that 16 other players is really hard for a townie to track/analyze/sort. So honestly I think this is a case where narrowing the field absolutely can improve future analysis.

So if anything I think you have it backwards.

But I don't find the argument indicative of alignment either way as it's hard to prove/disprove and thus ultimately just an opinion question. There was that white paper on N=even/odd scenarios and s=sqrt of N theories but I don't recall it speaking to no lynch based on size.

Phone died, posting and dashing. Wyrm: your mindset is relevant. Bler: not so much motivation as mindset.

Was waiting for a bump and it comes at the 9 min mark. ><

Pretend I'm not a good mafia player, and/or lawyer and clarify the distinction there?

Ironically, perhaps, this is the first post you've made that I've townread in terms of content and tone. Food for thought. But please, more of this at least.

I'm not as sold on the 'reset' thing as others are. But it occurs to me you were in the Epsilon game - personally I'd say that was just a cluster**** where the deadlock/no-lynch was a symptom and not a cause of later cluster***ery. That wasn't a case where town analyzed it's options, debated who looked good/bad, and decided to punt, but where the mod inadvertently preventing a D1 scum lynch and resulting confusion/mess, IIRC.

I find it interesting that you didn't qualify this based on my flip.

Interesting how?

It's only a "slip" if he's cop and already peeked you. IDK, it seems implied to me.

Alternatively, maybe his argument is that she's scum and knows you're town, thus the defense. In either case, that's still not a slip.

In the converse scenario where Stan threatens to lynch Wyrm after your unqualified flip, that could be a slip because it implies she knows you're town.

You're willing to assume a N0 action, whereby the Mason cop already used his ability to find one scum in a 17 person game, yet you prod me for three days based on how I used minutes in an hour?