Swords and Sorcery Mafia Without the Swords [Concluded]

OK I'm still sick but not feeling as godawful as last night. So yay.

Re: Zack tinfoil -- this is the terrible thing about Zack; I could totally believe it. No smooth talkers allowed in LYLO this game, lol.

Re: Csargo -- really sliding down my list today for tone/contribution reasons. Stop it.


Re: atheotes -- including dead players on his reads list bugs the crap out of me. Regarding my abandoned attempt to stunt my town game, I'm trying again next time, see if I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atheotes

though we cannot be sure at this point, the method of both the night kills seem to indicate that they were vigs.
Renata might have done the smart thing and used some kind of self protection or a redirector onto someone who was protected.

---

I'm willing to say I did neither of those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So it does seem scum targeted BSmith for nightkill - but why?

He had only 5 posts, fewest of all players, posted in one half-hour stretch.

Post 1, he votes for Al Sipsclar, unvotes, votes DP101. Singles out Zack slightly in the Zack-Winston-Renata confrontation.



The rest of his posts were just responses to Renata's questions. Was this really enough?

---

What makes you think BSmith was the scum kill? i mean, other than the obvious lack of any other townie death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

I'm playing with the idea that both BSmith and Al Sips were vig kills and the mafia hit a protection. (Or multiple protections, if they took multiple shots.) If they did kill him, maybe it was out of fear of how cheap all thsoe various means of protection and self-protection are, and they just wanted to ensure they hit somebody?

Even if Zack's scum, which I can see now more than last night, I doubt that tiny bit of shade that BSmith cast would be a decision-maker for them.

---

This is more in line with my thinking except for the last part bcos i think Zack is town.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Atheotes-Visor is an interesting parallelism. I don't think they could both be scum, so might as well pressure both at once.

Atheotes has been more assertive in his town game lately, but in this game - he just isn't responding to the content throughout the day.

Mostly irrelevant banter or humor, from his few posts.

At start of day, he accused me of being scum and voted me on the basis of a gif I posted. Town atheotes would not do that. He would either seriously take that as evidence and make a case against me, or he wouldn't vote me at all.

---

Lol. As i said, i was tied up. My vote on you was nothing more than a joke vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snerk

OK but if your reads were already typed out, why delay them to the day? Why so confident you were going to survive the night?

That is a good call indeed, specially considering that BSmith was acting kinda scummy.

I stand by my leans from earlier. With Winston getting a boost and Visor taking a dip.

Sooh or Atheotes. Alternatively Visor or Renata.

vote: Sooh

I want to know why my scan of Sooh failed.

---

i am lynch bait. Already people had suspicions abt me. so i was never going to be targeted by scum. Vig was still possible. But i thought Al would be the higher priority.
Did not expect 2 vig kills tbh.
I thought my reads list was more likely to consolidate top town reads. so i decided not to post them at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

I'm willing to say I did neither of those things.

---

Perhaps someone was looking out for you. I cant think of any other reason for Al sips to visit you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atheotes

Perhaps someone was looking out for you. I cant think of any other reason for Al sips to visit you.

---

If someone was protecting me then you should have seen them too. You've put this reveal in a weird way.

Oh never mind. Are you claiming a track?

Easiest fake claim in the world for scum, but OK. Glad my gamble paid off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

If someone was protecting me then you should have seen them too. You've put this reveal in a weird way.

---

no. i said some was looking out for you...like a redirection. it is also possible you did whatever Monty did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

Oh never mind. Are you claiming a track?

---

no. Watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

Easiest fake claim in the world for scum, but OK. Glad my gamble paid off.

---

:inquisitive:

If you're claiming a watch, you should see whoever targeted me. Assuming Al Sips was there to kill me, you should have seen someone else I think. Whoever the redirector was, if it was that I'd think, and then you would NOT see Al Sips. If it was a straight-up protection you should have seen the protector. This doesn't make sense.

I can think of one scenario where it maybe works, but it seems farfetched.

Um, why would i play any of this in the way i have as a godfather? Godfather doesn't bus or claim peeks lol.

LOL.

I'm wondering if it's simply that easy and Visor/atheotes are our last two.

But see, this is me tunneling so I'm going to look elsewhere. Probably Snerk and/or Arakhor.

Why not Sooh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

Why not Sooh?

---

I have less of a baseline on Snerk/Arakhor to work with and I want to start correcting that. Plus, Sooh's giving us less atm than the other two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

I'm wondering if it's simply that easy and Visor/atheotes are our last two.

But see, this is me tunneling so I'm going to look elsewhere. Probably Snerk and/or Arakhor.

---

Why are you reading atheotes scum? I liked his posts today.

I don't entirely buy that he saw Al Sips visit me and nobody else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Is anyone townreading Visor right now?

---

Is this not exactly how Visor plays as town? He seems normal to me. I thought his argument was interesting at least...

Also, @Montmorency I Detected Corruption on someone and they were not corrupted, so unless I got redirected or some other nonsense it should be correct. I'm not gonna say who for obvious reasons unless you guys come after me with the pitchforks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choxorn

Such insight. Very solving. Truly, we need more posts of this level of quality if we are ever to catch the remaining corrupted.

---

I'm not sure why you're highlighting my post in passing. Sure it wasn't extremely detailed, but it's not as though I could be. I meant that since both wagons were corrupted, then I think it's likely that corrupted are likely in one of them. So looking at the votes and making judgments based on them is wifom type deal.

This isn't how Visor played town the one and only time I played with him.

I can't follow your action claim. How can you detect corruption on someone then say they're not corrupted? Someone dead -- BSmith? Or are you claiming someone else?

Need Monty in here with his big old chart of claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

This isn't how Visor played town the one and only time I played with him.

I can't follow your action claim. How can you detect corruption on someone then say they're not corrupted? Someone dead -- BSmith? Or are you claiming someone else?

---

I think that's the spell name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

I don't entirely buy that he saw Al Sips visit me and nobody else.

---

Fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

This isn't how Visor played town the one and only time I played with him.

I can't follow your action claim. How can you detect corruption on someone then say they're not corrupted? Someone dead -- BSmith? Or are you claiming someone else?

---

It's the name of the spell, like Lewwyn said. I didn't use it on BSmith no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renata

If you're claiming a watch, you should see whoever targeted me. Assuming Al Sips was there to kill me, you should have seen someone else I think. Whoever the redirector was, if it was that I'd think, and then you would NOT see Al Sips. If it was a straight-up protection you should have seen the protector. This doesn't make sense.

I can think of one scenario where it maybe works, but it seems farfetched.

---

Hmm...i targeted and Al Sips had visited. that is all i know. I am not sure if i would see the redirector if that was used. What did you do?
I am assuming that the scum can use powers in addition to Factional kill. i think someone mentioned a Mana drain. Any effect on your mana? were you Roleblocked?

Arakhor - 60 posts so far. This will exclude the socialization stuff.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Csargo is one of the names I don't recognise, so clearly we must deal with suspicious strangers first!

---

First post is a vote against Csargo. Clearly RVS. Tiniest of "not likely scum together" but not even worth talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Given that Visor often does really silly things as town, I might be inclined to agree, but I'm not seeing the other throwaway comments about people's innocence or lack thereof.

Renata also looks like she's going to be purified first.

---

This post is a response to atheotes calling Visor town. Here we start to see the hedge, though this is Arakhor's M.O. Could be interpreted as a slight disagreement with the mutual Visor/atheotes townread, not enough info on their flips yet to make a ruling about associatives. Commentary on Renata but not an opinion about her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Atheotes is typically a lurker of a lot of the time and Visor often does weird things, but that mutual town read on the slenderest of meetings does seem rather odd.



Isn't OMGUS wonderful? ~;p

---

More of the same, an easy interaction with Csargo plus a further questioning of Visor/atheotes. Don't think they'd do this much distancing at this early stage of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Unless there's shenanigans already, I'm voting for Csargo, not Montmorency (hence Csargo's OMGUS vote and our responses to said vote).

GH, as where my head's at, it's finding another 80 posts in six hours, so a little behind the times is where I am!

Please don't confuse my ignorance for hedging. They may look similar, but I'm fairly slow to form conclusions in these games (wrong ones, usually, but still).

---

Six hour gap between the last post and this one, in which I called Arakhor out for hedging. He has a fairly reasonable-sounding defense for this. Continues to be voting for Csargo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Post #19 is the one in question, made almost 24 hours ago. It also seems to have been his only one so far.

---

This is in reference to Al Sipsclar's one early vote. Doesn't appear to take an opinion on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

I remember in Masque of Death Winston was fairly windy throughout the game, but was also innocent. A quiet Winston who's not also absent would be somewhat weird to me.

I'd consider voting for Al too, based on the strength of his single post, but Day One seems rather too early for a policy lynch. It just seems too scummy, as it were.

As for Visor/Atheotes, Visor frequently changes his mind and chats up the thread a lot, but often he's on to something at the same time.

---

Okay here we go. He appears to be defending Winston (who looks good now), drops the "too scummy" defense on Al (does a scumbuddy resort to this halfway through D1?), and appears to be shading Visor a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

There's only six hours to go or so and Al still hasn't posted more than once, which is a much better reason to give him my vote than my early random-vote. Vote: Al Sipsclar.

(Apologies for the edit above - I was trying to respond to Visor's ninja-post, but too slowly it seems.)

---

Votes Al Sipsclar and telegraphs his reasoning for doing so. Bit awkward, could be seen as him giving up on Al reappearing/potential distancing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

I already posted most of my views so far in #239.

Other than those, Montmorency's role-fishing is clearly suspect and not just because it's anti-fun. I'm not sure what to make of the idea that at least one person had a lynch spell available - I can't decide whether that's more likely to be villagery or not.

---

This was in response to Visor asking him about Al Sips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

I meant that I don't form the same impression of other people's guilt or innocence as quickly as everyone else seems to do. I'm more inclined to believe that Visor is town at the moment, given that his current behaviour matches other times I've known him to be town.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

You quoted the very post where I said that a policy vote was better than a random vote and then say you don't know why I did that??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

If you don't know that I am known for sesquippedalian loquaciousness by now, regardless of my status, then we really have not played together in FAR too long. As I've already said before, my rambling is in part due to my indecisiveness.

---

These last three posts were in reponse to a case/vote from Renata as per his previous hedginess. I do think I like the tone here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Just that. I always wonder whether all those posts about 'knowing' someone's innocence is just grandstanding, because I've never been able to discern that for myself.



I wasn't wrong, but would you prefer I stayed with my random vote? Besides, people who only show up once a day to make a single post and then leave really irritate me, so I'd wouldn't miss anyone who did that in a game.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Afterthought - if scum-Arakhor's vote on Al is the fourth vote on him and he's going to get purified either way, wouldn't it be more obvious to bus him than not?

---

Continuing the argument above, click on the posts themselves for context. I do like him standing his ground here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Well, apart from the fact that trying to prompt a full role-reveal on Day One (you know, before anything has happened) is just disrespectful to the designer's work, it was the inept way he went about it. Vigilantes shouldn't reveal, thereby suggesting that those who don't reveal have vig powers, but doctors, role-blockers and other town power roles should reveal, because of course the scum will be nice enough not to take advantage of that.

In summary: it's un-fun, inept and counter-productive either way, but it's not necessarily scummy, no.

---

I questioned him about his earlier read on Monty, he responds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

It's nice how I'm suddenly the bad guy for voting for Al in lieu of anything better to do, but Renata, who voted for me because I did that, still wants Al dead purified.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

I don't woffle for fear of being pinned down, but because I woffle naturally. My D1 play is always unfocused.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Like you are on me, DP? :shrug:

---

This is a bit of a back-and-forth with DP and I think this is probably the sequence of posts that looks best for Arakhor, mainly because DP is voting for him and yet Arakhor's umbrage seems natural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

I'm not fond of being instantly suspected of being scum for my normal behaviour either. I'm only calling out what's happened.

---

Another tangle with Renata. At this point I'm pretty confident that they're not scum together (though I don't think Renata's scum anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

If only I knew what Barto-esque implied.



This is my first game here. I wasn't aware that being rambly and seemingly scummy was copyrightable.




Which bit are you disagreeing with? Un-fun, inept, counter-productive or not necessarily scummy?



So... late-day "random" vote, followed by a vote (in the same post!) to throw DP101 into a tie once again?

This is then followed by a vote for Renata, which isn't valid because it's not in red and thus makes your 'complaint' about proper voting most ironic.

---

This is 30 minutes before EOD1 with Arakhor getting in a tangle for Monty (again, click the post for context). He's been somewhat scumreading Monty all day so this at least fits in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

I'd expect you to disagree. You did it after all.





Given that your last vote was for DP101, what's that bit then?




Then it was lazy and partially nonsensical. Either way...

---

More tussling with Monty.

---

Posts a bunch of tallies as the usual EOD flurry is upon us, and then with two minutes to go, responds to this post from Al:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Sipsclar

I think Arakhor wants to get back at me after our last game together, where I was scum, and the first D1 opening post, which was Arakhor's, was "Al has fooled me before but not anymore", he suspected me whole game, but eventually lost.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

I'd forgotten about that, Al. Which game was that?

---

Which is really, really weird to be focusing on if Arakhor's scum and two of his partners (Al Sips and Dp101) are the lead wagons at this point. Just odd and I think I'm ready to clear Arakhor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arakhor

Besides which, literally any reason I cite for my first vote on D1 can be safely disregarded.

---

Final post before end of day. Again, really weird to be coming from if he's mafia considering the circumstances.

----------
End of Day 1
----------

I don't want to read into his N1 and D2, I think I have enough here. Will revisit this down the road if I need to.

Conclusion: He's got an interaction with Dp looks good, no weird progressions, and behavior at EOD1 that I don't think comes from mafia considering the circumstances of the lynch. Arakhor can be town for a while.