Chess - Game Thread [Concluded]

[Slaan]

If you need to counterclaim a vig, or to claim you had a one shot vig and tried to vig someone, is leaving something visible in the thread. Otherwise when you claim, you don't have anything visible in your posts all game long to support it. Much like when scums claim cop in cop games, their posts have to match their eventual claim in a believable way. One can't for example say that X is scummy and then later claim that they cop checked them and found them to be innocent. The story doesn't match.

If you ever claim vig, for counterclaim or simply claiming-to-cause-mislynch purposes, having something that matches the story is the only way it is bought.

The play is only good for one lynch, just like counterclaiming a cop. Once a flip happens, the jig is up.

A vig is no different in that regard. It has the exact same claim utility. How often do you play with vigs? You've never seen someone fake claim vig? You even said you were faking crumbing a vig here, so obviously you've seen people fake vig claims before.

Acting surprised that someone would use it as a strategy as an actual vig, is not just iffy, it's unbelievable.

This crumbing to make it believable is never done this openly though in my experience? Not to mention I still don't know why I would put myself out there as mafia... maybe it's because I know my own mafia playstyle rather well I'm 100% certain that such a strategy is way outside my scumrange... there is hardly any benefit from it I can see... not to mention in a closed setting where I wouldnt even know if there was a town vig? It just makes no sense to me no matter how I twist and turn it...

Lets go back to what you wrote in black and white.



You were saying, by context, either you believed that town didn't have a vig, or they would have vigged choxorn.

What's missing then is the leap between that concept, and the idea that the mafia had a vigilante shot against Winston Hughes and a mafia team kill against Askthepizzaguy on the same night, in the exact same post, in the next sentence.

Let's pretend both kills succeeded and were visible, which is also a leap since there was only one kill attempt that we know of.

Even so, why would you not immediately assume one of the kills was a really misguided town vigilante who one of Winston or Pizza had been accusing, or they had put us down as scum and decided to yolo it.

Why is that not the more logical theory than immediately leaping to, town has no vigilante but the mafia has two kills?

Which towny would've vigged either you or Winston at this point? And why would I make this post int he first place? I mean I might get it if mafia made a post shortly after the night ended in confusion of why there was only one kill (but c'mon, with a strongman around a towndoc is obvious)... the way you go after this post is what made me angry yesterday because it implies that I play mafia very badly to even make such a post... which again gains 0 benefits. It's (obviously now...) not a good townpost either but when I play as town I don't care all that much how I look and just get my thoughts out there. That's what you are seeing here.

At no point was I ever suggesting you were really a town vigilante here. You hard claimed not being one, I asked you directly.

Why you'd vig him is if he's not on your team.

Arent you suggesting I'm the mafia vig that targeted Winston or you N1? If you don't think so then you going after my speculative posts makes even less sense because why as mafia would I even wonder if there were night kills against both you and Winston? And when I NK someone there goes a little more thought into it then just 'he isnt on my team'.

Aside from the stuff about what you'd have been doing as a town vig, which I am not saying you were doing.

I don't know what could have happened on night two. Full night vig would have to hit doctor protection on N1 and N2 both times.

It's plausible that once a vig is the solo scum they cannot keep a second kill, but I don't know about that for sure. I've seen them be able to have team kills before in mashes, just don't know if such mechanics would apply to a small game. Doubtful even.

A one extra shot vig or an odd night vig are the only other plausible explanations for the scum team. You wouldn't need to claim many shots, and it's even possible for there to be multiple vigs in a game and not be scum if they have limitations (i.e. one shot from an inventor, one sometimes shot but not every night shot from a different role). You also know in this setup there's a strongman if you're scum, therefore missing kills can be explained by doctor protections as I said.

With the idea of limited shots in play and plausible reasons why they'd go missing, the claim is much easier to make for a scumbag. Then you could claim a shot on someone and say it did not cause a death and suspect them for it, and later, you can explain the missing night of a kill, and then visibly kill on the night thereafter to prove you have the power, and it isn't immediately outing if it's odd night. Or, you could completely claim to be a one-shot vig even if you had an odd night. The point is, you have options.

Putting shots into both Winston and Pizza on night 1 guarantees one of us dies, somewhat checks if we're bulletproof, or confirms we're being doctor protected. There was never going to be a more useful time to shoot twice, even if you only had a single shot to play with.

I don't follow... so you agree that I'm no full vig I think? Because that would mean that I literally ran into a doc protection three times. Odd night vig? Would still not explain last night where I was the one being protected. So one shot vig... then again I don't understand why I'd ever use it N1. The game was wide open, if Winston died or not who cares at this point. Keep the vig for a potential mylo or smth or suprise town towards the end with a vig that makes them have one less lynch. It's probably WIFOM (not sure if I use this term correctly...) to speculate on this but from my perspective it never makes sense.

I don't call people morons for wrong guesses and I don't appreciate being called one.

Again apologies... shouldnt have used the 'm' word... (though I only called the case as such, not you. You made fantastic cases against the wolves that flipped so far... still shouldnt have used the word, I'm truely sorry)

You told me all game long that this play from you was part of your own scum meta. You'll have to forgive me at some point for believing it, when you posted about choosing people who would make a good final 5 lynchee, anticipating a lot of failure between now and then, and claiming a never-seen mafia vig in addition to a mafia team kill, while also admitting to crumbing that you might have been a vig earlier this round before you confirmed you were not one.

When did I ever claim that this is part of my scum meta? My scum meta is being towny as much as I can to be cleared and then slowly ride it out until lylo. I'd never see a reason to fake claim anything in copless games as I don't see the benefit... even as a counter claim that leaves me with a 50/50 who ppl believe in and as you've said previously: it's only good for one lynch. Why take this risk, just get townread and win this way. Maybe that's why I'm so agitated on this issue... because its never something I'd ever do as scum... even the crumbing itself, it puts a small spotlight on myself which is not something a mafia wants imo... not to mention that it would make the lategame difficult because the entire 'why are you still alive' line for which I usually get mislynched is even more pronounced if you essentially fake claimed a PR and make it to late.

The point about thinking ahead is something I guess you could scumread me for, not that it's correct but w/e. I don't see whats wrong with planning things out, if we win before we get to the later stage: cool. If we don't: we have a plan. If thats scummy, cool... if you lynch me for that similiar to the Fred thing above idc.

If I am not allowed to have legitimate suspicion on you after that, I shouldn't be playing this game. Frankly none of us should be.

Yes you can have suspicion. It's how you then used it to make such a specific case where (in my opinion at least) nothing really fits or makes sense for me to do as mafia and then parade it around made me see red... again I'm sorry for how I acted and that's highly unusual for me... guess I learned today to stay away from mafia games when having barely 3 hours of sleep :(.

That's all I have to say on that. I prefer these games stay civil, joking, the interplay between us meant to elicit entertaining reactions, not hurt feelings. If I've offended you by accusing you wrongly then it was not my intention.

I don't give a single fig about these games. I care about them to an extent as a hobby I enjoy a LOT, but if it results in people getting personally offended or upset in real life, it's not a game to me anymore.

After the game, my intention is that Slaan and Askthepizzaguy can still like each other. If I've failed on that then the game doesn't matter to me.

Of course we cann still like each other... again sorry for going overboard

[Askthepizzaguy]

This crumbing to make it believable is never done this openly though in my experience? Not to mention I still don't know why I would put myself out there as mafia... maybe it's because I know my own mafia playstyle rather well I'm 100% certain that such a strategy is way outside my scumrange... there is hardly any benefit from it I can see... not to mention in a closed setting where I wouldnt even know if there was a town vig? It just makes no sense to me no matter how I twist and turn it...

You don't need to know if there's a town vigilante to fake being crumbing you have a vig.

The issue is not the town vig part. You keep focusing on this. At this point the only town vig in this game should have been my one shot I got from choxorn, because there's been only 1 night with an extra kill.

The issue was always you suggesting there was a mafia team kill, and a mafia night vigilante shot, with only 1 dead person.

A vanilla townie does not assume there being two scum kills when there's one visible.

A vanilla townie crumbing a possible vig target, as you've admitted to doing this game, crumbing you might have some sort of power role and repeatedly referencing vigs [most especially in the post where you claim the mafia team have a team kill and a vig, not to mention your multiple posts before that talking about if you had a shot], that is a person who could plausibly claim that there were two kills, only one visible, by suggesting they might have hit a bulletproof mafia or a scum doctored mafia or just been roleblocked or whatever, interference. A vanilla townie is unlikely to make such a claim, because it's a bit like fake claiming a guilty cop check as vanilla. It's lying and it's also without info, a fancy play. I don't assume people do this by default, I have to see them do it.

But the issue is, you were not claiming two kills in that post were town and mafia kills. You were claiming there was a mafia vig and a mafia team kill in that post, while suggesting a town vig should have been vigging elsewhere, or did. It's ambiguous.

But you still arrive at a 2 kill theory, with 1 visible, both controlled by scums, while being vanilla townie.

What makes a lot more sense is if you are suggesting you know or strongly suspect there's a scum vig in the game.

It's not intuitive to get such a meaning from that post, which is why everyone including me glossed over it even though I'd been seeing your crumbs at that point.

If you know or strongly suspect there's a scum vig in some game, you'd the town vigilante in that game most likely. That's the most common reason why a townie would suspect there's a scum vig. Say, a limited vig, like an odd or even night vigilante. Then, often times, the mafia has an odd or even night vigilante to match it, or a full vig. Often times when townies get a regular or semi-regular vig role, they're tipped off a bit about the setup. Usually the scums have extra kill power if the townies have any.

Now, you've since then hard claimed not to be a town vigilante and we don't appear to have one besides the inventor-like role's one shot.

But, if you were neither a vanilla townie (as a vanilla townie shouldn't be speculating on two scum kills when 1 is visible)

Nor are you a town vigilante (as you have claimed not to be and the kills suggest doesn't exist)

You could have done the above in this scenario.

You are the scum vig or have access to a special one shot, or an irregular vig of some kind.

In such a scenario, if you were crumbing that you might be a town one shot or limited vigilante (to claim in the event you get lynched one day) what helps sell such a claim is you suggesting who you might have targeted. In this case choxorn. Then his non-death becomes suspicious, and he's already under suspicion at the time, and as it happens, had lynched Logic and had been pushing back on Zack and GH both.

As such, he is a High Value Mislynch Target.

If you only have a limited vig at your disposal, and wish to eliminate or toss suspicion onto choxorn, and you have a couple of teammates alive who could really use a big fancy claim to make sure they live, there is some benefit to crumbing.

It gives you options.

Since it's a crumb that's very hypothetical, it's unlikely to be pushed on if you decide to never pursue the gambit. I often crumb stuff as vanilla townie or scum. I've seen lots of scums crumb powers they don't have. They don't necessarily have to hard claim them.

I'd be baffled if this is outside of your experience as well, so none of this should be as shocking as you describe it to be.

Arent you suggesting I'm the mafia vig that targeted Winston or you N1? If you don't think so then you going after my speculative posts makes even less sense because why as mafia would I even wonder if there were night kills against both you and Winston? And when I NK someone there goes a little more thought into it then just 'he isnt on my team'.

Yes, and why wouldn't both Winston and I get targeted on Night one?

The doctor can't cover both, and the mafia team just lost their strongman. Not only did we both look townie but we were both pressing hard onto the next potential scum flips, to some extent. Eliminating either of us gives the scums less of a narrative/control disadvantage.

As long as Winston and Pizza are alive and helping to direct lynches, the game goes badly. Getting one or both of us dead was essential.

Again, I don't see how either shot would be thoughtless, and in your own post, you suggested exactly those two names as the most likely targets. One having been targeted and dead, and then also me, for no reason that can be explained by being a vanilla townie.

I don't follow... so you agree that I'm no full vig I think? Because that would mean that I literally ran into a doc protection three times. Odd night vig? Would still not explain last night where I was the one being protected. So one shot vig... then again I don't understand why I'd ever use it N1.

Don't know if you could shoot twice as the last scum, and don't understand how definitely guaranteed hitting and killing one of Pizza/Winston or possibly even killing both if the town didn't have a doctor, but bulletproof role(s) instead, is so outlandish.

You keep dismissing these hypothetical situations as totally unreasonable, when they should be basic scummery 101.

If the town has a vig shot, for example, it's dangerous to hold onto a limited firepower shot for too long. You could die without making use of it. And as predictable as the game has been in retrospect, it was far from a lock at the time that you'd never be a suspect again or wouldn't take some flak for suggesting that Zack was town, or agreeing with Zack and GH that dp101 looked bad during the cfd event.

Town points come and go. I'd never be so silly as to use a limited shot I might have in an unpredictable game when we have clear absolutely must kill targets alive threatening live scums, is not a valid thinking process to me.

When did I ever claim that this is part of my scum meta? My scum meta is being towny as much as I can to be cleared and then slowly ride it out until lylo.

That's exactly what I was referring to. Hard bussing and looking supertownie. I even said the only way you could be scum this game is if you were playing a deliberately supertownie strategem. You hard bussed Logic, and then when it was GH's turn, you dutifully also shaded him all round. Wasn't a hard choice to make.

The harder choice was defending Zack, since he looked as bad as GH did to many people, but you said you didn't think he was scum, even though the behaviors GH displayed toward that end of day were identical.

One doesn't get more town credits than all the town credits, and you had enough by bussing Logic and shading GH. You didn't need to also push Zack. You could argue that choxorn and Manasi had to go next after GH (which you did) and defend Zack (which you also did).

When I mentioned this to you, you confirmed that this is how you'd play the game as a scumbag.

You are aware of this, so you're conflating two separate thoughts. Deliberately, as far as I can tell. I'm not writing run-on sentences and I've explained and re-explained my argument several times now. In each case, when you've responded, you have seemingly deliberately misunderstood the argument.

Now I can buy that on the technical details of 2 versus 3 claimed kills when 1 is visible. Misunderstandings are possible there. Less so when I'm talking about two very separate concepts, your admission of your scum meta (and you remember what you said, because you wrote it) and what I am saying about vig crumbing. Those are separate arguments you're conflating, and I've explained this too many times for you to be accidentally conflating them.

I really don't want to believe that when you get into a jam, your defense is simply harsh AtE and rudeness.

Most likely such behaviors come from frustrated townies, but that's a really gross thing to town read you for and I am still having many outstanding problems with your game.

Mainly, a vanilla townie does not claim that there was two kills on night one and names them, when one was visible.

I haven't seen that happen in my experience. I can't put you as a town read at this point because you never sufficiently explained how you could make such an odd speculation.

But I have to be honest, I don't care.

If you're town, then I feel sick to my stomach for being wrong, and then your reaction. If you're mafia, I feel gross for other reasons.

I tried looking into Monty as an alternative creeper into my town list. Outside of the uncleared low poster types, who could infiltrate my town.

I am not seeing it from dp or freddo.

Thread is hard to read, especially Monty's posts. My conclusion is only that it's possible. I know he has it in him to look amazingly townie.

He was, in spite of his great posts, on choxorn and arguing for a tie. That's as close to scummy as I can see from him. He's also defending you a bit today, while then ending up voting you.

But that's pretty thin. And I've lost a lot of willpower to press forward on anything controversial atp.

[Montmorency]

A vanilla townie does not assume there being two scum kills when there's one visible.

I'm still not really familiar with the roles you guys use as my homeforum has a certain set im meta with fixed roles that just get play all the time (one time doc that gets told the NK each night, 2x oneshot vig, cop) so I felt/feel like in dark waters when it comes to closed games such as this....

Maybe he was just really primed from experience to look for roles, even if there wasn't direct or indirect evidence for them yet. I'm pretty sure I've also been suspected for going overboard with complicated speculation.

Leaving aside Slaan's play and interactions, or his response to your case (which I can't help but find genuine), is the whole case against him that single D2 "night kills" paragraph?

If the case hinges on that single point, and it's such a complex and unique point, then...

You make your case, I struggle with the premise, but other townie people acknowledge or even approve the premise, so it could be a legit case. Slaan's reaction is justifiably (or relatably) confused, and voluble and rejects the premise, but that premise is still hanging, either you believe in it or not and nothing Slaan can do either way changes it's role - it's unfalsifiable because any reaction could be defined as WIFOM. How is this resolvable?

Well, let's look at this gamestate. If we lynch Slaan we are breaking POE, which you thought inadvisable earlier and I encouraged planning for. It would be a really bad decision if it's wrong, or it could be the only thing that solves the game. We are already in bedlam, and town is in danger of losing the initiative you emphasized N1 when forming your faction tents and POE.

But now, whether or not we lynch Slaan, he's kind of poisoned in that if he survives to LYLO there remains at least a seed of suspicion...

I don't think you can lynch Slaan today without planning ahead the entire game, with several different paths or contingencies.

More people other than Pizza need to weigh in on the above, though of course Pizza does as well.

I tried looking into Monty as an alternative creeper into my town list. Outside of the uncleared low poster types, who could infiltrate my town.

I am not seeing it from dp or freddo.

Thread is hard to read, especially Monty's posts. My conclusion is only that it's possible. I know he has it in him to look amazingly townie.

He was, in spite of his great posts, on choxorn and arguing for a tie. That's as close to scummy as I can see from him. He's also defending you a bit today, while then ending up voting you.

But that's pretty thin. And I've lost a lot of willpower to press forward on anything controversial atp.

Slaan was the first to challenge me on the tie. Multi-wagons are usually better than single consensus wagons in pressuring Mafia, right? It seemed like a good idea at the time. The bit that's mechanically "wrong" is verbally encouraging it rather than analyzing the existing fact of it.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't think you can lynch Slaan today without planning ahead the entire game, with several different paths or contingencies.

Explain the reasoning behind this idea.

KISS principle applies here. Unless we're planning on lynching Fredwood or dp101 at some point, or choxorn or me, we went from a locked position to a near lock.

Near lock means we still win most of the time. The mafia has to be exactly the wrong person and everyone needs to let them go for them to win.

I ended up with like 10 townies outside of choxorn, and choxorn makes 11. Why can I not afford to kick out one or two "locks" when their interactions with the dead scums look incriminating, why does it need excessive planning.

This is part of why I suspected Slaan in the first place. Since when do we absolutely have to plan out failure until final 3?

If we're dead we're not influencing those lynches anyway, only the survivors will.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I ended up with like 10 townies outside of choxorn, and choxorn makes 11.

At the time, before the recent deaths.

I can't be bothered to go back and actually count, but from where I sit, the don't lynch people still outnumber the do lynch pile.

[Slaan]

Maybe he was just really primed from experience to look for roles, even if there wasn't direct or indirect evidence for them yet. I'm pretty sure I've also been suspected for going overboard with complicated speculation.

Leaving aside Slaan's play and interactions, or his response to your case (which I can't help but find genuine), is the whole case against him that single D2 "night kills" paragraph?

If the case hinges on that single point, and it's such a complex and unique point, then...

You make your case, I struggle with the premise, but other townie people acknowledge or even approve the premise, so it could be a legit case. Slaan's reaction is justifiably (or relatably) confused, and voluble and rejects the premise, but that premise is still hanging, either you believe in it or not and nothing Slaan can do either way changes it's role - it's unfalsifiable because any reaction could be defined as WIFOM. How is this resolvable?

Well, let's look at this gamestate. If we lynch Slaan we are breaking POE, which you thought inadvisable earlier and I encouraged planning for. It would be a really bad decision if it's wrong, or it could be the only thing that solves the game. We are already in bedlam, and town is in danger of losing the initiative you emphasized N1 when forming your faction tents and POE.

But now, whether or not we lynch Slaan, he's kind of poisoned in that if he survives to LYLO there remains at least a seed of suspicion...

I don't think you can lynch Slaan today without planning ahead the entire game, with several different paths or contingencies.

More people other than Pizza need to weigh in on the above, though of course Pizza does as well.

Perfect post. Though I think I'm being also suspected for the exact planning you are now proposing when giving a list and order of ppl I'd want to lynch (and also floated the idea that I wasnt sure about you and I'd consider lynching you around F5 or smth) because planning apparently means expecting mislynches which is somehow wolfy or smth, not quite sure myself on that one but I was accused something like that.

[Fredwood]

Perfect post. Though I think I'm being also suspected for the exact planning you are now proposing when giving a list and order of ppl I'd want to lynch (and also floated the idea that I wasnt sure about you and I'd consider lynching you around F5 or smth) because planning apparently means expecting mislynches which is somehow wolfy or smth, not quite sure myself on that one but I was accused something like that.

Because you weren't proposing to break POE and still planning out the lynches. We are now considering breaking the POE.

[Slaan]

Because you weren't proposing to break POE and still planning out the lynches. We are now considering breaking the POE.

I what now? I have my own PoE and posted it and planned it out (well sorta, didnt really count the lynched we had...).

[Fredwood]

I what now? I have my own PoE and posted it and planned it out (well sorta, didnt really count the lynched we had...).

You're saying it was a perfect post and what you were doing. When it wasn't.

Monty's whole point in the post is the fact that we are considering lynching you means we are considering breaking established POE and should plan for failure, that was Monty's point. You weren't breaking POE, you were altering it (while inconsistently assessing spew) sure, but still planning out the failure while still trying to exist within it.

[Slaan]

Mainly, a vanilla townie does not claim that there was two kills on night one and names them, when one was visible.

I haven't seen that happen in my experience. I can't put you as a town read at this point because you never sufficiently explained how you could make such an odd speculation.

I havent ever seen a wolf anouncing his doc blocked night vig in thread for no reason.... but yea that appears to be the linchpin in your case against me and I can't defend from that. I was merely blindly speculating on possibilities and what else could've happened during the night (mainly because I thought the Winston kill to be odd but w/e) without giving it much thought, but that will become obvious after I flip or the game ends. Will stop defending myself overall from this as I don't see it going anywhere, if you think that I would make such a blunder then lynching me is the correct play for you and I can't fault you for that (doesnt change the fact that I think the case to be bad though but w/e, it's not like we have any slam dunk cases left anyway).

I will now pick up where I left off when rereading and see if I can get through the rest before EoD.