Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ashersky]

Robz, what are your thoughts on Galz?  In your own words, please.

In order to answer your question, I did a 5 minute re-read of Galzria. Well, bleh. I don't think he seems very different from normal. He's less omnipresent than usual, and briefer, but what he does say is pretty token Galzria. Strong opens, a dash of humor, against lurking, anti-Robz agenda... vintage Galzria, really.

Now, he's not being as relentlessly (annoyingly, even) townish as usual. Galzria is someone very much like Jo to me: I know what they're like, I just really don't know what they're like when they are mafia, because they are almost always town.

Eh, that's probably fair and true to an extent. Much like you, I've realized my value to town is greatest in later days from an analytical standpoint. I don't suck at D1, but it's a different beast. Honestly, for my first 7 town games, nothing worked. In my last one, something did. I'm just trying to replicate results. I'm present. I drive conversation when something pops up. But I'm not going tip involve myself in every issue. Through a mix of quiet observation and directed questions or statements, hopefully I'll feel decent by days end.

Yes though, it is a conscience shift from M-III->M-IX town Galz, to M-XI town Galz. One worked. The others failed.

So we should give you a pass until D3 or so without having to really contribute?  I mean, it's easier for everyone to be "greatest on later days" since there are less people, more info to study, etc.

Can't just ignore D1 though.  Robz shouldn't either, even if he agrees with the "I am more important to town on later days" argument.

Great job parsing "You should just let me live until late game" from that...

Thanks.  It wasn't hard to see in there.

[Galzria]

Robz, what are your thoughts on Galz?  In your own words, please.

In order to answer your question, I did a 5 minute re-read of Galzria. Well, bleh. I don't think he seems very different from normal. He's less omnipresent than usual, and briefer, but what he does say is pretty token Galzria. Strong opens, a dash of humor, against lurking, anti-Robz agenda... vintage Galzria, really.

Now, he's not being as relentlessly (annoyingly, even) townish as usual. Galzria is someone very much like Jo to me: I know what they're like, I just really don't know what they're like when they are mafia, because they are almost always town.

Eh, that's probably fair and true to an extent. Much like you, I've realized my value to town is greatest in later days from an analytical standpoint. I don't suck at D1, but it's a different beast. Honestly, for my first 7 town games, nothing worked. In my last one, something did. I'm just trying to replicate results. I'm present. I drive conversation when something pops up. But I'm not going tip involve myself in every issue. Through a mix of quiet observation and directed questions or statements, hopefully I'll feel decent by days end.

Yes though, it is a conscience shift from M-III->M-IX town Galz, to M-XI town Galz. One worked. The others failed.

So we should give you a pass until D3 or so without having to really contribute?  I mean, it's easier for everyone to be "greatest on later days" since there are less people, more info to study, etc.

Can't just ignore D1 though.  Robz shouldn't either, even if he agrees with the "I am more important to town on later days" argument.

Great job parsing "You should just let me live until late game" from that...

Thanks.  It wasn't hard to see in there.

You should take more time and read closer then.

[ashersky]

Robz, what are your thoughts on Galz?  In your own words, please.

In order to answer your question, I did a 5 minute re-read of Galzria. Well, bleh. I don't think he seems very different from normal. He's less omnipresent than usual, and briefer, but what he does say is pretty token Galzria. Strong opens, a dash of humor, against lurking, anti-Robz agenda... vintage Galzria, really.

Now, he's not being as relentlessly (annoyingly, even) townish as usual. Galzria is someone very much like Jo to me: I know what they're like, I just really don't know what they're like when they are mafia, because they are almost always town.

Eh, that's probably fair and true to an extent. Much like you, I've realized my value to town is greatest in later days from an analytical standpoint. I don't suck at D1, but it's a different beast. Honestly, for my first 7 town games, nothing worked. In my last one, something did. I'm just trying to replicate results. I'm present. I drive conversation when something pops up. But I'm not going tip involve myself in every issue. Through a mix of quiet observation and directed questions or statements, hopefully I'll feel decent by days end.

Yes though, it is a conscience shift from M-III->M-IX town Galz, to M-XI town Galz. One worked. The others failed.

So we should give you a pass until D3 or so without having to really contribute?  I mean, it's easier for everyone to be "greatest on later days" since there are less people, more info to study, etc.

Can't just ignore D1 though.  Robz shouldn't either, even if he agrees with the "I am more important to town on later days" argument.

Great job parsing "You should just let me live until late game" from that...

Thanks.  It wasn't hard to see in there.

You should take more time and read closer then.

Okay.

Volt asks Robz for his take on you.  He rereads and comes away with a "bleh" read, pointing out the ways (three, total) that you are different from your usual self, but notes you still haves notes of vintage you, then concludes he never reads you well, because he almost always ends up with a town read no matter what.

In your response, you basically agree with his take, then say that, much like him (although he didn't say this in his post), you think you are worth more to the town later in the game, although not worthless on D1, but note its a different beast.  You say in your last game (not sure which one counts as your last), you did something that worked, and that you would try to replicate that something.  You list how you will be D1 ( around but not "tip involved") and end that you had a change in conscience from old games to new.  Those last two confuse me more; what do you mean by tip involved (not giving tips on players, maybe?) and I don't know what your conscience has to do with this, unless you felt guilty before and not now?

So, you see, I read it, and my takeaway is you think you are worth a lot to us later in the game vice early, and that worked most recently, and it put your conscience at ease, so that's what we should expect from you.  Not much now, greatness later.


I would add that I have noted elsewhere I think you have possibly the most town meta on f.ds.  That may be continuing here, but it seems like your change of style may be to counter that?

[Galzria]

Tip = too

Conscience = Conscious

And my last normal game played in is the only Mafia game to legitimately lynch scum D1, largely due to a scum consistency I noticed and called out. Since the game is ongoing however, it's not right to discuss it. I was merely pointing out that my playstyle here is intentionally like my playstyle there, since from M-III to M-IX, no scum was ever lynched D1, whereas scum WAS in M-XI (all games I'm which I played, and was town).

[ashersky]

Tip = too

Conscience = Conscious

And my last normal game played in is the only Mafia game to legitimately lynch scum D1, largely due to a scum consistency I noticed and called out. Since the game is ongoing however, it's not right to discuss it. I was merely pointing out that my playstyle here is intentionally like my playstyle there, since from M-III to M-IX, no scum was ever lynched D1, whereas scum WAS in M-XI (all games I'm which I played, and was town).

Okay, thanks for clarifications.

I understand your point of your last normal game now, too.  Clearly can't discuss as I'm in that game still.  I will refer back to my exchange earlier this game with Grujah where we discuss towny meta and my take on you, which was based in part on that game.

[Voltgloss]

So I had a thought about roleclaiming in this setup.  I'm going to propose something controversial at the end of this, so I'm going to lay out my reasoning step-by-step, which relies on three key aspects of the setup:

1.  There are no Doctors, Jailkeepers, or other "protect another player" roles in this setup.

This means that, if the Explorer, Ambassador, or Cutpurse gets pushed to L-1 and truthfully claims, scum will almost certainly kill him during the night - and can do so knowing with 100% certainty that their kill will succeed.  This is bad both because it eliminates a power role, and because we can't glean any information from the scum's choice of kill - it's OBVIOUS why they killed like they did, and they would do so no matter what the identities of the various scumfolks.

2.  The Pearl Diver is only useful if scum target him on a night he uses his ability.

Pretty obvious, but it bears repeating.  Clearly the best way the Pearl Diver can make use of his power is if he can somehow bait scum into targeting him at night.  But if he truthfully claimed Pearl Diver, that just means scum WON'T target him - at least the night after he claims.

3.  Scum cannot fakeclaim without provoking a counterclaim.

This because we know EXACTLY how many power roles are in the setup:  4.  One of each (Explorer, Cutpurse, Ambassador, Pearl Diver).  Also, given that we have 4 power roles and 3 scum, a 1-for-1 tradeoff from counterclaiming isn't a bad deal for town.

Which leads me to my controversial proposal, which has two parts:

- If the Pearl Diver is still alive, and if a power role is forced to L-1, I propose that player generically claim "power role," without revealing his actual role.

- Then, on the following Day, if the claimant is still alive, he reveals his actual role (plus history of who he targeted, if applicable).

This way, scum have a night of WIFOM:  is this the Pearl Diver, meaning their kill is going to miss?  Or is this another power role, who scum would want to kill?  And then on the following Day, the full claim details are provided and - if this is scum fakeclaiming - we'll get the counterclaim needed to get a 1-for-1 tradeoff.

I think this is a better approach than power roles being forced to out themselves and get immediately killed that Night.  The drawback is that scum fakeclaiming get to live an extra day... but I think the benefits of a power role living an extra day (especially the Explorer) outweigh that drawback.  Thoughts from the town?

In my next few posts, I plan to (1) delineate my communication plans for if I get chicken-cursed - which I think will be in line with those proposed by others, though I have to reread to confirm; and (2) give my reads on everybody to date, along with my willingness-to-lynch list, so I'm not trying to get those across while a chicken (in case I get cursed).

[yuma]

I don't think the WIFOM is that huge for scum.  There are four "power roles" ambassador, cutpurse, explorer and pearl diver. So if one of these players claims power role and then scum goes into night only 1/4--if no other power role has yet been killed--has a chance of being the Pearl Diver. I think the obvious choice is for scum to kill... perhaps I shouldn't be saying this for scum to read, but I think it pretty obvious as a 3/4 chance of killing a power role is pretty good odds for them. Of course those odds change as power roles die off beforehand..... 2/3, 1/2 then I think the WIFOM increases, but hopefully we won't get to that point.

Or am I misreading or misunderstanding something? Let me know if I am.

[Voltgloss]

Chicken communication:

1.  If I am responding to a question raised by another player, I will do so as follows:

Chicken Vote: <Player Asking Question>
Chicken (for yes)
Chicken chicken (for no)
Chicken chicken chicken (if the answer is neither yes nor no)
Chicken Unvote

2.  If I am updating my "willingness-to-lynch" list, I will do so as follows:

Chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (4x, signaling the start of my willingness-to-lynch list)
Chicken Vote: <Player I am least willing to Lynch>
Chicken Vote: <Next-least willing lynch>
...and so on up to...
Chicken Vote: <Second-most willing to lynch>
Chicken Vote: <Preferred lynch>

3.  If at any time I am referring to someone who is at L-1, I will type "Chicken Vote: No Lynch" instead of that player's name.  If I actually want to no-lynch, I will "Chicken Vote: No Lynch" twice in a row at the end of my post.

4.  If I want to roleclaim, I will:

- type "Chicken" 12 times in one line, to signal a roleclaim;

- in my next line, type as follows:

--- Chicken.  (for FV)
--- Chicken chicken.  (for "generic power role")
--- Chicken chicken chicken.  (for Ambassador)
--- Chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (for Explorer)
--- Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (for Pearl Diver)
--- Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (for Cutpurse)

- and in the case of Ambassador or Explorer, give a series of Chicken Votes: <Player name> to identify (in order by Night) who I targeted each Night.  If I need to refer to someone at L-1, I will use Chicken Vote: No Lynch.

I think this combines the various proposals offered into a workable compromise. 

[Voltgloss]

I don't think the WIFOM is that huge for scum.  There are four "power roles" ambassador, cutpurse, explorer and pearl diver. So if one of these players claims power role and then scum goes into night only 1/4--if no other power role has yet been killed--has a chance of being the Pearl Diver. I think the obvious choice is for scum to kill... perhaps I shouldn't be saying this for scum to read, but I think it pretty obvious as a 3/4 chance of killing a power role is pretty good odds for them. Of course those odds change as power roles die off beforehand..... 2/3, 1/2 then I think the WIFOM increases, but hopefully we won't get to that point.

Or am I misreading or misunderstanding something? Let me know if I am.

No, your understanding is correct.  But I think some WIFOM for scum is better than no WIFOM.  The alternative is that scum know with 100% certainty they are killing a power role - or know with 100% certainty that they should hold off on killing (because the player claimed Pearl Diver).  Anything that prevents scum from having 100% certainty is, I think, a good thing for Town.

The Cutpurse also has the alternative of using his power instead of generic-claiming (if he hasn't been chicken-cursed of course).  So if the Cutpurse would normally use that alternative, then scum are looking at 1/3 WIFOM.  I think whether the Cutpurse should do this or not should be purposefully left vague.

The one thing that I'm not sure about is what the power role should do if chicken-cursed.  The "possibly the Pearl Diver" issue for scum doesn't matter then because a chicken-cursed Pearl Diver can't escape the nightkill.  Would it be better for a chicken-cursed player to just claim normally?  I would appreciate other players' views.

[yuma]

I think we also need a way to communicate that something was messed up in the previous chicken post. There is huge potential for error here as one chicken added or left out by accident could completely change the game.  I recommend using ~ 40 chickens to communicate that something was amiss in the previous post and that town is misintrepreting what chicken is trying to communicate.

It is hard enough to communicate with each other using words and misunderstandings happen all the time, I think this will be compounded by chickens and we need a way to communicate that so it can be corrected.

"Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken"

[Voltgloss]

I think using capitals every few "chickens" may be against the rules, yuma, but otherwise I agree with 40 chickens in a row being the "STOP YOU ARE WRONG" signal.

[yuma]

I think using capitals every few "chickens" may be against the rules, yuma, but otherwise I agree with 40 chickens in a row being the "STOP YOU ARE WRONG" signal.

Oh, good point... ignore the capitals, that was just me using the first chicken with a capital C and then copying and pasting a bunch.

[Archetype]

Sorry, been gone for a while.

I like Voltgloss's Chicken Communication, but I think the only way it would work if everyone could memorize/copy down the chart.

Also think the ~40 Chicken panic post would be good to.

I dont have anything else to say except a note to any players who willl be Chickens: Dont post any uneccessary 'Chickens'. It'll just confuse us more.

[ashersky]

Chicken communication:

1.  If I am responding to a question raised by another player, I will do so as follows:

Chicken Vote: <Player Asking Question>
Chicken (for yes)
Chicken chicken (for no)
Chicken chicken chicken (if the answer is neither yes nor no)
Chicken Unvote

2.  If I am updating my "willingness-to-lynch" list, I will do so as follows:

Chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (4x, signaling the start of my willingness-to-lynch list)
Chicken Vote: <Player I am least willing to Lynch>
Chicken Vote: <Next-least willing lynch>
...and so on up to...
Chicken Vote: <Second-most willing to lynch>
Chicken Vote: <Preferred lynch>

3.  If at any time I am referring to someone who is at L-1, I will type "Chicken Vote: No Lynch" instead of that player's name.  If I actually want to no-lynch, I will "Chicken Vote: No Lynch" twice in a row at the end of my post.

4.  If I want to roleclaim, I will:

- type "Chicken" 12 times in one line, to signal a roleclaim;

- in my next line, type as follows:

--- Chicken.  (for FV)
--- Chicken chicken.  (for "generic power role")
--- Chicken chicken chicken.  (for Ambassador)
--- Chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (for Explorer)
--- Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (for Pearl Diver)
--- Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken.  (for Cutpurse)

- and in the case of Ambassador or Explorer, give a series of Chicken Votes: <Player name> to identify (in order by Night) who I targeted each Night.  If I need to refer to someone at L-1, I will use Chicken Vote: No Lynch.

I think we also need a way to communicate that something was messed up in the previous chicken post. There is huge potential for error here as one chicken added or left out by accident could completely change the game.  I recommend using ~ 40 chickens to communicate that something was amiss in the previous post and that town is misintrepreting what chicken is trying to communicate.

It is hard enough to communicate with each other using words and misunderstandings happen all the time, I think this will be compounded by chickens and we need a way to communicate that so it can be corrected.

"chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken"

I dont have anything else to say except a note to any players who willl be Chickens: Dont post any uneccessary 'Chickens'. It'll just confuse us more.

I've combined the most recent ideas together above, and removed the capital letters.  I agree with this system and will use it if I'm chickened.

[Grujah]

I think we can refer to certain post either abosulutely (numbers of chickens for post number, maybe prefaced with an Chicken unvote) or relatively (some start symbol, than number of chickens = Xth post after my last chicken post).

[ashersky]

Late here, but wanted to get some thoughts in on Volt's claiming idea.  The logic reads sound to me, I think, but one question: since there wouldn't be a specific role claimed, our ability to counterclaim a scum lie is basically nil the day of the claim, right?  Is the night of WIFOM worth the trade off?  I can be convinced it is, but counterclaims have worked to catch scum (even when they come late, for those who remember my first ever mafia game) before.  I think I understand the second part of your proposal as being the time that happens, on the following day if they survive, but if we lose the PR in the night, we also lose the counterclaim opportunity.

[Robz888]

Responding to Volt:

I agree with his chicken system.

Now, about claiming generic power role. Here's a different idea. If you are a power role, and you get to L-1, why not just claim Pearl Diver nstead of your real role? That way, the mafia almost certainly don't choose to kill you.

Of course if we're doing this, the real Pearl Diver has to know to keep his mouth shut, and it violates the "lynch all liars" ethos, and of course scum could do it, too.

Taking this plan one step further would be for the real Pearl Diver to claim, uh Explorer, if he gets to L-1. And then we actually can absorb a night kill.

Now, I'm not sure this actually works in execution. But perhaps worth considering. That we have no protective roles is worrying.

[Grujah]

Responding to Volt:

I agree with his chicken system.

Now, about claiming generic power role. Here's a different idea. If you are a power role, and you get to L-1, why not just claim Pearl Diver nstead of your real role? That way, the mafia almost certainly don't choose to kill you.

Of course if we're doing this, the real Pearl Diver has to know to keep his mouth shut, and it violates the "lynch all liars" ethos, and of course scum could do it, too.

Taking this plan one step further would be for the real Pearl Diver to claim, uh Explorer, if he gets to L-1. And then we actually can absorb a night kill.

Now, I'm not sure this actually works in execution. But perhaps worth considering. That we have no protective roles is worrying.

You know, people should read this and decide quietly what they are to do. If we announce it, all WIFOM loses meaning.

...

Or,.. you can all just not claim and leave mafia wondering (in case you survive).

[Cuzz]

Responding to Volt:

I agree with his chicken system.

Now, about claiming generic power role. Here's a different idea. If you are a power role, and you get to L-1, why not just claim Pearl Diver nstead of your real role? That way, the mafia almost certainly don't choose to kill you.

Of course if we're doing this, the real Pearl Diver has to know to keep his mouth shut, and it violates the "lynch all liars" ethos, and of course scum could do it, too.

Taking this plan one step further would be for the real Pearl Diver to claim, uh Explorer, if he gets to L-1. And then we actually can absorb a night kill.

Now, I'm not sure this actually works in execution. But perhaps worth considering. That we have no protective roles is worrying.

You know, people should read this and decide quietly what they are to do. If we announce it, all WIFOM loses meaning.

...

Or,.. you can all just not claim and leave mafia wondering (in case you survive).

Yeah are we forgetting that mafia is reading/possibly participating in this discussion? Is it possible to have a consistent system here that mafia can't take advantage of?

Btw I will adhere to Volt's system with the 40 chicken addendum if I am cursed.

When is the cursing going down anyway?

[jotheonah]

I think a general note to be cautious of claiming in this game, even at L-1 is really good, and even maybe a tacit endorsement of town PRs lying in certain cases.  Any more of a plan than that and we help scum too much.

Of course, being ok with town lying makes me super nervous.

I am not sure, if I get Chickenified, you should expect a great deal of contribution from me. If I'm a chicken at L-1, I just won't claim. I'll use my Chicken vote in a pro-town way. Other than that, I don't think it will be fun OR useful for me to try to continue being a productive town member while under those constraints.

[Archetype]

When is the cursing going down anyway?

Pretty sure it's whenever Mafia decides to Curse somebody.

I'm to lazy to check the OP, but every 3rd day, 2 people get Cursed, right?

1 by the Mafia
and 1 by the Secret Town Curser.

Another thing, I don't think we can automatically assume the cursed player is town. The Mafia could Curse their own member to trick Town, or the Town Curser accidentally hitting one of the Mafia members.

I also want to echo Cuzz's statement:

Yeah are we forgetting that mafia is reading/possibly participating in this discussion? Is it possible to have a consistent system here that mafia can't take advantage of?

We should definitely be cautious about what we say. I think claiming Pearl Diver when at L-1 is a great idea, but now that Mafia knows that plan, I'm not sure it'll work.

[Voltgloss]

And now, reads.  This is not meant to be an exhaustive summary of everything everybody posted.  It hits the highlights of posts/issues that jump out at me and shift my thinking away from the baseline nullread everyone gets at game-start.

Also, this only goes up to #364 (Insom's rundown post), as I need to leave the hospital now.  So this is not yet complete.  I am hoping I'll get to finish this before the curse deadline.  But just in case I don't get to post between now and then, I wanted to at LEAST get this much out there, and hopefully a willingness-to-lynch list will make clear the rest of my reads (even if I have to post it as a chicken).

Also also, I have not yet had a chance to read anything posted after my previous post.  I will work those into my follow-up reads summary.

Order of players is in order of sign-up, per the intro post.


shraeye
- I've already said that the "derphammer" comment left me with a nullread.  That remains true on a reread.

- Good analysis re: the Archetype-vs.-ashersky question I teed up.  Reading my mind in #329.


Robz888
- Jumped on Grujah quickwagon immediately after I started it... but then did not participate in the discussion at all until after I remarked on his being so quiet.  Ten minutes later he posts. 

- His reply #s 273 and 274 are hedges.  Of the self-defeating "I think X but I also rebut it with Y" variety.  He says CF is technically right that the chicken curse gives info, BUT also says in my support that we (as town) are unlikely to solve that WIFOM.  He suspects Grujah from recent posts, BUT says that could be confirmation bias.  He says Eevee and Insom just don't like quickwagons, BUT adds that Insom was scum in the last game he came out against quickwagons.  (And then clarifies a few posts later that after reread, his comment didn't apply to Eevee.)  So what content could we take away from those posts? 

- Reply #284, voting ashersky, is a repeat of his jumping on the Grujah quickwagon.  He defends in #291 after being suspected by Galz - "I'm following a literal lynch all lurkers policy" - but then does not participate in subsequent discussion of applying the LaL policy in a more thoughtful way - based on content, not just raw post count.  (See #294, #296, #297) 

- And then #308?  "Hey scums, why so quiet?"  When Robz himself is being quiet?  When he has not responded to #294, #296, and #297?

- Robz clearly reads my #310 as being suspicious of him specifically.  See his #311.  A very quick OMGUS-style defensive reaction.  Why didn't he give that reaction to Galz or Eevee or CF?  Why didn't he engage in the discussion, instead throwing suspicion back at me and/or us?  The funny thing is, I was NOT at all certain that I suspected Robz at the time - there were multiple votes on ashersky! - but Robz's kneejerk defensive response feels more like worried scum than indignant town.


Eevee
- There was some original analysis from Eevee with respect to the Grujah quickwagon, but since then I haven't seen a lot else from Eevee other than defending himself and joining others' suspicions (like calling out Robz for blindly following lynch-all-lurkers when Galz had already first made that case).  #346 is an example of the kind of fairly minimal content Eevee has provided on others.
 

yuma
- I tend to agree with the analysis in #343, as mentioned previously. 


Galzria
- He may have joined the Grujah wagon "late," but he did so while addressing the discussion up to that point AND participated in further discussion when Grujah appeared (including unvoting Grujah).  I'm not seeing that as suspicious.

- Reply #289 - calling out Robz's vote on ashersky as disingenuous, and of scum using "lynch all lurkers" as a policy for their own votes - resonates very strongly with me. 


Insomniac
- Jumping on and off the Grujah quickwagon may be odd, but I find it unlikely that scum!Insom would call that level of attention to himself so quickly.  Caveat: I could see scum!Insom doing this if his scumbuddy is CF, to set up an early war between the two of them.  I don't have a reason currently to think this is a likely pairing; but IF one of them turns out to be scum, I suggest a very hard look at the other one.

- I was not convinced by Insom's arguments as to why it was bad to put Grujah (or anyone) at L-2 early in the Day.  But failing to be convinced of someone's arguments does not make them scum.  This point reads null to me.

- I find it weird that the "Insom voting CF over a joke-VT claim" issue just sort of petered out after jo/Insom/CF's exchange in reply #s 201 to 205. 


ashersky
- First post gives townreads on me, CF, and Robz for "most in-depth posts" - but without further detail or identifying the posts.  I find quickbuddying without good explanation slightly suspicious.  I've been buddied up by scum enough times to be wary of that as a tactic.

- I don't like the "I gave content, I talked about chickens"-style comment in #318.  But then he comes back with reads and analysis in #326.  That's the kind of content that's most important for folks to provide. 


Captain_Frisk
- People have made comments about the "pause" before he voted the Grujah quickwagon, but that "pause" was like 8 minutes.  I also think CF's quick-flip-flop between Insom and Grujah and back to Insom is pretty well explained by CF's own posts.  See #s 174 to #179.  I'm not seeing those actions of CF's as suspicious.


Grujah
- Started with the lurk, but what content has he provided since then?

- I don't like how in #243 Grujah refers to a post of Eevee's - about the need to move quick and move wagons -and analaysis along - and says "no way a scum would post this."  Grujah's analysis just doesn't make sense, and I especially am concerned that its end result is a TOWNread on Eevee (buddying concern) - and a very confident townread.

- Interesting how Grujah resurrects suspicion on Insom in #243 and #250, yet no one bites.  I feel like, if Grujah were town, then at least one scum would likely join him in pushing that suspicion (whether Insom is scum OR town).  Yet no one did. 

- In reply #270, Grujah says Archetype is "judging too much by semantics rather than content."  Apparently referring to Archetype's #267.  But I don't think Archetype's point there WAS about semantics.  I queried whether we should lynch before curse deadline; Grujah said that was scummy and that we need to practice handling chicken communication; Archetype responded that we don't need to practice if we always lynch before curse deadline. 


Archetype
- Sheeping Insom in his (Archetype's) first post, joining the vote on shraeye.  Says he'll read back to get some good town/scum reads on people.  <Did he?>  Instead tunnels more on shraeye (see #251) and then unvotes when Shraeye explains (see #259).  Then defends himself in #323 and talks about chickens/lurkers generally.


jotheonah
- Nothing has jumped out at me yet.  Participation is very low, due to RL (congrats on the job!!) and to issues in other games. 


Cuzz
- The flip-flop re: Archetype in response to my question (that yuma pointed out) remains a scumpoint against Cuzz. 

- That said, #359 is some good analysis of the Grujah quickwagon.

[shraeye]

I think we also need a way to communicate that something was messed up in the previous chicken post. There is huge potential for error here as one chicken added or left out by accident could completely change the game.  I recommend using ~ 40 chickens to communicate that something was amiss in the previous post and that town is misintrepreting what chicken is trying to communicate.

It is hard enough to communicate with each other using words and misunderstandings happen all the time, I think this will be compounded by chickens and we need a way to communicate that so it can be corrected.

"Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken Chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken chicken"

This is a grand idea, there is a lot of room for misinterpretation/mistakes I think.

[shraeye]

I also want to echo Cuzz's statement:

Yeah are we forgetting that mafia is reading/possibly participating in this discussion? Is it possible to have a consistent system here that mafia can't take advantage of?

We should definitely be cautious about what we say. I think claiming Pearl Diver when at L-1 is a great idea, but now that Mafia knows that plan, I'm not sure it'll work.

Absolutely.  Having any sort of agreed upon system for claiming makes mafia's lives much much easier, as they then will have almost full information.  Imma do what I want to do if I ever get to L-1.  Systems are bad.  Mass claiming is bad.

[Eevee]

Need to reread before I can post any content (will do asap), but theory idea: couldn't we decide that both the explorer and the pearl diver claim pearl diver? That way scum would have a 50% chance / wifom situation, which i better than 100% and 25% that have been suggested earlier.