NSP Mafia - Game Over

[Polaris]

Or rather, if you're going to go for the "Polaris is scum" route at all, I suggest using BBM's reasoning of "DNA's claim was faulty so Polaris decided to change it" because it's much easier to understand.

[Shadoweh]

Lynch all liars. There's no way I can at all harmonise DNA's actions with Polaris's claims. If we believe Polaris at face-value, DNA lied about his role and he lied about his target, then went on to falsely clear someone whose alignment he should not be able to know, and who he had been suspecting up to that point. I don't buy a Town!DNA lying about his target in order to clear someone he got into a huge slapfight with because he thought they were scummy.

I would really love to just lynch the obvious liar but the reason I kept asking DNA if he wanted to clarify his role is DNA lies about his role every game no matter his alignment. >_> I don't think he's ever claimed a fake innocent though and I can't imagine what the fuck he was thinking when he did that.

It'll probably be a waste of time to discuss meta, so I guess that line of thought ends there. Are you guys massclaiming?

I've already claimed, we have 4 PR's claimed, I would be... surprised if there's any more power to claim so I'm for it.

[Polaris]

I'm some idiot who gets hit in the stomach with a football which is probably why I'm VT.

Oh, you did claim :V Quoted it in case I wasn't the only one who missed it, since you kind of made it inconspicuous B(

[NekoNekoRex]

I'm Eirin, aka popular cartoonist egoraptor, although I'm VT.

[Bardiche]

It looks a lot like you're assuming that I'm telling the truth -> DNA is lying scum -> I am scum? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Your claims of DNA's role and targets conflicts with DNA's claim of role and targets. There exists no situation in which both of you are being honest. Therefore, at least one of you is lying/has lied about the role you have and the targets you picked, and therefore, the slot must belong to either scum or a liar.

In either case, the slot must die.

Massclaim? Meh.

##Hump: Polaris
That's all I can do.

[Bardiche]

Before anyone speculates anything, it's an alternate for the Vote command. I'm VT for the rest of it. Some guy who likes dryhumps or whatever.

[Polaris]

If I survive this day, I'm totally going to hump you tonight. B(

(that's the flavor for my visit command)

[Polaris]

The problem I was having with your reasoning is that you're saying "there exists no situation in which both of you are being honest", except that if I'm scum, then there would exist no situation in which either of us are being honest (i.e. both of us are lying). So when you say 1. "at least one of you is lying" -> 2. "you are scum", you should logically follow to 3. "both of you are lying", which seemingly contradicts the first statement but it actually doesn't.

Of course, this is all irrelevant because Bard is optimistically assuming that Darkninja was being rational with his actions, except he wasn't.

[Bardiche]

It's more that so long as even one of you is lying and misleading, there's a valid enough reason to lynch you. If you're both lying, then all the more reason. If DNA was lying and you're honest, then the slot chose to mislead people, clear a player of unknown alignment and pretend to be an investigation role when they actually aren't. When pressed that they are lying about their role, DNA was really vicious. You can look through his posts where he mentions not wanting to deal with a point because "it has the premises of me(DNA) lying". Coupled with his claims that I should "realistically believe him", it's clear that one of the following must apply:

A) DNA was/is honest and you're lying about his role/actions. In this case we should lynch you for lying about things, and then cock our heads sideways wondering why you'd lie about them to begin with. Possible answer: we discussed how you can't get to endgame on that claim.
B) DNA was lying and you're honest about his role/actions. In this case, DNA's insistence on believing him, that he wasn't lying, and that any claim to the contrary is 'not worth respond to', well... his insistence is very suspicious behaviour from an already scummy playerslot. Your honesty would be appreciated, but DNA's lies are sufficient to mark the slot for death.
C) DNA was lying and you're lying. A townie slot lying twice has no place in a Mafia game. We should lynch you in this scenario regardless.

There's, of course, option D) DNA was honest and you're honest, but that's impossible because your claims conflict.

I therefore think that we have the highest probability of netting scum by lynching the playerslot that has lied, and that in all three likely scenarios either stands to gain from a scum point of view by lying, and/or makes perfect sense when argued from a scum point of view. The alternate town point-of-view making any of the three likely is just so farfetch'd that I don't think it merits discussion.

[Bardiche]

If you people are really sure that lynching Polly/DNA is Not The Way To Go, I'd like to know why a lynch on anyone else is superior. What is so much more important to lynch than a slot that is nearly certainly to have been lying to us?

[Polaris]

I planned on reiterating my case on Zakeri as a counter to Bard's case on me, but now I am doubting my own case. B(

Here's what I think so far:

Based on interactions, Skypal and Zakeri taking potshots at each other seems like intentional scum distancing. Meanwhile, Skypal, NNR, and Shadoweh are all found on the DNA wagon in early Day 1, and this seems like an unlikely scenario for scumbuddies. Unless either NNR or Shadoweh's motivation was really low, it's hard to believe that two scum would group together on the same wagon that quickly. I also got a genuine town vibe from NNR's earlier posts, so he's really the least scummy. I also think that Shadoweh putting Skypal to L-1 was town-motivated, because I definitely would've done the same in her position. At the very least, a Skypal-Shadoweh scumteam did not choreograph the self-hammer, since Shadoweh voted before pokemon123's daycop claim. Zakeri gets my vote in the end.

^ Those are my thoughts so far. I know it's kind of faulty so feel free to comment to support or refute it.

[Polaris]

B) DNA was lying and you're honest about his role/actions. In this case, DNA's insistence on believing him, that he wasn't lying, and that any claim to the contrary is 'not worth respond to', well... his insistence is very suspicious behaviour from an already scummy playerslot. Your honesty would be appreciated, but DNA's lies are sufficient to mark the slot for death.

Ok, this makes things easier.

If option B is true, there is no way that I am scum. Therefore, I should not be lynched.

[Polaris]

Bard, your argument is that I should be lynched because Options A, B, and C all lead to "lynch Polly". Options A and C certainly would mean I should be lynched. However, Option B would mean I am telling the truth, which means I am actually a Town Visitor, which means I am not the Scum Roleblocker you're looking for, which means you should not be lynching me.

Since all three options do not lead to the same conclusion, you can't just go with "lynch Polly" by default. You're going to have to choose an interpretation?Option B or Option C.

[Polaris]

That's why I was telling you from the beginning to go with Option C if you insisted on voting me as scum, instead of going through this nonsense logic. -_-

[Bardiche]

Ok, this makes things easier.

If option B is true, there is no way that I am scum. Therefore, I should not be lynched.

Fair enough. In either A or B, you can't be the roleblocker we're looking for, true. I still think it's superior to lynch you over all others, because I can't see either A or B actually being true. One of them assumes Darkninjaabc is pulling weird Town manoeuvres, the other assumes you're pulling weird Town manoeuvres. Weird Town manoeuvres meaning you're misleading the Town about your role because what?

Demonstrates perfectly the problem with being so sure that your target is Scum, you overlook some things. Like how your logic won't hold up. Heh. We can laugh about it in the after game and make jokes about how I wield logic like a five-year-old wields swords.

[Polaris]

Well, I'm glad everything worked out in the end. Except...

One of them assumes Darkninjaabc is pulling weird Town manoeuvres

Bard, is this your first game with DNA?

[Polaris]

manoeuvres looks like hors d'oeuvres. tee hee

[BigBangMeteor]

maybe I'm being PARANOID but I don't like the Polaris push atm by Bard at all. When Polaris first claimed he was like "ok this makes sense in the setup I'll accept it" even though that also required lying town DNA. I don't see why the realization that DNA would have to be lying in multiple places rather than just one would cause Bard to change from being okay with the slot to not being okay with the slot. What's the difference between one town lie and two?

Also I'll disclaimer this by admitting it's a heavily semantic argument but to me, when a townread is making a dumb/wrong argument, I use language like "disagree". I save "dislike" for when I'm actually finding something scummy because it has a more negative connotation and that's not what you want to imply to your townreads, as town.

I should skim Medaka Box to see how Bard plays as scum since I've never actually played a game where he was scum, rather than just dismissing Bard as effort obvtown like I was before but I barely have the motivation to reread this game. >_> sigh

##Unvote for now, while I think Shadoweh is capable of pulling WIFOM wrt saying she was okay with her own lynch, I'm not sure that she'd choose to do it as the last scum standing. I would consider that too much of a risk.

Kind of deciding between NNR/Zak/Bard atm.

[Raikaria]

I don't think DNA would have admitted he got roleblocked with his [Admittedly BS] claim if he was scum. Especially since we know now that there must be a scum roleblocker since BBM was roleblocked.

I mean; why would DNA as scum claim something that is supposed to die when roleblocked, and then out the fact that there is a scum roleblocker making everyone seriously doubt that claim? It makes no sense at all.

Also considering no-one CC's roleblocked N1, and people are told if their action did not work, DNA being scum means... either he did not roleblock at all N1 or he... self roleblocked? Because even if he hit a VT N1 he would have no idea that he did such.

DNA/Polly as scum roleblocker makes no sense.

I mean; while if it turns out DNA was BS'ing about his role when town I'm going to ban him from any games I run in the future for a combination of behavior and anti-town play; the play makes absolutely no sense at all if the slot is scum.

[Raikaria]

Also with DNA's claim getting roleblocked by scum N1 is entirely believable. He was the most obvious N1 roleblock and we KNOW from N2 events that despite DNA lying, scum have a roleblocker.

DNA/Polly is town. How pro-town DNA was is up for debate but Polly is town.

[Raikaria]

I'm not sure at this current time who we should lynch instead of Polly, but the simple fact is why Lynch All Liars may be a good thing to follow, it's not exactly such on a slot which is pretty much proven town.

DNA's lying as a town slot can be dealt with AFTER the game.

[WHMZakeri]

I'm sorry that it sounded like I was trying to discredit the clears, then. I'm really not since townclears are pretty much 70% of my scumhunting methods to begin with.

I am Dan Hodapp, comedian and decent enough actor to get named during the songs. My special ability is that you can call me Roger.
Poster's note: Calling my Roger does not have any in-game effect. I'm a Vanilla townie. I also doubt there's any more roles.

My top two priorities are NNR and Shadoweh right now, which should be simple reads but my ability to focus is terrible right now and also I am in physical pain from not being asleep right now. BBM seems to buy into the WiFoM of "i don't care if you lynch me." from Shadoweh but that's kind of the first thing I'd go with as scum seeing a good case on myself to begin with. Especially with my current level of play which I'm sure Bard will look disapprovingly at this post as well. Of course, I don't really care about getting lynched to begin with as town, so I can't say it would be intentional wifom.

Between the two, I feel like the slapfight against DNA from the previous day sticks out in my mind. I'm still bothered by the fact that he couldn't address the points directly, and seeing his post today glossing over the fact that Poly uncleared him by repeating the same two names everyone is looking at.

Speaking of Poly's unclearing, I feel like scum optimal play for Poly would be to just keep up with the fakeclaim. We were already buying it for the most part, and it had the unCCed Roleblock as well, meaning while people complained about it technically being a fail, we couldn't exactly prove it. If Polly had waited until his role's claim was seriously challenged to clarify, then it would be super scummy and he would have been accountable for it. For now, I agree with Raikaria that it's an outside of the game penalty, not a lynch reason.

[Vhaltz]

And before the lynch I'll cryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Zakeri (1): Polly-kun
Polly-kun (1): Bardiche

With 7 alive, 4 votes are required to hammer. There's 33 hours left in the phase.

[Shadoweh]

I was about to tell BBM I don't remember Bard being scvum in Medaka Box. <_____<

[Bardiche]

Also considering no-one CC's roleblocked N1, and people are told if their action did not work, DNA being scum means... either he did not roleblock at all N1 or he... self roleblocked? Because even if he hit a VT N1 he would have no idea that he did such.

DNA/Polly as scum roleblocker makes no sense.

Again, he claimed a role that would die on targeting Scum, and against everyone's expectations a real investigator discovered the role was Scum. What else was DNA supposed to claim? I honestly think everyone is clamouring over themselves to excuse incredibly pro-scum play, but if you're that insistent that a Townie would lie about his role, and instead of clarifying/fixing their lie would perpetuate it to even bullshit clears on people they should not know the alignment of, then okay.

@BBM: One can have a first reaction to something, then think and go, "Wait a minute..."

##Unvote
I've tried my best, but if people simply refuse to listen then there's nothing else I can do. I throw in the towel. Fine, let's not lynch someone for pro-scum behaviour. He must be Town because Scum must absolutely have a Roleblocker that can act every night and it makes perfect sense to just assume DNA was nuts than the believe DNA may have been Scum. This is literally Town saying, "It's DNA, this excuses his behaviour regardless of how damaging it is to Town".

I don't know where else to put my vote, Zakeri, Shadoweh and NNR seem incredibly tame in comparison, and the one thing that stands out to me is Zakeri reactionary play, but even now Shadoweh persists in staying by the sidelines and it's all Normal Shadoweh Behaviour. I honestly think Scum must be among those three then, because if Polly really isn't the Scum, then I can only imagine the real Scum to sit back and let the rest fight over it. It's unfortunate that three people exhibit the exact same behaviour but if that's what we're hunting for, it's what we're hunting for.

##Vote: Zakeri

[Raikaria]

Considering how DNA acted towards you; that assumption may not be too farfetched.

Although I guess an even-numbered roleblock might be a thing; but even then, DNA's claim makes no sense as scum; because claiming 'I die if my role fails' and then claiming 'my role failed BUT HEY I LIVE' is just... ugh. And I know it's not pro-town behavior; but things right now look like the slot is town; even if DNA was being a complete and total ****.

I'm going to have another look at NNR; Shadoweh and Zakeri; specifically in relation to Sky and Sky's lynch.

[Raikaria]

Oh and Bard cause yeah; he's not clear either.

[NekoNekoRex]

I don't think I'd be averse to lynching DNA at this point either, he's had some weird reactions to game events. Something bugs me about the way he responded D2 to SB's death, he was clearly surprised that SB had no role, as if he were planning that SB actually had one.

Obviously the conflicting claims play a weird part in here too. I can't imagine why he would target Zak N2 even if he had a pointless role, he was clearly aiming for me with his bullshit claim, and it would be rather strange if he got tracked doing the unexpected route.

[NekoNekoRex]

Vote NNR

I pretty much have no words for this. I got roleblocked, somehow I did not die? And SB was gambitting. Wow.

That said we pretty much have three townie obvtowns at this point. Me, skypal and BBM. The rest is easy.#

cut by SB

whoa shit

whoa whoa shit

Unvote
Vote Sky

this is turning out to be a really fast and furious game, wow

In fact everything about this post kind of baffles me. He votes me, then notes he got roleblocked visiting ~someone~ (presumably Skypal), but he is surprised by the Skypal track. He's also claims Skypal and BBM are conf town for ??reasons?? in the same post.
He later goes on to confirm he visited Skypal, a player who definitely would have gotten him killed visiting, and he got roleblocked instead, a claim which would ALSO have killed him. (Bard brought this up a lot but it's always worth mentioning again)

But why would he later go to visit someone different then his intentions go if Polaris is being honest? He visited Skypal as asked D1, but didn't visit me when it was obvious he was gunning for me D2.

[NekoNekoRex]

In fact ##Vote: Poly

I haven't liked Poly's slot the whole game, from DNA's votes to his antagonism, and his unclear on his role just kind of does it for me. I don't need to be afraid of voting his slot now because of that.