I think so, yeah. Rag is my friend, but you know, friendship doesn't protect you from being scum.

Would anyone care to elaborate the case on Rag? As far as I can see, Rag made the following propositions:

i) Scum KoD and almost exclusively Scum KoD kills town lurkers.
ii) A lurker died.
Ergo, on the obvious implication, iii) KoD is a likely candidate for scum.

This is a perfectly acceptable meta argument, and seems to me to have been a totally reasonable approach to the low information state of early Day 2. The position generated a significant amount of discussion (helpful), proceeded from clearly articulated, verifiable points (helpful), and very specifically circumvented the cheaper WIFOM angle of "it's Amber, KoD did it." Given that Zinger and I in particular were largely more absorbed in policy rather than scum-hunting concerns, I feel more or less justified in suggesting that Rag, regardless of her alignment, was the only player actively trying to solve things for much of Day 2. The others were too quiet.

We know that Rag prefers to follow cases that proceed via clear logical pathways; we know that Rag disfavors lynching inactive townies (at least, in my estimation); and we know that Rag tends toward higher activity whenever she is town. If, then, we are to propose that Rag is scum, we ought then likewise quantify the extent to and grounds for which she would abandon items (2) and (3) on this list. There is a small chance that killing Amber in line with my Day 1 joke was a sufficiently amusing outcome to justify poor play, but I'd much prefer to try to motivate the choice. KoD, for instance, is often enticed by high risk plays, and thus might venture that they kill Amber together, then have a public "falling out" to establish town cred for whichever party isn't ultimately lynched.

But short of that kind of conspiracy, it doesn't especially strike me as optimal to set up KoD, then pursue the case on him yourself. Much, much easier, and much less risk, to let someone take the bait and pay for it themselves. As such, I think I'd be more inclined to look at whoever first tried to implicate Rag.

I'd be much more amenable to the present bandwagon if, say, the argument were that Rag was weighting the variables poorly when formulating her case on KoD, or that her immediate return to voting KoD after the Zinger option fell apart was suspect (though she didn't even bother to justify that, suggesting that it was more an automatic response).

I feel like this is going to be one of those games where if you already know who the scum is it would pretty funny

And/or frustrating!

Voting Rag with the lurkers confirmed to e in modkill range.

I've now officially and unchangeably voted for Rag. It is done.

@Tevish
He didn't say he was going to modkill them. They'll probably just get a slap on the wrist

The punishment is forcible replacement (it's in the rules). I have no replacements to put in.

Why do you think I've said Rag's approach has been inconsistent on me?

Asserting knowledge of how I'd act as scum, despite other targets like Rubik (for instance) given how he plays with PRs (look at SMM3) shows that Rag isn't so much as showcasing knowledge of my scum meta more so than pushing an angle Rag perceives will work (despite Rag's own angle neglecting to address a target -- like Rubik -- existing outside of Amber and Amber being a risky kill for scum me).


Outside of Rag's reasoning, why is it you assume I'd make high risk plays Skystone? Rag touched on the possibility of me having killed Amber for the memes and didn't deem it as a major reason (let alone Rag even went so far as to say that she thinks I wouldn't do it for the memes -- this being evident in Rag pushing a strict idea of how my scum meta is). And to go further, Rag never addressed the idea that I'd avoid Amber due to the aggro it would draw (part of why I've maintained that Rag has argued in bad faith concerning me as, despite maintaining having considered a lot of factors, it is apparent Rag only considered what she thinks is relevant to killing Amber vs the drawbacks of said decision).

Or, to put it another way, Rag never considered me making high risk plays (among other things) and maintains a knowledge idea of how I'd play as scum. On what basis do you claim to know that I'd make high risk plays given Rag's own assessment?

See no punishment

we talked at length about my take on you possibly avoiding amber due to it being a risky play so i don't know why you'd say that

See, I knew you already knew what we had talked about. That's why you never responded to my post when you asked what my points regarding the inconsistency is.

SMMM3 is a poor example. Rubik posted somewhat regularly, but specifically and intentionally denied some content in order to make the paper better. That had everything to do with the nature of the role. Regardless, it's sort of unreasonable to expect your accuser to know which lurker you would kill (if you killed you a lurker). At that point Rag would be such a masterful intellect that we wouldn't need to play mafia anymore, as she'd solve the games immediately.


Experience? Look at your avatar, bud.

I don't especially think that killing Amber is a high-risk play in this inbred meta (as partially evinced by the fact that only Rag came after you for it). It's way too obvious of a ploy to frame you that way, which makes the whole enterprise a wash, which means that you actually can choose to kill her without any consequences. The high risk play here would be "having a fallout with your scum buddy and try to get them lynched." Also, note that I'm not proposing that you make high risk, low reward plays. Just the opposite -- I find you willing to make bold choices if and when you conclude that the benefits thereof are suitable.

I feel like Tevish and Argh are supporting cases on me primarily based on vibes and misunderstanding my case.

I feel like KoD is probably voting me because he feels my case is illogical, though I'm pretty sure we very regularly find each other to be behaving illogically due to having very different ideas about what is logical and what is not, so i don't know why he finds that telling in this instance.

Zinger has said a number of things about my play have pinged him iirc but i can't really remember any of them off the top of my head.

@Zinger: I know you've already voted me, but out of curiosity how would you have expected me to have played today differently if i were town in your eyes?

And you never did consider it. Offering only a line concerning you assessing whether I'd make a high risk play that would draw aggro is something you never reasonably considered. That much I am certain.

i literally commented on how likely i thought it was that you would do that (less than killing a lurker, more than zero)

@Rag: Given that you are relatively likely to die, what is your current perspective on who might be scum?

@KoD
I'll tell you why you'd make "high-risk" plays. For the lol's, and to spice up your meta. So it is something that you are arguing that rag does not know your meta as she is accusing you of making a high risk play. The high risk play in question saying you'd like to shoot amber day 1, then as mafia kill her night 1. I also know your meta, you are pragmatic, you have a thing about keeping promises, and other things I could mention, but to say you'd never follow through with your intention to shoot amber because you said you would, would not be showing proper respect.

@Skystone:

I wouldn't say Rag was the only one to come after me. At the start of the day, the kill did attract attention (and has made quite the conversation as evident by all the content of today). So no, I do not agree with your assessment there.

Also, nice. Referring to my avatar. I like it.

@Rag:

Not consider as in sparing a single thought towards it. More like seriously evaluating it (compared to say how much you've commented on how much you think I would do as scum wrt to what you think you know about my scum meta).

@CL:

That's not even accurate regarding the topic of conversation.

Rag concluded, based on what she thinks my scum meta is, that I would go after lurkers. She concluded that Amber was a perfectly viable target (and though I don't think Rag gave full consideration to how I'd react to the drawback of an Amber death as scum, I'm of the opinion that based on Rag's stance it was a nonissue (in so much as it was not a high risk play).

Apparently, too given how Skystone mentioned it in passing, that I, apparently, am more toned down as scum vs as town. That being the case, you wouldn't necessarily expect a high risk play as that rubs against the notion that I'd play safe as scum (though at this point the arguments from Rag mostly and Skystone to a lesser extent keep ringing out inconsistently to me). But hey, I expect no less.