|
Post by tomscud on Feb 2, 2010 19:08:15 GMT -5
First, claims. I have absolutely no doubt Natlaw is the Goblin - I know for sure that he gave me the mask, and (through the mask) he communicated on night 2 that he would shield me on night 3, and on night 3 that he was giving his communicator to nphase.
I'm not as sure about SisC's claim. As was noted during the peeker controversy, story has almost certainly given out fake claims to the scum; this could have been one of them. Scum would have some amount of information about whether players had changed alignment, and would be able to create a reasonable-sounding list of investigations from that knowledge plus hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by tomscud on Feb 2, 2010 19:40:04 GMT -5
SisC's night 2 postings are consistent with her having received an investigation result that peeker had switched sides, but being uncertain if it was neutral -> town or neutral -> scum.
Key quote, reviewing peeker's postings
She also on Day 3 noted that if the day ended early, people with day actions might not be able to act. Not certain that that means that she had a day action, but it lends her some credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 2, 2010 19:50:17 GMT -5
One thing I just noticed. Billmc says that unless PCM shows we are likely at lylo.
Wouldn't that only matter if PCM is definitely Town?
|
|
|
Post by tomscud on Feb 2, 2010 22:18:05 GMT -5
... and sorry. My brain gave out on me. I'll try to post something with actual content tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Feb 3, 2010 2:55:53 GMT -5
One thing I just noticed. Billmc says that unless PCM shows we are likely at lylo. Wouldn't that only matter if PCM is definitely Town? Yes, as I mentioned yesterday, worst case scenario is that PCM is town, and that there has been a scum recruitment. If either of those are not true, then we are in better shape.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Feb 3, 2010 3:29:38 GMT -5
From luvbwfc:
From Natlaw:
Luv and Natlaw's comments are consistent with each other and imply that Natlaw started as Town.
The question is really has he changed from Town to something else as per SisC's assertion.
Tom has verified that Natlaw sent him a mask/communicator, and that Natlaw claimed he would protect Tom (we don't know if Tom really was protected). The communicator was also sent to nphase. We have no evidence that the communicator is just a communicator or something else. I guess purely from the canon, GG would be the classic bomber.
Option 1 - SisC is telling the truth. Natlaw is not town, and has been sending toys to folk as a means to meeting his own win condition. If he is a mad bomber rather than SK then he could be close to win stealing.
Option 2 - SisC is lying. I'm having difficulty seeing her motivation for this as a 3rd party. As scum, is Natlaw a high enough value target that it is worth her sacrificing herself? If we are at lylo then it is a stronger gambit.
Option 3 - Story made a mistake and told SisC the wrong info. I would consider this extremely unlikely.
Both stories seem consistent, but they both can't be true.
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 3, 2010 8:58:05 GMT -5
What gets me is the order of the claims. SC claimed before Natlaw, so why would Natlaw claim after switching sides, knowing that SC would immediately see that he had done so? If he's third party, his best chance of winning involved staying under the radar, not coming out right after someone who claimed they could tell if someone changed parties.
My guess is that Natlaw thought SC was Town and thought he could be confirmed as Town, so he came out.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 3, 2010 11:07:09 GMT -5
Frankly, I agree with your assessment -- I was very surprised when Story told me Natlaw's alignment had changed, given Natlaw's post.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 3, 2010 16:54:59 GMT -5
Not so surprisingly, plugging Hawk as Town into the vote record doesn't suggest too much new to me.
peeker's hammer Day Two really hurts because it left nphase and Merestil Haye without a vote (or indication where they would vote that Day on a quick check).
redskeezix had a vote/unvote on drainbead Day One but as a vote on the first Day that is not much of an indication (again peeker cut it short). On Day Four I didn't extend the Day long enough while he and drainbead were considering to lynch PCM as the bigger lurker instead of Inner Stickler (but neither moved to hammer the day before the deadline).
We did have a four way tie Day Four so the alignments of any of the other three should be very informative.
|
|
|
Post by tomscud on Feb 3, 2010 18:49:17 GMT -5
Option 1 - SisC is telling the truth. Natlaw is not town, and has been sending toys to folk as a means to meeting his own win condition. If he is a mad bomber rather than SK then he could be close to win stealing. Option 2 - SisC is lying. I'm having difficulty seeing her motivation for this as a 3rd party. As scum, is Natlaw a high enough value target that it is worth her sacrificing herself? If we are at lylo then it is a stronger gambit. Option 3 - Story made a mistake and told SisC the wrong info. I would consider this extremely unlikely. Option 1a - SisC is telling the truth. Natlaw started out as town, and stayed town through his mod-provided choice, but was recruited by the scum at some point.
|
|
|
Post by tomscud on Feb 3, 2010 18:55:54 GMT -5
If Option 1a is correct, then we're probably at LyLo; Natlaw's motivation for claiming was to force a lynch of SisC.
Hm. Is it possible that a scum member has a directed power that causes an investigation to return an incorrect result? Would that be gastard?
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 3, 2010 21:12:27 GMT -5
Option 4: A not-town Natlaw, for whatever reason, was really, really sure going in that SisC was also not town, and figured that if he could prove her a liar via her lynch, his own "towniness" would be all but confirmed through endgame.
Re: Option 2 -- Would it be really, Bill? No one's claiming to have received anything other than me and Tom, are they? Tom and I have something. Natlaw may have given something to PCM. We're at 9 right now, 8 post-lynch, 7 in the morning. I suppose that could put him over a hypothetical 50% threshhold, but I've never seen it that low.
1a has similar or even worse logic problems than 1 has. If Natlaw was recruited anytime prior to yesterday, then he'd still have known he was setting himself up to be called out as a liar by coming forward the way he did. Recruitment last night doesn't solve the original problem from option 1. You have to posit daytime recruitment of Natlaw exactly yesterday, coupled with an unfortunate-for-scum priority of their recruitment over SisC's detection for the series of events to make any sense at all. There's nothing I know of to say it can't be true, but it's not exactly occam's razor.
Natlaw being town and SisC not seems the most likely conclusion here, but largely because I just don't see the point of Natlaw setting himself up knowingly to be called a liar. But this is the guy who claimed wolf in Conspiracy 3 and went happily to his death; I am really hesitant to rule something out from him just because it seems on the surface illogical.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Feb 4, 2010 0:32:05 GMT -5
I don't think a mass claim is necessary today, and unless someone is going to counterclaim sister c, I don't see how it would shed any further light on whether sister c or natlaw is lying.
I don't see Bomber as likely for Natlaw, tagging Tom doesn't seem like a good bomber play. Since he was mod-confirmed as town on day 1, and since these games frequently come down to confirmed v unconfirmed, it would be unlikely that Tom would survive to the end of the game to count towards a bomber's total tags.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Feb 4, 2010 4:30:43 GMT -5
Re: Option 2 -- Would it be really, Bill? No one's claiming to have received anything other than me and Tom, are they? Tom and I have something. Natlaw may have given something to PCM. We're at 9 right now, 8 post-lynch, 7 in the morning. I suppose that could put him over a hypothetical 50% threshhold, but I've never seen it that low. Worst case scenario is that it is 5-4 just now If SisC is scum, and we mislynch Natlaw, then the scum only need a successful night kill to win. Of course, the opposite is also possible. Natlaw could have been recruited and again, if we mislynch SisC etc We're speculating that Natlaw may be a mad bomber type - where folks are being explicitly told they are getting something from him. I've been a bomber-type in two previous games, and in both of those, the folk I tagged were not told anything. So that gives us another option, SisC could be a bomber and she's close enough to her win condition to risk this gambit.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 4, 2010 6:40:18 GMT -5
Natlaw being town and SisC not seems the most likely conclusion here, but largely because I just don't see the point of Natlaw setting himself up knowingly to be called a liar. But this is the guy who claimed wolf in Conspiracy 3 and went happily to his death; I am really hesitant to rule something out from him just because it seems on the surface illogical. Please note that in Conspiracy III there were two other Cabal alive when the mass-claim happened and I had already made a slip about a how a death happened which a town couldn't have been that sure about. So my lynch there wouldn't have been an instant loss. Worst case scenario is that it is 5-4 just now If SisC is scum, and we mislynch Natlaw, then the scum only need a successful night kill to win. Of course, the opposite is also possible. Natlaw could have been recruited and again, if we mislynch SisC etc If it's 5-4 than any town lynch would make it 4-4 and typically that is a scum win already - but I don't see the scum win condition spelled out in the rules.
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Feb 4, 2010 10:33:38 GMT -5
If it's 5-4 than any town lynch would make it 4-4 and typically that is a scum win already - but I don't see the scum win condition spelled out in the rules. As I said, in the worse case scenario we would be at lylo. May be we are, and that is a contributing factor to Story setting a deadline so we don't end up debating it till Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 4, 2010 16:11:15 GMT -5
Except there's not really much debate going on. How many players have put down votes, three?
I'm leaning SisC right now. I'll come back tomorrow and make it official if nothing has changed.
|
|
|
Post by tomscud on Feb 4, 2010 18:46:00 GMT -5
1a has similar or even worse logic problems than 1 has. If Natlaw was recruited anytime prior to yesterday, then he'd still have known he was setting himself up to be called out as a liar by coming forward the way he did. But then he should have been pretty confident that he'd ultimately come out ahead in a head-to-head accusation-fight with Sister Coyote, for logical reasons previously discussed (per luv's pm, Goblin must be either town or 3rd party; it would make no sense to claim when he did as 3rd party; therefore he must be town and SisC must be lying). It's a multiply-banked shot, but one I have no doubt Natlaw would be capable of working out. That said, he could not have been 100% confident he was at LyLo at the point he made the claim and thus risked making a town-for-scum trade at a disadvantageous time; whereas a scummy SisC would have had the knowledge of the Day 4 lynch outcome before making the decision to lie. I don't think I'm going to get any more information at this point; I'll vote Sister Coyote
|
|
|
Post by tomscud on Feb 4, 2010 19:11:37 GMT -5
Which makes the vote total 4 for SisC and 1 for Natlaw by my tally.
|
|
|
Post by tomscud on Feb 4, 2010 19:13:12 GMT -5
I'm still worried that there's a Mastermind role (the Marvel character, not some mafia-role name) who can fuzz the result of an investigation and create a Town-on-Town double death. But I don't see any way to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 4, 2010 19:22:25 GMT -5
I have done what I can to defend myself.
When I die, I will flip Town.
|
|
|
Post by Renata on Feb 5, 2010 10:27:23 GMT -5
It's actually 3-1. Drain, Skeez and you for SisC; and SisC for Natlaw.
Make it 3-2; I changed my mind. Natlaw hasn't acted like he was trying to find reasons why SisC could be telling the truth; yet he hasn't voted her either. Why on earth not, if Natlaw is actually town?
vote: Natlaw[/color]
|
|
|
Post by BillMc on Feb 5, 2010 10:54:25 GMT -5
SisC called out Natlaw as a liar - but he hasn't voted for her. It does kind of feel that Natlaw is sitting back waiting for the rest of us to lynch SisC - so if she does flip Town, he can claim he didn't vote for her.
The evidence is about equal, but his response to SisC's claim seems understated.
Vote: Natlaw
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 5, 2010 11:09:06 GMT -5
Well, shit.
I was coming in here to see if there was a case to be made against someone other than Natlaw, and now I find out that the vote's tied. What the hell, people?
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 5, 2010 11:16:34 GMT -5
We're at LyLo. Natlaw hasn't voted, and will vote to put SC ahead at this point.
Unvote: Sister Coyote
Just to see what happens.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 5, 2010 11:17:34 GMT -5
As I said, in the worse case scenario we would be at lylo. May be we are, and that is a contributing factor to Story setting a deadline so we don't end up debating it till Christmas. I meant that if we were at 5-4 now, the scum could win after a town lynch and wouldn't need a successful Night kill like you mentioned after it. I didn't vote earlier because I didn't want to end the Day early - not that it helped to generate more discussion. I was thinking a mass claim might haven't popped out another (possibly better) scum target - for example if Hawk's roleblocker wasn't a one shot block, he can pretty much negate MHaye if his claim is true. Of course Sister Coyote might be the scum blocker. On MHaye's claim: why would scum send a Godfather to do the kill? Mostly like because the other scum cannot kill and use their own Night action at the same time. That isn't true for the communicator I gave nphase, so if she did send a message last Night it doesn't mean she didn't do anything else. I think I'll be home from work before the deadline but to be sure: Vote: Sister Coyote Another thing in case I do get lynched before I can get back - I blocked BillMc last Night, if he tried to attempt a Night action he would have gotten a message that he was blocked (probably no mention of pumpkins although it was a salvaged pumpkin bomb ). So he either choose not to reveal that or he didn't attempt a Night action last Night. Another fact I had rather saved until after he had claimed. Oh well. On preview: ah a tie now ><.
|
|
Natlaw
Snark
Natlaw is a Modron short and stout.
Posts: 740
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Natlaw on Feb 5, 2010 11:18:43 GMT -5
And you're 100% sure of this?
|
|
|
Post by Drain Bead on Feb 5, 2010 11:19:23 GMT -5
Is anyone other than me and PCM not voting now?
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 5, 2010 11:19:42 GMT -5
Still a tie, too. Also: pumpkin bomb snrk.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Feb 5, 2010 11:23:05 GMT -5
I have:
Skeezix voting Me Me voting Natlaw Drainbead voting then unvoting Me tom voting Me nphase voting Natlaw BillMc voting Natlaw Natlaw voting Me
So that's three and three
Drainbead has voted but currently has no vote MHaye has not voted PCM has not voted
|
|