Going to have enough time to write a bit but not quite enough to actually make reads - ten minutes tops, ask me questions while you can.

BB's case didn't particularly sway me towards thinking Espi was mafia as his "tipping point" (I agree that looking at Espi as mafia makes sense, as does looking at Espi as new-town) didn't really convince me, but bo's case seems interesting.

@SS - I am aware that you do not want a lynch. I am also aware that you want to vote to lynch somebody. Somebody's going to get lynched if we all vote to lynch. Whoever has the most votes gets lynched, a majority isn't needed.

@Espi - "DL continues to pressure me to hunt scum and yet has said before that he doesn't have enough info to hunt scum, can I get a clarification on this DL?" I meant that I don't have enough info to write cases. Hunting scum early-game is finding a contradiction and questioning it until there's enough evidence to get a case up on somebody.

I agree that pressuring Espi can't hurt, but remember that applies to everyone.

I feel a bit uneasy about phil_a_s, and will write up a reread in a few hours.

How is that comparable to other first posts that you referred to?

Voting randomly, joking around, replace this with a post on the first page and I could see it fitting right in, the only difference was that SS had more pages to read, although rom my understanding he hadn't really read much of the previous posts when he did this.

@DL, right now, I feel that you and I have been posting the most while saying the least. Do you agree with that fact? Do you think that either you or I have actually been contributing to the discussion?

All right, fair enough. It still stands, though, that your massive summary with questions thrown in doesn't really serve a purpose, so how about you rethink your analysis?

@SS ... why wouldn't you want a lynch? We've gone over this in pretty much every webDip mafia game I've played here and the overwhelming consensus is that a lynch does us far more favors than a no-lynch. If you're bringing that opinion over from whatever other forum you played on, can you explain it? It makes no sense to me why we wouldn't lynch.

Rewrite, not rethink ^

@all ... can we get reads out by the 24 hour mark?

@bo, I hope to do a lot more, and eventually get to an analysis that serves a purpose. I think more of that will have to wait until day 2 though when more info is available. I do plan to go back over my summary and turn it into a much condensed actual analysis later if I can. I probably should have waited to post it until after work when I could make sure each sentence served its purpose, but I wanted to post it so that I could return to commenting on the game without being bugged about an analysis.

Also, regarding SS, I don't see him saying that much about not wanting a lynch on day 1 but I will go back over his posts to double check.

@Espi - I have been posting the most, I feel like while my posts are short they are of some quality. I doubt I'm saying the least - that'd be slacker.

^You got me there :)

As another thought, I am probably going to look back at my posts end game and admonish myself for being such a poor player, ahh well, just gotta try and keep improving.

@Espi ... I don't know if you've noticed, but my vote's on you. I don't know why you feel so safe given that you're the one under the most pressure right now. I'm giving you time because I'm gonna scumhunt elsewhere this afternoon. Get it done by tonight. There's plenty of information to go off of. Stop making excuses.

So far the vote count is

Espi: (phil, bo, BB)
guak: (Lucland)
Tr: (Jeff)
phil: (none)
ND: (none)
bo: (guak)
Yoyo: (none)
DL: (none)
slacker: (Tr)
Jeff: (SS)
SS: (Yoyo)
BB: (none)
Lucland: (none)

So far 4 people do not have any votes. I have the most votes but as it is only 3, I am not too worried. You had more yesterday Bo and almost all of them are gone now.

I have noticed your vote on me as I was keeping a vote count, didn't you read the first part of my summary? And seeing how I want to be under pressure, it is making me feel even more safe. I will get my analysis done when I am able to and not a second earlier bo.

EDIT: 4 people do not have any votes in.

@bo, with your comment toward me, how do you feel about DL saying "I meant that I don't have enough info to write cases. Hunting scum early-game is finding a contradiction and questioning it until there's enough evidence to get a case up on somebody."

I don't think he's wrong, but I would say that scumhunting early on is more a matter of interrogating and finding the contradiction through that, not the other way around.

##UNVOTE for now. That third-to-last post was a hell of a towntell and I don't think you're experienced enough to do that on purpose.

I'll be back later on tonight. I have to go get my guitar restrung because my cat chewed it while I was gone apparently... o_O

@Bo Sox,

I'm having a hard time following your post above (and many other posts from many other people). Can you please be more explicit about who you're talking to, and what posts you're responding to? Let's all try to make our posts as user/town friendly as possible so that everyone can follow them easily.

@Town, and on that note, I don't think people should feel pressure to respond quickly with things like "I'll get to that later" or "I'm planning to do X in 3 hours or so." Those kinds of comments clutter up the thread. Because voting is not effective for 48 hours, there should be no rush to judgment so long as people are contributing regularly, even if not immediately. Let's try to avoid calling someone out for not responding to comments/questions right away, so long as they do so in a reasonable timeframe (I feel like ~12 hours is a fair rule of thumb, but others might disagree). I think we ought to shoot for a thread that is densely packed with substance, which should make analysis easier. (Not to say that people should not respond quickly if they can.)

I believe bo was talking to me BB, and referencing my "I have noticed your vote on me as I was keeping a vote count, didn't you read the first part of my summary? And seeing how I want to be under pressure, it is making me feel even more safe. I will get my analysis done when I am able to and not a second earlier bo." quote, especially the not feeling rushed to get to analysis (even though I mentioned earlier, a rush lead to my summary a few pages ago) but I could be wrong.

Also, several people have been pushing for that rush from page 1, so if we want to avoid pressure on responding quickly it will have to be a team effort. Sadly I do not think that Mafia will allow this to happen, nor will it be well received in general Balki, I hope to be proven wrong.

There seem to be two primary kinds of Espi post.
1) Don't lynch me, with a hint of OMGUS
"I would hope that you change that before the day is over. If you do think I am scum, and worthy of a lynch, then I am more then happy to hear your thoughts where there is so little evidence." - doubting validity of pressure
"I don't know if those asking me questions are trying to shift blame onto me, or genuinely suspect me," "I am trying to make myself into a target and am wondering why those who could target me, are not." - doubting motives
"As such I am not putting as much effort into my posts now," - complaining about being asked questions, threatening not to work with town
"So far some people haven't been asking me any questions, will those in question explain themselves?" "For now I think it makes me more suspicious then misguided" - God only knows


2) Put me on trial, and I'll be clear
"If I can clear myself with him I should be golden."
"Actually guak, please let Jeff target me."
"If I appear to be scummy right now, I do apologize, but I understand if I get Lynched day 1. "
"I am very suspicious now aren't I? :P"
"I am being very scummy now,"

Combo posts, with elements of each
"it is better to Lynch me then anyone else for the time being as that means the Cop does not die. Please do not lynch me though if there are other options, I want to live till the end"
"I am also hoping that my being a target (one I put on myself) can helps mid-late game when more is known."
"I also am not going to respond as you think I am, I do not think I will be the first turn Lynch, hell there is very little pressure on me right now." followed by a response?
"some people are actively trying to test me, others are completely ignoring this, both are suspicious in my mind"

ANALYSIS

Type 2 behavior is not good as town. If Espi is town, he's wasting our time by trying to be tested, however he imagines that's going to happen. Even if that were possible, it would still be a waste of time to test Espi.

What about as scum? As scum, he can later claim that he was already put on trial day 1, and that he's thus apparently town. This is a risky strategy (well, sort of, martyr posts are frequently ignored), and I suspect that risk mitigation is the point of posts of type 1. Right now, in his view, it will reduce the chance of actually being lynched. Do not confuse these for a defense. There's a small bit of confirmation in the form of posts which explicitly state that claiming he must be town because he wasn't lynched is his plan, and with some of the combo posts, which I believe demonstrate intent.

CONCLUSION
What Espi is doing makes so much more sense as scum than as town that I cannot help but apply Occam's razor. It is still possible he is an absurdly misguided town who believes among other things that he is somehow especially important, or that there is any particular value in being around at the end, but it seems simpler to assume that scummy actions are done by scummy people for scummy reasons.

@bo - how was that Espi post a towntell? Please explain.

I think I'll make a vote tracker. I can't guarantee I can maintain it though, so somebody should definitely make a copy and keep updating because IDK if I can even do D2.

DL, I started you off with the page number of votes, hope that helps.

phil- I hope I am not important, cause that would be bad, very bad.

We've slowed down a bit today as opposed to yesterday, hopefully it picks up in the evening. I'll start writing my reads.

@bo - Yes, I'm saying ignore what I said in that post. Because it would have meant something if nobody had said it. Basically, let's say I say that Jeff is mafia, and I get killed the next night. Well, if we assume that Jeff is not an idiot (which seems like a fair assumption) if he were mafia, he would never kill the person who accused him, because that would attract everyone's attention to him. So if I ended up dead tonight, everyone could safely assume that Jeff is not mafia.

But now that I've said that, hypothetical-mafia-Jeff is reading that thinking "I can kill SS and get away with it, because SS just said that I'm guaranteed to be innocent if he dies."

So, because of that post I made, Jeff now has a free pass to kill me (assuming that he's mafia) and that bit of reasoning doesn't help anyone anymore.

Basically, some of my strategy is nullified by having to explain it before it comes into play. And now that it's been nullified, it can be safely ignored because it no longer has any meaning.

On the content of my first post, I did come in far later than some of you, and I didn't post any more than anyone who came in far earlier. As I've explained before, I don't think we learn anything at all until someone's dead. That's why I didn't "contribute" more to the wild mass guessing with my first post.

Why don't I want a lynch? Because the odds are that a lynch kills an innocent person. It isn't the lynch itself that does us favors -- it's seeing who was turning on who, and how that pans out with the mafia kill of the night. That can happen without anyone dying.

@DL - As many times as you've changed your vote, and you don't see how a vote for a lynch can't possibly not lead to a lynch? If everyone else retracts their votes, and I'm the only one with a vote for a lynch, I will retract my vote for Jeff.

The thing I disagree on is 1. "it's seeing who was turning on who, and how that pans out with the mafia kill of the night. That can happen without anyone dying." and 2. How you RANDOM VOTING gives any info anyways

VOTE TRACKER https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PRQW6YgyqroUVJHm80NrPYcyWn3Kp6j82K98mo2Eues/edit?usp=sharing

Saladin - funnily enough, we actually refer to it here more or less the way you did originally: Wine In Front Of Me, or WIFOM

And yes, nightkill analysis is WIFOM early on, though later it can be pretty important.

Also, since the mafia nightkill is WIFOM, we're better off lynching someone. Not only is there always a chance mafia get caught in a day 1 lynch (we've done it before, twice now), but even if it doesn't, the information we get from day 1, and thus the nightkill is only valid when backed up with a lynch, otherwise there's no credible threat to get the information through.

@SS: The mafia only get one kill per night. And they vote on it.

Per the rules:
"Mafia Goon:
You are a badass cyber terrorist hacker! During the day you may make a hacking accusation against someone; the candidate which reaches a plurality will be arrested at the end of the day. During the night, you may talk to your mafia partners, and vote on whose cyberbrain to fry. Your mafia partners are <Mafia Partner A>, and <Mafia Partner B>."

It sounds like what you are trying to describe is OMGUS'ing to the extreme in a mafia vs town conflict.

VOTE UPDATE

Bo_sox48 (2): Espi, Guak
Espi (2): Phil_a_s, Balki Bartokomous
AmericanSlacker (1): Trprado
SaladinSmith (1): Yoyoyozo
Trprado (1): Jeff Kuta
Jeff Kuta (1): SaladinSmith
Guak (1): Lucland

@Jeff - OMGUS'ing?

Oh BTW, with no vig, lynches and only lynches are town-directed kills. We should lynch. You can't replicate the info gained in a lynch without lynching, and you don't seem to be as much convincing others to go with you as defending why you want to do so, which is odd when your system falls apart when everyone else wants to lynch.

Any reads of others that you have @SS?

When did I vote for Bo DL?