Not the same case at all. Phase 1 of this game had amazing interactions from ND and Chaqa. If your case had that type of interactions it would be a whole different story

@guak: wouldn't late day make more sense to analyze because if the mafia makes a bad move THEY LOSE.

@guak: Really? Interactions with mafia? That's your argument. Those are the type of arguments used against Squiggs and ghug, those arguments are not valid because the mafia can choose who to interact with and how.

@vashta: interactions with mafia before they are found are the strongest arguments that you can make. wtf are you talking about.

##VOTE Vashta.

@guak: Honestly, those arguments make sense near the end, when mafia need to collude, but when it is early in the game interactions between a townie and a mafia and a mafia and a mafia are hard to tell the difference between. Honestly, votes matter more, but I feel more like y2k is being set-up by an early bus. In fact a Chaqa, WD, guak mafia is exactly the kind I wouldn't be surprised doing that.

@Vashta: really, you have it the opposite way around. Interactions are the key to solving the puzzle. They have always been so. That is why once you have found the first mafia it is easier to find the others. And why finding the last mafia is usually way easier than finding the first one. Voting records are fickle.

Either way, right now, you look scummier both because of voting record and your defense of y2k. y2k was looking scummier than everybody else due to his interactions with Chaqa and ND, but I really have to say thank you for this eye-opening discussion. I had just started to consider that a WD-y2k team was possible and now you have made it easy for me to understand that the team is you and y2k.

In fact, 1st day interactions are so damning that players like Maniac have admitted they play Day 1 without reading their role PM to avoid screwing up.

@guak: Interactions are meaningless without considering what the mafia's reasoning for whatever action they took. Still I might have under emphasized the role of Day 1 interactions, but I still find them less relevant than late game moves because mafia are forced to co-operate late in the game if they wish to not get picked off.

How is mafia ever 'forced' to do anything? I just don't follow your line of reasoning.

Late game moves are more WIFOMy because town knows almost as much as mafia does and the knowledge gap is reduced. That means to me that mafia is likely more careful and make less mistakes in late game. However, early game, townies are so clueless that mafia may get careless and make stupid mistakes. Like Chaqa defending y2k.

@guak: Late in the game the mafia can't simply hide in the large crowds and usually there are less of them. This means to get anything done they have to consolidate their voices on certain targets, they can't simply hide by throwing away their votes or hiding in a larger wagon, they have to all move toward a certain goal.

That is my point. They cannot hide so they have to be way more careful and thus whether their behavior is indicative of their alignment is harder to tell. Because it could all be a mafia plan. Early on, there is no plan. Behavior is much more alignment indicative. The thing is that analyzing Day 1 on Days 1 or 2 is almost valueless. Analyzing it near end game when most people's alignments are already known is supervaluable

@guaK: Also, late game forces less vocal mafia to become vocal, as that is the only way they can get things done, so they have a bigger footprint. Then again, the same could probably be said for the town.

Well, honestly, if you both are scum, you win. tv still has yet to respond, and he already said he felt Vash was clear. I still think y2k makes the most sense as the lynch this phase from my perspective.

Vash, if someone other than you had brought up your interactions as removing the possibility of a y2k+Vash team, it wouldn't have been WIFOM, but it was you using it to clear yourself, just like you cleared yourself with the RBs and with the votes on D3 and with the vig claim. How likely is it that an innocent would have so many arguments to clear himself and yet be the one to point out every single one?

Honestly though, unless tv shows some willingness to change his vote, it won't matter which of us is innocent or guilty, because if he doesn't do anything I'll move my vote over to guak to make 100% there can't be a tie and hang the game on it being right, since that's better than letting mafia choose to tie it up at the last second.

I'm about 80% sure I won't be around at end of phase tomorrow, due to deliveries, so I'll have to lock in my vote in the morning. If tv hasn't shown up, I'll just sheep him on guak.

Going to go look at the earlier cases on guak and his responses to them compared with my own summary of his actions to see if things match up. If guak's innocent and telling the truth, I should find that ghug and Vash were mistaken at best, and manipulative at worst. If he's guilty, they should be fairly accurate and guak's lying about himself should be pretty clear. I'll try to come to a decision on guak within the hour, and if he's bad, vote for him. Then check back in in the morning to see if tv has said anything yet.

But before I go, @Vash If you're convinced guak is scum, and you're innocent, you would have to know that scum-WD would never be convinced by your arguments, and (as it appears) scum-y2k would never even RESPOND to ANY arguments.

That's a big part of why I still suspect you right now as a scum partner with y2k. I don't understand why you seem so certain he's innocent, and why you're seemingly ignoring the arguments that he's scum. You even tell me that you think he would fit with scum guak, while you both refuse to vote for him, and make a case against me.

Do you really think y2k is innocent, and I'm scumbuddies with guak instead? If so, why AREN'T you voting for me?

One way or another, tv's vote is going to decide today's lynch. If he's right, we'll get one more chance to win or lose after the mafia kill one more of us. If he's wrong, we'll lose here.

@WD: A few responses:
"
Vash, if someone other than you had brought up your interactions as removing the possibility of a y2k+Vash team, it wouldn't have been WIFOM, but it was you using it to clear yourself, just like you cleared yourself with the RBs and with the votes on D3 and with the vig claim. How likely is it that an innocent would have so many arguments to clear himself and yet be the one to point out every single one?"

1. I didn't bring up the D3 vote initially, I think it was you who brought it up and some other people who mentioned it. I also was not the one who soft cleared me on the role blocks, several other people chose to do that. So it is not accurate to use that probabilistic argumentation.

2. It is completely bullshit to say that a argument is or isn't WIFOM based upon who says it. Arguments are invalid or valid regardless of who says them. Either I didn't have good reason to not vote for you or I did, it is that simple. For example if I use the same argument that a scientist or philosopher uses to prove something, it is not all of a sudden unproven because I am making the argument. Sure who says an argument might impact what you think of it, but that is a subjective matter, the argument itself is objective and whether or not it is valid is independent of who makes it. So I ask you again, did I have good reason to vote for YoYo if I was mafia? If so, how is this not outweighed by my incentive to lynch you?

"But before I go, @Vash If you're convinced guak is scum, and you're innocent, you would have to know that scum-WD would never be convinced by your arguments, and (as it appears) scum-y2k would never even RESPOND to ANY arguments."

I disagree, being that defensive would look badly, sure you might have to have a higher threshold for being convinced, but at a certain point you can't deny a good argument without looking suspicious.

"Do you really think y2k is innocent, and I'm scumbuddies with guak instead? If so, why AREN'T you voting for me?"

Warden, I am most sure on guak being mafia and am torn on you vs y2k as final mafia. As such I am trying to lynch the person I am most sure on. As for building a case on you and not y2k, I was going to do you and y2k, but I procrastinated and ended up only being able to do you. Today i was busy and for the past several hours I've been dealing with guak. Hopefully guak will be lynched so I do have time to do that analysis.

@Vash I can understand that position, to a degree. I am most certain about y2k being scum, and less certain which between you and guak would be his partner. As for why scum you would've chosen not to vote for me, as I recall (haven't gone back over it yet) you were pretty openly townreading me at that point. With guak, Yoyo, Yassem and y2k all alive I was really low on your scum radar. That would mean that a vote for me, even if it would easily push me to the leading candidate, would cast a lot of scrutiny on you, successful or not. And there's no guarantee it would've even worked. So, scum you could've easily decided that it would be an unwise risk to try to lynch me yesterday, deciding that it would be better to do so later, if at all. I just don't buy the argument that voting for Yoyo over me yesterday actually clears you from being on a team with y2k.

Rereading ghug's case on guak (p69) and guak's laid out rebuttal (p73) Tells me that ghug was wrong about a couple things, but guak ascribed significant malice to both clear mistakes, and semantic differences. Guak claimed ghug was manipulating facts to fit his agenda, while at the same time complained that ghug was including facts that didn't fit the agenda.

Both had clearly reached a point of (some term guak used earlier that I liked but am blanking on) devaluation, where they basically discounted whatever the other said because they had already come to a conclusion. What is strikingly different between the two is how... violent guak's reaction is. He asserts that almost every facet of the case against him is a fabrication or manipulation made with malice, and uses that claim to devalue the argument itself. (But ghug is also guilty of this, just to what appears to be a lesser degree.)

Based on this exchange I would lean toward voting guak. I'll find and examine Vashta's case on guak the same way in the morning.

Whatever if tv is not even coming back there is no point in continuing this game. Just kill me and let's end this once and for all.

i'm here, sorry this game took a back seat for me this weekend, although I guess it has all game for me :/. ##VOTE guak if tv is still on him, we have to stay with tv at this point. i voted warden when i did because he's still the one of those three i'm most convinced is scum.

Official Day 7 Vote Count Update:

Guak(3): tvrocks, VashtaNeurotic, y2kjbk
y2kjbk(1):WardenDresden
VashtaNeurotic(1):Guak

Currently Guak is set to be lynched!

You have 9 hours remaining

Guys, we need to consolidate our votes. If there is a mafia member on guak, yet we're still divided, they could very easily tie it up last minute.

Hence why I moved to Guak, if Warden/guak is the mafia team then we're OK right now

Tv, do you have any response to the cases put out? I'm going to check in again by phone in case you do actually change your vote, but ##vote guak. Until then. You do realize that mafia could only tie if one unvoted at present. We have an odd number of people.

##vote guak

let's make this unanimous. tv does not even care to read or answer questions.

@guak/y2k: There's three of us here and it appears that tv won't be back. Shall we just end it and see if there's gonna be another day?

Official Day 7 Vote Count Update:

Guak(5): tvrocks, VashtaNeurotic, y2kjbk, WardenDresden, Guak

Currently Guak is set to be lynched!

You have 2 hours remaining