Mafia 68: The West Wing

[Graeham]

If you're already going through my posts, dupti, then there's no real reason for me to repeat myself. If people feel like I'm the best lynch option for today then so be it. I'm really not interested in spending most of the day phase arguing with you when the points against you have been brought up repeatedly ever since Strikered first incriminated you.

I've already wasted my ability in an attempt to save Val - which could only be used once for the sake of balance - so all I have now is my vote. If I have to be lynched so people can see my alignment then so be it. If it finally gets you lynched then it'll be worth it. You're scum. I'm convinced of it.

[Dendrek]

I'm against lynching Graeham. I don't like several of the things he did yesterday, but he's undoubtedly town in my eyes now.

[dupti]

Why don't you want to engage me? Just answer my questions.

1) What is your read on Dendrek now?
2) Who do you think is trying to save me?
3) Several people already explained why it is unlikely that Strikered checked me - care to respond to that? (To elaborate, if Strikered had a check on me, he would've left out the part about it only being based on playstyle. There was no reason for him to mention this, but he did. Do you think this is how Strikered plays TPR? If so, why?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry but I simply can't agree with you Dendrek. Graeham always pulls the martyr crap "oh lynch me" as scum and I always call him out for it.

- - - Updated - - -

But Dendrek your town read on him is a bit interesting. I also think you know exactly why I wanted him to comment on you.

- - - Updated - - -

In case you don't, I was just really surprised that he did not mention your name now. Like that was really unexpected and that made me believe that him calling you out yesterday might've been a weak attempt at distancing. (seeing as he doesn't want to comment on you now).

Hm, well that's interesting. I need to sleep now, but:
@Graeham please respond to my questions.
@Dendrek, Graeham refused to give his reads even though you were pushing pretty hard for the claims to do it. I find it rather interesting how you chose not to comment on him refusing to do so Care to explain why?

[Dendrek]

It has nothing to do with his Martyr statement. Several of the things he said yesterday were downright scummy. But he used a one-time "stop this lynch" ability on a VT.

There are a few things about that ability worth pointing out: 1) There are possibly multiple people who can use it, but for now I'm going to assume only Graeham could. 2) Virothe apparently had the ability to counter that ability. 3) The President (a player) very likely made the decision on whether or not the ability worked.

Point 3 is compelling. I think it's likely the President cannot stop a lynch without a Senator calling for it to be stopped first (in other words, his ability is probably passive unless invoked by another player). Unless Cruelle is just fucking with him, which I highly doubt she'd do, the president's ability to stop a lynch is only useful if a town player invokes that ability. If it's only scum with access to that ability, then Cruelle has given the (most likely) most important TPR an ability that can only play to the scum's advantage. That would be a pretty bastardized role, and I don't see Cruelle doing that. Additionally, why would Virothe have sway over the appeals process if it's only scum making the appeals?

[dupti]

That's honestly a good answer, thanks.

But I can come up with several reasons for scum doing it as well.

a) Graeham is third party aligned with mafia (like Crackle), tried to save Val because he thought he was mafia.
b) Graeham is mafia, tried to save Val because he thought he was third party aligned with mafia.
c) Graeham is mafia/third party aligned with mafia, did it for town credit.

Overall though I'm inclined to agree with you that it does seem more towny. anyway going to bed

[Uggorthaholy]

My random thoughts

Town read:

Graeham - made an effort to save a townie yesterday, whatever the appeal thing is.
Monkz - have a hunch on this one

Nuetral towards town:

Robo, Arlee, Xanj

Neutral:

Celtic, Catta, Danner

Neutral towards scum:

Dupti, Kryllian, Kurenai

Scum:

Dendrek, Reticence

[KurenaiXIII]

@Arlee After so many games, I don't trust people claiming until there's hard proof. It's real hard to 'prove' doctor without a rolecard flip.
@dupti I said I was reading you as town, sure, but you've still done a number of things I find scummy. Maybe... maybe it's all just coming back to me now. Joking aside, I find your reaction to being voted extremely scummy, particularly as you were not even close to being in danger of being lynched. Also, if you're calling out Graeham and myself, why not Reticence?
@Arlee That's fair, however: I feel like Senna was the obvious scum target last night. Dupti is claiming to have protected Senna N4, which certainly seems to fit, however that could just be a smokescreen as well.

Ultimately my vote today hinges on the highly aggressive tone Dupti took in a spot where I don't think he needed to.

[Reticence]

Idk about Dendrek, I wanna trust him but something pulls at the back of my brain about him.

Agreed. I want to believe he's just barking up the wrong tree, but there's something really bugging me about this whole situation.

I actually don't feel comfortable listing who I read as town in light of what happened to Val.

This seems silly to me. At this stage in the game we need to keep the information exchange going. Also, if you're telling the truth about your role being one-time, then you're a glorified VT now, yes? Give reads.

It has nothing to do with his Martyr statement. Several of the things he said yesterday were downright scummy. But he used a one-time "stop this lynch" ability on a VT.

You seem sure that he's not lying about that. If your theory is right and another player can veto his appeal, I could see it being multi-use.

Point 3 is compelling. I think it's likely the President cannot stop a lynch without a Senator calling for it to be stopped first (in other words, his ability is probably passive unless invoked by another player). Unless Cruelle is just fucking with him, which I highly doubt she'd do, the president's ability to stop a lynch is only useful if a town player invokes that ability. If it's only scum with access to that ability, then Cruelle has given the (most likely) most important TPR an ability that can only play to the scum's advantage. That would be a pretty bastardized role, and I don't see Cruelle doing that. Additionally, why would Virothe have sway over the appeals process if it's only scum making the appeals?

If the assumption is that they are all town, then that essentially makes them Innocent Children the moment they're forced to make a public appeal. If they're all scum, then as you said it would make the President's power pointless. Following this logic, I suspect there are multiple Senators of various allegiances.

c) Graeham is mafia/third party aligned with mafia, did it for town credit.

This is the possibility that I can't quite shake.

All of that aside, I made a point overnight to re-read dupti's posts from earlier this game and see if I could come up with anything new, and I currently read him as town, perhaps even more than I did before.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, if you're calling out Graeham and myself, why not Reticence?

Did I miss something? Call me out for what?

[Dendrek]

Scum:

Dendrek, Reticence

I find this interesting. Thank you for replying. Since you did, I'll reply in kind:

Do you know that every time you've been scum, you've read me as scum? Every time. And did you know you've been wrong in nearly all of those reads? I wonder why that is. You don't always read me as scum when you're town, but you do when you're scum. Just some food for thought.

As for this post, I asked for TPRs (soft or hard claimed) to post their reads, but I didn't call you out specifically. I didn't want to draw attention to you (to see if you or others would), but I feel it's reasonable to do so now. You've implied that you have an ability that is based on where your vote at the end of the day is. If someone wants to correct me on this, I encourage them to, but I've never seen a town role with that stipulation. We've already got a ton of claimed TPRs, at least a few of them are likely scum (we can't have this many TPRs in this game, can we?).

- - - Updated - - -

You seem sure that he's not lying about that. If your theory is right and another player can veto his appeal, I could see it being multi-use.

If the assumption is that they are all town, then that essentially makes them Innocent Children the moment they're forced to make a public appeal. If they're all scum, then as you said it would make the President's power pointless. Following this logic, I suspect there are multiple Senators of various allegiances.

You're putting words into my mouth, Ret. That seems unlike you to do.

[Uggorthaholy]

Actually, all I was doing is tossing out my feelings for the day, I've said multiple times I am quite busy with my family moving in and I didn't want to miss opportunity to throw out what was on my mind.

[Reticence]

You're putting words into my mouth, Ret. That seems unlike you to do.

Eh? I didn't even use anything you said against you.

I assume you're referring to the latter point, since the first is just a counter to your read of Graeham?

I can assure you that I was not. I'll admit that the first time I read it, it sounded like you were saying one or the other, but knowing you I also figured that you may just be ruling out possibilities. As such, I expanded upon your theory and gave my take on it.

[Dendrek]

Eh? I didn't even use anything you said against you.

I didn't say that because you were using that analysis against me. I said that because you usually ask for clarification before drawing conclusions. You noticed possible faults in my analysis. It would have been much more consistent with your character to ask me how sure I was of X or if I meant Y.

[Reticence]

I didn't say that because you were using that analysis against me. I said that because you usually ask for clarification before drawing conclusions. You noticed possible faults in my analysis. It would have been much more consistent with your character to ask me how sure I was of X or if I meant Y.

Your words:

I'm against lynching Graeham. I don't like several of the things he did yesterday, but he's undoubtedly town in my eyes now.

It has nothing to do with his Martyr statement. Several of the things he said yesterday were downright scummy. But he used a one-time "stop this lynch" ability on a VT.

My words:

You seem sure that he's not lying about that. If your theory is right and another player can veto his appeal, I could see it being multi-use.

It's pretty consistent with my character to read words like "undoubtedly" and note that the person saying them seems pretty sure. Should I second-guess your adamantly-stated opinions more in the future?

EDIT: Or, again, are you talking about the latter point about Senator allegiances, in which I just expanded on your theory?

[Dendrek]

It's pretty consistent with my character to read words like "undoubtedly" and note that the person saying them seems pretty sure. Should I second-guess your adamantly-stated opinions more in the future?

My words were he's undoubtedly town. I stick by that opinion unless I've given reason to doubt it. That opinion wasn't just because he saved a VT. It also had nothing to do with it being or not being a one-use ability. Notice that "You seem sure that he's not lying about that" has nothing at all to do with the relevant part of my opinion.

The second part of what you said had a reasonable conclusion, but appeared (on my first read through it) to be an attempt to discredit the logic of what I said by implying that the logic lead to silly conclusions. My take on that was that if the logic apparently lead to silly conclusions, you'd be more likely to ask me for clarification on what I meant rather than show the silliness of what I might have meant. (In other words, it looked like an attempt to strawman what I was saying.) Your followup post explained what you were doing, which does seem more in line with your character.

[Reticence]

(In other words, it looked like an attempt to strawman what I was saying.) Your followup post explained what you were doing, which does seem more in line with your character.

Mm. I see.

My words were he's undoubtedly town. I stick by that opinion unless I've given reason to doubt it. That opinion wasn't just because he saved a VT. It also had nothing to do with it being or not being a one-use ability. Notice that "You seem sure that he's not lying about that" has nothing at all to do with the relevant part of my opinion.

... I don't follow.

You said he said some scummy things, then "but he used a one-time "stop this lynch" ability on a VT". That sounds like it is a huge factor in your decision to think that he is undoubtedly town, made more impactful if it was, in fact, a one-time ability.

This leads me to two questions for you, I guess.

1) Let's say that it's not a one-time ability: temporarily ignore the part where that would mean that Graeham just lied to us, and let me know how that affects your opinion.

2) If it has nothing to do with his martyrdom and nothing to do with it being a one-use ability, and wasn't just because he saved a VT, then what else is there to outweigh your concession that he said scummy things?

[Dendrek]

Graeham saying scummy things does not make him scum. Graeham has a habit of saying scummy things whether or not he's town. The martyr comment, the accusation of me moving goal posts to save Dupti, the anti-policy lynch arguments, the switch to a "if we're going to policy lynch anyone it should be Dupti" arguments. But most of the scumminess of these comments rely on Valyrian being scum. When Graeham is scum and tries to protect himself or a scum buddy, he relies on tactics very much like these. That's why I was so certain he was scum yesterday. I don't read Graeham as doing all that to save a VT though, not as scum. But that's not why I'm confident he's not scum. It's only a contributing factor.

Another contributing factor is, of course, that he actually used his ability to try to save a VT. Whether it's one time or not is actually irrelevant to this point. It would be relevant if he had full control on how this ability works (if he could actually dictate the lynch or completely stop it). But it's fairly obvious that there is a player who makes the final decision (based on Cruelle's end-of-the-day RP). Even if he could and did use that ability every single day, it's still in the hands of someone who is (I am fairly certain) town to make the final decision. If he lied about being able to use it multiple times, so what? Lying as town is bad if 1) it makes it difficult to trust the player or 2) if it actually hurts town. Him lying about his ability has neither of these consequences (at least, not for me). It would be very wise for him to lie, so that scum won't prioritize NKing him.

The last contributing factor is, as I said, that this seems like it's more likely a town ability than a scum one. I'll conceded (and yes, I did consider the possibility) that there could be scum players with this ability as well. But until we actually see evidence there are other players with this ability, I'm not willing to crucify Graeham based only on a possibility. If another player flips with (or publicly admits to having) that ability -- particularly if that player is town -- it will be reasonable to question Graeham's alignment (and no, I'm not trying to get another player to come out to implicate Graeham -- if you do have his ability, keep it to yourself).

- - - Updated - - -

How relevant is it that Graeham used his ability to save a VT if it's one use vs not? I feel I didn't adequately answer this.

On it's own, that point says nothing about Graeham's alignment. If it's one use and he's scum, he did it for town credit. If it's multi-use and he's scum, he did it for town credit and to insure that later uses would succeed even if he was actively trying to save scum buddies. That's why I don't base my read on Graeham's alignment solely on the fact he used it on Val. That's why I brought up the theory about what his ability implies for the structure of this game. It's that theory that makes Graeham's town-alignment a compelling conclusion.

If I seemed to put too much emphasis on Graeham's alignment being because he tried to save a VT to justify my read on him, that was not intended. But if you concluded that was the basis for my read, then you missed the context of that post. I wouldn't have brought up the subsequent theory about the president if it weren't relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Alright, well I feel like this might be a good place to start:

Vote: Uggor

He already soft claimed TPR, so I have no doubt he'll hard claim one if pressured. But I suspect it will sound like a bullshit claim.

[Catta]

Before I go to the hospital I am gonna say this. I don't think Graeham is scum. He seemed to be the Appeal thingy that Virothe's rolecard spoke of and I doubt it would be scum if Virothe as scum held sway over them while alive. Unless of course its the name of the mafia.

[Uggorthaholy]

I don't have a ton of time, moving truck gets here in roughly 12 hours, so I won't be around a lot.

I am the Town Crier.

If I end the day with a vote on the lynched person, I gain an investigate.

D1 from Crackle, used N1 on lelly, innocent.
D2 from Jynx, used N2 on Kel. Innocent, hence my complete unwillingness to pressure him.
D3 from Satsu used N3 on Virothe, got Innocent and then he died.
D4 from Large, I missed the night deadline for N4, used last night on Graeham, got innocent.

Might seem convenient that I have claimed 3 dead people, but these are all people who are high profile players and targets, and I wanted to get a feel on who I could trust as power players early.

I did not earn an investigate yesterday as I did not end up on the vote for Val.

Vote: Reti

[Dendrek]

God damn it.

- - - Updated - - -

I find that difficult to believe. I mean, fuck. Two investigators?

- - - Updated - - -

I could totally see you being a role cop. If you really are an investigator, I'm going to commit seppuku.

[Uggorthaholy]

It's a conditional investigator that backfires, hence me looking scummy with questionable voting record. My sacrifice.