Mafia 68: The West Wing

[Danner]

I can guarantee that Strikered didn't have a "guilty" check on me. In any case Danner needs to die today.

Strikered voted you on D1 (#96), D2 (#408) and D3 (#656). No other votes than on you as far as I can tell. He's been laser-focusing on you all game. Now, early on I figured this was just a thing between him and you. Like me and Celtic. But by day 3, when the trains were forming? Yeah. That's a statement. It's why I read him as town.

[Kryllian]

Well there went all my work reading old posts and taking notes last night. I've been combing through the Satsu voters figuring Kel would flip scum and maybe I could find a slip up from those who switched trains. With both flipping town that doesn't really help my theories. Back to the drawing board.

I agree that Vig taking down Kel makes the most sense at the moment.

Virothe's ability to look innocent seems unlikely that he was targeted by some sort of investigator who then targeted them. I'm going to look back to see who he may have pushed or FoS'd indirectly to be a target.

[Deleted]

Seems Dupti is soft claiming something with a result implicating that Danner is not town.

Vote: Danner

If you're claiming someone needs to die, then you need to do a bit more than soft claim

[dupti]

I can assure you he didn't have a check on me Danner. Check our day 2 interactions. He started the whole lynch dupti until one of us dies then because I called him out (at least I assume that was the reason). I don't believe he was even scumreading me at that point actually, at least that wasn't the impression I got from his post #414.

Also why would you bring up his D1 vote? Not only was it a random vote but he obviously couldn't have visited me at that point.
@celtic, I kinda already explained why I found him scummy yesterday and him opening the day instantly with such an opportunistic vote isn't helping his case.

- - - Updated - - -
@Danner, thoughts on this post?

Town
Reticence
Monkz
Arialla
I had Lelly here too

my Scum list at present is everyone else

here are a few at the top though
Dupti
Danner
Kurenai
and Jynx was high on my Scum list so i was quite wrong with that

[Arialla]

A jack with a kill sounds more plausible.

- - - Updated - - -

The number of kills seems odd

[Senna1251]

Oh dear Danner, my best buddy. Unfortunately it seems like this will be your last day.

Vote Danner

I can guarantee that Strikered didn't have a "guilty" check on me. In any case Danner needs to die today.

Interesting kills by the way, the kel kill pretty much confirms a vigi I think and hopefully this will encourage town not to lurk.

Why does Danner have to die? Answer Celtic's question please, I'm not buying Uggor's answer.

You can not guarantee anything about what Strikered had on you. We do know that Strikered is town and that he wanted to vote on you, leading me to believe he thought you were scummy. Danners vote on you is understandable.

Are you threatening Danner by saying it's his last day? You can't guarantee his lynch, so are you threatening to kill him tonight?

In any case Danner's right in that Strikered's vote on Dupti Day 3 is a statement. We should not overlook it easily.

[Deleted]

Also why would you bring up his D1 vote? Not only was it a random vote but he obviously couldn't have visited me at that point.
@celtic, I kinda already explained why I found him scummy yesterday and him opening the day instantly with such an opportunistic vote isn't helping his case.

I'll have a look for that post but I honestly haven't had a lot of time to read everything properly.

- - - Updated - - -

So Virothe's actions from Start to Death summed up:

virothe - Scum - Voiced suspicion of arlee(275) - Responded to Crackle (General response) - Voted Crackle (with some good points) - Asked what vigi - Strong interaction with crackle - replies to large with decent logic - Mentions possibility of fake claims -voted Satsu (Weird) - voted jynx - didnt wanna lynch satsu unless he had to - Agreed witrh Xan on an Uggor/Monkz push - defended kel - agrees with monkz (calls him a bit harsh) - votes satsu again (again weird) - Agreeds with robo on a vote analysis

- - - Updated - - -

The reason why I think his votes on satsu are weird is because Satsu is the perfect diversionary target. I thought scum would have wanted to keep him alive to sow confusion

- - - Updated - - -

I know, I read through the posts. I was just saying since Aria wanted to voice how bad an idea Satsu is that maybe people should have been active and tried to push a wagon yesterday instead of barely posting. 25 people and like 4 of us are active and that's acceptable to everyone?

Literally the only reason I'm on Satsu at this point is because so many people have defended him or tried to push off his wagon, for instance your wagon got a huge push and was almost past Satsu before you claimed and even after that we were still seeing people vote on you. That's extremely odd to me.

I feel better about that than jumping on to Dupti because a bunch of other people sheeped to his wagon, but I think that depending on what Satsu flips it will speak volumes about who joined your wagon.

I also thought this post very interesting. Was there anyone else who was voting on satsu/kel only because (s)he had to?

[Catta]

The reason why I think his votes on satsu are weird is because Satsu is the perfect diversionary target. I thought scum would have wanted to keep him alive to sow confusion

Considering that without a vigilante we'd probably be lynching the other guy now then I think the scum were just content to have 2 days wasted on town lynches. I also think the scum would have spread out on both trains while not trying to catch too much attention. Defending Satsu before his death shows him to be town could trigger investigations on them for instance.

[Deleted]

And Robo's vote analysis:

Virothe
1- Robozerim (1), Crackleslap (5/13)
2- SatsuBL (2), JynxieJ (8/8)
Thoughts- Good position on Crackle if Crackle lied about being in contact with mafia. Vote on Jynxie was after a self vote from her, and having a vote against Satsu before would look good for him if Satsu is scum, but be much less telling if he isn't. Anyway, gut feel goes for trust at the moment. Uncertain leaning trust.

Pretty ballsy move putting him towards trust if they were scum buddies

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that without a vigilante we'd probably be lynching the other guy now then I think the scum were just content to have 2 days wasted on town lynches. I also think the scum would have spread out on both trains while not trying to catch too much attention. Defending Satsu before his death shows him to be town could trigger investigations on them for instance.

Fair point. So 1/3 rule means 9ish scum? One team possibly meaning an even split.

- - - Updated - - -

Right thats me done for the night - And its date night tomorrow night so don't expect me to be around much

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and a thought occured to me yesterday. It could be that Xan's and Monkz spat was a scum show. Xan is normally not that aggressive

[Dendrek]

Strikered's posts are frustrating. It's hard to tell if he's just being a dick to Dupti or if he actually had something on Dupti.

D1 - Votes Dupti because he doesn't want Danner lynched (since Danner died early the last game)
D2 - Votes Dupti because Dupti called him out for being hypocritical -- it looked like a retaliatory vote, but he later said "call it pressure if you like." He also began the #votingDuptitilleitherofusdies ("voting Dupti till either of us dies") campaign. These latter two statement look like TPR-check soft claims.
D3 - Votes Dupti because #votingDuptitilleitherofusdies, later gives his scum reads in which four names are mentioned (Dupti's at the top of the list), but adds and emphasizes "it's nothing but play style, I have to stress this"

So which is it? Does he have a check on Dupti or not?

He indicates he may have a check on Dupti in three different ways: 1) "call it pressure if you like", 2) #votingDuptitilleitherofusdies (which looks like a claim that once he dies, we'll know he had a check on Dupti), 3) Dupti's name at the top of his scum reads list.

He contradicts these indications also in three different ways: 1) he focuses on Dupti from D1, making it harder to tell if the later days are hints, 2) he votes Dupti D2 after Dupti shows aggression to him, instead of voting Dupti as an independent action, which would more easily be read as a check-claim, 3) he stresses that his suspicion of Dupti is only a play style read.

I don't know what to do with this information. It would be really shitty if he did have something on Dupti and then Dupti manages to get away with it. But if I'm going to take Strikered's word that Dupti is scum, I need to be reasonably sure that's what Strikered was actually saying. I can't ignore the possibility either, so I'm ok with Dupti being pressured. Unfortunately, if Strikered did have something on Dupti, there's also the possibility he's outed a TPR.

I'd personally rather go for the player I find to be the most scummy.

Vote: Danner

[Reticence]

Eh, following a tracker result is as dubious as following a watcher result. It's certainly possible dupti is guilty but it's far from certain :/

This, especially since it's dubious enough when you actually know that it happened, but when you don't...

Oh and a thought occured to me yesterday. It could be that Xan's and Monkz spat was a scum show. Xan is normally not that aggressive

Occurred to me, as well. Monkz' reaction seemed out of character, and the affair as a whole felt unnecessary and forced.

[Monkz]

Oh and a thought occured to me yesterday. It could be that Xan's and Monkz spat was a scum show. Xan is normally not that aggressive

Occurred to me, as well. Monkz' reaction seemed out of character, and the affair as a whole felt unnecessary and forced.

The 'fight' was not staged. I feel like it was way too personal to be staged, but I guess anything can be faked.

He thinks I'm useless, I think he's useless and hypocritical - lets honestly just leave it at that. I agree that yesterday got out of hand, from both sides.

[Deleted]

The 'fight' was not staged. I feel like it was way too personal to be staged, but I guess anything can be faked.

He thinks I'm useless, I think he's useless and hypocritical - lets honestly just leave it at that. I agree that yesterday got out of hand, from both sides.

Except I've purposely gotten into fights with scum buddies before. Not personal fights which is why Im not seriously pushing this theory but I thought I'd mention it.

[Reticence]

Yep. I can't say I've ever gotten into a fight, but I have intentionally gotten into a lengthy debate with an ally before.

Either way, it's something I noted, but it's much lower on my priority list.

[Monkz]

Yeah no doubt that it is a viable strategy.

[Graeham]

I don't believe Strikered would incriminate someone unless he had good cause to do so.

[Dendrek]

I don't believe Strikered would incriminate someone unless he had good cause to do so.

I don't believe Strikered would carelessly soft claim TPR D1. But he did.

I don't know what Strikered was doing, but if he had something on Dupti, that means he had it from N1. What are the odds he managed to catch the one person successfully performing a kill on the one person who died N1? (I know the odds, it's a rhetorical question.) And if he did have something that incriminating, the fact he was practically exposed as a TPR already by his own actions (and basically everyone knew it by D3) means he should have just revealed it. What he should not have done, however, is make it look like he was only voting on Dupti to be contradictory nor should he have claimed his read was only based on play style. He sowed the seeds of doubt too heavily into his actions.

Granted, he was so one-dimensional (only going after Dupti, being stubborn and providing very little justification for it) that you have to consider he was actively pushing an agenda, as a TPR might be prone to do.

For the record, I am not saying you're wrong. I am, however, asking that if you do believe he had something on Dupti, you help me understand why he played it the way he did.

- - - Updated - - -

I know it looks like I'm defending Dupti. I'm not. I'm just agonizing over the fact that Strikered left us with dubious information.

[Arlee]

Yep. I can't say I've ever gotten into a fight, but I have intentionally gotten into a lengthy debate with an ally before.

Either way, it's something I noted, but it's much lower on my priority list.

Oh yea? Well your face is all green and scaley and dragony! Am I doing it rite??

I don't believe Strikered would incriminate someone unless he had good cause to do so.

As a tracker the very most Strikered could have possibly gotten on dupti is following him to a target that died. We have no idea if it was just once or multiple times (if it was multiple time damnit Strikered you should have specifically said something). Add in the fact last night had three kills we have to at least consider the possibility of double tapping going on previous nights. With that possibility out there it unfortunately makes it less likely dupti is necessarily scum because even if dupti was say the doc in a double tap scenario the kill would still go through because docs usually only protect against one kill.

The part I'm struggling with here is Danner knows these things, and usually looks at things from all angles before making rash choices. The fact he led out with a vote on dupti without at least considering these issues puts me off a bit. I can pretty easily see a set-up where scum go for Strikered because he's been focused on dupti and hope to set-up an "easy" lynch on dupti because of it and bonus points if Strikered turned out to be a TPR.

It just really doesn't sit well with me.

[Graeham]

Strikered has made some pretty bold moves in the past. He recently claimed to be a JOAT when in reality he was a Vigilante - and that could have ended badly for him if there had been a JOAT who happened to speak up and counterclaim him. He didn't do that because he was reckless though - he did it as a calculated move and it ended up being very beneficial when all was said and done. So I'm willing to believe that he may very well have been laying a trail for us to follow after seeing something that didn't sit right with him.

Which doesn't cast Dupti or Danner in a particularly good light. He mentioned Kurenai as well (so we shouldn't ignore that) and overall I feel like it's a solid lead. If Kel hadn't been killed last night I have no doubt that we'd be distracted by whether or not to push a lynch on him today (which looking back is something a couple of people implied they would do today).

I'll think about where I want to put my vote. Though I'll also wait for Dupti, Danner and Kurenai to speak up first.

[Robozerim]

I don't believe Strikered would carelessly soft claim TPR D1. But he did.

I don't know what Strikered was doing, but if he had something on Dupti, that means he had it from N1. What are the odds he managed to catch the one person successfully performing a kill on the one person who died N1? (I know the odds, it's a rhetorical question.) And if he did have something that incriminating, the fact he was practically exposed as a TPR already by his own actions (and basically everyone knew it by D3) means he should have just revealed it. What he should not have done, however, is make it look like he was only voting on Dupti to be contradictory nor should he have claimed his read was only based on play style. He sowed the seeds of doubt too heavily into his actions.

Granted, he was so one-dimensional (only going after Dupti, being stubborn and providing very little justification for it) that you have to consider he was actively pushing an agenda, as a TPR might be prone to do.

For the record, I am not saying you're wrong. I am, however, asking that if you do believe he had something on Dupti, you help me understand why he played it the way he did.

- - - Updated - - -

I know it looks like I'm defending Dupti. I'm not. I'm just agonizing over the fact that Strikered left us with dubious information.

Hmmm....yeah, given that he had already more or less been outed as a TPR due to his soft character claim on day 1, I guess it does seem rather unlikely that he had tracked dupti to a kill. I'll have to agree with you on that one and disregard that evidence when it comes to voting against dupti today.