Game 6: Black Flag Nightless

I agree with your most recent post, Jeanette.

I do not know who to lynch at this point. I have no idea who is scum, as everyone has seemed pro-town at this point.

If I had to lynch at this point, I think I would lynch Chaz, as he is the only one with an unexplained post at the moment. Everyone else's possibly scummy posts have been explained (except maybe Satchel, but I don't think his posts are scummy).

Thanks for the birthday wish, Jeanette! How do you like living below ajhockestar? Are you thinking of moving to a highrise somewhere?

Okay, it's fine not to have a total scumread at this very moment, but pretty soon (possibly next day) scumreads will need to be sorted out - so just continue being observant and noticing how everybody interacts with each other!

I like living below ajhockeystar, but I think living in a box with a fox sounds just as exciting!

Do you think we should try to lynch someone like Bailey who hasn't said much?

BTW, if anyone who hasn't said anything since page 1 or 2 comes on, don't read everything from the last ten pages. I can give you a synopsis of the game to get you up to speed.

@Jeanette
I'm kinda scared because Mason is right behind me!

Well Bailey isn't contributing anything nor does it look like she ever will contribute. A No Lynch doesn't help right now since we have some momentum going as far as discussion goes, so getting the game to progress further will prevent stalls (like in the other Game 7 lol). I think AJ might get some substitutes for the other inactives, though.

Yeah for the other inactives, asking questions to any of us will get you caught up faster than trying to read every single post - although at least skimming the previous pages to see what happened in the big picture would be helpful. The biggest "events" I would say would be discussion over Satchel's early townread on Mason, then Duplica's wagon vote (and unvote) on Bailey with me, and most recently Chaz's "plan" that he hasn't officially revealed yet. So if you had to give specific opinions on anything, those three events I would say would be helpful. Yeah so Huromi, Hajime, and Yuriko - please don't feel intimidated, since we can clarify anything that you need!

I personally think that lynching an inactive person won't help us right now, since we can't afford more than four mislynches.

I would like to point out Jeanette's seemingly inside knowledge about chaz's "plan". I know this isn't much evidence, but some of the following wording struck me as odd:

Jeanette C. wrote: Chaz's "plan" that he hasn't officially revealed yet

Has he unofficially released it to you? This wording makes it seem that you might know something more about it that that it will be released at the end of the day. From what I know, that is all we know.

Jeanette C. wrote:Oh I actually thought that the analysis was what Chaz's "plan" was: like a reveal of all the possible scumteams on his paper. But it sounds like that isn't the case, so disregard the last part please.

What made you think that this isn't the case? It sounds to me that Chaz's plan could very well be a reveal of possible scumteams at the last minute.

These make it seem to me that Jeanette might have inside knowledge about Chaz's "plan". I welcome criticism and other points of view.

And I don't plan to lynch. It seems like Bailey is going to be lynched anyway, so there isn't any point.

aj! If the mafia hasn't been here since the beginning, I'd like to know that my work so far has been for nothing!

Chaz R. wrote:Jeanette, that was exactly what I was trying to do. But right now there is something interesting bad going on.

This is the post in which I first thought that Chaz's plan was to do a scum team analysis, since I had just suggested that Chaz do one in the right before. However, in his response to your post, he says in one of his holder comments:

like I said, my "plan" will not be revealed until the right time

Since you had given possibilities as to what his plans could be, his response in this way indicated to me that what I had said AND what you had said both were not his original plans.

ah i see

And then the part about Chaz not 'officially revealing' the plan: well it sounded like he had unofficially revealed it as the scum team analysis to everybody (by his implied responses to our suggestion of the analysis). But then he (unbeknownst to himself) ruled out that possibility by saying he still has not revealed anything.

Mason A. wrote:I agree with Jeanette here. The Mafia will probably tend to play different playstyles (or after reading my post, they might try to play the same so I guess that hypothesis doesn't work...) This game can be rather town-sided, although a few slip-ups can cost us the game.
With that said, I think it'd be better for everyone who placed votes based on activity to remove them before the deadline (since plurality does apply), as we can afford no-lynches since no town members will die.

Mason (like Jeanette) seems to be very town for posts that helped to set up the conversation. If you haven't noticed, he hasn't said anything since Page 7.

Mason A. wrote:

Jeanette C. wrote:Do you have a town read list instead, then? Anything that keeps us organized would be helpful!

I'm leaning towards you being town for contributing and asking questions of people when things were unclear and also slightly towards Satchel being town for explaining his thoughts and saying what he thinks about the game.

At this point, I honestly feel like if we have to lynch, we should lynch someone who is inactive, since that wouldn't really help or hurt us (since they aren't contributing to discussion anyways).

Mason A. wrote:

Chaz R. wrote:Well, seeing as though I joined this game midway, I don't really understand the scenario very well, which is also why I am lurking. But from what I understand, when Jeanette lynched Bailey no one really cared, but when Duplica lynched Bailey you all start bundling on him/her? Like I understand it was a "bandwagon" but he/she was AGREEING with Jeanette meaning why wouldn't she bandwagon?

Mason A. wrote:I believe the reasoning for this was that Jeanette's vote was an activity one, while Duplica had provided reasoning that confused some of us, which is why we were looking at it as bandwagoning. She did clarify now though, and I don't see her as scum anymore.

Quotes like these show that Mason was giving supported reasons as to why people are town. He was a very pro-town person and, like I am now, didn't have any strong suspicions.

aj, who got lynched?

Well that was expected considering I announced it.

Fine! If you're going to be more than twelve minutes late, aj, then I'm not going to stay here to hear it!

Votecount 1.4
************************************
Bailey E.(1): Jeanette C.
Duplica W.(0):
Hajime U.(0):
Satchel N.(0):
Huromi M.(0):
Chaz R.(0):
Yuriko P.(0):
Mason A.(0):
Jeanette C.(0):
Areal I.(0):
Not Voting(9): Hajime U., Satchel N., Huromi M., Areal I., Chaz R., Yuriko P., Mason A., Bailey E., Duplica W.
************************************
There are 10 people so it takes 6 to lynch. Deadline is Monday the 5th at 9pm EST.

Bailey E. was lynched by plurality.

They were the...:

Day 2 Start!

Votecount 2.0
************************************
Duplica W.(0):
Hajime U.(0):
Satchel N.(0):
Huromi M.(0):
Chaz R.(0):
Yuriko P.(0):
Mason A.(0):
Jeanette C.(0):
Areal I.(0):
Not Voting(9): Hajime U., Satchel N., Huromi M., Areal I., Chaz R., Yuriko P., Mason A., Duplica W., Jeanette C.
************************************
There are 9 people so it takes 5 to lynch. Deadline is Saturday the 10th at 9pm EST.

Plurality applies.

Lmao you just gave the forum's 1000th post, and instead of being a jovial moment of celebration you turned it into AJ pulling a john.

Btw I edited post #1000 with the update so it could be a "jovial moment of celebration".

Lol epic win. So I don't think that I would bus my partner that badly if I was scum, considering that I could have just no lynched without any worry. However, if you guys still want to speculate about me being scum that is fine as well!

Omg my phone sucks so I'll make a more cohesive post later but initial reaction is that mason and areal didn't want the lynch - was this because they were trying to avoid their scum partner being lynched?

Oh sorry AJ, I meant that Areal's last post on page 11 was the 1000th post (you posted #1001 at the same time as my #1002) unfortunately!

Given Bailey's flip as scum, I thought it would be nice to compile together posts that related to the vote on Bailey. This way you can analyze how each player reacted to my initial lynch on Bailey, as well as Duplica's vote (and unvote on Bailey). I quickly skimmed through for these quotes, so if there is anything that I forgot, please apologize. Also, these quotes are taken out of context, so please look back at these old posts as well.

Mason A. wrote:With that said, I think it'd be better for everyone who placed votes based on activity to remove them before the deadline (since plurality does apply), as we can afford no-lynches since no town members will die.

The first reaction to the Bailey vote was Mason directly at me. He immediately sets up a perspective of wanting to No Lynch. Later on he clarifies that he says he is okay with lynching if there is a case on somebody, but as it turns out, Mason never develops a scumread on anyone (he townreads several players instead). The hesitance to label anybody as scum is really suspicious to me, and Mason has had this attitude since this very first reaction it seems like.

Duplica W. wrote:Yeah, sorry.

Unvote: Areal I.

@Everyone
This setup is basically 7 Town + 1 Mafia Goon + 1 Mafia Doublevoter (7vs3). I'm sure, we can actually afford a mislynch as Day 1 goes by. Currently, I think the only lynch would be Bailey.

Lynch Bailey

Assuming someone is mafia, if their team doesn't want one of their mafia to be lynched, they will have to vote 1 more than the vote on their friend count on someone else. Of course, after reading my post the mafia might just let Bailey (if he is mafia) die, but that would be a disadvantage. Also Bailey, when you come online, what do you think of the lynches?

Duplica places the second vote on Bailey here. This is actually interesting to read back on because I'm not exactly sure why Duplica thought that "the only lynch" at that point was Bailey - the game then just consisted of my vote on Bailey and Duplica's vote on Areal. There seemed to be many options to lynch. It just seemed weird that Duplica just 'happened' to get the feeling that Bailey was Mafia, considering that she says "the mafia might just let Bailey die". This follows up on my lingering question of why Duplica made it sound like the vote on Bailey was set in stone. It's almost perfect that Duplica seemed to know all about Bailey in this post - could this be a bus by Duplica? I actually think Duplica is relatively town as I am writing this, but I'll move on to the next posts.

Areal I. wrote:Duplica is being sporadic, and, with her lynch on Baily, bandwagoning.

Calling out Duplica, which I think is fine given how confused we were about Duplica at the time. Doesn't show anything specifically.

Mason A. wrote:I uh... wow. That's a lot of discussion (comparatively, anyways). Honestly, I get the activity vote on Bailey, but I don't understand why Duplica felt it was necessary to add on to that. There isn't really much for Bailey to be pro or anti town, given that she's posted.... once.

It almost feels like at this point that Mason has resigned himself to giving in to my activity vote. Previously, Mason was all for NOT having activity votes (but rather No Lynches or lynches with enough reasoning), but in this post he actually does a 180 on the activity vote opinion. The opinion towards Duplica is fine given the circumstances then.

Huromi M. wrote:To add on to Mason's point, I understand that Jeanette started a lynch on Bailey because she said that she's a villy. However, I also question Duplica's vote since we should really discuss more.

I don't get anything out of this, unfortunately. You understand that I started a lynch because Bailey said she was a villy? Well, that's the literal interpretation I guess, but it pretty much was an activity vote (I'm not going to take that much credit for a lucky guess basically). Here Huromi basically agrees with everything that Mason says. At this point in the game, Mason was seen as pretty pro-town so Huromi might be one lurking and just following the lead of seemingly town players at this point. Huromi, please participate, we would welcome your thoughts.

Mason A. wrote:Satchel... you've essentially cleared everyone that has talked thus far as town. I mean, most of the people who have talked seem to be pro-town players, but I personally think that Duplica's bandwagon/vote-change to Bailey was somewhat strange.
Anyways, what do you think about that?
Also, anyone else or even Duplica herself, what do you guys think about it/why did you bandwagon on the vote?

Repeating Mason's opinion from before (he is consistent at least!), nothing new here.

Duplica W. wrote:Basically, what I was assuming is that Bailey was mafia and that I'm giving mafia a dilemma on whether to let their buddy get lynched or prevent it.

Anyway, so far it doesn't seem any real thing is happening.

Unvote: Bailey

The second important Duplica post was her unvote. She says that she "was assuming that Bailey was mafia". Is that true, or did she actually know that Bailey was Mafia and wanted a bus? My perspective right now is that the former is true (Duplica just made a lucky/correct assumption that Bailey was Mafia) BECAUSE I think that if Duplica really wanted to bus, she would have kept her vote on Bailey to gain some potential towncred once the Bailey flip was revealed. Yeah I think a scum partner would have 1. either kept away from the Bailey vote completely (like what Mason/Areal seemed to be doing), or 2. just voted Bailey and kept to it even though people would question Duplica's decision. In this case, Duplica kind of mixed and matched both strategies, suggesting to me that Duplica isn't a scum partner (for these reasons though, maybe in the future Duplica may be more scummy).

Chaz R. wrote:Well, seeing as though I joined this game midway, I don't really understand the scenario very well, which is also why I am lurking. But from what I understand, when Jeanette lynched Bailey no one really cared, but when Duplica lynched Bailey you all start bundling on him/her? Like I understand it was a "bandwagon" but he/she was AGREEING with Jeanette meaning why wouldn't she bandwagon?

Honestly I don't get a read from this post at all. One thing that this post does show is reasoning for my viewpoint of Duplica NOT being scum in the paragraph right above. The bandwagon itself could be town or scum: town to lynch a potentially scummy player, or scum (knowing that Bailey is Mafia) to gain some towncred after Bailey's scum flip. But since Duplica jumped off the bandwagon, we can (to a degree) eliminate the scum tactic of gaining towncred by following this lynch. Thus the most likely explanation is Duplica just wanted to lynch a potentially scummy player (or in this case, just lynch to get some reactions - either way, it was a town motivation).

Mason A. wrote:I was leaning towards Duplica being scum basically because I didn't understand her reasoning for voting Bailey. Now that she explained the reasoning for it, I don't really see it as a scum move anymore (it was moreso an activity as well as a vote based on a hypothesis rather than a bandwagon, based on her explanation), so i'm still lost as to who could be mafia. I'm not too great at reading people in the game, although I can get a generally good idea when someone seems to be town. I'd really like for some of the lurkers/nonposters to come on and talk, because that would really help discussion in my opinion.

On the surface this explanation is fine but what strikes me is that he has made a 180 on his opinion on voting since the beginning of the game (see my paragraph for the first quote in this post). He started off not wanting activity lynches, then was okay with it, and now he justifies his townread on Duplica BECAUSE it was an activity vote. The inconsistency with Mason worries me, and once again we have his hesitance on giving out scumreads.

Mason A. wrote:I believe the reasoning for this was that Jeanette's vote was an activity one, while Duplica had provided reasoning that confused some of us, which is why we were looking at it as bandwagoning. She did clarify now though, and I don't see her as scum anymore.

Just adding onto the paragraph above.

Chaz R. wrote:Actually its nothing to do with bailey, looking through the records, there isnt any decisive evidence against bailey. And trying to rule him out through logic hasbt worked.

Nothing that I really see here. Although, what were you trying to say by "ruling him out through logic?"

Areal I. wrote:I still don't understand why we are lynching Bailey. There are people that have said less and that haven't said much more. She probably just forgot about this.

Areal I. wrote:Hopefully Bailey will come back, but until then, I believe we have no reason to lynch her.

Areal I. wrote:And by the way Hajime and Hiromi haven't said much more than Bailey.

Areal I. wrote:Do you think we should try to lynch someone like Bailey who hasn't said much?

Areal I. wrote:I personally think that lynching an inactive person won't help us right now, since we can't afford more than four mislynches.

Moving on from Mason, we now have Areal pushing for us not to lynch for Bailey. I don't know if it is Areal's personality considering that she was quick to the defense of Satchel (a key discussion point during Day 1), but in these posts the tone definitely says that Areal is trying her best to get the lynch away from Bailey without being too obvious about the lynch. It could just be that Areal is a townie who truly doesn't want to mislynch, however, the fact that I could locate so many posts from Areal repeating the sentiment not to lynch Bailey is VERY suspicious and incriminating.

I would say after looking at these reactions to Bailey's lynch, that I come away from this analysis seeing Mason and Areal as more scummy than they were before the Bailey flip, and I see Duplica as more town than I had thought before. I would rank Areal as being incriminated by Bailey's scumflip more so than Mason because Mason was using the excuse of just not wanting activity lynches, while Areal seemed to be more emotional/personal/direct in her defense of Bailey.

I hope this analysis will be useful for you guys, but since these are just my views, I really hope you guys can respond, comment, question, anything.

TLDR (I finally bring it out): Mason looks scummy, Areal looks even more scummy, Duplica looks more town

I think at this point, we have 2 sides to look from. According to Jeanette, Mason and Areal are potential scum. However, it is possible that Jeanette lynch her mafia partner to make her look like she was town. (obviously we have no solid proof)

Duplica looks town to me because she could choose not to bandwagon on Bailey if she wants, since no one was voting. From her posts, she also seem likely to be town.

I am shocked that Bailey was mafia. To me, the vote was a 30% chance of success, which wasn't good enough for me. I didn't understand why we would lynch someone who only has a 30% chance of being town, seeing as we have no lead on them.

I know I am going to sound scummy when saying this, but when Mason said he has the activity vote on Bailey, I think he hadn't been on in a while and was giving his opinion on his days absent.

Huromi, if you have any questions or want a brief overview of the other aspects of the game, just ask!

Anyway as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by aj's absence, Mason seems town because there doesn't seem to be anything scummy about him, and I believe his "inconsistency" was just his inability to find scum in the empty beginning of the game. That's my read on him.