Game 19: Star-Crossed

Poor Katie Perry still has no computer
I'm pretty sure deadline is soon

lynch Forrest G.

Katie P. wrote:Poor Katie Perry still has no computer
I'm pretty sure deadline is soon

lynch Forrest G.

so judging by you saying "i'm pretty sure deadline is soon" and then lynching forrest g, i'm gonna assume you're trying to prevent a sylvester lynch by shifting it to forrest g correct me if i'm wrong

"Deadline is Saturday the 21st at 9pm EST."
THIS IS NOWHERE NEAR DEADLINE
AT LEAST RELATIVE TO HOW IT WAS ON PREVIOUS DAYS FROM WHAT IVE READ

Sylvester S. wrote:>.> It's easier doing normal scum-hunting anyways.

Comments in bold.

Yosuke D. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:Teit post

THIS IS SUCH A TERRIBLE IDEA AS EXPRESSED BY LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE EXCEPT MAYBE MISATO
IT MAKES IT SO THAT WE CAN HIDE BEHIND MATH AND PREVENT SUBJECTIVITY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO FIND MAFIA
THERE ARE ONLY THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE WHO TRY TO USE MATH IN MAFIA
1) CITRUS FREAK
2) BAD TOWN
3) MAFIA
BY YOUR OTHER POSTS YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT A BAD PLAYER, SO ARE YOU CITRUS FREAK OR MAFIA? OR AM I STUPID AND WRONG AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY BAD?
I play Mafia with an extremely different sort of people than Pokémon nerds. (Not that there's anything wrong with Pokémon I don't judge your life choices) Allow me to posit that, there, nobody is ever considered a sure-fire Mafia until LyLo. We literally go 4-12 games NLing all the way until a string of LyLos happens and then all Mafia are successively lynched. This theme is especially generous in that wise.
I am not Citrus Freak, much like how Elon Musk is not a kid in the back yard paying with a model rocket.

THAT IS COMPLETELY FAIR. THE REASON I OPPOSE THE STRATEGY IS BECAUSE I'VE SEEN STRATEGIES SIMILAR TO IT USED AND IT RARELY WORKS. ALSO THE OTHER THINGS I SAID BEFORE
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOUR EXAMPLE HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING, THOUGH

Sylvester S. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:Can we lynch Sylvester for trying to Math instead of Maf?

I AGREE WITH THIS BUT WHY DIDNT YOU ACTUALLY LYNCH SYLVESTER UNTIL SOMEONE ELSE HAD? SEEKING SECURITY, PERHAPS????
Why agree with this? Subjectivity in data is more emphasized when compulsed to have their actions revealed. If not, why even bother subbing people in the first place? Why is the second Forest Gump any better than the first, just because he promised activity?

I ALREADY STATED WHY I HAD AGREED WITH THIS, UNLESS YOU JUST MISREAD WHAT I SAID
ALSO NOTHING YOU STATED ACTUALLY RELATES TO THE POST YOU QUOTED SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S UP WITH THAT

Sylvester S. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:It's not math, it's a clever way of tracking scumtells without losing them in translation.

NUMBERS = MATH
MAYBE THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY TRUE BUT YOU'RE USING NUMBERS TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS BASICALLY MATH ANYWAYS
Even if numbers = math, talking =/= speaking. My question is, does a talker who leaps to criticize Mathia demonstrate a flaw in Mathia, or the themselves? If you want to completely disregard Mathia, fine, wipe it from your mind, but do not ignore the comments people make about it.
The only salient comment made about Mathia so far was Yosuke saying "it obscures subjectivity", and Lara commenting on how we'd all have different interpretations of slips.

THERE ARE VALID REASONS TO NOT USE MATH, AND INVALID ONES AS WELL
I DISAGREE THAT SCUM WILL BE THE ONLY ONES WHO WANT TO STIFLE NEW STRATEGIES BECAUSE IT WOULD RESULT IN NEW RESULTS THAT THEY ARE NOT USED TO
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A 'BAD' STRATEGY AND IM FAIRLY CERTAIN EVERYONE WHO DISAGREED WITH YOUR IDEA BELIEVED THAT IT WAS ONE OF THOSE

Sylvester S. wrote:

Misato O. wrote:Ok so, I want to hear more about this mathia strat.

If 12 is to a 50/50, can we deduce a sensible number for a 75/25 or so?

THERE ARE MANY POSITIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MISATO AND SYLVESTER AND THAT SEEMS WEIRD TO ME
Misato had an open mind. If someone is scum, what do they have to benefit from aligning herself with an alleged "Citrus Freak"? Mafia recoil in fear from the new and untested. "Keep things the way they are" is their rallying cry because they are experienced in the banal arts of human deception like lurking.
I MIGHT ACTUALLY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT BUT FROM WHAT I REMEMBER THIS IS TRUE

SYLVESTER WHY DID YOU MENTION MISATO AND CLARK OUT OF ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAD TALKED PREVIOUSLY?
I notice I am confused. Could you explain? Sorry >.>

CITRUS FREAK IS A USER, NOT A THING
'KEEP THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE' IS MORE A BATTLE CRY OF MOST PEOPLE, BUT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY

IN YOUR POST RIGHT BEFORE MISATO'S YOU HAD MENTIONED MISATO AND CLARK AS TWO PEOPLE FOR THE TEIT THINGS
I WANTED TO KNOW WHY YOU PICKED THOSE TWO SPECIFICALLY

Sylvester S. wrote:

Mateo P. wrote:Hi everyone
Lynch Sylvester S.
He's probably not even sylvester stalone and also he did math

Edit: Bold fail, had permission from aj

BY THAT POINT NOBODY WAS RANDOM LYNCHING, WHY DID YOU PROVIDE SUCH POOR REASONING EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH IT????
Random Lynching is easy, making an effective judgment is hard. Because sticking to tradition and promising to help in the future is far easier than actually thinking right now and doing something right now. Because he's not even Sylvester Stallone.
And BTW it's *she

THAT IS FAIR BUT MATEO DID ACTUALLY BRING IN SOME QUALITY CONTENT LATER, SO ID SAY HE FOLLOWED UP
ALSO I AND PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE REFER TO PEOPLE BASED ON THE GENDER OF THEIR AVATARS
IF THIS IS A PROBLEM, WE WILL PROBABLY FORGET AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE, SO SORRY IN ADVANCE

Sylvester S. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:Ayy we started.
I WAS going to suggest keeping an eye out for people trying to softclaim kills, but that's not allowed, so idc tbh

Lara C. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:No pun intended

No pun intended on what? Also, I'm a tad FoS on you, solely because I feel vanillagers wouldn't have even thought about mafia SCing kills.

I DISAGREE
ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO FIND SCUM IS BY PUTTING YOURSELVES IN THEIR SHOWS (AS TOWN) AND TRYING TO THINK OF STRATEGIES THEY WOULD USE. AS SUCH, STATING POSSIBLE MAFIA STRATEGIES ISNT TOWNY OR SCUMMY, AS I SEE IT
Even more important than thinking about individual scum actions, I suggest everybody takes two people, analyzes their personal interactions, and comment whether it smells of town talking speaking with town, town speaking with scum, or scum speaking with scum. They have no private communication; either they completely ignore eachother, or the speak publicly but with enough fake wink-wink "we're awesome" saltiness as to not be suspicious.

THIS IS A GOOD IDEA
WOULD YOU LIKE TO START?

Sylvester S. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:Suprise suprise, good old me being FOSed already
I dont have much to say rn, but we will say as the game progresses

THIS IS HONESTLY COMPLETELY FINE, UNLIKE WHAT THE BELOW vvvvv SAYS

Lara C. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:Suprise suprise, good old me being FOSed already
I dont have much to say rn, but we will say as the game progresses

My FOS on you is probably the slightest FoS possible. It's Day 1, so town is scrambling to pick up on anything. Because other people have so few posts, I'm going off just what I already have, so right now I FoS you above all else. Are you mafia? No, probably not, but until we get more posts you're the closest to it fmpov.

What's bad about that? Lara seems a bit aggressively... passive here. That's good, I think? On the opther hand, I put a slight FOS on her and she flips out. Why the difference between her reads on others and others on her? Does she think herself non-discussable?

FORCING PEOPLE TO POST MORE CONTENT WHEN THEY ARE EITHER UNWILLING OR TOO LAZY NEVER WORKS
UNLESS YOU ARE ABOUT TO LYNCH THEM AND EVEN THEN IT RARELY WORKS

Sylvester S. wrote:

Forrest G. wrote:The "announce the kill before MyLo" was a pretty obvious thing. No softclaiming kills? This changes the way I thought this would play out since I expected scumhunting to be centered around that.

I agree with Lara C. on the mathia part.

2 days deadline? Not fun.

THIS SEEMS TO BE USEFUL BUT UPON LOOKING AT IT MORE CLOSELY THIS IS LEGITIMATELY JUST REPEATING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID AND/OR FILLERING
BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!!!!
So we agree 1st forest gump is a n00b, that says nothing about second one. Is this scummy fillering, or stupid town fillering? There is a difference.
Wait, it's actually both  

THE ONLY THING OF USE FORREST TWO HAS POSTED IS POINTING OUT HOW LARA DID NOT SPECIFY WHY HE WAS 2 OR 3 ON THE LIST
HOWEVER THAT WAS QUICKLY FIXED
AS TO WHAT KIND OF FILLER IT IS
I HAVE NO IDEA

Sylvester S. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:So. There's a 1/4 chance we hit scum, which I don't think is worth lynching for. NL?

I agree. As in a normal game of Mafia, we should NL and scumhunt on MyLo; I predict we'll have three of these PMyLos until Mafia lands a kill.

Either we can have 1) two consecutive days of lynching, 2) a few days scumhunting and no lynching followed by a lynching day after Mafia lands a kill, or 3) any moldable, but risky combination thereof.

IMO I think option 1 > 3 > 2.

I DISAGREE WITH NLING AT THIS POINT ONWARDS UNLESS LYNCHING REALLY DOESNT GET US ANYTHING OR WE'RE IN MYLO
LYNCHING IS THE BEST WAY TO GET INFORMATION BY USING A CONFIRMED TOWN OR MAFIA'S INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS TO HELP FIND SCUM
THE ONLY REASONS WE SHOULDNT LYNCH ARE 1) MYLO OR 2) WE HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL AS TO WHO COULD BE SCUM
Talking is the best way to get information. Tell you what. Let's meet in the middle and say lynch after Mafia makes its first kill. That will give us even more time to talk, maybe another day, and make the lynch reveal oh so more valuable. It'll be 2-5 then, after lynching, 2-4 which is PMyLo if Mafia misses that night. Sound good?

AFTER A CERTAIN POINT TALKING IS NOT AS USEFUL AS LYNCHING
WE HAVE DEFINITELY PASSED THAT POINT
LYNCHING SOMEONE WILL GIVE US ENOUGH INFORMATION SINCE WE CAN USE THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS TO HELP US FIGURE OUT WHO IS TOWN AND WHO IS NOT
STALLING UNTIL MAFIA MAKES THEIR FIRST KILL SIMPLY RIDS US OF A GOOD TOWN MEMBER AND IS A WASTE OF TIME
WE REALLY SHOULD NEVER LYNCH ON MYLO THOUGH

Sylvester S. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:

Misato O. wrote:No lynch

So basically, I don't trust the concept of "LOL THEY WON'T GET THE KILL THROUGH, LETS LYNCH" On mylo.

Buuutttt, It's not mylo. I think we should nl today, since we have very little info, and lynch tomorrow or the next day.

I'm not saying use it as a strat - I'm saying it's possible. You will have to lynch on MyLo though, because if you NL, mafia gets kill and it turns into LyLo - or they don't get the kill and it remains in MyLo.


I disagree with NLing today, just because I think we could get some information based on reads/etc, but I'm fairly impartial right now.

Unlynch Sylvester S, No Lynch

HOW CAN YOU DISAGREE WHILE BEING IMPARTIAL
LOGIC ERROR LOGIC ERROR LOGIC ERROR
Logic is all about being impartial while leaning to one side. Disagreement does not mean you can't change your mind.

I GUESS I JUST USE DIFFERENT TERMS
IMPARTIAL IS WHAT I USE TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OPINION ON THE MATTER WHILE NEUTRAL IS WHAT YOU DESCRIBED
ERROR IN TRANSLATION I GUESS

Sylvester S. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:
Still alive! I thought I was dead after the predicted LarKaVester kill. And you guys totally lied and said it wasn't hammer >.>

WHY DO YOU IMMEDIATELY BELIEVE WHAT OTHERS SAY WITHOUT CHECKING
THIS IS A MISTAKE
DO NOT DO THAT
Of all the people you claim "immediately believes what others say", you chose me because....?

BECAUSE THIS WAS THE ONLY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE THAT CAUGHT MY EYE

Sylvester S. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:
Also, why not just use a system of "lynching" until PLyLo where we do fakelynch ajhockeystar so we get our point across, without actually voting. Sound good?

NO
WHY, THAT'S COMPLETELY USELESS
WE SHOULDNT BE CONTINUALLY NO LYNCHING SINCE WE'RE GOING TO GET VERY LITTLE FROM DOING SO
JUST LYNCH PEOPLE AND UNLYNCH TO NO LYNCH IF YOU REAAAAALLLLLYYYYY WANT TO NL
IF PEOPLE HAVE NO LYNCHES ON THEM THEY WONT BE NERVOUS AT ALL AND THERE'S LITERALLY NOTHING GAINED FROM DOING THOSE FAKE LYNCHES UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO BE FOLLOWED UP ON
You literally just proposed exactly what I did except with two steps instead of one.

NOT REALLY
I WANT A LYNCH TODAY BECAUSE AT THIS POINT NO LYNCHING ISNT GOING TO GET US MUCH COMPARATIVELY
I JUST SAID THE UNLYNCH AND NL AS A COMPROMISE IN CASE NOBODY ELSE AGREED WITH ME

Sylvester S. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:
Slight FOS on Katie and Lara for being in LarKaVester and a lesser FOS on Clark for hammering nl.

I READ YOUR WHOLE POST AND STILL THINK THAT IT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE
FIRST OFF, KATIE MAY HAVE BEEN ACTIVE BUT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL REASON TO TARGET HER WITH THE NIGHTKILL SINCE SHE DIDNT ACTUALLY DO TOO MUCH
YOU AND LARA? SURE. WHAT PROBABLY HAPPENED (ASSUMING YOU'RE BOTH TOWN, WHICH I DOUBT) IS THAT EACH SCUM TARGETED ONE OF YOU
THE FACT THAT YOU KEEP BRINGING KATIE INTO THE MIX MAKES ME FEEL LIKE IF YOU'RE SCUM YOU WENT AT HER WITH THE NIGHTKILL
I just stupidly grouped the most active people into a meaningless label because literally everybody else was refusing to contribute at that point; best to hoist up the actives as a standard.
An, uh, how does me talking about Katie suggest "I targeted her with my nightkill"?

BECAUSE WHILE KATIE WAS ACTIVE SHE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING OF USE AND THUS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TARGETED BY THE MAFIA NIGHTKILL
YOU MENTIONING KATIE MAKES ME THINK THAT IF YOU WERE MAFIA YOU WENT FOR HER

Sylvester S. wrote:
Talking is the best way to get information, not necessarily lynching, which is far more extreme and usually detrimental at this early of a point. Tell you what. Let's meet in the middle and say lynch after Mafia makes its first kill. That will give us even more time to talk, maybe another day, and make the lynch reveal oh so more valuable. It'll be 2-5 then, then 2-4 after lynching which is PMyLo if Mafia misses that night, LyLo if they hit. Sound good?

I STILL DISAGREE
HOWEVER IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY A BETTER TARGET THAN YOURSELF I WOULD BE OK WITH LYNCHING THEM INSTEAD
AS OF NOW I SEE NONE

ajhockeystar wrote:

Yosuke D. wrote:BEFORE I RESPOND TO YOUR POST I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT I THINK BECAUSE YOU QUOTED MY LYNCH ON YOU YOU ARE TECHNICALLY LYNCHING YOURSELF
AJHOCKEYSTAR CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG

ALSO ALL OF YOU SAYING THAT YOU LIKE ME IS DISGUSTING
I AM A SMALL CHILD AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE HITTING ON ME

Correcting you, you're wrong. I always ask people to not post lynches like this Lynch name in the middle of text since it's hard to pick out, and instead like this:

Lynch name

So yeah. Either way, quoting a lynch doesn't count as an actual lynch.

OOPS
SORRY
WELL NOW EVERYONE KNOWS

i agree with yosuke, we should lynch today to get this game going

Katie and Clark are the scum team.

Hear me out:

Katie is trying to move the lynch off of Sylvester with the Forrest lynch, correct? Any random lynch like that to shift plurality from someone, with no reasoning given, is typically considered scummy.

So I think, if Katie is scum, that means Sylvester is scum as well, because Katie is trying to avoid getting him lynched.

However, maybe Katie is trying to keep Sylvester alive because he's an easier lynch later in game. If this is the case, little Clark the lurker who obviously still her becomes incredibly scummy to me - why be definitely here but do nothing at all to help town?

Lara C.'s post at the start of this day bringing down Sylvester's was fucking hilarious btw 12/10 for effort 20/10 for delivery i laughed for like 20 mins

i haven't been too active due to a number of reasons but ngl nobody would believe me if i posted them anyway.

I'm writing this and I haven't even looked at the lynchcount but at this point I'm against a Sylvester lynch, whilst the strategies he has proposed haven't been the best he has made an effort and offered up good ideas not math related.

You'll probably see this as me buddying with Sylvester now that it seems likely he'll be lynched today, or me trying to defend Sylvester before he goes down and flips town, while either of these points could obviously be true from your point of view, my sole reason for not wanting Sylvester lynched today is as above.

No lynch.

Yosuke D. wrote:IN YOUR POST RIGHT BEFORE MISATO'S YOU HAD MENTIONED MISATO AND CLARK AS TWO PEOPLE FOR THE TEIT THINGS
I WANTED TO KNOW WHY YOU PICKED THOSE TWO SPECIFICALLY

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm being difficult, but I really don't know what post you mean >.> Probably they just attracted my attention because they were the only ones who vaguely supported my idea.

Yosuke D. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:Even more important than thinking about individual scum actions, I suggest everybody takes two people, analyzes their personal interactions, and comment whether it smells of town talking speaking with town, town speaking with scum, or scum speaking with scum. They have no private communication; either they completely ignore eachother, or the speak publicly but with enough fake wink-wink "we're awesome" saltiness as to not be suspicious.

THIS IS A GOOD IDEA
WOULD YOU LIKE TO START?

I will do Katie and Clark (Lara's theory) in a little bit.

Yosuke D. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:
Talking is the best way to get information, not necessarily lynching, which is far more extreme and usually detrimental at this early of a point. Tell you what. Let's meet in the middle and say lynch after Mafia makes its first kill. That will give us even more time to talk, maybe another day, and make the lynch reveal oh so more valuable. It'll be 2-5 then, then 2-4 after lynching which is PMyLo if Mafia misses that night, LyLo if they hit. Sound good?

I STILL DISAGREE
HOWEVER IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY A BETTER TARGET THAN YOURSELF I WOULD BE OK WITH LYNCHING THEM INSTEAD
AS OF NOW I SEE NONE

Why do you disagree with NLing until Mafia makes their first kill to spend as much time gathering reads as possible, and then lynching? It works out pretty darn well, at least how I see it. What do you really believe, and why do you believe it?

Also, could you please stop talking in CAPS LOCK? It obscures meaning and makes reads more difficult. See: the guy who talked in verse the entire game one time then won as Mafia because nobody could read him.

Mateo P. wrote:i agree with yosuke, we should lynch today to get this game going

Why are you blindly following Yosuke? What is your opinion of my deal? What do you think, and why?

Lara C. wrote:Katie and Clark are the scum team.

Hear me out:

Katie is trying to move the lynch off of Sylvester with the Forrest lynch, correct? Any random lynch like that to shift plurality from someone, with no reasoning given, is typically considered scummy.

So I think, if Katie is scum, that means Sylvester is scum as well, because Katie is trying to avoid getting him lynched.

However, maybe Katie is trying to keep Sylvester alive because he's an easier lynch later in game. If this is the case, little Clark the lurker who obviously still her becomes incredibly scummy to me - why be definitely here but do nothing at all to help town?

1) It is incredibly pretentious to call them both out as scum on the information you had so far.
2) If Katie wanted to shift the lynch off of me, she would have NLed instead of lynching Forest. That was a random lynch of an inactive.
3) And how did you get Clark out of all that?
4) You literally just repeated some the ideas contained within the post of mine you 'shot down'.

Clark the Conductor wrote:I'm writing this and I haven't even looked at the lynchcount but at this point I'm against a Sylvester lynch, whilst the strategies he has proposed haven't been the best he has made an effort and offered up good ideas not math related.

You'll probably see this as me buddying with Sylvester now that it seems likely he'll be lynched today, or me trying to defend Sylvester before he goes down and flips town, while either of these points could obviously be true from your point of view, my sole reason for not wanting Sylvester lynched today is as above.

No lynch.

...
I cannot wrap my head around this to be honest. What do you really believe, and why do you believe it?

UNLYNCH SYLVESTER

I DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON ANYMORE BUT IM NOW THINKING
IF SYLVESTER IS SCUM HIS ONLY LOGICAL PARTNER IS LARA UNLESS SYLVESTER AND HIS PARTNER WERE PLAYING SUBOPTIMALLY OR IF SYLVESTER LEGITIMATELY BELIEVED KATIE WAS A KILL OPTION

IM NOT SURE IF LARA IS SCUM YET BUT IM STARTING TO LEAN THAT WAY

LARA I FEEL LIKE YOU PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THAT LAST POST OF YOURS BUT I REALLY DONT GET HOW YOU CONNECTED KATIE AND CLARK WHEN CLARK IS COMPLETELY OFF OF THE RADAR OF WELL
EVERYONE
WHY DID YOU PICK CLARK AND NOT MISATO WHEN THEY BOTH HAD THE SAME LEVEL OF ACTIVITY

CLARK NAME THE THREE SCUMMIEST PEOPLE IN THE GAME AND SAY WHY THEY ARE SCUMMY
I WANT AN OPINION FROM YOU

I WILL RESPOND TO SYLVESTERS POST LATER I AM FEELING LAZY RIGHT NOW

Yosuke D. wrote:UNLYNCH SYLVESTER

Cool. Hey, I'm gonna go dance real quick--

**Distant hollers of "Way of Bayes, Way of Bayes" can be heard, along with "I don't suuuuck"**

--I'm back.

Yosuke D. wrote:I DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON ANYMORE BUT IM NOW THINKING
IF SYLVESTER IS SCUM HIS ONLY LOGICAL PARTNER IS LARA UNLESS SYLVESTER AND HIS PARTNER WERE PLAYING SUBOPTIMALLY OR IF SYLVESTER LEGITIMATELY BELIEVED KATIE WAS A KILL OPTION

Hmmm... If we accept as a prior fact, from the viewpoint of the "standard townie", that Sylvester S. is 100% mafia, then could Lara be his partner?

She seemed pretty upset upon learning her lover was into math. "That is a terrible idea," she said with mean words to appear Not Approving of Sylvester. Problem is, why did she say that? Knowing about Freudian slips and (probably) understanding the math behind the teit, it would be easy enough for her to defend Sylvester; but even after Clark said "is this mathia or mafia", she could have turned around and said, "Look, this is a good idea because ABC. I support it, despite the fact that XYZ could also happen. Please elaborate, Sylvester?", whereupon Sylvester would say, "Right, well, those are issues, but I think it's cool; what do you guys say?". But she didn't; she shot him down right there. And why in the world would Sylvester make the LarKaVester thing if he and Lara were mafia, even analyzing the literal scenario where he and her were mafia? She then shot that down, too.
Really, if Lara was Sylvester's partner she would be the worst partner ever; and Lara does not seem like she would be bad at being the mafia if she were. Lara or Sylvester could be singular mafia, but not together. And since Sylvester is 100% mafia, Lara is pretty clear.

In other words, Sylvester being mafia is very strong probable evidence that Lara is town, not mafia.

By the way, how did you come to your conclusion of "IF SYLVESTER IS SCUM HIS ONLY LOGICAL PARTNER IS LARA" in the first place? As a near-confirmed town, you should be especially diligent at revealing your motives, since they're all so benign.

And could you please stop doing all caps.

So the Katie+Clark team isn't because of their interactions, it's because of my scumreads on each.

Katie is scummy because of her lynch on Forrest, and the logic that Mateo posted about it (go read his thing);

Clark because of his high inactivity and bandwagoning. He's also NLing because there's a higher chance of getting a VT killed at night than avoiding one of the mafia being lynched during day (1/25 times VT dies at night, assuming a random player is picked by each mafia, versus 2/7 chance a mafia gets lynched) so he may be trying to get safer odds.

>blindly following yosuke
i clearly stated the reason why i think we should lynch dont try to use the shit bandwagon argument

Katie P. wrote:Poor Katie Perry still has no computer
I'm pretty sure deadline is soon

lynch Forrest G.

Once again
Someone please explain why I'm "scummy".

Second of all, SYLVESTER YOU DUMMY WILL YOU NEVER LEARN, NL'ING IN THIS SET UP IS RETARDED AF. Right now, My scum reads are Katie and Lara but not together. Like EITHER Katie OR Lara, I doubt they're scum together.

DOn't get me wrong, I'm not OMGUS'ing but I'm gonna say Katie because she seems to be subtly attempting to take the game into her hands without anyone noticing, which would explain the random lynch on me. I was strongly suspecting sylvester but I figured mafia would not suggest something as dumbly noticeable as NL'ing until a mafia kill happens.

Votecount 2.1
******************************
Sylvester S.(1)- Mateo P.
Forrest G.(1)- Katie P.
Katie P.(0)-
Yosuke D.(0)-
Clark the Conductor(0)-
Misato O.(0)-
Lara C.(0)-
Mateo P.(0)-
No Lynch(2)- Sylvester S., Clark the Conductor
Not Voting(4)- Forrest G., Misato O., Lara C., Yosuke D.
******************************
There are 8 alive so it takes 5 to hammer. Plurality applies.
Deadline is Saturday the 21st at 9pm EST.
If the deadline was now, nobody would be lynched.

Sorry for dying after day 1, but I've been going through a lot personally and I've been busy with school and work, but I'll try to be more active.

I don't hve much time now, since I just spent a while reading all of this, so I'll try to reread and compose my thoughts on everything thus far. 

ALSO I CAN TALK IN CAPS TOO SINCE I'M A LITTLE KID RIGHT?!?!?! RIGHT?!?!?! YEAH ?!?!?

No really guys, take a closer look at Lara and Katie and tell me if I'm just being delusional.

smh aj taking away my vote

HAVE A SCUMREAD???
CLICK BELOW TO GET THE DIRT ON THEM AND FIND THE REASONS FOR WHY THEY MUST BE SCUM!!!
_{(Or, you know, do it the rational way and reserve the judgment-making for after you've gathered as much evidence as you can, but who does that?)}

Katie P.
Yosuke D.
Clark the Conductor
Misato O.
Sylvester S.
Lara C.
Mateo P.
Forrest G.


Reads coming later.

Sylvester S. wrote:

Yosuke D. wrote:IN YOUR POST RIGHT BEFORE MISATO'S YOU HAD MENTIONED MISATO AND CLARK AS TWO PEOPLE FOR THE TEIT THINGS
I WANTED TO KNOW WHY YOU PICKED THOSE TWO SPECIFICALLY

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm being difficult, but I really don't know what post you mean >.> Probably they just attracted my attention because they were the only ones who vaguely supported my idea.

THE ONE ABOUT THE TEITS I THINK

Sylvester S. wrote:

Yosuke D. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:
Talking is the best way to get information, not necessarily lynching, which is far more extreme and usually detrimental at this early of a point. Tell you what. Let's meet in the middle and say lynch after Mafia makes its first kill. That will give us even more time to talk, maybe another day, and make the lynch reveal oh so more valuable. It'll be 2-5 then, then 2-4 after lynching which is PMyLo if Mafia misses that night, LyLo if they hit. Sound good?

I STILL DISAGREE
HOWEVER IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY A BETTER TARGET THAN YOURSELF I WOULD BE OK WITH LYNCHING THEM INSTEAD
AS OF NOW I SEE NONE

Why do you disagree with NLing until Mafia makes their first kill to spend as much time gathering reads as possible, and then lynching? It works out pretty darn well, at least how I see it. What do you really believe, and why do you believe it?

Also, could you please stop talking in CAPS LOCK? It obscures meaning and makes reads more difficult. See: the guy who talked in verse the entire game one time then won as Mafia because nobody could read him.

I DISAGREE WITH IT BECAUSE THE MAFIA NIGHTKILL IS GOING TO BE ON SOMEONE WHO IS USEFUL TO TOWN LIKE MATEO INSTEAD OF SOMEONE WHO IS SCUMMY
GETTING INFORMATION OFF OF THAT PERSONS INTERACTIONS - ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY COULD BE MAFIA - IS MUCH BETTER THAN GETTING INFO OFF OF A CONFIRMED TOWN SINCE WE CAN ALSO USE THE INTERACTIONS OF THAT PERSON WITH OTHERS TO HELP US WITH SCUM
IN TERMS OF NIGHTKILLS, THERE COULD BE FRAMING GOING ON AND THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PEOPLE ARENT NECESSARILY AS GOOD AS WHEN TOWN AS A WHOLE CHOOSES THE PERSON TO DIE

I AM IN NO WAY SIMILAR TO OGATA SINCE HE STATED THINGS IN A CONFUSING WAY AND IM SIMPLY YELLING WHAT I HAVE TO SAY
REGARDLESS THEY WON THAT GAME BECAUSE THEY GOT LUCKY NOT BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT READ OGATA

Sylvester S. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:Katie and Clark are the scum team.

Hear me out:

Katie is trying to move the lynch off of Sylvester with the Forrest lynch, correct? Any random lynch like that to shift plurality from someone, with no reasoning given, is typically considered scummy.

So I think, if Katie is scum, that means Sylvester is scum as well, because Katie is trying to avoid getting him lynched.

However, maybe Katie is trying to keep Sylvester alive because he's an easier lynch later in game. If this is the case, little Clark the lurker who obviously still her becomes incredibly scummy to me - why be definitely here but do nothing at all to help town?

1) It is incredibly pretentious to call them both out as scum on the information you had so far.
2) If Katie wanted to shift the lynch off of me, she would have NLed instead of lynching Forest. That was a random lynch of an inactive.
3) And how did you get Clark out of all that?
4) You literally just repeated some the ideas contained within the post of mine you 'shot down'.

I DISAGREE WITH THE SECOND ONE THERE, ITS EASIER TO CONVINCE TOWN TO LYNCH AN INACTIVE THAN IT IS TO NL, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE PEOPLE WHO WERE FOR LYNCHING IN COMPARISON TO THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO NL AND THE VIEWPOINTS OF EACH

Sylvester S. wrote:

Yosuke D. wrote:I DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON ANYMORE BUT IM NOW THINKING
IF SYLVESTER IS SCUM HIS ONLY LOGICAL PARTNER IS LARA UNLESS SYLVESTER AND HIS PARTNER WERE PLAYING SUBOPTIMALLY OR IF SYLVESTER LEGITIMATELY BELIEVED KATIE WAS A KILL OPTION

Hmmm... If we accept as a prior fact, from the viewpoint of the "standard townie", that Sylvester S. is 100% mafia, then could Lara be his partner?

She seemed pretty upset upon learning her lover was into math. "That is a terrible idea," she said with mean words to appear Not Approving of Sylvester. Problem is, why did she say that? Knowing about Freudian slips and (probably) understanding the math behind the teit, it would be easy enough for her to defend Sylvester; but even after Clark said "is this mathia or mafia", she could have turned around and said, "Look, this is a good idea because ABC. I support it, despite the fact that XYZ could also happen. Please elaborate, Sylvester?", whereupon Sylvester would say, "Right, well, those are issues, but I think it's cool; what do you guys say?". But she didn't; she shot him down right there. And why in the world would Sylvester make the LarKaVester thing if he and Lara were mafia, even analyzing the literal scenario where he and her were mafia? She then shot that down, too.
Really, if Lara was Sylvester's partner she would be the worst partner ever; and Lara does not seem like she would be bad at being the mafia if she were. Lara or Sylvester could be singular mafia, but not together. And since Sylvester is 100% mafia, Lara is pretty clear.

In other words, Sylvester being mafia is very strong probable evidence that Lara is town, not mafia.

By the way, how did you come to your conclusion of "IF SYLVESTER IS SCUM HIS ONLY LOGICAL PARTNER IS LARA" in the first place? As a near-confirmed town, you should be especially diligent at revealing your motives, since they're all so benign.

And could you please stop doing all caps.

THE ENTIRE FIRST HALF OF YOUR ARGUMENT IS SHOT DOWN BY THE EXISTANCE OF BUSSING
THE REASONING BEHIND SYLVESTER + LARA AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SCUMTEAM FOR ANOTHER IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO NIGHTKILL
CONTRARY TO WHATEVER BELIEF YOU SEEM TO HAVE, KATIE WAS NOT A GOOD OPTION FOR THE NIGHTKILL
IT WAS EITHER YOU OR LARA SINCE YOU WERE THE TWO THAT ACTUALLY SAID ANYTHING USEFUL THAT DAY
AS SUCH, IF ONE OF YOU WAS SCUM BOTH THEY AND THEIR PARTNER WOULD HAVE PROBABLY TARGETED THE OTHER PERSON IF THEY WANTED TO GET A KILL THROUGH
I GUESS THERE IS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SCUM DIDNT WANT A KILL AND THUS ONE OF THEM PURPOSELY TARGETED SOMEONE RANDOM SO THERE WOULD BE NO NIGHTKILL, AND THAT WOULD FIT WITH SYLVESTER/LARA NOT BEING A SCUMTEAM

Lara C. wrote:So the Katie+Clark team isn't because of their interactions, it's because of my scumreads on each.

Katie is scummy because of her lynch on Forrest, and the logic that Mateo posted about it (go read his thing);

Clark because of his high inactivity and bandwagoning. He's also NLing because there's a higher chance of getting a VT killed at night than avoiding one of the mafia being lynched during day (1/25 times VT dies at night, assuming a random player is picked by each mafia, versus 2/7 chance a mafia gets lynched) so he may be trying to get safer odds.

WHY DID YOU NOT SAY THAT AT FIRST? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE BACKTRACKING NOW.

Forrest G. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:Poor Katie Perry still has no computer
I'm pretty sure deadline is soon

lynch Forrest G.

Once again
Someone please explain why I'm "scummy".

Second of all, SYLVESTER YOU DUMMY WILL YOU NEVER LEARN, NL'ING IN THIS SET UP IS RETARDED AF. Right now, My scum reads are Katie and Lara but not together. Like EITHER Katie OR Lara, I doubt they're scum together.

DOn't get me wrong, I'm not OMGUS'ing but I'm gonna say Katie because she seems to be subtly attempting to take the game into her hands without anyone noticing, which would explain the random lynch on me. I was strongly suspecting sylvester but I figured mafia would not suggest something as dumbly noticeable as NL'ing until a mafia kill happens.

WHY DO YOU BELIEVE LARA IS SCUM?

Misato O. wrote:Sorry for dying after day 1, but I've been going through a lot personally and I've been busy with school and work, but I'll try to be more active.

I don't hve much time now, since I just spent a while reading all of this, so I'll try to reread and compose my thoughts on everything thus far. 

ALSO I CAN TALK IN CAPS TOO SINCE I'M A LITTLE KID RIGHT?!?!?! RIGHT?!?!?! YEAH ?!?!?

YOUR CHARACTER DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE YELLING BUT I WOULD NOT OBJECT IF YOU WANTED TO YELL AS WELL ITS PRETTY REFRESHING

Yosuke D. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:So the Katie+Clark team isn't because of their interactions, it's because of my scumreads on each.

Katie is scummy because of her lynch on Forrest, and the logic that Mateo posted about it (go read his thing);

Clark because of his high inactivity and bandwagoning. He's also NLing because there's a higher chance of getting a VT killed at night than avoiding one of the mafia being lynched during day (1/25 times VT dies at night, assuming a random player is picked by each mafia, versus 2/7 chance a mafia gets lynched) so he may be trying to get safer odds.

WHY DID YOU NOT SAY THAT AT FIRST? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE BACKTRACKING NOW.

It looks like backtracking because it is - I didn't think about the way my first post calling out Katie and Clark was written. Here's my reasoning behind it, plus they seem to be actively avoiding making comments on one another.

Lara C. wrote:

Yosuke D. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:So the Katie+Clark team isn't because of their interactions, it's because of my scumreads on each.

Katie is scummy because of her lynch on Forrest, and the logic that Mateo posted about it (go read his thing);

Clark because of his high inactivity and bandwagoning. He's also NLing because there's a higher chance of getting a VT killed at night than avoiding one of the mafia being lynched during day (1/25 times VT dies at night, assuming a random player is picked by each mafia, versus 2/7 chance a mafia gets lynched) so he may be trying to get safer odds.

WHY DID YOU NOT SAY THAT AT FIRST? IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE BACKTRACKING NOW.

It looks like backtracking because it is - I didn't think about the way my first post calling out Katie and Clark was written. Here's my reasoning behind it, plus they seem to be actively avoiding making comments on one another.

ALRIGHT BUT THEN WHY DID YOU SAY THAT YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE A SCUMTEAM SPECIFICALLY?
(AS OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING THAT YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE SCUM)

FORREST #1

Forrest G. wrote:Hello, all.

Muh avatar be like I don't see shit but I am chilled as fuck.

No read to be seen here.

Forrest G. wrote:The "announce the kill before MyLo" was a pretty obvious thing. No softclaiming kills? This changes the way I thought this would play out since I expected scumhunting to be centered around that.

I agree with Lara C. on the mathia part.

2 days deadline? Not fun.

I take slight issue with how he said "The 'announce the kill before MyLo' was a pretty obvious thing." That sounds like someone just saying a useless thing to build up their credibility with easy "Look at me, I'm so townie" points.

Forrest G. wrote:

Sylvester S. wrote:

Clark the Conductor wrote:I really really don't understand that mini bandwagon on Sylvester S, yes his idea was pretty bad but at least he tried.

No lynch for now.

Um. You just hammered nl.
>.>

How is 4 a hammer?

There's no reason for him as either town or mafia to lie about Clark hammering. Unless Clark and him are scum and he's being stupid scum partner.

FORREST #2

Forrest G. wrote:First of all: everyone who no lyched is an ass hat
Second of all: IM BROCK'S BROTHER ✌

So we know he disapproves of NLing. It's unknown at this point why he disapproves.

Forrest G. wrote:

Lara C. wrote:

Mateo is #1 on my lynch list because of the fact that he just has that sole post;

Katie as a weak case is just that  - there wasn't much else I could do casewise;

Sylvester gets 3 because he's trying at least, but in a way that isn't townie;

Yosuke obviously needed a sub, so let's chalk her #4 spot up to lurk/inactivity;

Misato is #5 because she offered up great ideas, that while I don't necessarily agree with them, are town-lead-y in a way, so again, at least she's trying;

I do agree that Forrest should have been much higher than I put him - I simply skimmed posts when making my list. After rereading, he should definitely be at 2 or 3;

Clark, again, not much to go off of, but seemed pretty town from what he's posted so far;

And of course me. So right now, I'd be all for lynching Mateo or Forrest.

You didn't explain why I should be at 2 or 3.
Additionally, I find sylvester's "wow I didn't die" post scummy. Rookie mistakes everywhere.

Why are you upset that someone had a high scumread of you if your predecessor did literally nothing but filler, and the only post you have made prior to this was filler? You knew full well why you were 2 or 3 on her scumreads.
And as for my "wow I didn't die" post, I get the feeling you read the first paragraph but nothing else. If you had, the reason you would think it was scummy wouldn't be because of "rookie mistakes". And even then, what townie in their right mind would equate rookie mistakes with being mafia? Rookie mistakes demonstrate n00biness, not scumminess. Why didn't you make that distinction?

Forrest G. wrote:

Yosuke D. wrote:FORREST II DO YOU SEEK TO CONTINUE THE ENDEAVORS OF FORREST I OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE USEFUL
PLEASE ANSWER THIS WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR
THANK YOU

Forrest 1 sucks (and so do you no lynchers). Yosuke, I will be the sole purpose for this town's victory kthx

So, again, we see he doesn't like NLing. Still, he does not tell us why.

Forrest G. wrote:

Katie P. wrote:Poor Katie Perry still has no computer
I'm pretty sure deadline is soon

lynch Forrest G.

Once again
Someone please explain why I'm "scummy".

Second of all, SYLVESTER YOU DUMMY WILL YOU NEVER LEARN, NL'ING IN THIS SET UP IS RETARDED AF. Right now, My scum reads are Katie and Lara but not together. Like EITHER Katie OR Lara, I doubt they're scum together.

DOn't get me wrong, I'm not OMGUS'ing but I'm gonna say Katie because she seems to be subtly attempting to take the game into her hands without anyone noticing, which would explain the random lynch on me. I was strongly suspecting sylvester but I figured mafia would not suggest something as dumbly noticeable as NL'ing until a mafia kill happens.

The most information-packed post he's put forth so far has been to express indignation that someone thinks he's mafia. Go figure.
And, he continues to insult people who think differently than him, still refusing to explain why he thinks NLing is bad. He just calls NLing "RETARDED AF" and leaves it at that. You know who else has the nasty tendency of saying something they "believe" while refusing to tell why their belief is valid? Congress Mafia. Or at the very least, untrustworthy people.
He also places scum reads on Katie and Lara, two people who have expressed the possibility of his being scum. He does not do likewise for Clark or Misato, the only people who have been lurking more than him. You'd think if he were being called out for filler and/or lurking, they would be the ones he would deflect the blame to. Interesting. But rather, he claims he has legitimate scumreads of Katie and Lara without expressing why, just saying "This isn't OMGUSing! Pay no attention!" So this can be interpreted as either a weird townie thing to do or a bad-der but more understandable mafia thing to do.
He puts a scumread on Katie for trying to "take the game into her hands without anyone noticing" by lynching him. Strange; it seems her lynching of Forrest was, in fact, very noticeable, and not taking over the game. That's like saying "Bushitler is trying to take over the world without anyone noticing by invading Iraq for oil!"
Oh, and apparently now I'm not mafia because mafia wouldn't say something as stupid as NLing until we're killed. It's nice to know that I'm not a mafia making stupid "rookie mistakes" now, huh?

Forrest G. wrote:No really guys, take a closer look at Lara and Katie and tell me if I'm just being delusional.

You're not being delusional, just... I mean. Come on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall:

I was largely ignoring Forrest before I did this reads list, but after looking at the words he says I now think these words are bad and not good words.
I think he's got a decent shot at being mafia. If NLing really is RETARDED AF, he's a candidate for the lynch today. But who knows, he might suddenly end up saying NLing is the right thing to do.
This is not to say I believe lynching today is a good idea. But if we go with my compromise, he could very well be our 2nd or 3rd priority.

Interactions with others:

He agrees with Yosuke, at least on the NLing bit. He's more vehement, at least in the way he expresses himself, though.
He thinks Lara and Katie are scummy for questionable reasons.
He likely thinks Sylvester is "a RETARDED AF asshat".
No word on Mateo.
And he is completely ignoring Misato and Clark.

Damn computers I miss,

I didn't see the lynched on Sylvester, and Clark has done nothing but defend Sylvester, therefore

unlynch Forrest Gump lynch Sylvester