iLikeToSnipe

Here's another point that is less unlikely given we have confirmation of a new role. What if the spy role was changed to something like 50% stuck 0% hit? There's no scenario I can think of where somebody having a stuck result should result in their lynch or contribute in any way to a read of them being mafia. If we're going to lynch them, this isn't going to be one of the reasons why. This whole topic is distracting from the real scum hunting.

What we're trying to get at is that you have absolutely no way of knowing if a stuck result is because somebody is a spy. You're the only one who keeps on going on about this. It is true that somebody who shoots and doesn't get stuck can't be the spy. That doesn't mean the opposite is true though, everyone can get stuck when they shoot so somebody getting stuck has no bearing on whether or not they are the spy. It literally has zero meaning, there's nothing you can infer from it. The best you can get is somebody who doesn't understand the logic behind this being afraid to shoot.

What would be your next move if somebody shoots, gets stuck, you got them lynched because "they are likely to be the spy", and they aren't?

Day 1 was within her town meta more than her scum meta imo. Day 2 is abnormal, but still not out of that "overlap" and solidly scum. She is very high on my scum list because of it, but I am waiting for her to post more today (as well as for others).

Scum are guiding him to appear unguided!

I read it as either a joke or an incredibly brazen taunt at Orange. Given their interactions before, I could see it as an actual taunt. It's enough for me to justify a D2 lynch, need to investigate her more.

This reads pretty scummy to me. First, scum are "dumb" for taking out a veteran player with a power role. I did not believe Orange's claim when he made it, and I'm only believing his flavor claim right now. Either he couldn't do what he claimed or he could and scum had a specific counter ready to go. I think the first option is much more likely (maybe JJ was actually a watcher?) and Orange was trying to avoid a kill attempt. Obviously that didn't work, so is it really dumb for scum to have made this kill? Second, this doesn't seem like a gamble (for reasons I just mentioned) and it isn't the kind of "gamble" I'd make. Killing Orange removes a player who is a threat on their own and potentially removes a power role. What's a gamble about that? Third, I don't think a lynch on Orange was that likely today. He almost certainly would have still been at least in my top three suspects today. But that's just me. There didn't seem to be many others who were discussing an Orange lynch yesterday (I think only Jeod had besides the others who voted). Given what others have said already, I don't think Orange would be a "safe" lynch for town or mafia today. Finally, Irishman wraps this up with a pointless throwaway at Anon. He's suspicious of Anon for metagame reasons, but that should be ignored because it's not "technically how you're supposed to play". So why even mention it? That seems like he's priming Anon for a future lynch of opportunity. I don't agree with Irish's assertions about Orange's death at all. What I get from this is that he's not scum hunting, he's throwing stuff out there to tee up people for a lynch.

How about we all prove ourselves by shooting Shade.

I don't think we can reason too much into why scum tried to kill Orange. There are so many different motivations and I don't think we have enough to reliably determine one. Examples: Try to frame somebody who was pushing a case on Orange Pick a most likely target for an NK, assume they will be protected, and go for second best target Take out a veteran player who is good at scum hunting Take out a player they believe has a power role (a veteran player with a power role is more dangerous than a veteran player with a vanilla role) Stop Orange from increasing his internet points etc If anything, possible motivation for the kill should be supporting evidence rather than primary evidence. I think it is always a good idea to look back at players who give off scum vibes and see if their behavior ties into a potential plot that involves killing the player who died. Nothing comes to mind right now, but there's just been too much content for me to follow.

That's a really good point I didn't even think about. Yes, the original roles can be changed and new ones added (ex. Orange's Jump Jet); obviously they were. I would think that mafia wouldn't buy his claim if they all had stock roles. So, if they thought he was a stock role why would they kill him? Either they believed he was making a fake claim as a "real" power role, meaning mafia is likely the stock roles. Or they have at least one modified/new role and bought his flavor claim.

I wasn't really paying attention to the cases against Orange. Was there anyone who believed his role claim? Honestly, I thought he was anything but a jump jet.

Well, mafia would have known he's town. Maybe they believed he was a power role but just didn't believe him about what he did. Which appears to have been correct since he's dead.

I'm surprised he really was a Jump Jet, and surprised again that he's dead... I guess he wasn't actually target immune?

Should have saved my shot...

Plenty of mafia players could fill that role.

Unbelievable. Nobody has uploaded the limpet drone sound effects on YouTube. What an injustice.

Do you have anything of substance to add to your case? The whole discussion of "non-stuck shot = not spy" started well after I shot, as best I can remember. Doesn't mean I couldn't have gone for a "gamble" like that, but I don't see where you're making that connection.

As is tradition with Shade.

And what do you base this on? Genuinely curious here.

You'd have a much stronger point if a shoot action showed the percentages involved. Yes, a 25% chance is less likely to happen than 50%. But it can still happen and you have no way of actually knowing how unlikely some event was. The reality is that your line of thinking cannot reliably be used at all given how the game works.

That's also assuming Spy hasn't changed. What if they got changed so that they can select between a jam or a miss? I don't think you understand how to apply statistics.

You do bring up a good point I haven't really thought about. I don't think that an alignment flip can shed a lot of light, if any, on the alignment of anyone who had a hand in killing said person. But it certainly could for somebody who was hesitant to commit. If somebody had expressed soft support for a lynch an alignment flip could add to a case against them depending on why they didn't commit. It's also been forever since we had a game with early hammer and I participated in it. I do think that D1 should either be a nolynch or a lynch against somebody who is more than just slightly suspicious.

What are your thoughts on Shade? He's the hardest one for me to read as town. Whether it's my own playstyle, thought process, or something else I have a scum read on him the majority of the time. If you, Cat5, Jeod, or any other veteran would say "we need to lynch X so that we can build a case against Y" I would see that as a huge scum tell. Shade saying that both reads as a scum tell to me and as "Shade being Shade".

That is a valid concern, but I don't think it's good as town to live in fear of it. Gotta lynch those scummy players and if town is easily fooled enough to go along with a scum led bandwagon then I don't think we would win. While I can agree with some of this, I'd find anyone else who said all this scummy (but you are you). As I explained before, getting a flip can be useful to find the alignment of other players. But that's only going to be helpful if those players voted for scummy reasons. If somebody has voted for a scummy reason then shouldn't that be enough to find them suspicious? Advocating for a lynch so that cases can be built on other players is a scum tell, in my opinion. If you can't build a case on a player because of their motives or actions and need the results of their actions, there isn't much of a case to begin with.