Protected yes, jailed? The kill should fail at that point. It wouldn't be a desperado either, just a one shot suicidal vig.
Again I think you're giving too much credence to a claim from a player that's basically waiting to lose. It's ultimately not even going to matter because he likely will get a shot off anyway, but there is no reason to try to come up with a plan he has when he tried to turn the lynch away from RDK and after failing to do, would basically have no viable path to victory. Doing something that "doesn't make sense" is pretty much his only available option.
But this doesn’t fit your bill though, in fact it’s really stupid to say that’s even possible. BEST CASE SCENARIO my claim gets me one more phase and then I’m toast. If I’m scum then as you say I need to survive a tonne of more phases, so coming up with a claim that A) immediately makes me sus B) I cannot prove and C) gives me until tomorrow at best is that r word you don’t likeI think I've explained it clearly enough- any Mafia at this stage would be 1 scum vs about 12 town, the chances are slim as hell and very very unlikely that there is anything they can do to win. Stalling their demise is their best bet, in the hope that town think their way out of it. I don't really get how you see otherwise - even if we say it's not you, what chance does any Mafia have in this position claim wise that can open up a clear path to victory?
This is the issue with your argument - you demand a level of evidence that isn't really required for the position that scum are in. The final scum does not need to have position themselves in a way where they can win from here, their only option is to extend the game and hope for the best. Claiming desperado offers incentive for town to give you that extension. Replace your name with anyone else, how are they winning from here? You can't come up with one because it doesn't exist, you can assume that the scum in question would battle against being in this position, which you did.
You can't just demand an exclusive level of proof that only applies to you Poyser!
There’s a difference between assuming a path to victory and assuming someone trying to get a victory though?????Like this is the core issue with this sort of defence - you demand that I reason out what exactly your plan to winning is. If I asked you to assume that Ultra was Mafia, and he bussed his team all the way to this point, how does he win? At some point, even with all the cred he has built up, he gets caught because people think "why does he still live". If you can't reason out a path to victory for him, then that shouldn't be the standard required for suspicion to be considered valid.
Broadly, I don't think you could make an argument for any one player left in this game to winning from here. Not without relying on luck, heavily. So it makes no sense to require that as a standard, as scum, you obviously need to extend it where you can, and then you hope that the ones left can be manipulated into mislynching enough. Frankly, even that is remote, the goal for any scum in this position is probably to just survive and see how long they can last.
I can see how the desperado claim would fit that motivation. It gives town something juicy to bet on, while you try and get yourself to the back of the PoE. I don't think there exists a good claim you as scum could make, so demanding that I explain why you choose that instead as if any plan you have as scum must offer a clear way to win from here is just intellectually dishonest.
I’ve not caught up but I really don’t see how I’ve played badly around every flipped scum at all lol, only RDKAlso can't lie would be funnier if Poyser is town since you just delivered a scathing account of how badly he played around every single flipped scum
Mango: Gad > Rugrat >
Ultra: Rugrat >
Dofla: Gad
Gad: 1
With 11 alive it‘s 6 to lynch.
So let me get this right. Rugrat shot someone.
Scum or Indie shot one person. Leaves one person unable to use their power who might have be idk jailed
I'm tellin y'all to go here ffs
Vote Lynch lolDupla
At long last, I've been on his trail sine I subbed in.
People thought I was crazy (and I probably was)
I don't think there's any reason why I shouldn't vote that way now.
Vote Lynch Gad
Mango: Gad > Rugrat > GadVote Lynch Dofla
I’ve talked about the flower kill previously and how it doesn’t make any sense when you could kill ultra/gram/ratchet in impunity. I attributed the kill to Watson because I didn’t think anybody with a lick of sense as scum would choose flower to kill there especially when her role is completely harmless to them. I didn’t just pull it out of nowhere, you’re just not paying attentionAlso, on that note, I don't know if it lends to your theory here, but I found it very strange that he name dropped killing flower for no particular reason.
It's like I mentioned, sometimes suspects blurts out information only the perpetrator would know - because nobody had said anything about that.
Shouldn’t it have been a strongman tho?And specifically claimed he was going to shoot Gram
(And yes, this is an actual scum tell).
Fwiw Reloaded just felt done in general previous day. I basically got him to a concession in just 2 posts (the scum tell sequence I posted SoD). It might just be he had no energy playing scum anymore. Which still points towards a weaker/absent team, but feel like this should be mentioned as an option. Man has been scumming for p much all February.
Poyser Scum Case - Part 1
Poyser and RDK
So firstly, I thought I'd split this up into a few post. Mainly, it's so that I can be lazy if I decide I CBA writing more, but it's also easier to read this way. After RDK's flip, I went back through when he claimed, to see what actually transpired. See the below exchange.
My initial read of this was "this looks very comfortable for RDK". A few questions come to mind. Why does Poyser even care for his flavour? I had a quick skim, and while it's possible I missed some posts, I didn't see him express any interest in anyone else's flavour. To me, that comes across as scum going through a checklist of what they "should" be asking, without really any regrd for whether it would be something they actually think is important. More telling than that, though, is that his reaction to the cop claim is to throw his hands up and offer no actual opinion on it. He fencesits. One would think that, if he were suspicious of the claim, his reaction to it would include that. Instead, he just says he doesn't know what to make of it.
Then, we have a few posts from just before RDK claims. At this point, the wagon is shifting over to him.
He pretty much begins laying the groundwork for a defence. He claims that he doesn't like that he hasn't shown up, but then offers a vague "doesn't feel right" to suggest that he's not a fan of the direction. Then he asks Gad what his argument on RDK is, and decides that its "not mentioning any of the flipped scum". Not only did Gad never say this, it's also something he would know is not true. This is part of a wider point, but it essentially gives RDK something soft to defend, and Poyser has given himself room to defend RDK and push elsewhere. It should be noted that RDK has a cop claim breadcrumbed - scum probably would have thought that it would be fairly effective in swaying the votes. And also, the issue that Poyser himself has given about RDK's play, that he didn't show up, doesn't actually do a credible job of establishing his suspicion. It ties his suspicion to his activity, which avoids getting into his posts and thus making him look bad. RDK doesn't miss his chance to defend against both of these points - Poyser's, and also the post of Poyser's where Poyser is attributing something obviously false to Gad.
One thing that struck me here was that RDK was content with simply answering duly - he makes sure that he's responded, but he doesn't do anything with it. I mean, he could turn it back onto Poyser - "why are you suspecting me for something that you know better on" etc. The reverse of that of course would be to appeal to Poyser - a Town Poyser that's in flux and seems to be sort of siding wth him, you would think he would be, well, appealing a bit more. He might be looking to turn the first post into a post gainst Gad for saying that, because it's demonstratably untrue, or he might want to smooth over his activity reasoning so Poyser can buy into that and agree.
Most telling of all here though is that, despite Poyser claiming it's RDK's actvity that bothers him, he never follows up with RDK's response.
Instead, Poyser feeds him content. RDK has come back, claimed, and then is prepared to check out again. Poyser notices that, and instead of asking why he isn't offering anything, he feeds it to him. You may have guessed this one, but of course, there was no follow through from Poyser on this either. RDK's response below:
As an aside, I have a hard time believing that scum RDK is content with offering something this half-baked in response to a Poyser that's town. In what world would "I dunno, who forced Rugrat to claim, lynch him" be compelling? Poyser doesn't press this, he just leaves it.
This whole interaction feels to me like scum theatre. They're just going through a checklist to make sure bases are covered, but there isn't really anything to indicate that either are concerned with beating or catching the other. For Poyser to be town here, he's sleeping at the wheel - he identifies some areas of concern but just let's them go without even so much as a prod, and RDK for his part has Poyser leaning in favour of him, and offers the bare minimum in terms of getting him on his side and keeping him there.
Nothing really to add to this, doesn't move the needle either way.
So first thing to note here is that Poyser is still yet to actually take a position on RDK's claim. He just fencesits, and joins the wagon that RDK starts. They have some interaction where RDK brings Fang to the table, Poyser tells RDK his claim, RDK corrects a minor point in an attempt to "convince" Poyser of his direction, then Poyser agrees and joins him. It's again, a checkbox excercise. It reads like it's been scripted in the scum chat, RDK gives a direction like he should be, Poyser hums and hars about it, but then comes on board, and still fails to give any real read on the situation. He does, however, make sure that he treats RDK's claim as solid when discussing what it means for Fang.
So first thing here, I've already stated my suspicion of the claim, and said I found it weird RDK just followed his results without being a bit suspicous of them. Poyser had nothing to say there. Ultra enters, and he also finds the claim weird. And Poyser... is skeptical of the claim in isolation? What? What part of anything he has said here up until now gives the impression that he doubts the claim? He hasn't took any position, he's just sat on the fence and then followed RDK on his lynch. Now that the claim has some momntum against it, Poyser moves to make sure that he's on record about his concerns. Why not make these concerns evident when he's, you know, reacting to the claim?
Poyser is the first one to bring up the issue with the scum case - why does RDK clear Watson and not the Godfather. Slight issue with this though - if there is no Godfather for him to know he can safely claim Cop, who would he be using it on? All of them would check Guilty. While I'm at it, what part of the claim does Poyser even object to, because it's not the results and it doesn't appear to be the existance of a cop either. And it should be noted, this defence comes when the claim is receiving momentum against it. Before this, he was all "brain hurts can't think".
Missed this one because I pressed enter too soon:
"Hey Ultra, what do you think about the point I just brought up in defence of RDK? Please consider this!"
Nothing else really to add to that part - he defends the claim over the same points Gram did, and then taps out because he left again. Not much to read into.
Part 2 - Poyser EOD 2
This part is going to be focused on how Poyser approached the end of day 2, where CP was lynched. He claims to have been on the right side of that, but he wasn't really. This part is going to be fairly tenuous, but it's just to set the scene:
He basically is passive around CP being lynched. When CP is still invested in defending, he posits that maybe CP is town, which happens to fall in line with what RDK is pushing. Of course, RDK has the cop claim in his pocket, so he's pushing it harder. I found this interesting because the difference between how he pursues this and joins this is night and day to how he was vs Ekko. He votes CP to say he was on him, and he has a few posts earlier where he agrees with Ultra's read and defers to Ultra on it (more on this in a minute), but he never actually pushes it. He's not campaigning for votes nor is he interacting with CP. He's taking a backseat and watching it play out. See:
(he does concede after my follow up to this, but only to say "true", and nothing more).
(whle Poyser plays defence, he isn't voting CP).
Like just LOL, he's such a bystander on this! He wanted votes piled on CP earlier, yet when it actually matters, there's nothing there.
This comes shortly after he posts asking for more votes on CP - he very quickly moves away, and I have to say, it's terribly unfortunate he just happens to be mindmelding with scum here too.
For the last note on this, remember Poyser just deferred to Ultra on CP. Here s what he had to say about me suggesting the same (ignoring that I also brought up my own reasoning, mind):
He did exactly the same thing. Doesn't add up at all, we both subbed in so both were in the same position.
Last part will be how Poyser interacted with Watson, compared to how Craig nteracted with Watson. Given that it's 4am, I will need to try and do this in work, but the cliffnotes there is that both of them draw relevant posts from her, or try to, while offering minimal input off the back of said input. Like it's almost identical lol.
Fuck it, Part 3:
Scum vs Watson
These are mostly going to be quotes. Both from Poyser, and Watson, specifically how she interacted with him vs me.
Watson just responds to him quoting Mango, out of nowhere, to ask this, and he gives her a nice and comfy answer. These scum players are soooo safe with talking to Poyser. Nice and comfortable, no concern about how they're perceived or what he might think of them. They get little interactions in that go nowhere and do nothing, and Poyser never presses anything back at them. Charmin soft.
Watson responds to me (will quote that interaction below), Poyser out of nowhere prompts her to tell him where she should be voting. Like he's giving her a nice reminder to make sure she offers some input on the lynch. And so she happens to give a nice large screed where she says she wants to lynch Ekko but maybe he's town, soft scum read. Gad is the second one she mentions and she's 50/50 and doesn't actually have a read. Doesn't want to lynch CP because she wants him to cook. Not exactly saying anything of note there is she? And instead of pointing out that this whole post manages to not actually make a single solid read, all he has to say on it is "interesting". Really? What's interesting about it? There's nothing there!
QUOTE="Poyser, post: 414425, member: 1906"]
Ah yes, rolling scum. That notoriously relaxing experience
If the kill fails I’d probably not die, that doesn’t make any sense lol. Me dying requires me to at least hit my target. Although I should die if I hit someone that’s bulletproofMy understanding is that if he shoots someone and they are protected Poyser would still die
Fuck it, Part 3:
Scum vs Watson
These are mostly going to be quotes. Both from Poyser, and Watson, specifically how she interacted with him vs me.
Watson just responds to him quoting Mango, out of nowhere, to ask this, and he gives her a nice and comfy answer. These scum players are soooo safe with talking to Poyser. Nice and comfortable, no concern about how they're perceived or what he might think of them. They get little interactions in that go nowhere and do nothing, and Poyser never presses anything back at them. Charmin soft.
Watson responds to me (will quote that interaction below), Poyser out of nowhere prompts her to tell him where she should be voting. Like he's giving her a nice reminder to make sure she offers some input on the lynch. And so she happens to give a nice large screed where she says she wants to lynch Ekko but maybe he's town, soft scum read. Gad is the second one she mentions and she's 50/50 and doesn't actually have a read. Doesn't want to lynch CP because she wants him to cook. Not exactly saying anything of note there is she? And instead of pointing out that this whole post manages to not actually make a single solid read, all he has to say on it is "interesting". Really? What's interesting about it? There's nothing there!
QUOTE="Poyser, post: 414425, member: 1906"]
Ah yes, rolling scum. That notoriously relaxing experience
This is dumb lol. A jailer would cause the role to failI don't understand how a Jailer would stop the stated repercussion of his own role.
I find it a bit hard to see even as a hail mary but that's possibly because I would just always lynch him if he came up with some sort of excuse for not dying. Can't speak for everyone here though
Ngl I didn’t even remember interacting with Watson at all lmaoAlso can't lie would be funnier if Poyser is town since you just delivered a scathing account of how badly he played around every single flipped scum
Just to add to this, this is what you said you’d expect of me as town. You’re wrong and don’t know my game that well really. I’d know that’s what would be expected of me if I’m town, so I’d do it if I was scum. As town I’m far more prone to just going where my mood takes me and sometimes that’s high effort and sometimes I Cba wasting my time doing loads of readingThere was a game on WS not that long ago when I was cooked and clearly had no chance of winning, rather than “give up” or “throw out some batshit claim to stall for a day” I spent an entire phase reading back and making a legacy and solving in order to make town doubt as I thought that was the best option. I’m not someone that just gives up and resigns myself to a loss, even if I know I’m gonna lose anyway. I’m always going to give it my best go no matter what.
When you’re starting your assumptions with “well they’re gonna lose so he’s resigned to a loss” and that’s literally your best explanation, you’re in a really poor place
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?