Cobalt is basically in a position where the "i wouldn't do this crazy stuff as mafia!" doesn't outweigh the fact that he didn't contribute to the actual solving of the game by providing reads. It was good stuff and it fooled me for day 1 but it doesn't hold up now that there's scrutiny.
--- Post automerged ---
That's not true, he did actually vote Gemma in a way that seemed relatively natural at the time

 

Yeah nice to actually play in a game with you for once Dels!

And this games pretty much on lock, just a waiting game for Cobalt to claim and us to have a likely CC and end it from there, and if there's no CC we just get Citrus to claim next and we'll have one then.

 

And then we wait six more months for the next TinyHunt. :V

Or a WitchHunt pops up in three months.

 

Just chiming in on the active lurk waiting for Cobalt. Going to be honest I haven't thought much about this game since the Jari claim.

 

Will you have more fun if we try to CFD you?
--- Post automerged ---
Aww, I was half hopeful the mischieviously smirky smiley would show up.

 

Here's something I worked on over night, I only got like halfway through the thread but I got this far on it.

Tinyhunt 9 Reads / Interactions

Livelist:
Citrus
Dels (r. Amberiat)
fontisian
Grapefruit
his fluffiness
Jarizok - Priest
Regfan
Umami
Vaimes

Flips:
Eidolonic (r. Ampharos) – town
Gemma – witch
tom - witch

Jarizok
Essentially, if Jarizok does not die N2, he's a witch. He should not be alive come SoD3 as priest so I don't need to examine him or make reads, I'll just assume the world is that tom was a witch and Jarizok is priest.

Citrus
happy to be town entrance post seems extremely genuine
#169 seems weird with Gemma, maybe is opening the door for a Vaimes push?
Wanted lump a little bit it seems but not enough to actively campaign
tom shaded Citrus' lump campaign alongside mine, maybe not partnered?

Dels (r. Amberiat)
Amberiat's initial posts were pretty townie
Gemma posted in depth at Amberiat in a way that is likely not explaining to a partner #163

fontisian
initial D1 posts had her asking the right questions to be trying to solve
turned on Gemma and led the push on her D1
the level of wolf theater involved for fonti / Gemma to be w/w is pretty damn out of this universe so I'm writing that off as impossible for now

Grapefruit
tom lumped Grape in opening post, probably not a partner.
Called tom/Reg as not w/w, correct
if not a witch, had AMAZING reads D1 – called tom/Reg as not w/w with tom being the likelier w with a strong partner in fonti/Gemma. Uncanny.

his fluffiness
one liners and fluff posts tend to be his thing, very little content.
Gemma voted fluff relatively early in D1 in a way where she could've been feeling out a potential mislynch.
Also tom #322 is town fluff more likely to be ironic? Not partnered I think.
Voted tom in #335 with a legitimate read/push. From a low-content slot that's very telling of a not w/w.

Regfan
tom lynched Reg in opening post, probably not a partner.
led push on Gemma and called her as scum in a VERY early post
also sussed tom extremely early
is 99.9% not a partner with tom/Gemma

Umami
extremely little to go on, would resolve this slot in a heartbeat.

Vaimes
Vaimes interacted with tom early page 1 in a way that is unlikely to come from partners
first person to vote Gemma and have a distinct scum read on her just from early posts. +++
Gemma was posting at Vaimes in an attempt to sway his read
eh, said Gemma was probably town a bunch early on but might have been just because

Jarizok – Priest
fontisian / Regfan
Vaimes / Dels
fluff
Grapefruit
------
Umami
Citrus
--- Post automerged ---
Also, meta regarding my Lump plan:

Yes, using Lump as a secondary D1 lynch to force a priest check on thread-consensus PoE is good, but I'm starting to think of more ways in which there can be town meta for receiving Lump that accounts for maximum survivability of the extra town vote.

Namely, that Gambler and Clown should both attempt to receive Lump in whatever way proves most effective (acting scummy enough to get it but not scummy enough to be the lynch, or just actively asking for it) and Gambler should bias towards Odd. Clown self-targets N1 in this scenario and this way there are two town roles that could possibly receive lump with N1 kill immunity.

For Gambler this is optimal because they are unkillable for half the night phases in the game, and Occultist is the only witch role that can discern whether a kill survival was from angels or was a role kill immunity, but this could be either Gambler or Clown so it doesn't even confirm you for soup if witches try to kill the Lump and fail.

In addition to this, as mentioned by Regfan who thought this was going to be my fake Lump plan, Priest can also attempt Lump allowing Clown and Oracle to successfully trigger N1 but check someone else, granting either two town clears by D2 (lump!priest is clear from not being outed as a red check while someone else is greened) or a red check on someone completely unexpected, thus prompting an earlier PoE. After killing a witch D1 and D2 though this would be unnecessary in this specific game, but it's a potential strategy nonetheless. It doesn't grant the same survivability as the Gambler or Clown lumps but is a tertiary addition for thread utility.

So essentially, in the same way that {Judge, Leeroy, DoB, Priest} should claim if being run up due to their confirmable nature, if you are exactly one of {Gambler, Clown, Priest} you should try and get yourself Lumped D1.

I just think the overall utility of a survivable Lump is more useful than a consensus potential red check. We got lucky this game, sure, but that doesn't mean we should use Lump as a secondary lynch every time. It'll shake the game up and allow us more interesting scenarios than being bored on D3 with only one witch left.

So for those of you who want my claim today, I am one of {Clown, Gambler}. I can hardclaim if so desired but no need to, because soup lol.

 

There’s only one Soup, and we’re only going to make the lynch pool claim.

 

Oh, and I saved a few things to point out as far as why I'm never w/w with Tom and Gemma, you silly geese.

This post never comes from Tom where he names LITERALLY JUST HIS TEAM as his townreads. That's fucking ludicrous and you know it.

Following this, Gemma questions Vaimes about me in a way that's clear she's angling to make me a mislynch, whether on day one or later on, but angling nonetheless:

So, yeah, I'm not a witch. Continue looking. Preferably with Citrus or Umami. Thx.

 

smh i called gemma/tom w/w after doing her ISO but it's not a + for me =(

cobalt what do you think of gemma saying she was gonna judge fluff? and fluff's reaction? reg thinks fluff looked genuinely worried about it, you think maybe it was anti-spew and he was faking?
--- Post automerged ---
It sounded to me like the mechanical workings of things means that it's safe for you to fullclaim, Cobalt? Not just narrow down to two? But I guess someone more knowledgeable than me should clarify.

 

Organizing a Lump campaign that focuses on roles just makes it easier for the Coven to rolehunt, no? :V

 

Fluff is someone who I've shelved for now only because in his limited content he's given some pretty not w/w things, such as making a genuine push on Tom early on in D1 when nobody else was really sussing him yet, with legitimate "he does not feel like his reads are real" feels.

That and Gemma voted him early and Tom asked if town fluff was more likely to be ironic? which I think is TMI of town fluff.

So, not really a reason for me to go there rn.

 

I didn't say I wasn't having fun, getting hard carried and clearing myself accidentally and almost immediately was great fun!

@Cobalt you should hard claim. The post is good and effort is solid, but you're under too much suspicion not to hard claim.

 

Not really.

In this specific case, my plan wasn't known beforehand so they'd have no idea which pool of roles I might belong to.

Following this, any town player can campaign for Lump in such a way where they could LOOK like they're one of those roles, but as long as they don't actually get it, it has a greater chance of going to either a witch or Gambler/Clown/Priest for primary / secondary / tertiary importance of having Lump in town.

So I mean, they can use it to role hunt all they want, but they don't have a way of being 100% sure for soup of ANYBODY who gets Lump unless it's one of them.

Like yeah they can make a wild guess and that's the whole point of yolosouping but realistically it'd be a huge risk.
--- Post automerged ---

I am Gambler.

You may call me Axel the Sphincter Snatcher.

The opening posts of my QT is a great read for postgame.

 

Okay.

I don't counterclaim gambler.

I guess now we wait and see if anyone does.

 

Also having a prepared list of "look at these things that say we aren't aligned!" looks like: "look at all this distancing me and my buddies did that no one picked up on!"

 

If people REALLY think I'm that much of a witch they are now forced to assume that my entire Lump campaign was faked so that Eido flipping one of (Gambler, Clown) became my safe claim.

Which is a real fuckin stretch guys, come on.

 

That said gambler is totally believable and would match up with the way you played D1. Don't agree that it's better than the cop check plan but it's something I can follow.

 

I mean

We don't have to assume anything

We just wait for a CC or no, yeah?

 

Listen, I know this group well enough that when they start teaming people like the way they did with me D2 with Tom, I'm gonna be prepared come daystart with "here, look at this bc ur wrong sillies"

They'll come to.

 

Don't think having specific roles try and get lump is a good idea but I kind of believe that it's something that Cobalt might believe and try to do here. Either way still at a waiting on a CC or someone to claim grave info that gambler was Eidos role which I feel is less likely since Gamblers tend to pick odd night anyway.