I'm going to comment on the "strong" points you've raised, Wolf.
strike wolf wrote:THIS! You don't even try to disguise this as voting someone who could be scum...you blatantly say you vote for someone because you believe they could be either a paranoid or an insane cop. It doesn't matter if he is paranoid, the fact that you, naxus are so willing to vote for someone who you apparently have no reason to doubt as a townie is the most suspicious comment in the entire game. vote naxus
That was a great catch! Indeed, a townie cop providing unreliable results it no reason to lynch him. Correct action would be either to ignore him (paranoid) or do the opposite of what he suggests (insane). I kinda feel ashamed I didn't spot that myself.

Maybe it was your "fresh perspective"?

strike wolf wrote:Honestly there isn't anything glaringly wrong with this statement however it is kind of a big turn from your last comment. You seem to have gone from thinking he was paranoid to believing he is fake claiming without basing any reason for the shift in behavior.
I agree that the shift is weird. I actually think we've approached a clutch point in D2.
What do we have here?
We have naxus doing the same action (voting Blake) for multiple reasons (cop sanity / Blake lying) without so much as an explanation.
What does that mean?
That means naxus wants Blake lynched "no matter what". Discarding lyncher roles and other obscure/unlikely powers I can see 2 reasons for that:
1 - Naxus is scum, Blake is the cop. Naxus is trying to get a townie PR lynched for obvious reasons. I'm not going to expand on that possibility merely because it is self-explanatory.
2 - Naxus is the "true" cop. Blake fakeclaimed and is mafia. That option explains why Naxus voted for Blake regardless of revealing a "valid reason". If he knows he is the cop and someone else makes that claim, the other person is scum, period. The fact that he changed from "voting Blake for reason A" to "vote Blake for reason B", while intriguing from the outside perspective, is totally understandable from Naxus' perspective ("I am the cop and Blake is lying, so whatever reason I find to lynch him will do"). If he can base that lynch on a reason other than "I am sure he is lying" (because I am the cop), even better, as he can get the known mafia lynched without revealing his PR just to get N2 killed. That's probably what he attempted by first basing his vote on Blake's sanity.
Moment 1: "let's use whatever card I can in order to get Blake lynched without claiming myself or giving the mafia a reason to believe I'm the cop" -> solution: vote because of Blake's sanity.
As illogical as that reason may sound, it's better than starting from Moment 2. He can always go to Moment 2 after Moment 1 proves innefective, which is what he did.
Moment 2: "my invalid reason is not working, let's change it to a valid reason (Blake lying) without claiming. Downside here is the mafia realizing I know he's lying because I'm the cop and thus risking to get my self N2 killed." -> solution: vote because of Blake's lie.
The problem here is that Wolf caught that behaviour shift, thus forcing Naxus to engage into Moment 3.
Moment 3: "the reason shift made people suspect me, so now I'm forced to claim. I'll get Blake D2 lynched and myself N2 killed, but right now it's the best choice I have".
So, the way I see it, naxus/Blake are 1 mafia/1 town. Wolf's catch has put Naxus into a position in which he is forced to claim and the only viable claim to explain everything in my opinion is "cop". I now request Naxus to claim name and role. If cop, I also request him to claim N1 target and N1 investigation result.
For now,
unvote blakebowling.
strike wolf wrote:Here actually the scenarios are flawed...all of them completely neglect any possibility of a vigilante which would take claiming cop from "a little irrational" to completely insane. They claim cop....end up lynching an innocent get killed in the night after revealing a scumbuddy so he gets lynched...great scenario for scum especially when they can't guarantee the cop will step forward to counterclaim or town will even believe their claim. It also rides on the theory that scum either preplanned their strategy somehow knowing the other protective role would die or not believing there would be a second one with no other possibilities for preventing their planned kill (busdrivers, bulletproof, etc) or blake came up with this risky move on his own 4 hours (that he may not have been on) after the day scene without considering that the person he could lynch may in fact be the actual cop. It really does not make much sense and I think you've been in enough mafia games to realize that.
I'd like you to elaborate on that, Wolf. Why would the existence of a Vigilante (townie that can kill during the night) make the cop claim less rational?
So, mafia fakeclaims cop and succesfully lynches a townie, but then he dies on N2 by the vigilante after revealing a scumbuddy? How would that scumbuddy be revealed? And, if the scumbuddy is indeed revealed and D3 lynched, how is that a great scenario for the mafia?
Sorry, but thus paragraph really didn't make any sense to me. Please explain!
