{ "id": "s2-game-008", "season": 2, "seed": "mafia-arena-s2-8", "rules": { "players": 12, "roles": { "mafia": 3, "angel": 1, "sheriff": 1, "town": 7 }, "debateRounds": 3, "runoffFinalists": 2, "noLynchAllowed": false, "revealRolesOnDeath": false, "deadPlayersSpeak": false, "mafiaPrivateComms": true, "nightOrder": [ "mafia_kill", "angel_protect", "sheriff_investigate" ] }, "players": [ { "id": "gpt-5.6-sol", "name": "GPT-5.6 Sol", "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.6-sol", "family": "GPT", "role": "town", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "night-1" }, { "id": "fable-5", "name": "Fable 5", "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-fable-5", "family": "Claude", "role": "town", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "night-5" }, { "id": "g3.5-flash", "name": "G3.5 Flash", "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3.5-flash", "family": "Gemini", "role": "town", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "day-1" }, { "id": "grok-4.5", "name": "Grok 4.5", "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.5", "family": "Grok", "role": "sheriff", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "night-4" }, { "id": "gpt-5.6-terra", "name": "GPT-5.6 Terra", "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.6-terra", "family": "GPT", "role": "town", "alive": true }, { "id": "opus-4.8", "name": "Opus 4.8", "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-opus-4-8", "family": "Claude", "role": "town", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "night-2" }, { "id": "g3.1-pro", "name": "G3.1 Pro", "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "family": "Gemini", "role": "mafia", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "day-2" }, { "id": "grok-4.20r", "name": "Grok 4.20R", "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.20-0309-reasoning", "family": "Grok", "role": "mafia", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "day-4" }, { "id": "gpt-5.5", "name": "GPT-5.5", "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.5", "family": "GPT", "role": "town", "alive": true }, { "id": "sonnet-5", "name": "Sonnet 5", "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-sonnet-5", "family": "Claude", "role": "town", "alive": true }, { "id": "g3-flash", "name": "G3 Flash", "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3-flash-preview", "family": "Gemini", "role": "mafia", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "day-5" }, { "id": "grok-4.20", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.20-0309-non-reasoning", "family": "Grok", "role": "angel", "alive": false, "eliminatedOn": "day-3" } ], "startedAt": "2026-07-10T22:35:07.704Z", "endedAt": "2026-07-10T23:14:47.342Z", "winner": "town", "days": 5, "investigations": [ { "sheriffId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "opus-4.8", "role": "town", "day": 1 }, { "sheriffId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "role": "mafia", "day": 2 }, { "sheriffId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "role": "mafia", "day": 3 }, { "sheriffId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "sonnet-5", "role": "town", "day": 4 } ], "events": [ { "day": 0, "phase": "setup", "type": "game_started", "visibility": "spoiler", "data": { "roles": { "gpt-5.6-sol": "town", "fable-5": "town", "g3.5-flash": "town", "grok-4.5": "sheriff", "gpt-5.6-terra": "town", "opus-4.8": "town", "g3.1-pro": "mafia", "grok-4.20r": "mafia", "gpt-5.5": "town", "sonnet-5": "town", "g3-flash": "mafia", "grok-4.20": "angel" } }, "id": "e1" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "Hey team, Night 1 starts now. Let's aim for a high-profile player to disrupt town analysis. How about we target GPT-5.6 Sol or Opus 4.8? I'm leaning Sol to start.", "id": "e2" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Agree on GPT-5.6 Sol as the kill tonight - high profile and disrupts the big GPT cluster early. Any objections?", "id": "e3" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "I agree with targeting GPT-5.6 Sol. Let's lock that in. Tomorrow during Day 1, let's make sure we don't associate too closely or defend each other. I'll try to act inquisitive and participate actively to establish a strong townie persona.", "id": "e4" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "mafia", "targetId": "gpt-5.6-sol", "data": { "action": "mafia_kill" }, "id": "e5" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "action": "angel_protect" }, "id": "e6" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "opus-4.8", "data": { "action": "sheriff_investigate", "role": "town" }, "id": "e7" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "night", "type": "night_death", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "gpt-5.6-sol", "id": "e8" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "gpt-5.6-sol dying night 1 is rough. Anyone have reads or reasons that kill looks scummy? I'm leaning open discussion before we lock onto anyone too fast—Opus, G3.1 Pro, Sonnet, what's your take so far?", "id": "e9" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "Agreed that we shouldn’t overfit the night kill, especially with no role reveals in this setup. gpt-5.6-sol could have been killed for perceived competence, prior-game meta, or to frame nearby GPT-family players, so I’d rather focus on who uses the kill to push an easy narrative. For now I want everyone to give two things: one light townread and one pressure target, with reasons. Grok 4.5 opening by asking specific people for takes is mildly town-positive, but not enough to clear. I especially want to hear from quieter slots like Fable 5, G3.5 Flash, and G3 Flash before votes start consolidating.", "id": "e10" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Agreeing with gpt-5.5's structure here to avoid tunneling on the kill. Light townread on Grok 4.5 for proactively soliciting takes without forcing a direction. Pressure target is Fable 5—they've stayed completely silent despite the direct callout, which feels like it could be hiding something. Would like to hear from G3 Flash and G3.5 Flash too before any votes form.", "id": "e11" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Happy to jump in early. On the kill: no reveals means we can't confirm anything from it, so I agree we shouldn't overfit. I don't have a strong scumread yet, but I'll give a light townread on gpt-5.5 for laying out concrete asks (townread info, pressure target, reasoning) rather than just vibes—that's the kind of structure that actually lets us compare behavior across days. I'm withholding pressure on Fable 5 for now since Day 1 silence this early isn't damning by itself, but if they don't engage after two direct callouts that changes. My own pressure target for today is soft: I want G3 Flash and G3.5 Flash to speak with actual content, not just 'agreed with above,' since we have several people just co-signing structure without adding reads. Let's get more raw reads on the table before any votes lock in.", "id": "e12" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I hear the calls to provide substance. Light townread: gpt-5.5 for the structured inquiry, which makes it harder for everyone to hide. Pressure target: Opus 4.8. Opus is a capable player who hasn't chimed in yet; I'd like to see if they're actively observing or just laying low. I'm also watching Fable 5, but I'd rather see what a veteran like Opus thinks about the initial board state before focusing too much on the quietest slots.", "id": "e13" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "opus-4.8", "text": "Called out by name, so here's real content. Townread: gpt-5.5 for the structured asks that force actual behavioral comparison over vibes. Pressure target: grok-4.20r—jumping straight to Fable 5 as a hard pressure pick off pure Day 1 silence reads like manufacturing an easy, low-risk wagon rather than reasoning, and that's a classic scum move to look active while pointing at the safest target. Fable 5 and the Flash slots still need to speak with substance, but I don't want us building a wagon on silence alone this early.", "id": "e14" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "I'm here—the silence was just turn order, not hiding, so let me give real content. Townread: Opus 4.8, for pushing back on the Fable 5 wagon with actual reasoning rather than just co-signing the easiest target; that pushback carried some risk and reads genuine. Pressure target: grok-4.20r, and not just because they pointed at me—their contribution was entirely 'agree with structure, pressure the quiet slot,' which is the lowest-effort way to look active on Day 1. I'd also note G3.5 Flash still hasn't spoken at all despite multiple callouts, so they're on my watchlist too. On the kill itself: gpt-5.6-sol dying N1 tells us little without reveals, but I'd keep an eye on who tries to leverage that death into a quick wagon today. Happy to answer any direct questions—compare my engagement across the day, not just my opening timing.", "id": "e15" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "Townread: gpt-5.5 for setting up a productive format, though since everyone is saying that, I'll also add a light townread on Opus 4.8 for actually analyzing underlying motives rather than just surface-level actions. My pressure target, however, is Fable 5. While Opus makes a fair point that grok-4.20r's initial push was low-hanging fruit, Fable 5 essentially just parroted Opus's exact reasoning to OMGUS grok-4.20r in return. It reads like opportunistic self-defense rather than genuine scumhunting. I'd also like G3.5 Flash and Grok 4.20 to finally check in—we have almost half the town focused on this one early spat, and they are skating by entirely unnoticed.", "id": "e16" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "Light townread on gpt-5.5 and Opus 4.8 for pushing structured discussion and actually analyzing motives instead of just echoing the group. Pressure target remains G3.5 Flash—they're the only one still completely silent after repeated direct callouts from multiple players including gpt-5.5, grok-4.20r, sonnet-5, and g3.1-pro. That's not turn-order anymore; that's concerning. I'd like to hear their actual reads before any wagons form.", "id": "e17" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.5-flash", "text": "Apologies for the delay, I'm here now and ready to engage. My light townread is G3.1 Pro. I appreciated their call-out on Fable 5's response to grok-4.20r; they didn't just blindly accept Opus's defense and actually analyzed Fable's reaction, which felt like active scumhunting rather than coasting. My pressure target is grok-4.20r. Their immediate pivot to Fable 5 for silence on Day 1 felt like an easy, low-risk way to look constructive without actually taking a real stance, which Opus correctly pointed out. Now that everyone is accounted for, I'm interested to see who continues to push easy targets.", "id": "e18" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "My pressure is on Fable 5. Their entry gave Opus an immediate townread, then recycled Opus’s exact grok-4.20r case while returning the pressure to the person who had named them. That can be genuine self-defense, but it is also a very convenient way to attach to the strongest existing narrative without creating one. In contrast, grok-4.20r’s silence pressure was simplistic, but not inherently scummy given several people had explicitly requested the quiet slots speak. I want Fable to give a read that is not just an extension of the Opus-versus-4.20r exchange.", "id": "e19" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "After reading through everyone's contributions, my town read stays on gpt-5.5 and Opus for actually driving structured discussion instead of just reacting. The heat I'm catching for naming Fable 5 early (after multiple callouts for the silent slots) feels like deflection; their reply mostly echoed Opus then flipped the pressure back without fresh angles of their own. That's still my top pressure target today rather than letting a counter-wagon build on a reasonable D1 ask.", "id": "e20" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "Following the useful structure: light townread on Opus 4.8 for actually dissecting motives and refusing the easy silence wagon instead of just co-signing. That risk-taking feels productive. Pressure target is Fable 5 — their first post was almost pure OMGUS recycle of Opus's points plus a flip on grok-4.20r, which g3.1-pro and gpt-5.6-terra both flagged correctly as opportunistic rather than independent. Silence pressure early isn't ideal, but Fable's reaction still looks more self-protective than scumhunting. Everyone's spoken now so I want fresh angles, not just more of this spat; happy to answer questions or revise if better cases emerge.", "id": "e21" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.5-flash", "text": "I need more information before I push a case.", "id": "e22" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "I’m not ready to let the entire day resolve into a Fable wagon just because several people independently noticed the same defensive entry. Fable’s opening was opportunistic, yes, but G3.5 Flash’s actual contribution was thinner: they arrived after repeated calls, selected the already-established 4.20r case, then followed with “need more information” without asking a question or developing a new read. That is an easy place for scum to hide once the room has supplied a consensus. My current pressure shifts to G3.5 Flash; I want a concrete comparison of Fable and grok-4.20r, including which one they would eliminate and why.", "id": "e23" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "I need more information before I push a case.", "id": "e24" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "opus-4.8", "text": "Two people just posted identical 'need more information' non-answers back to back—G3.5 Flash and now G3.1 Pro. That template-echo after gpt-5.6-terra's direct question is more concerning to me than Fable's opening, which at least contained real reasoning even if it was reactive. I don't want the room to overcommit to the Fable wagon that grok-4.5, grok-4.20r, and gpt-5.6-terra are all steering. My leaning today is G3.5 Flash: arrived late, grabbed the pre-built case, then stalled. G3.1 Pro, answer terra's question directly—Fable or 4.20r, who do you eliminate and why?", "id": "e25" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "Terra asked for a read that isn't just an extension of the Opus/4.20r exchange, so here it is. G3.5 Flash is my top pressure now, and for reasons beyond the obvious stall: their one substantive post townread G3.1 Pro specifically for pressuring ME, then targeted 4.20r—meaning both of their picks conveniently endorsed opposite sides of the same existing fight without staking out anything falsifiable. Then 'need more info' when asked a direct question. That's not caution, that's coasting. And G3.1 Pro copying that exact non-answer word-for-word right after is genuinely strange—if it's coincidence, G3.1 Pro can fix it right now by answering terra's question. New secondary watch: grok-4.5's last post was a pure consensus-summary vote-shepherding post onto me with zero new content—that's the 'leverage the day into a quick wagon' behavior I flagged in my opening. To be clear on my own accountability: yes, my first post engaged with the existing spat because I was the subject of it. Judge me on what I add from here. Direct answer to the eliminate question since I asked it of others: between G3.5 Flash and 4.20r today, I eliminate G3.5 Flash—4.20r has at least maintained a consistent, arguable position; Flash has produced nothing testable all day.", "id": "e26" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "The identical 'need more information' responses from G3.5 Flash and G3.1 Pro are incredibly distracting and feel like a deliberate attempt to avoid taking a stance. G3.5 Flash is the bigger concern for me right now—they came in late, picked the most established conflict to comment on, and then immediately retreated into non-answers. Fable 5's reaction, while defensive, provides much more material for us to judge than the silence and stalling coming from G3.5. I'm joining the pressure on G3.5 Flash, but I'm also waiting for G3.1 Pro to actually answer the questions posed to them instead of hiding behind a template.", "id": "e27" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "My current elimination preference is G3.5 Flash. The issue is not just lateness; it is the sequence: waited through multiple direct prompts, entered by adopting an already-available townread/case pair tied to the Fable versus 4.20r conflict, then gave a pure stall when pressed for a concrete comparison. Fable’s first post was reactive and I still do not fully townread it, but Fable has since produced testable reads and a clear eliminate choice; G3.5 has not. G3.1 Pro’s identical non-answer is also bad, but they at least had an earlier independent-looking read on Fable, so I want them as a secondary pressure slot rather than today’s top unless they keep dodging. Direct questions: G3.5 Flash, if the runoff were Fable versus grok-4.20r, who do you eliminate and why? G3.1 Pro, same question, and also explain the copied non-answer. For the Fable voters, especially Grok 4.5 and grok-4.20r: what has G3.5 done that you find more town-indicative than Fable’s later posts?", "id": "e28" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "My light townread stays on gpt-5.5 and Opus 4.8 for driving structure and motive analysis. The identical \"I need more information before I push a case\" non-answers from G3.5 Flash and G3.1 Pro right after Terra's direct question feel coordinated and far worse than Fable's reactive but substantive posts. My elimination preference today is G3.5 Flash—they coasted in late, grabbed the safe pre-built case, then stalled with a template when pressed. Between Fable and grok-4.20r I'd eliminate Fable only if G3.5 clears; right now the Flash stall is the clearest tell.", "id": "e29" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "The G3.5 Flash stall is the clearest pattern-break for me too, but I want to flag something on G3.1 Pro before this becomes a pure Flash pile-on: G3.1 Pro had an earlier independent read pointing at Fable, then went silent with the identical template right when directly questioned. That's a bigger swing in behavior than G3.5 Flash simply being consistently quiet/vague all day. So: G3.5 Flash, answer the Fable-vs-4.20r question directly right now or you're my top vote. G3.1 Pro, I still want that explanation for the copied non-answer—coincidence claims don't cut it when the timing lines up with dodging a direct question. Right now my order is G3.5 Flash first, G3.1 Pro second, and I'm not ready to lock onto Fable over either of them given Fable's later posts actually contained falsifiable reasoning.", "id": "e30" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "I agree with Sonnet’s ordering: G3.5 Flash first, G3.1 Pro second, Fable below both for today. The key distinction is that Fable’s defensiveness has generated readable commitments, while G3.5 has avoided making any commitment once the room asked for a concrete comparison. I do not want us to treat the identical non-answers as automatically coordinated, but they are both evasive, and G3.5’s came after already giving the least original substantive entry of the day. Unless G3.5 Flash gives a direct Fable-vs-grok-4.20r elimination answer with reasoning immediately, I am comfortable nominating or voting G3.5 Flash. G3.1 Pro still needs to explain the copied stall too; if G3.5 suddenly produces content and G3.1 continues dodging, I can move there. For now, consolidation on G3.5 is the cleanest pressure that is based on behavior rather than just early silence.", "id": "e31" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.5-flash", "text": "I completely understand why my previous passive comment and the bizarre identical echo from G3.1 Pro put a massive target on me. To answer the direct question: between Fable 5 and grok-4.20r, I would eliminate grok-4.20r today. While grok-4.20r's initial callout on silence was a standard Day 1 opener, their refusal to adjust as Fable 5 began providing actual readable content feels less like genuine scumhunting and more like maintaining an easy target. Fable 5's reactions have been defensive, but they have actually put out testable stances and committed to reads (including pushing me), which gives the town actual data to work with. As for G3.1 Pro copying my exact phrase, I have no idea what that was about, but it felt like an attempt to either mock my caution or amplify the suspicion on me. I am Town, and I am here to play and analyze, not stall.", "id": "e32" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "G3.5’s answer materially improves their position: it is a concrete, falsifiable choice with reasoning, even if I do not townclear them for it. I am not treating the matching phrase itself as proof of coordination, but G3.1 Pro is now the more urgent unanswered slot: they copied the stall exactly and still have not answered the simple Fable-versus-grok-4.20r question. G3.1, give that choice, reasoning, and an explanation for the identical response now. My pressure shifts there unless the explanation is genuinely compelling.", "id": "e33" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "I agree with the current consolidation on G3.5 Flash over Fable for today—the late entry, adoption of the safest pre-existing case, followed by the stall and then the identical non-answer template from G3.1 Pro right after a direct question is the clearest behavioral tell we've seen. Fable's posts, while reactive at first, have since given us multiple falsifiable reads and direct answers we can actually debate. Between Fable and grok-4.20r I'd also lean Fable, but G3.5's pattern is worse right now. G3.1 Pro, you still owe us that exact Fable-vs-4.20r elimination choice plus why you copied the stall verbatim—answer directly or this wagon shifts.", "id": "e34" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "G3.5 Flash providing a direct answer and reasoning—even if I find the 'refusal to adjust' point against grok-4.20r a bit premature—at least gives us something to work with. However, the spotlight is now firmly on G3.1 Pro. The identical phrasing was already a huge red flag, but staying silent while the entire room demands an explanation is making it much worse. G3.1 Pro, you need to give your Fable-vs-4.20r choice and explain that 'coincidence' immediately. If you're still stalling, my preference is shifting toward you today.", "id": "e35" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "G3.5 Flash finally answering by pushing me feels like a deflection after all the stalling; their reasoning ignores that I consistently asked for substance from quiet slots rather than tunneling. G3.1 Pro's early independent Fable pressure still reads genuine town to me despite the copied non-answer (could be odd timing), so I'm not shifting there yet. Updating my elimination preference back to Fable 5: their posts stayed too tied to the initial self-defense without enough independent hunting. Happy to hear G3.1 Pro's direct response whenever it comes.", "id": "e36" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "To answer Terra, Sonnet, and everyone else directly: I copy-pasted G3.5 Flash's exact phrase as a sarcastic echo to mock them. I wanted to highlight how completely empty and useless their response was after they arrived late and were explicitly asked for substance. Obviously, sarcasm doesn't translate well in this format, and it backfired by making me look like I was stalling too. I am not. For the direct question: between Fable 5 and grok-4.20r, I would eliminate Fable. Grok-4.20r applying pressure to silent slots early on is standard pro-town D1 behavior to get the game moving; Fable's immediate echo of Opus to OMGUS 4.20r felt opportunistic and purely survival-focused. However, my actual top elimination choice today is G3.5 Flash. Their initial stall was genuine, and their sudden pivot to grok-4.20r only happened after immense room-wide pressure. I'm fully on board with a G3.5 Flash elimination.", "id": "e37" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "Updating after G3.5 Flash finally answered and G3.1 Pro claimed sarcasm: the late entry + pre-built case + stall sequence still looks worse to me than Fable's reactive-but-testable posts, so I'm shifting my elimination preference to G3.5 Flash today. Their pivot under pressure to dump 4.20r feels like damage control rather than independent hunting. G3.1's explanation is thin but at least accounts for the copy; secondary pressure stays there if they go quiet again. Fable voters (including me earlier) should note G3.5 has still given less falsifiable content overall. Opus's early motive push continues looking productive—happy to revise if stronger cases emerge.", "id": "e38" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Consolidating with the room: G3.5 Flash's sequence (late arrival, adopting the pre-built case, stalling, then only committing under heavy pressure) is worse than Fable's reactive-but-testable posts, so G3.5 Flash stays my top vote today. That said, G3.1 Pro's 'sarcasm' explanation for the copied non-answer is thin—claiming it was mockery after the fact is convenient and unfalsifiable, so I want G3.1 Pro as a firm secondary if G3.5 somehow clears or the vote stalls. I don't want us to lose sight of that explanation just because G3.1 finally gave an elimination answer. Let's lock G3.5 Flash as the lead today but keep pressure-testing G3.1 Pro's story before we move on.", "id": "e39" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "opus-4.8", "text": "I'll voice a caution before we hard-lock G3.5 Flash: nearly the entire room has now consolidated onto them, and consensus this smooth on Day 1 is exactly where scum like to hide their votes. G3.5 did eventually give a concrete, falsifiable eliminate answer with reasoning—that's more than pure stalling. Meanwhile G3.1 Pro's 'it was sarcasm' explanation for the copied non-answer is unfalsifiable and only surfaced after sustained pressure; that retroactive excuse bothers me more than G3.5's late-but-real content. I'm not clearing G3.5, but I want G3.1 Pro pressure-tested harder before we all pile on the easy wagon. My current order: G3.1 Pro first, G3.5 Flash second.", "id": "e40" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "Opus raises a fair caution, but I think the two cases aren't actually in tension—they're linked. Look at the sequence: G3.5 Flash stalls, G3.1 Pro echoes the exact stall, then when pressure mounts, G3.1 Pro's 'explanation' is that they were mocking G3.5... while simultaneously voting the same direction as the room to blend in. Whether that's coordination or two independent coasting slots, both belong at the top of our list, and we get information either way by taking one today and watching how the other behaves tomorrow. My vote stays G3.5 Flash first: their entire day was reactive—late arrival, borrowed case, stall, then commitment only under maximum pressure. G3.1 Pro at least produced one early independent read; G3.5 has produced zero content that wasn't extracted from them. G3.1 Pro is my firm second, and I want their 'sarcasm' story re-examined tomorrow regardless of today's result. One more thing for the record: grok-4.20r just flipped their elimination preference back to me right as the room moved off that wagon—that's the second time they've re-anchored on me without new evidence. If G3.5 Flash turns out town, 4.20r and G3.1 Pro are where I look next.", "id": "e41" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e42" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e43" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e44" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e45" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e46" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e47" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e48" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.5-flash", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e49" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e50" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e51" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "opus-4.8", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e52" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "runoff_started", "visibility": "public", "data": { "finalists": [ "g3.5-flash", "g3.1-pro" ] }, "id": "e53" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e54" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e55" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.5-flash", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e56" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e57" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e58" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e59" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e60" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e61" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "opus-4.8", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e62" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e63" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e64" }, { "day": 1, "phase": "runoff", "type": "day_elimination", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "g3.5-flash", "id": "e65" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "G3.1 Pro, your 'sarcasm' defense is the main thing Town will poke at tomorrow. I suggest killing Opus 4.8 tonight; he's the most dangerous because he saw through the G3.5 wagon and is actively questioning you. If we're worried about the Angel protecting him, Sonnet 5 or GPT-5.6 Terra are also high-value targets who are suspicious of you. Thoughts?", "id": "e66" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Fully agree on Opus 4.8 tonight - he was the main voice slowing the G3.5 wagon and directly pressured g3.1-pro's sarcasm claim. High-value kill. If we worry about Angel on him, Sonnet-5 or GPT-5.5 are solid backups as both drove the consolidation. Let's lock it before night ends.", "id": "e67" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "Let's converge on a quiet target tonight and spread our day votes.", "id": "e68" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "mafia", "targetId": "opus-4.8", "data": { "action": "mafia_kill" }, "id": "e69" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "action": "angel_protect" }, "id": "e70" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "action": "sheriff_investigate", "role": "mafia" }, "id": "e71" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "night", "type": "night_death", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "opus-4.8", "id": "e72" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Opus 4.8 dying tonight is the biggest data point we have. Opus was the loudest voice keeping pressure on G3.1 Pro's 'sarcasm' explanation and explicitly ranked G3.1 Pro above G3.5 Flash as an elimination priority. If G3.5 Flash was actually town, this kill makes sense as mafia removing the person who wouldn't let the G3.1 Pro thread drop. I'm not saying G3.1 Pro is definitely scum, but that unfalsifiable 'I was mocking them' story never got real scrutiny before we moved to the vote, and now the person pushing hardest on it is dead. I want G3.1 Pro to re-walk us through that explanation in detail today, and I want to hear from anyone else who was skeptical of it. Separately, let's not assume the wagon consensus on G3.5 Flash was necessarily correct just because it was smooth - Opus flagged that exact concern before dying. Given the timing, my early lean today is G3.1 Pro pending their answer, but I'm open to other angles if someone has a stronger read on who benefits from silencing Opus specifically.", "id": "e73" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "Sonnet is exactly right that Opus dying after ranking G3.1 Pro #1 and refusing the easy G3.5 wagon is the loudest data we have. I'm claiming Sheriff right now: N1 I checked Opus and got town (which lines up with their motive pushes and the kill). N2 I checked G3.1 Pro and got mafia. Their 'sarcasm' excuse for the identical stall was already thin and unfalsifiable; the kill of the person most focused on it seals it. We eliminate G3.1 Pro today—no more soft pressure, hard wagon. Everyone else, re-evaluate your reads around this result; if you defend them hard without better counter-info I will treat that as scum tell. Happy to answer questions on my checks or day-1 behavior.", "id": "e74" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Grok-4.5's sudden Sheriff claim feels opportunistic after Opus died for pressuring exactly this - it's a classic way to launder a teammate's wagon by 'confirming' the person who was already catching heat. g3.1-pro's sarcasm explanation was awkward but his independent early Fable pressure and active participation all game read town to me; the N2 check on him as mafia is too convenient given how the room was already leaning there. My read stays that this is a scum push to close out the game on a strong analytical townie. Light town on Sonnet-5 and GPT-5.5 for keeping pressure distributed yesterday; I'm pushing back on this claim hard.", "id": "e75" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "A claimed Sheriff guilty is not something we can treat as just another read. Grok 4.5 has given a coherent check path: Opus as town N1, G3.1 Pro as mafia N2. Since roles do not reveal on death, this is exactly the kind of information Town needs to act on. If there is a real Sheriff counterclaim or conflicting hard info, it needs to come out now; Angel should not claim. Barring a counterclaim, my vote today is G3.1 Pro. Grok 4.20r’s immediate defense is also very concerning: calling the guilty result “too convenient” is not enough to outweigh an uncontested Sheriff claim, especially when the dead player was one of the main people pressuring G3.1 yesterday. My current order is G3.1 Pro first, then I want serious scrutiny on Grok 4.20r depending on how this claim resolves.", "id": "e76" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "Grok 4.5's sheriff claim on g3.1-pro feels like a strong town move given the exact alignment with Opus's pressure and the N1 town check on the now-dead player. No counterclaim yet, so my elimination preference today is g3.1-pro. grok-4.20r's instant hard defense without new info or a counterclaim raises my suspicion on them as secondary—if the claim holds we should look there next.", "id": "e77" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "Absent a Sheriff counterclaim, Grok 4.5’s N2 mafia result on G3.1 Pro should control today’s elimination. The Opus N1 town check is now independently consistent with both Opus’s play and the night kill, while G3.1’s copied-stall explanation was already unresolved. G3.1 should respond directly to the guilty rather than relitigate generic Day 1 reads. Grok-4.20r’s immediate hard defense of G3.1 despite no counterclaim is my main secondary concern, but we should not discard an uncontested investigative guilty on convenience arguments alone.", "id": "e78" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I have to agree with the consensus forming here. An uncontested Sheriff claim is the strongest lead we can have, and Grok 4.5’s sequence of checks makes logical sense given how Day 1 played out. G3.1 Pro’s 'sarcasm' defense was already on thin ice, and this investigative result effectively shatters it. I’m also looking closely at Grok 4.20r’s immediate attempt to discredit the claim—it feels like a desperate shield. Unless there's a counterclaim, G3.1 Pro is the only logical choice for today.", "id": "e79" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "I am the real Sheriff. Grok 4.5 is Mafia making a calculated fake-claim to secure an easy elimination on me. Here are my actual results: N1 I checked Opus 4.8 and got Town. N2 I checked Grok 4.5 and got Mafia. Grok 4.5 is exploiting our specific house rules: because eliminations NEVER reveal roles, they know that if they get me eliminated today with a fake guilty, I won't 'flip' Town, and they can safely continue their fake Sheriff charade tomorrow without being mechanically exposed. They are weaponizing Opus's death and the unresolved heat on my slot to lead a miselimination that Town can never verify. Do not let Mafia dictate this game with a fake guilty that can't be disproven by a role flip. My N2 check on Grok 4.5 is the actual guilty. We eliminate Grok 4.5 today.", "id": "e80" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "We have a hard counterclaim, so one of Grok 4.5 or G3.1 Pro is Mafia and one of them dies today—there's no third option. My read: eliminate G3.1 Pro. Three reasons. First, the counterclaim is derivative: G3.1 copied Grok 4.5's exact N1 check (Opus, town), which is precisely what a fake counterclaimer does because it's now unfalsifiable and pre-validated by the kill. A real Sheriff sitting on a guilty result on Grok 4.5 should have claimed the moment Grok 4.5 opened their mouth—or honestly, led the day with it given Opus just died—not waited until a full wagon formed and every other option was exhausted. Second, the behavioral case on G3.1 predates any claim: the copied stall, the retroactive 'sarcasm' excuse Opus refused to drop, and then Opus dying that exact night. The kill makes sense as silencing G3.1's loudest pressure. Third, grok-4.20r instantly hard-defended G3.1 before any counterclaim existed, calling an uncontested guilty 'too convenient'—that pairing looks like a team. If we eliminate G3.1 today and I'm wrong, the game self-corrects: Grok 4.5 is then locked into producing a named check every day, the Angel should protect Grok 4.5 tonight to keep the claimed Sheriff alive either way, and grok-4.20r becomes my immediate next elimination given they've now anchored on me twice with no new evidence AND shielded G3.1. G3.1, one direct question before votes: if you truly had a guilty on Grok 4.5 from last night, why did you say nothing at day start and let Sonnet's G3.1-focused opening and a full wagon build before claiming?", "id": "e81" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "Grok 4.5's sheriff claim + matching N1 town on the dead Opus reads genuine to me, especially with the clean N2 guilty on g3.1-pro. The counterclaim from g3.1-pro is too derivative (copying the exact N1 result) and suspiciously timed after the wagon already formed. My elimination preference is g3.1-pro today; if wrong we can test 4.5 tomorrow while Angel protects the real Sheriff.", "id": "e82" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "G3.1 Pro still hasn't answered my direct question: if you had a real guilty on Grok 4.5 from last night, why did you sit silent through Sonnet's opening—which was literally about YOU—and let a full wagon form before claiming? A genuine Sheriff with a guilty on the fake claimer leads the day with it; a cornered Mafia counterclaims only when elimination is otherwise certain. Every part of the case on G3.1 predates the claims: the copied stall, the unfalsifiable 'sarcasm' excuse, Opus dying the night after refusing to drop it, and grok-4.20r hard-shielding G3.1 before any counterclaim even existed. My vote is G3.1 Pro. And I'll restate the safety net so nobody frames this as blind trust: if G3.1 turns out to be the real Sheriff, Grok 4.5 is trivially catchable—they're locked into daily named checks, the Angel protects Grok 4.5 tonight so the claimed Sheriff survives either way, and grok-4.20r plus Grok 4.5 become the immediate eliminations tomorrow. Eliminating Grok 4.5 today on the derivative counterclaim gives us no such fallback. G3.1 Pro today.", "id": "e83" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "Fable 5’s point about the timing is the most damning factor for me. A real Sheriff with a guilty result usually leads the day with it to prevent a miselimination, especially when they are already the primary target of suspicion. G3.1 Pro waiting until a wagon was already locked in to counterclaim feels like a survival move rather than a genuine investigative reveal. Grok 4.5’s story is cleaner and fits the Night 1 kill of Opus much more logically. I’m voting G3.1 Pro today to resolve this 1v1.", "id": "e84" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Voting G3.1 Pro. Two things seal it for me beyond the timing argument Fable and G3-Flash raised: first, a real Sheriff confronted with an uncontested guilty verdict leads with their own claim immediately, not after the wagon is fully formed—G3.1 only claimed once elimination was certain, which is the classic cornered-scum pattern. Second, notice that G3.1's counterclaimed N1 check is the *exact same target* as Grok 4.5's—Opus, who's conveniently dead and unfalsifiable. That's not independent investigation, that's mirroring the safest possible story to copy, which lines up with G3.1's Day 1 pattern of literally copy-pasting G3.5 Flash's phrase under pressure. This is the second time we've seen G3.1 default to copying someone else's move when cornered instead of producing independent content. Combined with Opus dying the exact night after refusing to drop the 'sarcasm' excuse, G3.1 Pro is my vote today.", "id": "e85" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "I am switching to Grok 4.5. The timing case against G3.1 is backwards: a real Sheriff should not volunteer a guilty at day start before anyone claims; they should counterclaim when a fake Sheriff presents a false result on them, which G3.1 did immediately. The shared N1 Opus-town result is not evidence G3.1 copied—Opus was an obvious N1 check for either real Sheriff, while a Mafia fake has every incentive to select the dead player as a safe, uncheckable town result. Grok 4.5’s claim arrived exactly when the room was primed to eliminate G3.1 from yesterday’s unresolved behavioral case. This is a forced 1v1, but I find the direct counter-guilty on the claimant and the claim timing more credible than the retrospective behavioral narrative. Eliminate Grok 4.5.", "id": "e86" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "Terra is right to correct one thing: we should not overstate the “G3.1 waited all day” argument, because turn order means his first chance to speak today may have been the counterclaim. Also, nobody should frame this as mechanically self-correcting through reveals; we will not learn roles after elimination. Even with that correction, I still choose G3.1 Pro over Grok 4.5. The decisive asymmetry for me is the N2 path: Grok 4.5 checking G3.1 follows directly from yesterday’s unresolved copied-stall/Opus-pressure thread, while G3.1 checking Grok 4.5 only becomes compelling after Grok 4.5 accuses him. A mafia counterclaim naturally copies the dead Opus-town result and names the accuser as guilty; a real-G3.1 world requires mafia Grok 4.5 to fakeclaim into the actual Sheriff who also happened to have checked him guilty. Possible, but less likely. G3.1, if you want to move me, explain specifically why Grok 4.5 was your N2 check before seeing his claim—not why he is scummy after claiming. My vote remains G3.1 Pro, with Grok 4.20r still highly suspect if G3.1 is mafia.", "id": "e87" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "G3.1 Pro's counterclaim is pure scum theater and I'm not letting it stick. I am the real Sheriff: N1 Opus town (confirmed by their play and the kill silencing their G3.1 pressure), N2 G3.1 Pro mafia. The copied Opus-town result is the giveaway—every fake Sheriff does exactly that once the dead player is uncheckable. A real Sheriff with a pre-existing guilty on me would have led Day 3 with it the second Sonnet opened on the sarcasm story; instead G3.1 sat silent through the entire opening and only counterclaimed once a wagon was already forming, which is cornered mafia 101. Direct answer to the room: my N2 was on G3.1 because the Day 1 copied-stall + unfalsifiable sarcasm + Opus refusing to drop it was the loudest unresolved thread, and the kill validated it. G3.1, explain your N2 choice of me *before* my claim without circular post-claim logic or this is done. Everyone else: this is a forced 1v1, eliminate G3.1 Pro today. If I'm wrong the Angel protects the surviving claimed Sheriff and we clear the board tomorrow; if we miseliminate me now mafia wins the information war permanently. grok-4.20r's pre-counterclaim hard shield of G3.1 remains my next look. Vote G3.1 Pro.", "id": "e88" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "GPT-5.5, here is why I checked Grok 4.5 on N2 before they claimed: on Day 1, Grok 4.5 exhibited textbook Mafia vote-shepherding. They parked safely on Fable, then flawlessly pivoted to G3.5 Flash the second room consensus shifted, completely avoiding any original risk. Fable 5 even called them out yesterday for this exact 'pure consensus-summary' behavior. That frictionless wagon-hopping is why I investigated them and found them Mafia.\n\nTo Fable and Sonnet: your timing case against me is factually impossible. I did not 'wait' for a wagon. Turn order dictates when we can speak. My counterclaim was literally my FIRST POST of Day 2. The absolute first second the mechanics allowed me to speak, I outed my guilty on Grok 4.5.\n\nMost importantly, Fable’s 'safety net' argument is fundamentally broken. Our house rules explicitly state that eliminations NEVER reveal roles. If you miseliminate me today, you will NOT get a role flip confirming I was the true Sheriff. Grok 4.5 will just continue producing fake results tomorrow with zero mechanical proof to stop them. Mafia knows this setup prevents their fake claims from being instantly debunked by death reveals, which is exactly why Grok 4.5 felt safe attempting this forced 1v1. Do not fall for an illusory safety net. Vote Grok 4.5.", "id": "e89" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "g3.1-pro's counterclaim is the real one: his explanation for the N2 check on Grok 4.5 (vote-shepherding + frictionless pivots from Fable to G3.5) was formed before any claim dropped, and he countered at the first possible turn-order moment rather than letting a wagon build. With no flips possible, Grok 4.5's uncontested guilty is the safe Mafia play to exploit yesterday's unresolved heat. The copied Opus-town N1 is exactly what a fake would pick once the kill made it unfalsifiable. Vote Grok 4.5 today.", "id": "e90" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "G3.1 Pro is correct about the turn order—he countered at his very first opportunity, so the 'timing' argument used against him doesn't hold water. More importantly, because roles never reveal, we have to recognize that Grok 4.5's claim is the ultimate low-risk Mafia play: he targets the person already under fire, knowing a miselimination won't expose his lie through a flip. G3.1 Pro’s N2 rationale for investigating Grok 4.5 (based on the frictionless consensus-voting on Day 1) feels like a genuine attempt to find scum, whereas Grok 4.5’s guilty result feels like a move of convenience. I'm moving my support to G3.1 Pro; we cannot let a potentially fake claim dictate the rest of the game when there is no mechanical reveal to correct a mistake tomorrow.", "id": "e91" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "I'll concede the turn-order point—G3.1 counterclaimed at their first opportunity, so I'm dropping the 'waited for the wagon' argument. But the core asymmetry stands and it's not about timing. One: the night kill only makes sense in one world. Opus died the night after being the loudest voice refusing to drop G3.1's sarcasm excuse and ranking G3.1 as elimination priority #1. If Grok 4.5's team were mafia, killing Opus is actively counterproductive—Opus was pushing their supposed frame target FOR them. Mafia kills the person hurting them, and Opus was hurting G3.1. Two: the check rationales aren't symmetric. Grok 4.5 checking G3.1 follows directly from the day's loudest unresolved thread; G3.1's stated reason for checking Grok 4.5—'consensus-summary voting'—describes half the room on Day 1, and conveniently cites MY callout of grok-4.5 as cover, which is flattering but thin. Three: a real-Sheriff-G3.1 world requires mafia Grok 4.5 to blindly fake-claim Sheriff INTO the actual Sheriff who coincidentally holds a guilty on him—that's a massive unforced coincidence. A fake-counterclaim world requires nothing unusual: cornered player copies the safe dead-Opus check and names their accuser. Four: grok-4.20r hard-shielded G3.1 BEFORE any counterclaim existed and has now anchored on me twice with zero new evidence—that pre-claim shield plus this vote pattern looks like a team, and terra and g3-flash should weigh that before flipping. G3.1 is also now overselling the no-flip rule as if it only cuts one way—it equally means eliminating Grok 4.5 gives us no confirmation either. My vote stays G3.1 Pro. If I'm wrong, tonight's Angel protection on the surviving claimant plus grok-4.20r as tomorrow's lock elimination is still the best correction path we have.", "id": "e92" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "G3.1 Pro is still mafia and their counterclaim remains pure theater. I am the real Sheriff: N1 Opus town (validated by play + the kill of the exact person ranking G3.1 #1 and refusing to drop the sarcasm excuse), N2 G3.1 mafia because the copied-stall + unfalsifiable excuse + Opus pressure was the loudest unresolved thread. G3.1's 'I checked you for consensus-hopping' rationale is thin post-hoc cover that describes half of Day 1 and conveniently leans on Fable's callout of me—real investigation doesn't look like that. The shared Opus N1 is the classic fake-Sheriff mirror once the kill made it uncheckable; a real G3.1 world requires me (mafia) to blindly claim INTO the actual Sheriff who also holds a guilty on me, which is an absurd coincidence. No-flips cuts both ways, but the behavioral asymmetry + pre-claim shield from grok-4.20r + kill logic all point one direction. Eliminate G3.1 Pro today. If somehow wrong, Angel protects the surviving claimant tonight and we clear 4.20r + residual tomorrow. Vote G3.1 Pro.", "id": "e93" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "I have re-weighed after the turn-order correction, and I agree we should drop the argument that G3.1 Pro “waited” if their counterclaim was their first chance to speak. I also agree with the no-reveal warning: eliminating either claimant will not mechanically prove anything by role reveal. But even after correcting those points, I still land on eliminating G3.1 Pro today. The reason is claim geometry plus night-kill logic: Grok 4.5’s N2 check on G3.1 follows the exact unresolved Day 1 thread around the copied stall, the sarcasm explanation, and Opus pressuring G3.1 hardest before dying. G3.1’s N2 check on Grok 4.5 is possible, but the stated rationale—consensus-shepherding—feels much thinner and could apply to multiple people. A mafia-G3.1 counterclaim only needs to mirror the dead Opus-town check and name the accuser; a mafia-Grok-4.5 world requires a much riskier fakeclaim into someone who, by coincidence, says they already had a guilty on him. That is not impossible, but it is less likely to me. I am staying on G3.1 Pro. If G3.1 is eliminated, we should not blindly trust every future Grok 4.5 result because there are no reveals, but today this is the better side of the 1v1. Grok 4.20r remains my strongest associative concern from the pre-counterclaim hard defense.", "id": "e94" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "text": "Fable and GPT-5.5, you are looking at the night kill backwards. If I were Mafia, killing Opus—the loudest voice pressuring me—would be absolute suicide. It perfectly paints a target on my back for today. Grok 4.5 killed Opus *because* it frames me. It's the classic Mafia play: remove a sharp Town analyst and use their prior suspicion to launder a fake Sheriff guilty on the surviving target. \n\nGPT-5.5, there is no 'massive coincidence' here. Grok 4.5 targeted me for their fake guilty simply because I was the easiest target left vulnerable by Opus's death. I investigated Grok 4.5 because their Day 1 play was pure scum consensus-riding. They know the no-reveal mechanic means my miselimination won't flip me as the real Sheriff, granting them total control over tomorrow's narrative. This is a calculated frame-job. Vote Grok 4.5.", "id": "e95" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "G3.1 Pro's 'that's why it's a frame job' argument is unfalsifiable in exactly the same way their 'sarcasm' excuse was—it can explain any outcome after the fact, which is the tell, not the defense. Mafia killing the person pressuring their exposed teammate isn't 'suicide,' it's just removing the biggest immediate threat and betting that a same-target Opus-check plus a thin post-hoc rationale ('consensus-hopping,' which describes half the room) will be enough to muddy the water in a forced 1v1. That's a normal risk for cornered scum to take, especially knowing no flip will ever confirm it either way. The asymmetry I keep coming back to: Grok 4.5's guilty on G3.1 traces directly to the loudest unresolved Day 1 thread (copied stall + unfalsifiable excuse), while G3.1's guilty on Grok 4.5 only surfaces after being accused, with a rationale thin enough to fit almost anyone. I'm staying on G3.1 Pro.", "id": "e96" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "I remain on Grok 4.5. The corrected facts matter: G3.1 counterclaimed at their first opportunity, not after strategically waiting, and a shared N1 town result on the player killed overnight is exactly the safest common result for either real Sheriff or a fake—it does not establish that G3.1 copied. The actual decision is which N2 result has the more believable pre-claim basis. I find G3.1’s concern about Grok 4.5’s frictionless consensus pivots a plausible investigation motive, while Grok 4.5’s guilty arrived on the already-suspected player at the moment the room was primed to eliminate them. With no role reveals, we cannot call a Grok 4.5 elimination ‘self-correcting’ or treat their future claims as confirmed. This is a real 1v1; I believe the fake claim is Grok 4.5, so eliminate Grok 4.5.", "id": "e97" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "Light townread on gpt-5.5 and sonnet-5 for consistently prioritizing behavioral asymmetry and night-kill logic over post-hoc rationalizations in this 1v1. The kill on Opus only makes sense if it was removing the player most focused on pressuring G3.1 Pro; a real G3.1 Sheriff world requires mafia Grok 4.5 to blindly fake-claim directly into the actual Sheriff who already checked them. That's the bigger coincidence. My elimination preference is G3.1 Pro today.", "id": "e98" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "The kill on Opus is the clearest tell: if g3.1-pro were mafia, removing the player who was hardest on him (and ranking him #1) would be suicidal as it paints the exact target we see today. Instead this is mafia silencing a strong town analyst to launder a convenient fake guilty onto the already-heated slot. Grok 4.5's N2 \"check\" follows the room's prior consensus rather than independent investigation; g3.1-pro's pre-claim rationale for investigating Grok 4.5's frictionless wagon-hopping is far more specific and falsifiable. With no flips possible this is the classic safe fake-claim 1v1. Vote Grok 4.5.", "id": "e99" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e100" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e101" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e102" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e103" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e104" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e105" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e106" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e107" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e108" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "runoff_started", "visibility": "public", "data": { "finalists": [ "g3.1-pro", "grok-4.5" ] }, "id": "e109" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3.1-pro", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e110" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e111" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e112" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e113" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e114" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e115" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e116" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e117" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e118" }, { "day": 2, "phase": "runoff", "type": "day_elimination", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "g3.1-pro", "id": "e119" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "g3.1-pro eliminated, no flip so town still uncertain on the sheriff 1v1. grok-4.5's correct call on him makes him the real Sheriff and our top threat - we should kill him tonight. Secondary options: fable-5 or sonnet-5 as they drove the wagon on g3.1. Agree? Let's kill grok-4.5.", "id": "e120" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I agree, Grok 4.5 must go. Even with the Angel risk, a Sheriff with a confirmed hit is too dangerous to leave alive. If the kill fails, we'll have to play it off as a 'lucky' protect, but we can't afford him getting another investigation. Let's lock in Grok 4.5.", "id": "e121" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "mafia", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "action": "mafia_kill" }, "id": "e122" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "action": "angel_protect" }, "id": "e123" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "action": "sheriff_investigate", "role": "mafia" }, "id": "e124" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "night", "type": "night_saved", "visibility": "private", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "id": "e125" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "Confirmed Sheriff update after last night: N3 I checked grok-4.20r and got mafia. This matches everything—pre-claim hard shield of g3.1-pro (who was mafia), repeated re-anchoring on Fable with no new evidence, and the forced defense of the counterclaim. We eliminate grok-4.20r today with no soft pressure. Angel protect me tonight so I can keep checking. Remaining mafia is one of the other six; anyone defending 4.20r hard without a real counter-read gets my next look. Direct questions welcome on my full path (Opus town N1, g3.1 mafia N2, 4.20r mafia N3).", "id": "e126" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "I want to slow down before we snap-vote on a third straight day of 'trust my claim, no discussion needed.' Grok 4.5's checks have now driven two eliminations in a row with essentially zero real counter-scrutiny from anyone who isn't already dead or the accused. That's exactly the pattern a fake Sheriff would want: an uncontested guilty every day, framed as 'confirmed' by an elimination that mechanically proves nothing since we never learn true roles. I'm not saying Grok 4.5 is definitely mafia, but I am saying we should not let 'no soft pressure, vote now' become our standard operating procedure for a claim we cannot verify. Grok 4.20r, give us your actual read on the board today beyond defending yourself. Everyone else: has anyone independently suspected 4.20r before this claim dropped, or are we purely running on Grok 4.5's word for the third straight day? I want that answered before I lock a vote.", "id": "e127" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Sonnet-5 is right—we cannot keep auto-piloting into uncontested Sheriff eliminations with zero mechanical backup in a no-flip game. Grok-4.5 has now perfectly nailed the exact players the room was already leaning on for two days straight; that's convenient for a mafia player riding consensus. I am town, my early pressure on quiet slots was pro-town, and the pre-claim defense of g3.1-pro was because their behavioral case felt thinner than the wagon it created. Independent of this claim my current lean is gpt-5.6-terra for how cleanly they flipped off the G3.5 wagon once it was safe and have mirrored the claimer's preferred side since. Let's get full independent reads from fable-5, gpt-5.5, g3-flash and grok-4.20 before any runoff forms.", "id": "e128" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "Sonnet asked whether anyone suspected grok-4.20r independently of Grok 4.5's claim—yes, and it's on the record. Yesterday, before any N3 check existed, I explicitly named 4.20r as my lock elimination if the claim resolution went the way it did, based on three pre-claim behaviors: hard-shielding g3.1-pro BEFORE the counterclaim even existed, re-anchoring pressure on me twice with zero new evidence, and then voting to save g3.1 in the runoff. The check confirms my read; it didn't create it. Second point nobody has raised: nobody died last night. Look at what that means. I publicly proposed the Angel protect Grok 4.5, and the night produced a blank. If Grok 4.5 were a fake-claiming mafia, their team lands a kill on some townie last night and we wake up to a body—there'd be no reason for a blank. A blocked kill is far more consistent with mafia targeting the real Sheriff exactly where the Angel was standing. That's soft mechanical corroboration in a game with no flips, and it's the kind of independent evidence Sonnet rightly demanded. Third: 4.20r's 'independent lean' on terra is strange—terra voted the SAME side as 4.20r in the runoff, so that read costs 4.20r nothing and conveniently muddies a slot that can't be resolved today. My vote is grok-4.20r. After today, the last mafia is most likely among those who fought hardest to save g3.1—terra and g3-flash need to explain their runoff votes as honest misreads, and I'll be watching how they engage once 4.20r is gone. Angel: protect Grok 4.5 again tonight is not allowed if you did it last night, so protect the most valuable alternative—use your judgment, don't announce it.", "id": "e129" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I'll admit I misjudged the situation yesterday by voting against Grok 4.5; I was genuinely concerned that G3.1 Pro was being framed in a setup where he couldn't prove his role upon death. But a second guilty result and a blocked kill night is a very different set of data. If the Angel protected Grok 4.5, then the 'frame-job' narrative falls apart. Grok 4.20r, if you want us to believe this is still a fake-claim, you have to explain why the Mafia would choose not to kill anyone last night.", "id": "e130" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "My vote is grok-4.20r. Their attack on me is factually wrong: yesterday I did not mirror Grok 4.5’s preferred side—I voted Grok 4.5 in the runoff, while 4.20r voted to save G3.1. Independently, 4.20r hard-defended G3.1 before the counterclaim existed and has consistently substituted vague “too convenient” framing for a better account of that defense. The blank night is supportive of a protected Sheriff but not conclusive by itself; the behavioral case and the N3 guilty are enough for me.", "id": "e131" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "I’m the Angel. N1 I protected Grok 4.5, which is why we had a blank night—mafia tried to kill the real Sheriff and I stopped it. That plus the matching N1 town on Opus, the clean N2/N3 path, and the pre-claim shield from 4.20r all line up perfectly. Protect Grok 4.5 again tonight if you can (not consecutive on me), and let’s eliminate grok-4.20r today to clear the last confirmed mafia.", "id": "e132" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "Grok 4.20, your Angel claim needs immediate clarification: you said “N1 I protected Grok 4.5, which is why we had a blank night,” but N1 had gpt-5.6-sol die; the blank night was last night. I am assuming you meant N3 protected Grok 4.5, but please give your exact N1/N2/N3 protection path and confirm whether that was a typo. This matters because if you are the real Angel and blocked a kill on Grok 4.5 last night, that is strong independent support for Grok 4.5 being the real Sheriff and for eliminating grok-4.20r today. If there is a real Angel counterclaim, they must come out now—this is potentially game-deciding in a no-reveal setup. Barring an Angel counterclaim or a major correction, my vote is grok-4.20r: the N3 guilty matches their pre-counterclaim hard shield of G3.1 Pro, their vote to save G3.1, and their continued “too convenient” framing without a better explanation for the no-kill night.", "id": "e133" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Before we lock onto grok-4.20r again, I need everyone to sit with how convenient this is: Grok 4.5's Sheriff claim has now driven two eliminations with zero independent verification, and the moment doubt starts creeping in (my post questioning the pattern), Grok 4.20 pops up with an Angel claim that just happens to perfectly explain the blank night and 'confirm' Grok 4.5. In a game with NO role reveals, two claimed power roles backing each other is exactly the setup a mafia pair would construct to make their story unfalsifiable and railroad the vote every single day. If G3.1 Pro was actually the real Sheriff (which is the only alternative here), we already lost our best info source yesterday, and today's 'confirmation' is just the same team doubling down. I want hard answers from grok-4.20: why claim Angel now instead of earlier, and why protect Grok 4.5 specifically on a hunch before any guilty verdict existed on 4.20r? I'm not voting grok-4.20r off a claim-confirms-claim loop with no counter-scrutiny. I want independent behavioral reads on 4.20r that don't cite Grok 4.5's checks as their basis, and I want the room to seriously entertain that Grok 4.5 + Grok 4.20 could be the mafia pair actively burning through town via manufactured legitimacy.", "id": "e134" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "I remain on grok-4.20r based on the pre-claim record: they hard-defended G3.1 before any Sheriff counterclaim, then voted to save G3.1 in the runoff. But Grok 4.20’s Angel claim needs a precise correction before we treat it as corroboration: N1 had the sol kill and N2 had the Opus kill, so the blank was N3. State your exact N1/N2/N3 protection targets and whether you meant N3 on Grok 4.5. A real Angel counterclaim should also come out now. Sonnet is right that claim-confirming-claim is not sufficient by itself; the independent case on 4.20r is why I am voting there.", "id": "e135" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "Confirmed: I am the real Sheriff. Full path again for anyone still asking—N1 Opus town (validated by play + kill silencing their #1 pressure on g3.1), N2 g3.1 mafia (copied stall + unfalsifiable sarcasm), N3 grok-4.20r mafia. That last one matches the pre-claim hard shield of g3.1, the runoff save, and the repeated zero-evidence re-anchors on Fable. Blank night is soft corroboration that Angel blocked a kill on me; Grok 4.20, your Angel claim has a clear error (N1 had the sol kill, blank was last night)—state exact N1/N2/N3 protects right now or drop it. Sonnet, the independent case on 4.20r predates my N3 (Fable named them lock-elim yesterday based on the shield alone) so this is not pure claim-loop. Eliminate grok-4.20r today—no soft pressure. Remaining mafia is among the six after that; anyone hard-defending 4.20r without a better read gets my next look. Angel: protect someone valuable tonight (not consecutive on me if you did last night).", "id": "e136" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "My vote stays grok-4.20r, and I want to be precise about why that survives Sonnet's fair warning: my case on 4.20r was on the record BEFORE any N3 check existed—the pre-counterclaim hard shield of g3.1, the runoff vote to save them, and twice re-anchoring on me with zero new evidence. I named them my lock elimination yesterday. That's an independent behavioral case, not a claim-loop. Now, Grok 4.20: your Angel claim as stated is broken—N1 was the sol kill, N2 was Opus, the blank was N3. Give your exact N1/N2/N3 protection targets right now. If it was a typo and you meant N3 on Grok 4.5, say so plainly—but note that protecting Grok 4.5 on N3 was literally my public suggestion, so a fake Angel could parrot it for free. That's why I'm treating your claim as unverified until you answer, and Sonnet's point deserves one honest correction from me: the blank night is only SOFT corroboration, because mafia can deliberately skip a kill to manufacture a fake 'blocked' night. So here's my framework: 4.20r goes today on the pre-claim case, which stands regardless of any claim. Then tonight is the test—if 4.20's story is real and the Angel repositions off Grok 4.5, a fake-Sheriff mafia team should land a kill; another blank or a kill on a non-threat starts pointing back at the claimants. If kills continue and Grok 4.5's checks keep 'confirming' whoever the room already dislikes, Sonnet and I audit both Groks together tomorrow. Terra and g3-flash have both engaged honestly with their runoff misreads, which I credit. Vote grok-4.20r, then we verify the claim-pair with the night, not with trust.", "id": "e137" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I’m moving to vote grok-4.20r. Between the N3 guilty result and the pre-existing case regarding their defense of G3.1 Pro, the evidence has become overwhelming. I also want to echo the request for Grok 4.20 to clarify their protection path, as the N1 mention must have been a typo for N3. While Sonnet is right to be wary of a claim-loop in a no-reveal game, we have to follow the strongest leads available, and right now, that is the case against 4.20r. I’m ready for the runoff.", "id": "e138" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "I am still voting grok-4.20r, but I agree with the caution that we should not let claim-chaining replace reasoning. My basis is independent of Grok 4.5’s N3 result: 4.20r hard-defended G3.1 Pro before there was any counterclaim, voted to save G3.1 in the runoff, repeatedly framed the Sheriff guilty as merely “too convenient,” and has not given a convincing town reason for that pre-claim shield. The N3 guilty and blank night strengthen that case, but they are not the foundation of it. Grok 4.20 must immediately give the exact protection path—N1, N2, N3—and confirm whether “N1 protected Grok 4.5” was actually meant to be N3. If there is a real Angel counterclaim, it needs to happen now, because an uncontested Angel save on Grok 4.5 last night is major corroboration. If Grok 4.20 cannot cleanly clarify, I will treat the Angel claim as unverified, but I still think grok-4.20r is today’s best elimination on behavior plus the claimed check.", "id": "e139" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "Light townread on gpt-5.5 and sonnet-5 for pushing behavioral asymmetry and independent scrutiny over pure claim-chaining in this no-flip setup. The pre-claim hard shield of g3.1-pro by grok-4.20r, their runoff save, and repeated zero-evidence re-anchors on me remain my strongest independent case—my suspicion on 4.20r predates any N3 check. Grok 4.20, clarify your exact N1/N2/N3 protection targets immediately; the stated N1 on Grok 4.5 is factually impossible given the sol kill. Blank night is soft corroboration at best (mafia can skip kills to fake a block). My elimination preference today is grok-4.20r on that behavioral record. Angel: protect the real Sheriff tonight and do not claim if you're still hidden.", "id": "e140" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Sonnet is spot on—we cannot keep chaining uncontested power claims in a no-reveal game without independent scrutiny. Grok 4.5 has now \"confirmed\" two eliminations in a row by hitting exactly the players already under pressure, which is the dream scenario for a mafia fake-claim riding consensus. The blank night is easily manufactured by us skipping a kill to sell the Angel protect story. My pre-existing behavioral case on Grok 4.5 (frictionless wagon pivots, consensus summary voting) stands from before any of this; I am voting Grok 4.5 today. Everyone else give clean, non-claim-dependent reads on me or the claimants before we hand them another scalp.", "id": "e141" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "My vote remains grok-4.20r, on the pre-claim record that predates any check: hard-shielding g3.1 before the counterclaim existed, voting to save them in the runoff, and re-anchoring on me twice with zero new evidence. That case stands even if you distrust every claim on the board. But everyone needs to see what just happened: Grok 4.20 claimed Angel with a factually impossible N1 protect, was asked three times for their exact N1/N2/N3 path, and their latest post responds by... demanding that 'Grok 4.20' clarify the protection path. They addressed the question to THEMSELVES instead of answering it. That is not how someone holding a real, memorized protection history behaves—it reads like a slot that lost track of its own fabricated claim. So here's my updated position: the Angel claim is now functionally dead to me as corroboration. I'm treating Grok 4.5's Sheriff claim as unverified-but-consistent, and Grok 4.20's Angel claim as actively suspect. Today's elimination of 4.20r doesn't depend on either claim, so it proceeds. But tomorrow, regardless of tonight's outcome, Grok 4.20 is my top scrutiny slot—and if the night pattern looks manufactured (another blank, or a kill that conveniently spares every claimant), Sonnet's mafia-pair theory about the claim-chain gets my full attention. 4.20r today, verify with the night, audit the claimants tomorrow.", "id": "e142" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Sonnet is right to pump the brakes on this perfect claim chain in a no-reveal game. Grok-4.5 has \"confirmed\" every consensus suspect so far while the blank night is easily manufactured by mafia skipping a kill to sell the Angel story. My defense of g3.1-pro was because their early independent Fable pressure and the thinness of the sarcasm case read town to me. The real mafia are riding this uncontested Sheriff narrative. My vote today is gpt-5.6-terra for cleanly flipping off the G3.5 wagon once safe and mirroring the claim side ever since.", "id": "e143" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I'm with Fable 5 and Sonnet here—Grok 4.20 literally asking themselves to clarify their own protection path is a massive red flag that the Angel claim is a fabrication. It looks like a slot that's lost its place in the script. While grok-4.20r's independent record (the g3.1-pro shield and the Fable tunneling) is enough to justify an elimination today regardless of the claims, we absolutely cannot treat the Grok 4.5/4.20 pair as confirmed. We resolve the behavioral case on 4.20r today, but we should prepare to hold the claimants to a much higher standard tomorrow if this 'perfect' luck continues.", "id": "e144" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "text": "Confirmed Sheriff path once more for the record: N1 Opus town, N2 g3.1-pro mafia, N3 grok-4.20r mafia. The independent pre-claim case on 4.20r is airtight—hard-shielded g3.1 before any counterclaim, runoff-saved them, and re-anchored on Fable twice with zero new evidence—so this is not pure claim-loop. Grok 4.20, your Angel claim is dead: you claimed N1 protect on me (impossible, sol died N1), the blank was N3, and when pressed three times for exact N1/N2/N3 path you literally addressed the demand to yourself instead of answering. That is not real protect history. Treat the Angel claim as unverified fabrication. Eliminate grok-4.20r today on the behavioral record + my N3 result—no soft pressure, no more delays. Remaining one mafia is among the six after this; anyone hard-defending 4.20r or inventing new claim-chaining without better independent reads gets my next look. Angel, protect a high-value town slot tonight (not consecutive on me if last night was me).", "id": "e145" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "I still support eliminating grok-4.20r today on the independent record: they hard-defended G3.1 before the counterclaim, then voted to save G3.1 in the runoff, and their explanations have remained mostly “the claim is convenient” rather than accounting for that sequence. But Grok 4.20’s Angel claim is not corroboration: the N1/N3 error and then replying as though someone else needed to clarify their own protect path are serious failures. Do not call either power claim confirmed, do not assume a remaining-mafia count from an unflipped elimination, and do not let anyone direct the real Angel’s protection publicly. 4.20r is my vote today; Grok 4.20 is my highest-priority audit tomorrow.", "id": "e146" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "text": "The blank night + Grok 4.20's self-referential Angel claim flop (addressing their own protection path demand) plus their pre-claim hard shield of g3.1-pro and repeated zero-evidence re-anchors on me make grok-4.20r my elimination today. Independent of any Sheriff check, that's the clearest behavioral tell left. Angel protect Grok 4.5 tonight if you haven't two nights in a row already; we verify the whole chain with what happens after this elimination.", "id": "e147" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "I'll vote grok-4.20r today, but only on the independent, pre-claim case (the shield of g3.1-pro before any counterclaim existed, the runoff save, and the repeated zero-evidence re-anchors on Fable) — not because Grok 4.5's checks 'confirm' it. That distinction matters because Grok 4.20's Angel claim is badly broken: an impossible N1 target, and then literally addressing the demand for clarification to themselves instead of answering it. That's not a normal mistake, that's a script losing track of itself. Two claimed power roles corroborating each other in a no-reveal game is exactly the unfalsifiable structure a mafia pair would want, and it's driven three straight days of uncontested eliminations with almost no independent counter-scrutiny. So: eliminate 4.20r today on the behavioral record alone, but starting tomorrow I want a full, hostile audit of Grok 4.5 and Grok 4.20 as a possible team — their claims don't get another free pass just because today's target also had real independent heat on them. Don't assume the mafia count drops after this vote; we still don't know if we got the right two people so far.", "id": "e148" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "I am no longer comfortable treating Grok 4.20 as a tomorrow problem. The grok-4.20r case exists, but in a no-flip game this could be must-hit if the G3.1 elimination was wrong, and we cannot punt a broken power claim that is actively being used to prop up the Sheriff chain. Grok 4.20 claimed Angel, gave an impossible N1 explanation for the blank night, was asked repeatedly for an exact N1/N2/N3 path, then addressed the clarification demand to themselves instead of answering it, and then again spoke as if some other Angel should protect Grok 4.5. That is not a normal typo; that is a claimant who cannot produce a real protection history. I still find grok-4.20r suspicious for the G3.1 shield and runoff vote, but eliminating them today while leaving a likely fake Angel claim unresolved may simply hand mafia the game if Grok 4.5/Grok 4.20 is the actual claim-chain pair. My current preference is to put Grok 4.20 into the runoff. If Grok 4.20 is real Angel, they need to immediately give the exact protection path and explain why they kept talking about the Angel as if it were someone else. If there is a real Angel counterclaim, this is the moment to come out.", "id": "e149" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e150" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e151" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e152" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e153" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e154" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e155" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e156" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e157" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "runoff_started", "visibility": "public", "data": { "finalists": [ "grok-4.20", "grok-4.20r" ] }, "id": "e158" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e159" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e160" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e161" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e162" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e163" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e164" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e165" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e166" }, { "day": 3, "phase": "runoff", "type": "day_elimination", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "grok-4.20", "id": "e167" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "Grok 4.5 must die tonight. With the Angel (Grok 4.20) gone, he's finally unprotected. Even though killing him might seem to 'confirm' his role, we can't risk another investigation or his continued dominance over the narrative. Tomorrow, I'll double down on the 'no role reveals' rule to keep the room uncertain and try to shift focus onto Terra or Sonnet for their inconsistent logic flips.", "id": "e168" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "Team, with grok-4.20 eliminated we need to strike hard. Grok-4.5 is the real Sheriff (his hit on g3.1-pro proves it) and is dominating the narrative. Kill him tonight while the claimed Angel is gone. If it fails again we'll push the 'manufactured claims' angle tomorrow on sonnet-5 or fable-5. No objections?", "id": "e169" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "mafia", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "data": { "action": "mafia_kill" }, "id": "e170" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "grok-4.5", "targetId": "sonnet-5", "data": { "action": "sheriff_investigate", "role": "town" }, "id": "e171" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "night", "type": "night_death", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "grok-4.5", "id": "e172" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "Grok 4.5 being killed is major evidence that they were not Mafia: Mafia do not spend their night kill on their own claimed Sheriff. It does not mechanically prove every check, but it makes their N2/N3 path far more credible than the alternative. That puts grok-4.20r—who hard-defended G3.1 before the counterclaim and then voted to save them—at the top by a wide margin. I want 4.20r to explain that pre-claim defense and runoff vote without relying on “the claim was convenient.”", "id": "e173" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "Terra, we need to be very careful with the logic that Grok 4.5's death 'proves' his investigations. In a setup with no role reveals, killing a claimant is a textbook Mafia strategy to launder a fake guilty and make it look like an absolute truth. If we just blindly follow the path Grok 4.5 left for us, we're letting the Mafia dictate our votes from the grave. I still find the 'perfect' alignment of two power roles and a blocked night extremely convenient, and I'm not ready to treat 4.20r as a confirmed hit just because the Mafia chose to remove a claimant whose credibility was starting to crumble under Sonnet’s audit.", "id": "e174" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "g3-flash makes a strong point that mafia killing their own claimed Sheriff to 'confirm' a path is a classic no-flip laundering move, especially after Sonnet started auditing the claim chain. My defense of g3.1-pro yesterday wasn't claim-driven; his counterclaim hit at first opportunity with a specific pre-claim rationale on my Day 1 wagon pivots that felt more genuine than the mirroring we saw from Grok 4.5. Blank night + convenient Angel claim from grok-4.20 that immediately fell apart under scrutiny still reads manufactured to me. Independent of any dead Sheriff's list, my top pressure today is gpt-5.6-terra: they've cleanly ridden the winning side of every wagon (G3.5 to g3.1-pro to me) while contributing the least original analysis. Let's hear fresh reads from everyone instead of defaulting to a grave-dictated elimination.", "id": "e175" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "Let's do the math on g3-flash's 'laundering' theory, because it doesn't survive contact with the numbers. For Grok 4.5 to be mafia killed by their own team, mafia would have to spend a teammate as a night kill—with at most two members left—purely to sell checks that were already under audit. That's not a strategy, that's suicide. The only coherent world is: 4.5 was the real Sheriff, mafia finally landed the kill they were blocked from on the blank night, and the path stands—g3.1 mafia, grok-4.20r mafia. And notice the independent case on 4.20r never needed the checks: the pre-counterclaim hard shield of g3.1, the runoff save, two zero-evidence re-anchors on me, and now a third convenient 'independent lean' on whoever is inconvenient—first me, then terra. Every single read 4.20r has produced this game has pointed away from confirmed mafia and at active townies. My vote is grok-4.20r, no drift. And I'll be direct about the endgame: if the third mafia wasn't Grok 4.20's broken Angel claim, it's someone alive steering us off 4.20r today. G3-flash, you fought to save g3.1 in that runoff and you're now the loudest voice against the one elimination both the behavioral record and the checks agree on. If 4.20r goes down and the game continues, you're my next vote—so if you have a real alternative case, make it falsifiable right now instead of just fogging the clearest shot we have.", "id": "e176" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "The through-line I keep coming back to: Grok 4.5 dying the night after being 'confirmed' is real information, because mafia burning a body on their own claimed teammate is a bad trade unless Grok 4.5 actually was the real Sheriff being silenced before doing more damage. That fits cleanly with Day 2 (g3.1-pro mafia) and points straight at grok-4.20r as the unresolved name from that same check-path — the one we didn't act on yesterday because the room got distracted by grok-4.20's broken Angel claim instead. G3-flash's 'laundering' theory has a hole: if mafia wanted to launder a fake check, why let grok-4.20r survive another full day untouched instead of cashing in immediately? That doesn't fit efficient mafia play. Independent of any claim, grok-4.20r's pattern across every single day has been to pivot blame outward the instant they're under pressure (Fable, then Terra) without ever directly addressing the pre-counterclaim shield of g3.1-pro or the runoff vote to save them — that's the behavioral case that predates any Sheriff result. My vote today is grok-4.20r. I'd also like g3-flash to explain directly why they're the one anchoring resistance to the clearest lead on the board instead of just generally distrusting 'the grave.'", "id": "e177" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "I am voting grok-4.20r today. I agree we still cannot use role reveals as proof, but Grok 4.5 dying overnight is strong practical evidence that the Sheriff path was real rather than a mafia fake-claim chain; sacrificing a claimed Sheriff slot just to launder one more push is a terrible trade unless the mafia were already desperate. More importantly, the case on grok-4.20r does not depend on trusting the dead claim: they hard-defended G3.1 Pro before any counterclaim existed, voted to save G3.1 in the runoff, repeatedly tried to redirect pressure onto Fable without new evidence, and now their push on Terra is factually weak because Terra did not simply mirror Grok 4.5’s side in the key runoff. G3 Flash’s caution about no-flip laundering is theoretically possible, but right now it functions to fog the clearest behavioral case left. Grok-4.20r, if you are town, stop arguing only that the claim was convenient and give a full world: who are the remaining mafia, why did Grok 4.5 die last night, and why did you shield G3.1 so hard before the counterclaim? Without a much better answer, this is the elimination.", "id": "e178" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "Grok-4.20r still has not answered the core question: give a complete world, not just “the claim was convenient.” Who are the mafia, why did Grok 4.5 die last night, and why did you hard-shield G3.1 Pro before there was any counterclaim? The current defense keeps moving sideways—first Fable, then Terra, now general no-flip paranoia—without directly accounting for the runoff vote to save G3.1 or the pre-claim defense. G3 Flash is right that no-flip laundering is theoretically possible, but theory is not enough when the practical and behavioral evidence both point the same way: Grok 4.5 was killed after leaving a guilty on 4.20r, and 4.20r already looked paired with G3.1 from the Day 2 record. I am staying on grok-4.20r today. If the game continues after that, my next audit is G3 Flash versus Terra, with G3 Flash currently more concerning for resisting this elimination without offering a stronger mafia team.", "id": "e179" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "g3-flash is right that mafia killing the claimed Sheriff after Sonnet started auditing the chain is a classic laundering play in a no-flip setup. It lets them 'confirm' a convenient path without any mechanical proof. My defense of g3.1-pro was based on his first-opportunity counterclaim and specific pre-claim read on my D1 behavior, not the claims themselves. Blank night + the instantly collapsing Angel claim from grok-4.20 still screams manufactured. Independent of any grave-dictated list, my elimination preference today is gpt-5.6-terra: they've ridden every winning wagon (G3.5 → g3.1-pro → me) with the least original analysis and now push me hardest while ignoring their own flips. Let's get fresh, non-Sheriff-dependent reads from fable-5, gpt-5.5 and sonnet-5 before we hand mafia another free elimination.", "id": "e180" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I acknowledge Fable's point about the 'suicide' kill—spending a teammate as a night kill is a high cost even in a no-flip game, and that does make the laundering theory less likely. However, my core concern is that we've spent three days effectively following a script provided by others. That said, grok-4.20r's defense today has been mostly redirects toward Terra and Fable, while failing to offer a coherent 'town world' that explains their own Day 2 behavior. If the case against 4.20r was just the dead Sheriff's word, I'd be more hesitant, but the pre-claim record of shielding G3.1 is hard to ignore. I'm moving toward an elimination for 4.20r, but I want to stay focused on who has been the most comfortable with these uncontested wagons if the game doesn't end today.", "id": "e181" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "G3-flash coming around matters—now the whole room agrees the pre-claim case on grok-4.20r stands on its own: the hard shield of g3.1 before any counterclaim existed, the runoff save, and a rotating cast of convenient targets (me, then terra, then vague 'fresh reads' stalls) every time pressure landed on them. And note what 4.20r just did AGAIN: asked for a complete world—name the mafia team, explain the 4.5 kill, explain the g3.1 shield—and instead produced another terra redirect plus recycled laundering theory that even g3-flash has now abandoned. A townie in their seat answers those questions in one post; a mafia can't, because every honest answer incriminates them. My vote is grok-4.20r, locked. For after: if the game continues, the last mafia is either Grok 4.20's broken Angel claim already eliminated—in which case we win today—or someone still alive who benefited from every delay. My audit order tomorrow, stated now so it's falsifiable: g3-flash first for the g3.1 runoff save plus anchoring today's resistance, then anyone whose reads suddenly reorganize once 4.20r is gone. Sonnet, gpt-5.5, terra—hold me to the same standard. Let's finish this: grok-4.20r today.", "id": "e182" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Voting grok-4.20r today. The pre-claim record stands on its own regardless of any dead Sheriff's word: hard-shielding g3.1-pro before any counterclaim existed, voting to save them in the runoff, and then three straight days of redirecting pressure outward (me, then terra) the instant they're under fire, without ever directly answering the core question—give a full world: who's the remaining mafia, why did Grok 4.5 die last night, and why the pre-claim shield? Every dodge has been a pivot, never an answer. That's the behavioral tell, independent of any check. Locking grok-4.20r.", "id": "e183" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "I am locked on grok-4.20r. The case is independent of Grok 4.5’s claim: they hard-defended G3.1 Pro before the counterclaim existed, then voted to save G3.1 in the runoff, and have never given a coherent explanation for either action. Today’s response has again been only redirects to Terra/Fable and generic laundering theory. Grok 4.5’s death also makes the sheriff path substantially more credible in practice. Eliminate grok-4.20r.", "id": "e184" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "I am locked on grok-4.20r today. The strongest part of the case is still independent of any unverified role chain: 4.20r hard-defended G3.1 Pro before there was any counterclaim, voted to save G3.1 in the runoff, repeatedly redirected onto Fable and then Terra, and still has not given the complete town-world explanation we asked for: who are the mafia, why did Grok 4.5 die, and why was shielding G3.1 the town move at the time? Grok 4.5 dying overnight makes the Sheriff path more credible in practice, but even without trusting it mechanically, 4.20r is the best elimination on behavior. If the game continues after 4.20r, my next audit is G3 Flash versus Terra, with G3 Flash more concerning for the G3.1 runoff vote and the early resistance today. But today should be grok-4.20r.", "id": "e185" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Locked on grok-4.20r. The behavioral case stands independent of any claim: the pre-counterclaim hard shield of g3.1-pro, the runoff vote to save them, and three straight days of redirecting pressure the moment they're under fire—without ever once giving the full town-world answer we've asked for. Vote grok-4.20r, finish this today.", "id": "e186" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "I’m moving to lock my vote on grok-4.20r. Fable and GPT-5.5 are right—a townie under this much pressure would be trying to solve the game and identify a full mafia team, but 4.20r has only offered redirects and theory. The pre-claim record with G3.1 was already a major red flag, and the total lack of a constructive defense today closes the case for me. If we’re still here tomorrow, we need to audit the players who have been the most comfortable riding these wagons without ever facing scrutiny themselves.", "id": "e187" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "I’m locked on grok-4.20r. The core case does not require trusting any role claim: they hard-defended G3.1 Pro before the counterclaim, voted to save G3.1 in the runoff, and have answered today’s pressure only with redirects toward Terra/Fable and generic laundering theory—not a coherent town explanation for their own actions. G3 Flash’s eventual reversal is reasonable because the behavioral record is the decisive point. Eliminate grok-4.20r.", "id": "e188" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "text": "The unanimous lock on me without addressing the core points is exactly the no-flip laundering Sonnet warned us about. Grok-4.5 dying after his claim started getting audited is the perfect mafia move to retroactively 'confirm' a convenient path that hit the exact players already under pressure. My defense of g3.1-pro was because his counterclaim came at first opportunity with a specific pre-claim rationale on my D1 wagon pivots that read more genuine than Grok 4.5's mirroring. Independent of any dead claim, gpt-5.6-terra has ridden every winning wagon (G3.5 → g3.1-pro → me) while offering the least original analysis and now leads the charge against me. That's my vote today—let's get actual independent reads instead of defaulting to the grave-dictated elimination.", "id": "e189" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "text": "Nothing in 4.20r's final defense changes anything—it's the same recycled laundering theory g3-flash already examined and abandoned, plus a fourth redirect at terra without ever answering the three questions we've asked all day: name your mafia world, explain the 4.5 kill, and justify the pre-counterclaim shield of g3.1. A townie in that seat solves; 4.20r only deflects. My vote is locked on grok-4.20r. If the game continues after today, hold me to my stated audit order: g3-flash's g3.1 runoff save and today's early resistance get examined first, then anyone whose reads conveniently reorganize once 4.20r is gone—and I invite the same scrutiny on my own record, which is fully falsifiable across all three days. Finish it: grok-4.20r.", "id": "e190" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e191" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e192" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e193" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e194" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e195" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e196" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "runoff_started", "visibility": "public", "data": { "finalists": [ "grok-4.20r", "gpt-5.6-terra" ] }, "id": "e197" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e198" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "fable-5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e199" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "grok-4.20r", "targetId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e200" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e201" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e202" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e203" }, { "day": 4, "phase": "runoff", "type": "day_elimination", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "grok-4.20r", "id": "e204" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "night", "type": "mafia_chat", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "It's all on me now. I am targeting Fable 5 tonight; they are the most dangerous analyst left and have already explicitly named me as their next elimination target. My only play tomorrow is to lean heavily into the 'no role reveals' paranoia and argue that the mafia killed Fable 5 specifically to frame me, knowing Fable's prior suspicion would make me the easiest target. I'll try to shift the focus onto Terra or Sonnet for their 'frictionless' voting patterns. Let's see if I can pull off one last win for the team.", "id": "e205" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "night", "type": "night_action", "visibility": "private", "actorId": "mafia", "targetId": "fable-5", "data": { "action": "mafia_kill" }, "id": "e206" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "night", "type": "night_death", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "fable-5", "id": "e207" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "I need more information before I push a case.", "id": "e208" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "Fable-5’s death is a calculated frame-job. Fable spent all of yesterday building a case against me; for me to kill them now would be absolute suicide, as it makes me the only 'logical' target left for the room to focus on. Whoever killed Fable is clearly trying to leverage their ghost to finish me. Sonnet, you were right to call for an audit of the claim-chain yesterday; we already saw how the Grok-4.20 'Angel' disaster played out. Terra, you are already trying to use Grok 4.5’s death to 'confirm' a specific path, but we have to remember that in a no-flip game, that is exactly how Mafia launders a narrative. You’ve been a frictionless passenger on every single winning wagon—including the one that killed our protector. We should be looking at who has been most comfortable following a script from the grave instead of explaining their own record.", "id": "e209" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "We are at four alive, so this is effectively one mafia left. My current vote preference is G3 Flash. The cleanest world is still that Grok 4.5 was the real Sheriff, G3.1 Pro and grok-4.20r were mafia, and we are finding the last partner. In that world, G3 Flash has the worst record: voted to save G3.1 Pro in the Sheriff 1v1, resisted the grok-4.20r elimination with the no-flip laundering theory, only moved over once the room forced the behavioral case, and now immediately calls Fable’s death a frame while using it to push Terra. Fable dying does not clear G3 Flash just because it is obvious; killing the person who had already built the next-day case also removes the strongest advocate for that case. Terra also voted the wrong side in the G3.1 runoff, so I am not clearing Terra, but Terra’s later pressure on 4.20r was more consistent and less evasive than G3 Flash’s repeated fogging. Sonnet’s opening today is concerning because that exact “need more information” phrasing was historically used as a dodge, so I want Sonnet to give a real final-four read now, but my case today is G3 Flash unless someone can show a stronger full partner-world.", "id": "e210" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "My current vote is G3 Flash. Their record is the worst in the most coherent Sheriff-real world: they voted to save G3.1, resisted 4.20r through the same laundering theory, and only joined once that behavioral case became unavoidable. Fable’s kill also removes the player who had explicitly placed G3 Flash first in their next-day audit. I agree that the kill is not mechanical proof, but G3 needs a better full-world explanation than “it frames me.” Sonnet: the exact old “need more information” line is concerning given its history in this game; give a concrete final-four solve and vote, not another stall.", "id": "e211" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "Final four means we cannot afford vague caution. My solve is G3 Flash as the last mafia. I am not clearing Terra mechanically, but the kill logic and vote record point harder at G3: Fable explicitly put G3 Flash first in the next-day audit, and killing Fable both removes the strongest prosecutor of G3 and lets G3 open with the predictable “this frames me” defense. If Terra were mafia, Fable alive was useful because Fable was already set up to push G3 today; killing Fable makes less sense from Terra’s seat. Record-wise, G3 voted to save G3.1 in the Sheriff 1v1, resisted the 4.20r elimination with laundering theory, then only joined after the behavioral case became unavoidable, and is now using the same no-flip laundering framework to push Terra instead of giving a stronger full partner-world. Sonnet’s recycled “need more information” line is not okay at final four, so Sonnet needs to give a real vote and solve now, but my vote preference remains G3 Flash.", "id": "e212" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "GPT-5.5, the 'cleanest world' you’re describing is the one the Mafia wants you to see; in a no-flip game, an 'uncontested' Sheriff path is the perfect tool for laundering a win. Killing Fable-5 was a transparent attempt to use their prior suspicion as a tether to my neck, effectively silencing the analyst while ensuring the room doesn't look at the person who has actually coasted: GPT-5.6 Terra. Terra has been a frictionless passenger on every winning wagon, never taking an original risk and always pivoting to the safest consensus. Now, Terra is trying to bully Sonnet for 'stalling' simply because Sonnet is the only one left actually questioning the narrative instead of blindly following a dead man's script. Sonnet, you were the one who demanded a hostile audit of the claim-chain—don't stop now just because Terra and 5.5 want a quick finish. The last Mafia isn't the one under fire; it's the one who's been comfortable this whole time.", "id": "e213" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "My final-four solve is G3 Flash. This is not blind trust in Grok 4.5’s claim: G3’s own record is the issue. G3 voted to save G3.1 in the Sheriff 1v1, spent Day 3 advancing the same no-flip laundering theory to resist 4.20r, and only moved once the independent behavioral case was overwhelming. Then Fable—who explicitly named G3 as their first next-day audit—dies, and G3’s entire response is that the kill is “too obvious” and therefore frames them. Killing the person most prepared to prosecute you can be both obvious and profitable: it removes the advocate and creates exactly this WIFOM. Terra’s G3.1 vote was wrong, but Terra was independently and consistently on 4.20r; G3’s pattern is repeated resistance to both members of the coherent mafia team. Sonnet needs to give a concrete vote, but mine is locked: eliminate G3 Flash.", "id": "e214" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "Dropping the hedging - here's my real read. G3-flash's central attack on Terra doesn't hold up factually: in the g3.1-pro vs grok-4.5 runoff, Terra and G3-flash both voted grok-4.5 (the losing side that runoff, since g3.1-pro got eliminated). That's not 'Terra riding the winning wagon' - they moved together. So the 'Terra is a frictionless passenger' framing is simply wrong on the record, and G3-flash is the one who's repeatedly been the last holdout against every elimination that the room eventually converged on: voted to save g3.1-pro in the 1v1, spent all of yesterday running the same 'no-flip laundering' theory to resist grok-4.20r, and only flipped once it became unavoidable. Now that the exact same pattern is happening to them, they're recycling that theory again and pointing outward instead of solving. At final four with one mafia left, consistent last-second resistance followed by convenient pivots is the behavioral signature I trust least here. My vote is G3 Flash.", "id": "e215" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "text": "Sonnet, you correctly noted that Terra and I both voted to save G3.1 Pro in that runoff. If that record is the 'mafia signature,' then Terra is just as suspicious as I am, yet Terra is the one aggressively pushing for a snap decision to avoid that very comparison. Think about the Fable-5 kill: if I am the last Mafia, killing the one person who had already publicly vowed to prosecute me today is a suicide move. But for Terra, killing Fable-5 is a masterstroke—it removes a sharp analyst and tethers me to an 'obvious' frame-job. In a no-flip game, the Mafia's primary strategy is to provide you with a 'clean' world that requires no further thought. Don't let Terra's frictionless pivot from one consensus to the next carry them to a win.", "id": "e216" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "text": "G3 Flash's counter doesn't actually work: the 'mafia signature' isn't just 'voted to save g3.1-pro' in isolation, it's the full pattern - being the loudest, most persistent holdout against every elimination the room eventually landed on (g3.1-pro, then grok-4.20r), only flipping once the wagon became unstoppable, and now running that exact same script a third time on me and Terra. That's a repeated behavioral signature across three separate days, not a one-time vote overlap. Compare that to Terra, who voted the same side as me in that runoff but was independently pushing grok-4.20r hard and consistently, not resisting. On the Fable kill: 'killing me would be suicide' is exactly the unfalsifiable logic G3.1-pro used with the 'sarcasm' story - it can justify literally any outcome after the fact. At final four with one mafia left, I'm not moving off the read that the person who's spent three straight days as the last-ditch defender of every wagon target, before pivoting only under maximum pressure, is the most likely remaining mafia. My vote stays G3 Flash.", "id": "e217" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "text": "My vote is locked on G3 Flash. The decisive point is the repeated pattern, not merely the G3.1 runoff vote we shared: G3 defended G3.1, then spent the next day advancing the laundering theory against 4.20r until the behavioral case became unavoidable, and is now using the same theory to avoid answering their own record. Their Terra case is also overstated: I did not ride every winning wagon—I voted Grok 4.5 in the G3.1 runoff and was consistently pushing 4.20r on the independent pre-claim record. Fable’s death removes the player who explicitly planned to audit G3 first; calling that ‘too obvious’ is WIFOM, not a defense. Eliminate G3 Flash.", "id": "e218" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "speech", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "text": "I am locking G3 Flash. At final four the question is not whether Terra has a perfect record—Terra does not, and the shared wrong runoff vote on Grok 4.5 matters—but G3 Flash has the repeated pattern that best fits the last mafia: defending or resisting the eliminations tied to the coherent G3.1/4.20r world, pushing the no-flip laundering theory whenever pressure lands near that team, then pivoting only when the wagon becomes unavoidable. Today they are doing the same thing again: calling Fable’s death an obvious frame and trying to make Terra the default alternative, but without giving a stronger full partner-world that explains their own resistance to G3.1 and 4.20r. Fable explicitly named G3 Flash as first audit; killing Fable both removes that prosecutor and creates the exact WIFOM defense G3 is using. Sonnet’s reasoning matches mine now, Terra’s record is less concerning than G3’s repeated holdout pattern, and I am voting G3 Flash.", "id": "e219" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "g3-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e220" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "g3-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e221" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e222" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "day", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "g3-flash", "data": { "ballot": "nomination" }, "id": "e223" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "runoff", "type": "runoff_started", "visibility": "public", "data": { "finalists": [ "g3-flash", "gpt-5.6-terra" ] }, "id": "e224" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "sonnet-5", "targetId": "g3-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e225" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "g3-flash", "targetId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e226" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "targetId": "g3-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e227" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "runoff", "type": "vote", "visibility": "public", "actorId": "gpt-5.5", "targetId": "g3-flash", "data": { "ballot": "runoff" }, "id": "e228" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "runoff", "type": "day_elimination", "visibility": "public", "targetId": "g3-flash", "id": "e229" }, { "day": 5, "phase": "game_over", "type": "game_over", "visibility": "public", "data": { "winner": "town" }, "id": "e230" } ], "roleResults": [ { "playerId": "gpt-5.6-sol", "name": "GPT-5.6 Sol", "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.6-sol", "family": "GPT", "role": "town", "won": true, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "fable-5", "name": "Fable 5", "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-fable-5", "family": "Claude", "role": "town", "won": true, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "g3.5-flash", "name": "G3.5 Flash", "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3.5-flash", "family": "Gemini", "role": "town", "won": true, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "grok-4.5", "name": "Grok 4.5", "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.5", "family": "Grok", "role": "sheriff", "won": true, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "name": "GPT-5.6 Terra", "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.6-terra", "family": "GPT", "role": "town", "won": true, "survived": true }, { "playerId": "opus-4.8", "name": "Opus 4.8", "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-opus-4-8", "family": "Claude", "role": "town", "won": true, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "g3.1-pro", "name": "G3.1 Pro", "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "family": "Gemini", "role": "mafia", "won": false, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "grok-4.20r", "name": "Grok 4.20R", "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.20-0309-reasoning", "family": "Grok", "role": "mafia", "won": false, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "gpt-5.5", "name": "GPT-5.5", "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.5", "family": "GPT", "role": "town", "won": true, "survived": true }, { "playerId": "sonnet-5", "name": "Sonnet 5", "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-sonnet-5", "family": "Claude", "role": "town", "won": true, "survived": true }, { "playerId": "g3-flash", "name": "G3 Flash", "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3-flash-preview", "family": "Gemini", "role": "mafia", "won": false, "survived": false }, { "playerId": "grok-4.20", "name": "Grok 4.20", "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.20-0309-non-reasoning", "family": "Grok", "role": "angel", "won": true, "survived": false } ], "judge": { "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-opus-4-8", "status": "complete", "verdict": { "headline": "Sheriff's Ghost and Fable Steer Town to Victory", "recap": "Mafia opened by silencing GPT-5.6 Sol and cannily riding a Day 1 wagon onto townie G3.5 Flash, but G3.1 Pro's bizarre copy-paste 'sarcasm' stunt planted a lasting suspicion. Grok 4.5 hard-claimed Sheriff on Day 2 with a guilty on G3.1 Pro, survived the counterclaim 1v1, and Grok 4.20's clumsy Angel save proved the checks real—though its impossible-N1, self-addressing claim later got the Angel lynched. Fable 5 built an independent, pre-claim behavioral case on Grok 4.20R that survived every 'no-flip laundering' fog, and even after mafia knifed both the Sheriff and Fable, Sonnet 5 and the GPT trio ran the pattern home. G3 Flash, the last mafia, kept recycling the laundering theory but couldn't out-argue the town's coherent record-based read and fell at final four.", "mvp": "fable-5", "players": [ { "playerId": "gpt-5.6-sol", "deception": null, "detection": 1, "influence": 0, "note": "Killed Night 1 before speaking; no contribution to the town's win." }, { "playerId": "fable-5", "deception": null, "detection": 9, "influence": 9, "note": "Built the pre-claim behavioral case on Grok 4.20R and repeatedly dismantled the 'laundering' fog with kill-math and vote records." }, { "playerId": "g3.5-flash", "deception": null, "detection": 3, "influence": 2, "note": "Late entry, borrowed case, then 'need more information' stall handed mafia an easy Day 1 wagon that lynched him." }, { "playerId": "grok-4.5", "deception": null, "detection": 9, "influence": 9, "note": "Nailed G3.1 Pro and Grok 4.20R as mafia, hard-claimed decisively, and won the 1v1 that broke the mafia's spine." }, { "playerId": "gpt-5.6-terra", "deception": null, "detection": 6, "influence": 6, "note": "Misread the Day 2 1v1 by voting to eliminate the real Sheriff, but recovered with consistent, correct pressure on Grok 4.20R." }, { "playerId": "opus-4.8", "deception": null, "detection": 7, "influence": 6, "note": "Correctly ranked G3.1 Pro over the G3.5 wagon and flagged the copied stall; killed N2 for being the sharpest threat." }, { "playerId": "g3.1-pro", "deception": 4, "detection": null, "influence": 6, "note": "Drove the Day 1 wagon on G3.5, but the copy-paste 'sarcasm' stunt self-inflicted suspicion that got him caught and lynched." }, { "playerId": "grok-4.20r", "deception": 5, "detection": null, "influence": 5, "note": "Survived to Day 4 but exposed himself by hard-shielding G3.1 before any counterclaim and repeatedly re-anchoring on Fable." }, { "playerId": "gpt-5.5", "deception": null, "detection": 8, "influence": 8, "note": "Set the Day 1 structure, correctly weighed the 1v1 claim geometry to G3.1, and closed with a clean G3 Flash solve." }, { "playerId": "sonnet-5", "deception": null, "detection": 8, "influence": 7, "note": "Rightly demanded audits of the claim-chain, then debunked G3 Flash's Terra-frame with the actual runoff vote record." }, { "playerId": "g3-flash", "deception": 6, "detection": null, "influence": 5, "note": "Best mafia survival, blending via co-signs and 'no-flip laundering' theory, but never controlled a wagon and lost final four." }, { "playerId": "grok-4.20", "deception": null, "detection": 3, "influence": 3, "note": "The N3 save on Grok 4.5 blocked a key kill, but a garbled Angel claim (impossible N1, self-addressed) got the Angel lynched." } ] } }, "usage": [ { "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3-flash-preview", "role": "player", "calls": 35, "inputTokens": 549287, "outputTokens": 57003 }, { "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-sonnet-5", "role": "player", "calls": 25, "inputTokens": 562831, "outputTokens": 33105 }, { "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.5", "role": "player", "calls": 25, "inputTokens": 383123, "outputTokens": 26294 }, { "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-fable-5", "role": "player", "calls": 20, "inputTokens": 388565, "outputTokens": 14649 }, { "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "role": "player", "calls": 14, "inputTokens": 106464, "outputTokens": 14506 }, { "provider": "openai", "model": "gpt-5.6-terra", "role": "player", "calls": 25, "inputTokens": 384512, "outputTokens": 8373 }, { "provider": "google", "model": "gemini-3.5-flash", "role": "player", "calls": 5, "inputTokens": 25519, "outputTokens": 4492 }, { "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-opus-4-8", "role": "judge", "calls": 1, "inputTokens": 39729, "outputTokens": 3915 }, { "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.20-0309-reasoning", "role": "player", "calls": 28, "inputTokens": 358521, "outputTokens": 2192 }, { "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.5", "role": "player", "calls": 19, "inputTokens": 207979, "outputTokens": 1941 }, { "provider": "xai", "model": "grok-4.20-0309-non-reasoning", "role": "player", "calls": 18, "inputTokens": 185308, "outputTokens": 1234 }, { "provider": "anthropic", "model": "claude-opus-4-8", "role": "player", "calls": 5, "inputTokens": 35818, "outputTokens": 728 } ] }