Newbie 844 - Game Over (Scum Win)

[fhqwhgads]

Sorry, was away for the weekend. I definitely do NOT support a no-lynch. Even mislynches are helpful to town. A mislynch gives us a confirmed townie, dead, but confirmed. We can analyse that townies posts and other peoples posts regarding him. Also we can analyse lynch wagons.

Voting no lynch does not also give zero chance of hitting town, it gives zero chance of hitting scum.

[fhqwhgads]

By the way, my timezone is GMT+2, Monday has just started here. So I think it should be fair to wait a bit on hitogoroshi.

@Pyrogen- I’m particularly interested in your response to this, given that you seem so set on the No-Lynch course of action. With four players so against this route (two of whom are an IC and a SE) I don’t understand why you’ve stirred things up so early on. Did you know it would provoke this kind of reaction? We seem to have become quite hung up on questioning the motives of your policy.

When I read this, I pretty much started suspecting the following:

My early vote no lynch was really only meant to be in the spirit of a random vote. It was never seriously for no-lynch. But I stuck with it to spark a little discussion, if you will.

So I'll buy that for the time being. In fact, the discussion started is a pretty good one in terms of discussions sparked from random voting. For instance, more than one of us found Annachie's unwillingness to commit to a side a bit suspicious.

Now you seem to be dismissing this somewhat as a random vote:-

My early vote no lynch was really only meant to be in the spirit of a random vote.

Or do you?

I would vote randomly but that just seems unfair

I see what you are doing here, but I tend to believe Pyro's reasoning for now.

at the moment I am fairly suspicious of pyrogen for the no-vote untill people started doubting his motives and his sudden change to "actually, I was just testing you guys, heh heh"

Yes, technically true, but it did spark some discussion. Your 'lets not vote until everyone is here' suggestion would not have contributed much. Saying we should still talk is useless. Talk about what? The weather?

[fhqwhgads]

I was semi-surprised when I was called out on it...

Wait what? I thought it was done to stimulate discussion? Why then surprised? Did you REALLY not think it was going cause a stir doing something out of the ordinary?

So I set a little conversation trap...

Hmm. I'm not sure if you're not just contradicting what you are saying. I really got the impression this was your intention from the start.

That, my friend, is mindless bandwagonning, not scumhunting. Each person here should vote their own personal convictions, and not allow themselves to be swayed by some mythical "will of the town."

I agree with this. Putting some meaning in each number of votes is useless and counter productive.

The problem with such a system is that you ignore the influence of scum votes. And trust me, there's going to be scum votes.

If I think hes suspicious, I'll place the

second

vote.

Fixed that for you. You either think someone is scummy or not. If he is, you vote. Vote count should not be your concern (unless its the hammer and then we only wait for a role claim. A role claim doesn't make anyone less suspicious either, but it might increase the cost of a mislynch.)

self vote and unvote

This reeks of an ATE. As townies, our only (non power role) power in this game is our vote. Thus, our numbers are our advantage. Removing yourself is anti-town (unless you are scum, in which case it is pro-town!)

They will realize my actions are not scum actions, thus preventing my mislynch.

In this perfect word, mislynches also does not happen.

I would like to hear more from other people, but its getting late, so I will FOS fgads and with my other hand FOS JustMe for not posting for a while and even then not posting anything truly substantial.

I think I have made my time zone issue pretty clear. Unless not, I was probably sleeping through that whole debate.

[fhqwhgads]

Come on are you saying that the first and third vote on someone are the same? When voting the third vote on some one it certainly means you have to be MORE suspicious of that guy then a first vote as it means A: you bring attention to yourself for bandwagoning and B: You are really bringing the heat on this guy and may possibly help create a mislynch of an innocent.

Of course the value of a vote is much more tactile the closer the person gets to a hammer. But your willingness to vote someone should not be dependent on how many votes there are. Putting someone at L-1 isnt the same as putting the first or second vote on him, but your convictions for putting on the vote should not change.

The hammer, sure you need to be cautious, but you likewise need to be cautious on the L-1 (4th vote) as well. If you vote the fourth and scum hammers, they just caused a mislynch and ended the days discussion. I'll use your words which you have so conviently forgotten for this point: You cannot ignore the influence of scum votes. As an IC you should recognize that not all votes are equal?

Frankly, IMO mislynches are usually hammered by town. Scum put a lot of inspection on their actions if they do the hammer. It is for the same reason that I don't believe in quicklynches. Or rather, that a scum (or even town) player would never hammer on a quick bandwagon. That would be suicide. Scum have much more to lose than town.

Yet you have still posted only THREE times, the least amounts of posts out of anyone else. Surely even with the time zone thing, you can post as much analysis as everybody?

True, but when you post it usually takes an hour or two for someone to respond. You can have a nice little chat. In my case it usually takes around 8 to 12 hours before someone responds to my post. Do you want me to argue with myself?

Most of your post has been undermining my innocence. I do not see one quote where you consider my townieness or concede a point in favor of my townieness. Yet you do not vote, nor even FOS me? I find that strange.

You misunderstand me then. So let me be clear: I don't think you are scum... yet. You're very active and in our faces. Your no-lynch vote also put a lot of attention on yourself. This isn't something scum would do. Unless you are very ballsy scum.

But that does not give you a free pass and one can never be too careful. My points are there so you can clarify your stance. Give more information, so to speak. More information is ALWAYS good for town.

I would vote you but Hito is right, I suffer alot from OMGUSing everyone in both Mafia and IRL.

Technically I didn't vote you, so it wouldn't be OMGUS. If you want to vote me, do so. If you are town, and you feel you have enough of a cause to vote, then you shouldn't need to worry about how it would look to other people. Scum worries about this, because their votes are always insincere.

Now, I'd like to hear more from Annachie: Who do you suspect? Who do you think is town? Why? You post semi-regularly, but your posts contain very little content.

[fhqwhgads]

I don't support a Pyro wagon. In fact, his high profile makes him a very easy target for scum. It's my opinion that at least one of the scum have voted or FoS'ed him recently.

In fact, probably more likely they FoS'ed to try to start a bandwagon without actually voting.

@Annachie – If I’m cahoots with justme then we have to be the most inept pair of scum this site’s ever seen. I merely raise a couple of queries regarding Pyro’s motives for no-lynch, the vote on him drops from one to zero, and then….justme strikes? Yep, we’re the Laurel and Hardy of mafiascum alright!

This is WIFOM and I don't like it one bit. Like I said, Pyro is an easy target due to his high profile in this game. Also, scum could probably avoid being on the same bandwagon too soon for obvious reasons.

Pyrogen - if you are not, in fact, mafia, you need to get it under control because you are sucking attention away from actual scum hunting.

This.

Vote: Pyrogen

Wait... what? You tell him to calm down because he's distracting from scumhunting, even giving him excuses for that and then voting him in the next paragraph?

Vote: Dondero

Your WIFOM filled defense of something I didn't even think was such a big accusation makes me uncomfortable.

[fhqwhgads]

A few reasons how I think this might (possibly) be an error.

This is called coaching. How can he possibly now give a wrong answer?

[fhqwhgads]

Sorry, we had a public holiday yesterday, so I got some catching up to do:

I agree with hitogoroshi that looking for scum pairs is misleading this early in the game. Scum will probably avoid each other this early in the game, so we're much more likely to find someone acting scummy in isolation.

Ok, so it seems not much happened the last 2 days. The player analysis posts by both DarthRandal1138 and startransmission looks pretty good. I mostly agree with what they are saying and don't think anyone is being misinterpreted here.

I'd like to see more talking by Dondero and xvart.

[fhqwhgads]

Annachie

- not enough content in post. Has posted a lot, but not enough substance. Seems to be a ridiculous banter of non-committal jargon with hitogorshi regarding scum pairs.

Yes, I have also noticed this. Annachie has a lot to say about nothing at all.

yes, I have something to say. the reason for that, maybe controversial post xvart has just pulled up again is this: I thought that if we voted before everyone was in, it would keep somebody (possibly, though not necessarily a wolf) out of the limelight than what would be good for the 'village' as a whole. and, I thought if we didn't jump into things straight away, we could get some justified opinions and have a slightly higher chance of getting a mafia member.

Could you indulge me and elaborate on this? How exactly did you see this going down?

Ah, I see you did. So, any new leads/ideas?

The player-analysis posts are good, but it might also be a tactic to divert attention away from the ones posting it. However, it seems to me the posters under the most pressure (Pyro excluded) are posting very little.

Of course I have my suspicions, but I won't reveal them yet.

In short, why would hiding this information be beneficial to town?

[fhqwhgads]

fhqwhgads, perhaps Pyro wants to try and lay traps for people and listing his suspicions might make that more difficult.

If that is true, he should have said nothing at all. Making that statement is warning enough for scum to be weary.

Also, let him answer his questions himself

[fhqwhgads]

We really need to hear from Dondero.

And I still would like to hear Pyrogen's 'hidden' suspicions.

[fhqwhgads]

Mod: Dondero prod, please

While that's certainly true, xvart, I'd like to add an important caveat - it is incredibly important not to babble. Activity in the beginning of the game is pro-town, but talking for the sake of talking only helps scum.

Of course, this also makes it a bit of a nasty cycle because if no one is posting content no one can comment on it. :/

Yes and yes.

yes, but the probability of getting one would be higher if there were 2 mafia members playing

If we are going to play the probability game, I should point out to you that the probability of the last member to join being mafia is 1/9. Very good odds he might be town, meaning that if he was late the chances would be BETTER to find the two mafia in the remaining eight.

@Pyrogen: Meh, I don't like using meta, but I suppose you are welcome to use it. Not really much I can defend in your mild accusation though.

Atm I'm waiting for the Dondero post/replacement. Annachie is also pretty high on my list. Many short content free posts = active lurking.

[fhqwhgads]

I think we should probably give Dondero's replacement the benefit of the doubt (especially this early in the game).

Unvote

It is unfortunate that he was replaced and it also stands to logic that he can't answer for statements made by his predecessor. A new read is needed.

Thus my vote goes to the next scummy person on my list:

vote: Annachie

Firstly, what accusations?

Exactly.

Secondly, what content is needed? I think I have two people pegged as mafia scum, have laid out my reasoning, and am yet to see anything to change my mind. So really I'm in reading/avoid prodding mode.

Hmm... so you are saying that since your vote/arguments NOTHING has changed in this game?

Thirdly, well since the first option of the four possible for the game set-up have two power roles it's an easy enough mistake to make to assume two power roles in my reasoning.

I'n not quite following you here.

True, but from a different perspective, Dondero (or whoever it turns out to be) has the exact same odds of being mafia as any of us do (by random assignment): 1/9.

Yes, I know. This wasn't meant to be an argument, but rather to point out how stats could be mis-applied to back any number of arguments, again highlighted here.

[fhqwhgads]

I bet he did something similar to me, and read the first of the four setup options and kinda read over the latter ones. (Option one has a roleblocker and 2 power roles, option 2 has a roleblocker and no power roles)

Wow. Just wow.

I wonder how long it will take to get a replacement in, and how much we should read into it? If Dondero was indeed a mafia, would someone take up the spot given that until recently Don was on 3 votes? Hell, if Don was not actually a scum would a replacement take the spot given the voting?

Replacements usually don't know the role until replacement happens. So this should not be an issue.

I would propose then that the longer it takes to get a replacement for Don, the more that xvart's first option is the correct one.
But one thing is certain. That replacements first post will be an important one.

I don't like this at all. You are putting a lot of pressure on this replacement and creating a false dilemma. Easy target?

Where have you gone Pyro?

+1

[fhqwhgads]

If we don't get a replacement soon, a deadline extension might be on the cards?

[fhqwhgads]

Annachie assumed only the possibility of two power roles. The only way there would be two power roles is if there was a roleblocker. This would be more likely if Annachie knew there was a roleblocker. I find it slightly suspicious Annachie only assumed one case, the dual power roles, perhaps to draw out possible power roles.

While in principal, I do agree that his 'I only saw the one case' excuse is lame and he's still my top suspect (depending on Dondero's replacement), I find your 'leap of logic' a bit of a reach here.

[fhqwhgads]

Pyrogen, you said:

The only way there would be two power roles is if there was a roleblocker.

Let me repeat that again: The only way there would be two power roles is if there was a roleblocker.

2 Power roles (if and only if) roleblocker.

Therefore if there is a roleblocker, there MUST be two power roles.

The above statement is wrong. (I'm not leaping to call it a lie though.)

[fhqwhgads]

Hi,

Sorry, forgot to mention I was V/LA from Sunday until today. Didn't expect not to have any connection though. Will post again later.

[fhqwhgads]

The only way there would be two power roles is if there was a roleblocker.

This is the same as saying 'if and only if'. "The only way..." = "If and only if..." in this case.

But ok, its probably irrelevant, because I know what you meant. I doubt that you are seriously trying to confuse us.

Activity really needs to pick up, and if it doesn't, I'm still happy with my vote as well.

[fhqwhgads]

Activity FTW!

Welcome HackerHuck.

I'm going with my gut and voting for the IC.

Apart from the obvious objections, why mention my IC status in this vote. I find this VERY strange.

I like HackerHuck's post. I don't agree with everything, but he's definitely doing good work shaking Dondero's stigma. Until this:

Why is being IC worthy of a vote and out of all the people not scumhunting, why him?

In fact, I'm going to Vote: Hitogoroshi for a similar reason.

So, you're calling him out for singling out someone specific and then you do the same? And to top it off, this comes right after complaining that we need to get our act together and vote together? Pot, meet kettle.

For reasons given before.

Humor me. What are these reasons again?

Are you still happy with your vote if it leads to a no-lynch?

Not a simple answer. I'd still want to keep this vote, but I am willing to change it to prevent a no-lynch. At the moment, my vote finger is itching for Pyrogen. Call it OMGUS if you want, but if you want to vote me, at least make it good. I can't defend against gut feelings.

I took a course in college called symbolic logic, and I loved it; it is nice to have some real life application!

Nicely done. I have to admit, my irks with the statement was more out of principle rather than finding the statement itself scummy.

In summary, I think there is an interesting relationship between Pyrogen and Annachie, and would be satisfied lynching either one. If we do not end up lynching either one, I hope that we investigate them further because I suspect at least one of them is mafia.

Agreed.

[fhqwhgads]

Goddammit! This is the second game of 3 I'm nk'd day 1. I'm either doing something wrong or something right. I'll post my thoughts on the game later, as I'm not home now.

Congrats scum. You sure fooled me.