Open 258 --- Night Watch --- Game Over

[ooBAZZoo]

Hey, sorry I haven't posted yet, been busy at work.
I'm relatively new to mafia games; I replaced out of my first game because I went on an unexpected holiday, and now I'm playing through my second newbie game (tbh, i'm not even sure if I'm qualified to play an open game, given that I've never even finished a newbie game). That being said, I've read through some games from start to finish (which takes quite some time believe me), and reckon I've got all the key concepts down. I definitely wouldn't say I'm a complete newb, but please bear with me if I don't catch on, or have to ask a few questions.

Policy Lynch - Whilst it doesn't make sense to lynch a non-scummy player in most circumstances, we just don't know what crazy stuff might happen, so to say I'm 100% against them would be unfair. It'd have to be a pretty obscure circumstance for me to agree with one though.

Lynch all lurkers - A definite no. People can lurk for all sorts of reasons. One thing to bear in mind: if somebody stops posting because they've become disinterested with the game, I think its more likely that they're VT, as a power role or scum player has a more exciting job to play, so might be more inclined to stick with it.

RVS - I'm not a huge fan of this whole business. One reason its used is to get discussion going, but I feel discussion can come about in better ways, e.g. a RQS, or (as stupid as it sounds) just talk in general. In my first game a number of players said they were against it, so we avoided a RVS completely and still got things going fine. Another reason some people like an RVS is because players can be put under pressure from a BW, and you can get a read from how they react, but does a BW from a RVS really put any pressure on someone? Even if somebody was at L-1 from random votes, it'd be pretty crazy if they got hammered, so there's not really anything in a RVS that tests a player's nerve.

---

One thing I don't really understand is this whole "Lynch all claimed vanilla townies" thing that Joystick is going on about. What benefits are there in lynching a town player? Is it to stop everybody claiming VT?

[ooBAZZoo]

I get the lynch VT thing now, and I have to say I kind of agree. [To be honest, I've never believed the whole "L-1 claim" thing is as important as some players find it: If you find a player scummy enough to vote them you should be willing to see them lynched regardless of their claim; anybody can lie at L-1]. The only problem with lynching claimed VTs is if a player really is VT, then they many be forced to claim a PR, which surely screws alot of things up.

@nameloc -

@Everybody: So far shotty and Joystick have been the bandwagons of choice. If you had to lynch one of these two NOW, which one would you choose and why?

This does read as though you are narrowing down our options. Perhaps you are trying to draw attention to these two so we are more likely to find them scummy at a later date (scum-motive), or perhaps you are trying to get discussion going to bring us out of an RVS (town-motive). In answer, I know you've said its hypothetical, but I really couldn't say who I found scummier at such an early stage. If you pushed me for an answer, I'd only be giving one for a mundane reason, so I may as well role a dice and see.

@Zdenek -
I disagree with your post about Anithero discouraging others from accusing (post #81). I think its important for a town player to be vocal if they think somebody is making unfair, or tenuous, accusations; it helps us avoid mislynches.

@2k3 -

BAZZ!!! YOU'R HERE TOO!!!!!! Here's hoping that you don't get replaced lol.

Nice to play with you again. Unfortunately I'm stone broke at the moment, so even if the opportunity for a random holiday does arise, I wouldn't be able to take it anyway. I'm in this one for the long haul

[ooBAZZoo]

@Zdenek -

Are you trying to argue that scum don't act opportunistically or that Joystick said that someone overreacting to a wagon on themselves is scummy?

Neither - I said I disagree because I don't believe that Antihero has been posting in order to "discourage people from accusing others of being scum" (which is your case against Antihero). I'm not corroborating with what Antihero says, only I disagree that what he has said displays a scum-motive.

But if you'd like to know anyway: I think scum do act opportunistically at times, but that its incredibly hard to determine what is 'scum acting opportunistically', and what is 'town trying to lynch scum', so its often (not always) best to avoid the 'opportunistic' line of thought.

With regards to Joystick's post about Shotty overreacting ("overreaction much" is the exact phrase Joystick uses I believe), I think that this could be a minor scum-tell. Joystick highlights Shotty's overreaction (which is often used as a scumtell) but doesn't explicitly say he finds it scummy. Joystick is drawing attention to Shotty's behaviour without getting his hands dirty. This is my view, which I believe is what Antihero is trying to highlight too. Its still early days though, and I wouldn't say my read of Joystick is scum just because of this post.

[ooBAZZoo]

@everyone - Just to throw a question into the mix:
Do you think your read of a player should take into account their experience?

[ooBAZZoo]

@oobazzoo what do u mean

What I mean is: should a player's familiarity with, and experience of, mafia games influence the way you read them. I ask because in my last game I said how we were forced to read the IC differently to the newbies, and a few people went mad, saying 'scum are scum' and that all reads should be the same.
I guess we have this problem less because this isn't a newbie game with a big gap between players' experience. I guess what's more important to note in this situation is a player's meta, and the possibility of them being (or pretending to be) a VI; a point Jason has raised.
In my view all reads should be relative.

---

I find it amusing how Shotty votes for andrew without reason in one post, then invites him to a game in the next, almost as thought he's making up for it :p
On a serious note thought, Shotty - do you not have anything more to add to discussion?

[ooBAZZoo]

@Joystick - You realise you've gone from this:

I don't think Andrew is the day 1 lynch, even if he is scum.

To voting him.
Could you explain why you've had such a turn around?

[ooBAZZoo]

Wow, sorry I haven't posted in a while, looks like alot has gone on in my absence.
I'll cover the most pertinent issue of Joystick now I guess.

Before his claim:
When reading through earlier I was getting a slight scumread on Joystick anyway. He posts alot, which isn't a scumtell in itself, but I feel his frequency of posts demostrates a defensiveness. Whenever an issue is raised, even slightly related to him, he posts in reaction to it. Whilst this may just be his playstyle, it could also be because he's playing on the back foot as scum.
Since his claim:
Since I haven't played with any of these players before (except for 2k3) I can't really say 'such and such fakeclaims' etc, and whilst I've spent some time trying to meta a few players, I don't see the meta argument as being as important as factor to consider as some people might. In other words, I'm trying to take this game at face value. Bearing this in mind, I have no strong reason to suspect that andrew is lying. Like somebody pointed out (I think it was Shotty), its not as though he's claimed a power role when forced at L-1. If he is fakeclaiming as scum, then he'll be dead by tomorrow, and I don't think even he's stupid enough to fakeclaim as VT when not pressured to do so (not only would it be very bad for town, but suicidal for Andrew).

As a result, I think Joystick is our D1 lynch. I'm not sure if he's at L-1 or not, but I'd be prepared to hammer. I think we should wait to get everyone's opinions on the matter first though.

@Everyone

- If you haven't already done so, could you give your thoughts on Joystick being lynched.

[ooBAZZoo]

Zden and anti, I would like an answer to this before the hammer.

when/if Hop flips town...what is your stance on my vote...

I Know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like some clarification on a few things.
Why do you say "when/if" Hop flips town, and not just "if"? (This has confused me slightly, you don't think Hop is town do you?)
Why do you say "my vote"? Your vote is on Joystick (at least I was at the time, right?), but so was a number of other people's, and there seemed to be a general consensus that he is "our" D1 lynch.
Why ask this of just Zden and Anti? (Anti's vote was also on Hop, and Zden said he's willing to hammer, so surely their "stance" is the same as yours anyway).
I think I've confused myself in my tired state, but I really don't understand why you've asked this question, nor why its worded as it is.

---

lynch nameloc, ckd, or someone else and I'll try and prove myself worthy tomorrow

Unfortunately, with the setup we have, there's no real way for a watcher to "prove" themselves. You could easily lie about your night actions, and we'd be none the wiser as to whether to trust you or not.

----

post-edit (or whatever)

Joystick, don't out another power role

[ooBAZZoo]

Shall I out the person who visited shotty?

Don't think that would be good this early

I agree; regardless of whether you are a watcher or scum, scum already know way too much about the Power roles.

who visitted me?
This will confirm you as scum or town

@Shotty - No it wont confirm anything, he could just lie. Don't put your own self-preservation before the town.

[ooBAZZoo]

I disagree. We'd be putting scum in a very advantageous position for their night kills, all to see whether Joystick is lying or not.
I think we should give andrew a chance to post. If he maintains that Joystick is scum, then we should lynch him without endangering any more PRs.

[ooBAZZoo]

EBWOP: I disagree with shotty, not Zdenek.

[ooBAZZoo]

@Jason - I agree.

@Curiouskarmadog - Oh I see now; didn't read the bussing side of things.

@Everyone - I think the thread's getting clogged up with the same players posting. I'd like to give andrew one more chance to take what he says back, and I'd also like to hear what the more inactive players make of Joystick (2003 is the player who most comes to mind as being yet to comment, but there may be others). Not that I'm trying to stifle discussion, but I think we should lay off slightly until these things can happen, because we're going round in circles, and making the situation more confusing than it needs to be.

[ooBAZZoo]

I was concerned about 2003041's lurking, and was eager to see what he made of Joystick, but since he's requested a replacement I guess we wont be seeing his thoughts anyway, and we can get his replacement's thoughts at the beginning of D2. I have found Joystick slightly scummy from the way he has posted, and I also have no major reason to doubt andrew,
so without further ado:

vote: HopOnMyJoystick

[ooBAZZoo]

@2003041 - That's ok. I had to replace out of our earlier game, so know how shitty it feels. You deserve admiration for owning up to it rather than waiting for the mod to prod you till you get replaced for inactivity.

[ooBAZZoo]

How did you work out it was 2/9? As far as I'm aware, there are 10 players remaining, two of which are the scum themselves, which leaves 8. But then we should assume that scum have no reason to doubt your cop claim, or nameloc's hider claim (assuming they did actually target nameloc and fail), which means there are only 6 players who could possibly be watchers, making it 2/6 (or 1/3).

I agree that Dryfit's play D1 reads scum. He appears to bus Joystick slightly when it appears that Joystick is definitely going to be our lynch, but never really commits to and accusation, or a vote. I'm gonna do a re-read of everyone though, and give Dryfit a chance to post. Since he was so inactive (only posted 5 times) I get the feeling he might be replaced; if not, he needs to stop lurking.

FoS: Dryfit

[ooBAZZoo]

I don't know what is going on. Andrew, stop dicking around with cryptic messages and 'breadcrumbs' or whatever.

i mean ShoTty your nOt actually the watcher right (cough cough*)
Peace bros.
FUCKING
Come Lads Andrew Is Me o.o

I can see the C-L-A-I-M part in the last line, is this directed at shotty to claim or something? I don't get why you've capitalised the T and O in the first line.
Please explain yourself andrew.

[ooBAZZoo]

So reads "stop claim" . . . . sorry but I'm still slightly confused.
Also,

i know who you are, stop bs'ing

Does "bs'ing" mean "bullshitting" or "bussing"? Because I read it as bussing first, which confused the fuck out of me.

@andew - just to avoid confusion amongst the idiots like me, did you investigate shotty last night? if so, does he have a PR or not? You may as well come out with it since its pretty much in the open anyway.

[ooBAZZoo]

BAZZ: The thing that caught my eye the most about him is that he didn't cast any votes at all until after andrew's claim, and still hasn't cast one today.

I appear to be far more conservative with my vote than many (feel free to meta my two other games for proof of this). I think if town players are throwing their vote around willy nilly (<-- this phrase makes me chuckle) then its easier for scum to jump on a wagon and cause a mislynch. I'd much rather hold back my vote until I have at least a partial case against someone in my head, or see someone as acting particularly scummier than the other players. Up until andew's revelation in D1 my reads didn't show one player as sticking out as scum, which is why I hadn't voted (this isn't to say I didn't have my suspicions, only that none of them, IMO, justified that person being lynched).

today he HAS FoSed me for supposedly not committing to an accusation or vote on Hop. However I was doing the exact thing BAZZ was doing: Giving 2k3 time to post before the lynch.

This is a fair point; you could have indeed been waiting for 2k3. However, I also have to consider the possibility that, as scum, you weren't prepared to vote your partner. Also, this doesn't account for your only posting five times the entire day, and it seemed like your posting became less frequent during the phase where joystick was being confirmed as scum.
In your defence, the reasons i've found you scummy are due mainly to your lurking, or not contributing, and your last post does go against this.

Dry-fit, I haven't mentioned Bazz because his posts have basically bored me.

haha, guess I'm not at the top of your list for dinner party guests then?

---

I've been busy today, and am massively due a re-read, but its getting late now and I'm up early tomorrow. Hopefully I will have some time tomorrow to clarify my thoughts on people. At the moment I'll say that I have a gut suspicion of jason being scum, although I don't know why. I'll ISO him properly soon and see if this gut feeling is based on any solid evidence. Obviously I have a slight suspicion of Dry-fit (for reasons explained prior), and whilst I don't find him scummy enough to push for his lynch atm, my vote would be on him now if it had to be on somebody. I have no read at all on Curiouskarmadog, or Zdenek, so need to look into these two more. For some reason I have an ever-so-slight town read on Antihero, although again, this is just a gut read; will need to look into it in more detail to see why. The other players (it appears to me) are safe.
[Whilst you could accuse me of active lurking in this bit above, people have also been accusing me of staying quiet, which is why I'm letting you know this slightly pointless info about where I am with my reads]

---

@Jason - Who do you find scummier, Zdenek or Dry-fit? and why?

[ooBAZZoo]

forthly, im checking myself to see if im a power role (so im not a threat so dont kill me plx thanks)

WTF? I may be a slight noob, but this makes no sense to me. Why would you do that?

---

Also, how has Shotty's watcher claim slipped by? andew you've been contradicting yourself, saying at one point you got a 'no power role' last night, and that we should lynch this vanilla player (who you haven't yet revealed, unless I'm mistaken), yet you are also saying that we shouldn't lynch Shotty, implying that you confirm his watcher claim?
Explain yourself.

[ooBAZZoo]

@andrew - You haven't answered the queries I posted in #506. I don't like it when people dismiss my questions: not only is it bad for town (because it shows you are skipping over posts and only concerned with your own agenda, rather than taking in the whole game), it is also impolite.

[ooBAZZoo]

I'm currently doing a re-read of Antihero; typing as I go.

-- First thing I pick up on is this:

New reads: shotty and CKD are town, joystick is scum
Vote: Joystick

This was posted before the general attack of joystick, and long before andrew claimed he investigated. To me this seems a little early for Anti to be bussing Joystick if he is scum.
-- The first few pages Anti seems to be on the backfoot with his posts. This could be his defensiveness showing because he is scum, but he also came under pressure from alot of questions regarding the way he had picked up on other people's accusations (if that makes any sense), so could be in response to that. Null-tell
-- posts #141 and #142 read like genuine responses to the pernikety issues people were having with him. Slight town read from these.
-- posts #188 and #196 seem like genuine attacks on Joystick!
-- His main reason for thinking andrew was fakeclaiming was because andrew specifically quoted 'vanilla', yet smashbro confirmed that the cop would only receive a 'yes' or 'no' to whether the player had a power role. Discredits a lot of CKD's case on him about pushing that andrew was lying.

Most of Anti's play gives me a slight town read, however I guess the main thing to pick up on is that he doesn't address the joystick issue when it is the main topic of discussion for most players: Scum points for this.

Conclusion: If the circumstances were different (i.e. if we didn't have this setup with so many safe players, he wasn't at L-2, and he hadn't already claimed) I would suggest that we look elsewhere for our lynch, because I feel there are scummier players out there. I do feel that CKD's attack on Anti, whilst not necessarily a misrepresentation, is certainly an exaggeration. At first I thought it is likely that the Anti wagon was a result of scum manipulation, although its strange to see many of our so called 'safe' players on the wagon, so maybe not. Also, despite not agreeing with his case against Anti, I don't have much of a scumread of CKD (infact, I give CKD town-points for the way he's pursued his Anti case so much, because if CKD were scum, he'd be giving himself away by pushing so hard on a town player).

My main problem is that, whilst I don't have a scumread on Anti, he has now claimed VT, and as a result we don't really have a choice but to lynch him (we can't really pressure another player and risk exposing another power role). I'll reserve my vote for now, only hammering Anti if the situation changes, or if we get closer to the deadline and I need to for the lynch.
[I realise if Antihero flips scum I'm gonna look pretty suspicious, but this is my genuine read on him]

[ooBAZZoo]

Hold up. It seems like everyone's going round acting like shotty's a confirmed watcher. If andrew didn't check him out last night then there's no reason to suspect that he is scum. Obviously he'd be uncounterclaimed, because each watcher knows there are two watchers so will be assuming he's the other.

so I watched Bazz and nobody visitted him

This seems very convenient.
@Shotty - since he was our only confirmed PR, why didn't you watch andrew? If you did, surely you would not only be protecting him, but you'd most likely also know who the other watcher is, so you'd be able to confirm them if they claim, or coordinate your night action if they were outed.

Whilst I maintain that he

]could

be one of the watchers, I don't think we should be taking it as fact until we have some proof.

[ooBAZZoo]

Hold up. It seems like everyone's going round acting like shotty's a confirmed watcher. If andrew didn't check him out last night then there's no reason to suspect that he is scum. Obviously he'd be uncounterclaimed, because each watcher knows there are two watchers so will be assuming he's the other.

so I watched Bazz and nobody visitted him

This seems very convenient.
@Shotty - since he was our only confirmed PR, why didn't you watch andrew? If you did, surely you would not only be protecting him, but you'd most likely also know who the other watcher is, so you'd be able to confirm them if they claim, or coordinate your night action if they were outed.

Whilst I maintain that he

]could

be one of the watchers, I don't think we should be taking it as fact until we have some proof.

[ooBAZZoo]

The main thing that I would like to take away from this, is the seeming connection between Dry-fit and Bazz. They have both made soft attacks against one another, and Bazz was very quick to forgive Dry-fit

I wouldn't say I ever 'forgave' Dry-fit. One of the reasons I found him scummy was his lack of contribution, but in his #497 he rectified this, and I noted it.
And despite this, I stand by what I said in #497 when claiming that I find Dry-fit the scummiest player here (although not majorly; I'm not getting a strong scumread off anyone atm). If it wasn't for the Antihero claim, I'd probably be voting Dry-fit too, but there are now some obvious problems with doing so.
Some questions:

@Zdenek

-
1)Obviously you find Dry-fit more scummy than Antihero (as do I), but is your vote merely a statement because you don't agree with those on the Antihero wagon, or do you really wish to see a wagon form on Dry-fit?

@Everyone on the Antihero Wagon

(that's CKD, Jason, Shotty, nameloc and andrew) -
1) To what extent (as a percentage) do you agree with Zdenek's vote on Dry-fit?
2) If Antihero was out of the picture (i.e. you didn't find him scummy and he hadn't already claimed) would you be voting Dry-fit?

@Nameloc

-
1) If tonight Antihero flips town (assuming he's our lynch), and assuming we don't learn anything substantial from our PRs, who would be your top suspect going into tomorrow?

[ooBAZZoo]

Before I answer any of your questions, can you tell me your motivation for asking these questions?

I asked the questions for three reasons, one which I'll tell you after I get the answers.
1) I wanted to gauge the level of agreement with a Dry-fit lynch. As I've stated, I don't find Antihero particularly scummy, and I'm beginning to think that we've got so caught up in the setup of this game that we've forgotten the basics: lynch the player you think is scum. (This doesn't mean I'm not also aware of the dangers of pushing for a new lynch, which is why I want to gauge the level of interest in it first).
2) My particular question of you was partly because I don't know where you are with your thoughts and reads. I feel that since you've been confirmed as 'safe', you've been focused on establishing a course of action for tonight, and you (as well as the town in general) haven't been doing much scumhunting. Again, I feel we're getting caught up in the setup and forgetting the basics. All players (not just you specifically) need to pull their weight in finding scum, regardless of whether they're safe, and we shouldn't be relying so heavily on the nightphase.
3) [I'll post this once everyone's given an answer. Remind me if I forget to do so]

[ooBAZZoo]

Wow.
First of all, massive apologies for being V/LA for the whole of the previous day. I went to stay at a friend's flat in Nottingham for the weekend and was hoping the thread would open on Friday from the nightphase so I could post a V/LA message. Unfortunately it didn't, I didn't get home till very late Sunday morning, and by the time I'd checked the thread on Monday morning the next nightphase had begun.
I'm still thoroughly confused about andrew's crazy claims. If I'm reading correctly he claimed yesterday that he was infact another watcher, and that Dry-fit is the rolecop, but his flip doesn't show this. Can anybody elaborate on this.

Right now, I'm heavily leaning towards Jason being scum. Not only did I have a scum read on him earlier in the game, he was also highly reluctant to vote CKD yesterday.

[ooBAZZoo]

In fact, my vote came RIGHT after DF confirmed.

Ahh, I missed your vote (in #662) my first read round, hence my attack on you being reluctant to vote (I've had a fair amount to read through).
I was confident you were scum for not voting CKD, but scratch that, now I'm in the dark again.

I still don't know what's going on with Dry-fit. Why would andrew lie about his role yesterday?

Thinking it through though, my suspicion of Jason still stands to a degree:
His 'I'm prepared to vote CKD' came after CKD was almost certainly going to be the lynch that day, and his vote came only after Dry-fit confirmed andrew's story (which meant that even though CKD avoided being lynched earlier, he was definitely going to be lynched by then); Any sensible scum would know to bus him straight away.
Also, his first post of the day (#604) didn't even mention CKD, and took attention away from his lynch onto the Dry-fit issue.

I'd very much like to see what Dry-fit has to say.

[ooBAZZoo]

Phew, I genuinely did miss Jason's vote on CKD and thought I'd dug myself into a whole there.
Good game. Although it was pretty much down to our power roles, rather than any decent scumhunting on my part.