Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over

[springlullaby]

/confirm

[springlullaby]

Hi guys

So yeah, given the theme of the game, I think we should discuss strategy about how doctors (or quacks

qui s'ignore

) should perform to avoid overnight decimation of town population.

How about everyone who think they are doc just play as vanilla?

[springlullaby]

As i've already said i have plans for the docs/quacks that i'm not going into, and the scum can be adequately distracted killing off our confirmed masons while we figure out their lies.

If you have a plan, it should be unbreakable - meaning one which could effectively break the game without relying on secrecy of any sort, or relying on outsmarting the scums (because they could very well outsmart you).

I'd like you to state what was your plan for night.

Also, with doc claim day 1, it effectively immediately out the masons to the scums.

I don't see where you're going with this, so yeah, what was your plan?

[springlullaby]

wait WAIT I HAVE AN IDEA:

I don't know if docs and/or quacks can target themselves, but if they can, they might then target themselves:
Docs will not die.
Quacks will instantly die; we get rid of them.
There is a 2/3 probability of scum targetting doc or quack (no effects) and 1/3 of scum targetting mason (unlucky).
I hope this works. It's just an idea, and might not work, and it might not be possible, but if it is, then we have a great advantage with two less town-killers. Thoughts?

Mod, can docs target themselves?

Now, quack dying for the purpose of dying is out of the question.

FOS Pacman.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

[springlullaby]

Clarification, Pacman's plan fail independently of whether or not doc can target themselve.

The question to the mod is to prevent any possible result to what I see as a dangerous question, or even an attempt at fishing. Docs should not be tempted into answering that question if they know the answer.

[springlullaby]

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

As for pacman, I reacted more to what I saw as a possible attempt at fishing than anything else.

[springlullaby]

Btw, I don't like roflcopter's reaction to my vote.

[springlullaby]

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

[springlullaby]

1.

[Rofl attacks Spring
Spring attacks Rofl
Spring attacks Dattebayo

***

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl]

Rofl attacks Spring

holy crap springlullaby thank you for making it so obvious you are clammy's scumpartner.

fos: springlullaby

Spring attacks Rofl

wait WAIT I HAVE AN IDEA:

I don't know if docs and/or quacks can target themselves, but if they can, they might then target themselves:
Docs will not die.
Quacks will instantly die; we get rid of them.
There is a 2/3 probability of scum targetting doc or quack (no effects) and 1/3 of scum targetting mason (unlucky).
I hope this works. It's just an idea, and might not work, and it might not be possible, but if it is, then we have a great advantage with two less town-killers. Thoughts?

Mod, can docs target themselves?

Now, quack dying for the purpose of dying is out of the question.

FOS Pacman.

Vote roflcopter

, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy

, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

And again

Btw, I don't like roflcopter's reaction to my vote.

Datte attacks Spring
***Please note my original typo, it was Datte who attacked Spring.

I see bad plans as faults in logic rather than scum tells.

Anyway, my scumlist at this point is Netlava, Clammy, and Springlullaby.

Vote roflcopter, I don't the way you are pushing your case on clammy.

Fos clammy, your plan indeed sucks, and unless you can explain clearly what was your bright idea for night action, I'm calling it bluff, and my vote is switching onto you.

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

...

FoS: springlullaby

Datte supports Spring's attack of Rofl

You drop suspicon on Clammy for his bad plan (the same reason as rofl) but also vote rofl for the "way" that he pushes the case. That is somewhat contradictory and your keeping your foot in all doors.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

However clammy's idea as he presented it - that is, partially and hinting at an undisclosed miracle course of action for night, is indeed antitown, and I cannot reconstruct the townie POV/reasoning which led him to it. As such, I'm urging him to disclose what the mysterious part of his plan is to be able to form an opinion on whether he is a misguided/brilliant townie, or scum bluffing in hope that town would fall for it. His continued refusal to disclose his plan merit a FOS from me as it make the later hypothesis more probable.

I looked back, and earlier posts confirm your explanation; yours and rofl's attacks were fundamentally different.

So, I second this post by spring:

Roflcopter, have you read my 104? Does it make any sense to you? If it doesn't please point out why.

This is inacurate and a misrepresentation, let me ask you, is it intentional?

As for you 'proposing your plan again D2', I'll repeat it again one more time: it is unacceptable as any plan that is breakable if examined during day can be broken by scum. And you are requested to disclose it as you are suspected right now of bluffing.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, you may simply be very misguided, but you re burning your town creds pretty quickly.

[springlullaby]

@clammy

Lol are you stupid, doc claim day 1 is equivalent to mason claim, I already pointed this out to you.

And your post is a misrepresentation and inaccurate, in you post you make it seems as my attack on roflcopter is an omgus by presenting the post in a changed order, I can't imagine how this was not done on purpose because the post numbering is right there in your post. And you omit my earlier post in which I already explained to you why I thought your idea was not feasible and ask you to tell what your plan was.

And what hurdles? Blase what? What with the appeal to emotion? Please by all means have courage and convictions and explain how your plan can work, because you cannot reproach other people doubting you if you cannot explain why they shouldn't in the first place.

I cannot make sense of the words you speak. If you are town, reconsider what you've said and what others have said. If indeed you are brilliant and I am the stupid one, by all mean point out why.

In meantime, you've now reach my limit of 'too obvious to be scum'

Unvote, Vote Clammy

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

[springlullaby]

So someone explain to me why I should be targeted tonight?

[springlullaby]

UNVOTE
VOTE:Clammy
HoS:SL

[/quote]
I have to agree; SL's post seemed forced. SL also tagged on the very telling line:

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

His vote most likely served the purpose of self-preservation.

Explain how you could possibly see self-preservation in my vote?

What does it have to do with the line you quoted?

Please do not pose half-thoughts in lieu of case, as I can't defend myself when you are doing this.

I'll make it clear now because I see what's coming that I think roflcopter is very likely to be scum because his lashing on the antitown-ess of clammy's plan lack any finesse. Clammy I can't get a hold of, this is why I'm pushing him.

And I oppose the plan of all docs targetting one player at night, especially on day one - maybe I would go along with it in the future, when we have more cardflips. Dattebayo, Light-kun, why are you so bloodthirsty?

[springlullaby]

EBWOP

I have to agree; SL's post seemed forced. SL also tagged on the very telling line:

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

His vote most likely served the purpose of self-preservation.

Explain how you could possibly see self-preservation in my vote?

What does it have to do with the line you quoted?

Please do not pose half-thoughts in lieu of case, as I can't defend myself when you are doing this.

I'll make it clear now because I see what's coming that I think roflcopter is very likely to be scum because his lashing on the antitown-ess of clammy's plan lack any finesse. Clammy I can't get a hold of, this is why I'm pushing him.

And I oppose the plan of all docs targetting one player at night, especially on day one - maybe I would go along with it in the future, when we have more cardflips. Dattebayo, Light-kun, why are you so bloodthirsty?[/quote]

[springlullaby]

1.spring, how was i "lashing out" at clammy?

2.and how does any percieved lack of finesse make me more likely to be scum?

3.thats really one of the most ridiculous accusations i have ever seen. you're just desperate because light's plan is going to out you.

4.if i am a doctor, i will be targeting springlullaby tonight

Ordering mine.

1. Please reexamine your own post history.

vote: clammy

your plan immediately outs the masons to the scum. nice try.

what we should do is hypo claim doc targets at the start of each day, as in 'if i am a doc i protected light kun' that way masons don't get outed.

this game has too much setup discussion and not nearly enough discussing how scummy clammy is

way to entirely sidestep the issue of how scummy you are

i'm right on the money again methinks

did you miss the part where you proposed a plan that would out the masons to the scum on day one and then i voted you for trying to enact a plan that is so blatantly pro scum?

thats the accusation that i'd better come up with. still think i'm irrelevant?

Yet the only reason you have put forward so far for finding clammy scummy is that his proposed plan was antitown, which lead me to my second point addressing how scummy indeed I think you are.

2. Lack of finesse is a possible scumtell to me as scum do not share a trait that town have in common: doubts.

In the specific case at hand, and to repeat myself as I have already pointed this out, the way you have been pushing your case against clammy on the only basis that his plan is antitown - while it is by all appeareance true - is scummy in itself because you seem to not consider at all the possibility that he may be a misguided town. Indeed, any experience in playing mafia should tell you that idiot town is always a possibility, if only by sheer law of probability.

3. I have explained why I think you are scummy, please do point out why my accusations are ridiculous.

4. See following.


------------------------

First of all, I think that the line I quoted of you showed that you were seeking rolf's approval and favor. I'm sorry if this wasn't explained clearly.

You still haven't explained anything, you are only making an allegation without reasoning to back it up. What I want you to answer is: can you point out how my question was in anyway indicative of my wanting to 'seek rolf's approval and favor'?

I'll quote myself to make things clear:

Now roflcopter, what do you think of this?

Now, I'll state again that my intention for asking the question in the above quote was never to 'seek rolf's approval and favor', but simply to ask for roflcopter's opinion for the purpose of gauging roflcopter's alignment.

What do you think of that?

----------------

I do not like the dynamic of this at all because you are all but merrily voting for my death without giving any proper reasons as to why so I can defend myself. Indeed, I don't even know what I should defend against.

If you are town you should take this seriously and realize now that your agreement to 'protect' a person at night is akin to casting a lynching vote shall they be town.

When you have realized this, please do go back examine the case - or the lack thereof- against me, and consider if you would be voting for me right now.

So yes, everyone one who has agreed to 'protect' me tonight, do list your reasons and I will answer

------------

tl,dr, OMGUGuyS.

[springlullaby]

Why hello? Please do take the time to read and reply to my post instead of ignoring me, because you know, you're kinda voting to evict me from this game and not even giving me a chance to defend myself.

Anyway. it seems I will be targeted tonight because I have a thought process that is too sophisticated for this town. And because of some deluded idea that I would be the kind of sugary-scum who would 'seek people's favor' were I scum. I'll say here that I take offense for the latter notion beyond anything else, as scum, I still take no shit.

At the moment and with clammy's lynch moving closer, I still think clammy needs to explain himself. I also think that independently of clammy's alignment, roflcopter is to be looked closer at.

[springlullaby]

Then I'm alright with my vote where it is.

[springlullaby]

In the previous post you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind why I think you were trying to get on rofl's good side but then here you are calling the argument a deluded idea and shit without actually understanding the reasoning behind the accusation (hence your quesitoning). That's scummy in my book.

That is not my opinion, my understanding of the conversation run as follow.

You: "Spring's question is scummy, let's target her tonight"
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 37#1304937
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 41#1304941

Me: "What exactly is scummy in my question? What are you accusing me of exactly? I see where this is going and will make clear now that I still think rofl is scummy."
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 29#1305529

You: " Spring is seeking rofl's approval."
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 43#1307043

Me: "I already said that I still think roflcopter is scummy, I asked that question to see what he had to say. Can you explain how my question was in anyway indicative of my wanting to 'seek rofl's approval'?"
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 14#1307214

You: "Spring doesn't understand what I'm saying."
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 14#1309414

Me now, I understood you alright, it is you who didn't seem to pick up on what I was saying.

Even if you genuinely did think that I was seeking rofl's approval, your failure to demonstrate how my question was in anyway indicative of such an intention had me at loss at what answer to give you beside, 'no, I wasn't' - an answer I already gave you.

Understand now?

BTW, please answer this:

His vote most likely served the purpose of self-preservation.

Explain how you could possibly see self-preservation in my vote?

Anyway, the following is the reasoning behind that accusation:
You spent the entire post attacking Clammy and then voted him. The exact thing that rofl had been doing. You then asked rofl what he thought about that. This question seemed to be meant to emphasize that you were now on rofl's side of the argument and that you wanted to see what he thought of you now. It seemed to me that you were trying to get on rofl's good side.
But you are claiming that you were scumhunting by asking that question.

From what I've seen of you so far, that is not how you scumhunt.

But before I assume that, I am going to look at some of your previous completed games.

1. I've never played with you before. Bolded contains a paradox.
2. If you want to look sincere in your statement that you are going to meta me to verify your say, do unvote me first.

[springlullaby]

I agree with the plan and if I am doctor, I am targeting SL tonight. I just had a chance to reread SL's posts in isolation and I still find SL the most suspicious. The quote:

This is inaccurate and a misrepresentation, let me ask you, is it intentional?

I don't see where the misrep claim comes from. Clammy's general description of what happened is not misleading.

Clammy, I have a neutral read on - what he's mainly done so far is make a plan and refuse to explain it. I don't even know if that's scummy, just weird, because I can't see the motivation for not explaining himself for town or for scum. Either way, I prefer a SL lynch (or a no lynch + some complex plan I thought of), but I suppose the quack thing may work just as well.

It is a misrepresentation, a simple verification of the order in which the posts clammy has quoted were made would have told you that.

But frankly I can't be bothered to defend myself further since no one seems interested anyway. If anyone has direct question for me, please do ask.

The way so many have agreed to target me tonight without a proper reason sucks, because you can't all be scum, which mean that tomorrow is gonna be a mess.

[springlullaby]

Lol, I specifically said that if people had questions, I would answer.

But whatever, of all the people combined I put the most effort in my posts and have answered every post addressing me to date, yet very few bothered to reply or even to comment, so yes voting me for 'giving up' while refusing to address the fact that of the people who pledged to target me, few have even deigned to cite a single reason, is rather lame and just pissing me off more.

Maybe I should be more level about this, but feeling like the only one who is trying, and indeed the only one who is interested in the discussion, is not entertaining.

Clearly i was hiding the order of the posts and intentionally misleading you all by posting the post numbers in the quotes and the expanded order certainly had nothing to do with supplying the expansion to my post when requested in the same order i originally posted it.

Short answer: the order in which you quoted those posts makes it looks like as if my vote on roflcopter was an OMGUS, which is inaccurate, and conveniently omit the posts in which I repeatedly explain to you why your plan sucks, which is a misrepresentation.

[springlullaby]

In response to Spring:
I don't think your post with a bunch of links effectively points answers my argument. There was no way you could have understood my arguments if you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind them therefore it is still scummy of you for concluding that the argument was a deluded idea and shit.

I just saw where you were going with your insinuation.

It's not a matter of who didn't understand who but rather that you didn't have the back up reasoning to understand my argument (hence the questioning). So, while it is possible I misunderstood, there was no way you could have and for that your action remains scummy.

I could tell from the start that your argument, which was effectively only an insinuation (namely 'spring is seeking rofl's approval'), was going to be lame. Your fault for not backing up your insinuation, my fault giving you wriggle room.

In addition, you misrepresented me above one of your links.

You: "Spring's question is scummy, let's target her tonight"

This makes it look like that one point I made was the entire basis for me deciding to target you at night. It was not. I have already explained my other reasoning.

Your other reasonings being?

And finally, I do in fact plan on meta-ing you.
1. From the way you've scumhunted this game, I get the feeling that the way of questioning at the bottom of your post a few pages back addressed to rofl is not how you scum hunt.

The paradox again, if you are willing to target me tonight, then you must think I'm scum, but scum have no motive to genuinely scum hunt, so how can you say that you have come to the conclusion that my question to rofl is not how I scumhunt "from the way I've scumhunted this game"?

2. I'm not voting you.

Pledging to target anyone at night is akin to casting a lynching vote shall the targetee be town. Are you eluding responsibility here?

Bold mine.

[springlullaby]

See, i'd consider telling you you were right except you're very wrong.

The post mentioned people who had attacked me and kept their attacking options wide open, especially keeping a foot in two doors of the same argument.

Oh god, I have already explained myself on that. The 'a foot in two doors at the same time' argument is plain riduculous - it is akin to saying that if A attacks B and B attacks A, then one can't be suspicious of both A and B.
This is so obvious to me I'm amazed I have to repeat it so many times.

If the post had even been an attempt to look at your voting patterns then i could pretend to see how you say it's a misrepresentation, but it's not!

What was that post an attempt at then?

And no-one but you has found it to be a misrepresentation which makes me wonder if you have more to hide than i pick you as having because at this stage i still have you as shockingly mis-guided townie and rofl as scum.

Given how I'm the only one who is questioning the fact that so many people have pledged to target me without even giving the shadow of a reason, you'll excuse me if I'm not moved by that particular argument.

Bolded mine.