Mini 581 - Andy's Death - Over
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Ah, the innocence of youth...Ythill wrote:Lol. Jenter's collecting votes already...
I don't random vote but y'all knock yourselves out.
This setup would be absolutely shattered by a massclaim.Ythill wrote:This set-up is certainly the strangest normal I've been in so far. I think it will minimize lurking as a scum tactic. It's also safe to say there won't be any fake claims. This should be fun.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
FBI Agent has no reason to. While this does have the unfortunate side effect of outing the lone town power role, it has the benefit of giving us a single confirmed townie (or near-confirmed) on D1. And quite frankly, I'd prefer a confirmed townie to a cop who is looking for one single person who may die before even giving us results.Sethaniel wrote:This setup would be absolutely shattered by a massclaim.
Explain? Sorry, but I'm really new at this. Couldn't/Wouldn't everyone just claim to be a townie?It's also safe to say there won't be any fake claims.
The scum are forced to either fake-claim FBI Agent, thus giving themselves away, or claim townie, giving us our confirmed. It's their choice, really.
"I don't random vote".Ythill wrote:@JDodge: Innocence of youth? Explain?-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Which is exactly why I pointed that out.camisade wrote:
But wouldn't the SK just kill the SK finder immediately?JDodge wrote:
FBI Agent has no reason to. While this does have the unfortunate side effect of outing the lone town power role, it has the benefit of giving us a single confirmed townie (or near-confirmed) on D1. And quite frankly, I'd prefer a confirmed townie to a cop who is looking for one single person who may die before even giving us results.Sethaniel wrote:This setup would be absolutely shattered by a massclaim.
Explain? Sorry, but I'm really new at this. Couldn't/Wouldn't everyone just claim to be a townie?It's also safe to say there won't be any fake claims.
The scum are forced to either fake-claim FBI Agent, thus giving themselves away, or claim townie, giving us our confirmed. It's their choice, really.
Keep in mind that you must assume based on the low player count that the FBI Agent essentially getsonechance to find the SK with an investigation - something which should be 1 in 6. With that, there is the chance that the SK will kill the FBI Agent anyways - again, 1 in 6. And there's a further chance that the SK will kill the FBI Agent'stargetif they get an innocent - 1 in 6.
Now, if we massclaim, we not only find the SK, but we find the scum as well - if the FBI Agent claims truthfully and is not counterclaimed, we then have a 3/7 chance of lynching an anti-town role, and a 1 in 7 chance of getting the SK - this is actually better odds than if we weren't to massclaim, when we would have a 3/8 chance of anti-town and 1/8 chance of SK, not to mention the 1/8 chance of the FBI Agent being lynched.
Statistically speaking, massclaim is a good play. Logically speaking, it's brilliant, considering how much info you can get out of someone claiming.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Confirmed townie on DYthill wrote:@JDodge: If this was a game of pure statistics, we would rarely type other than to vote. A straight lynch without a mass claim will give us a good deal of information. You are also neglecting implied odds. It is true that FBI has a slim chance of finding the SK, but the payoff for town is far greater than having a confirmed townie on D2 who will inevitably be the N2K.2? Why D[/i]2[/i]?
And if this was a game in which statistics played no part, we would be just as efficient if we were to bash our heads into our keyboards repeatedly and post the results.
Statistics are a major part of logic, which is the driving force behind most towns.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Why would we be no-lynching on day 1?goborage wrote:
I may be overlooking something but wouldn't the numbers be 1 in 7? We have 8 players and the FBI won't investigate himself and the SK won't kill himself so that means 8-1 = 7. I don't see why we should assume that the FBI will only get 1 chance to investigate. Day 2 will have 2 deaths so we'll be down to 6 players. The SK and FBI only have a 1 in 5 chance to get each other.Which is exactly why I pointed that out.
Keep in mind that you must assume based on the low player count that the FBI Agent essentially gets one chance to find the SK with an investigation - something which should be 1 in 6. With that, there is the chance that the SK will kill the FBI Agent anyways - again, 1 in 6. And there's a further chance that the SK will kill the FBI Agent's target if they get an innocent - 1 in 6.
If we massclaim, we have definitive proof that one person is not scum - not to mention we can stop worrying about "what if ____ is the FBI Agent", which will allow us as a town to work more efficiently. And quite frankly I have no clue how you could possibly come to that conclusion - why would the FBI Agent likely make it to day 3? And don't you realize that if we haven't killed the SK or scum by D3, it's pretty much over for us anyways?goborage wrote:
I definitely need clarification here: If we massclaim how will we find SK? It's still a guessing game as far as I see. It's not as sure a plan as you make it sound. The 1/8 FBI being lynched isn't really an issue either as they would quickly claim.Now, if we massclaim, we not only find the SK, but we find the scum as well - if the FBI Agent claims truthfully and is not counterclaimed, we then have a 3/7 chance of lynching an anti-town role, and a 1 in 7 chance of getting the SK - this is actually better odds than if we weren't to massclaim, when we would have a 3/8 chance of anti-town and 1/8 chance of SK, not to mention the 1/8 chance of the FBI Agent being lynched.
The conclusion I've drawn from this post is that you're trying to scare the town into killing off its best asset. The FBI will likely make it to Day 3.
And why areJenter Brolincani wrote:JDodge has seriously misrepresented the stats by not taking into account the night action.
By Jdodge's route, we have 4/7 chance of hitting town today, and the SK has a 7/7 chance tonight. Lynching normally thre's a 5/8 chance today and a 2/7 chance tonight.Do the sums, and that comes to a 16/28 chance of having 2 townies dead with JDodge's plan, and 5/28 lynching normally.
vote JDodge
Why did you post such a bogus math argument?youusing such a bogus math argument such as "7/7" (would SK ever kill themselves?) Why are you saying "2/7" when assuming we lynch town it's actually 4/6?-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
The matter of payoffs does not necessarily factor into statistics - the odds of winning a lottery are, say, 1 in 128 million. The payoff is $25,000,000. Does this mean that spending every cent you have on lottery tickets is a good idea?Ythill wrote:@ JDodge: I never claimed that statistics were not a part of mafia, only that the game isn't purely about statistics and I do not appreciate you trying to reduce it to that. Furthermore, you have overlooked one of my points...
I insist that the implied odds in this situation make discussion of the actual odds moot (or at least diminish their importance severely). My point is that the FBI finding the SK would be a huge payoff and the continued chance of that happening is well worth a slightly harder time determining today's lynch candidate.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I do not dispute the numbers.
I stand by my claim that massclaim wins games, that is a personal game philosophy of mine as adopted from Pie_is_good.
I stand by my call for massclaim by laughing in the face of stats. Ha ha ha ha ha.
I don't care if I am interpreted as scummy for suggesting massclaim. Deal with it.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
So Jenter, for point B, it's essentially "damned if I do, damned if I don't", correct? Wouldn't that be an indicator that my actions are henceforth a null-tell considering the fact that any particular response would in some way be interpreted as scummy?
It can't be a scumtell unless there is a similar action that could be taken that would be a town-tell. Same for town-tells.
And were stats the lynchpin of my argument? No, the lynchpin of my argument was that massclaim wins games - something you have failed to disprove. You have disproven my means of arguing my point, not the point itself.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Question: Is there such a thing as a universal scumtell?Jenter Brolincani wrote:The similar town action, Dodge, is not arguing for a d1 massclaim at all when it's so blatantly a stupid idea.
Also, you arguments are now useless. I haven't disproved that massclaim can win games, but you no longer have any evidence that they do, and you don't seem to be keen on providing any.
PbPA coming up when I get back in tonight.
avin: It's the contradiction between the two posts which is glaringly obvious.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I understood perfectly already. However, that is not really the main reason I am voting you - you have no logical reason nor basis to assume an ulterior motive in the first place. And your "Unless the SK is an idiot, he'll be playing pro-town" comment is also not pro-town.Ythill wrote:
You must be misunderstanding me because there is no contradiction. I'll try to explain better. What I liked about you sticking to your guns regarding the theory argument was that it demonstrated that it really was your opinion. However, my question suggested that there may have been (town friendly) ulterior motives for bringing up your opinion.Regarding my #62, 64, & 65, JD wrote:It's the contradiction between the two posts which is glaringly obvious.
Obviously, if it's your opinion, you've discussed it on MS before and know what kind of response is likely. Therefore I question whether you were actually trying to bring about a mass claim or whether, in part, you were hunting for scummy reactions to that suggestion. I still do not doubt that favoring mass-claims is actually your opinion.
Do you understand? Would I be safe in assuming, from your response, that the simple answer to my question is: there was no intent to flush out scum with your suggestion of mass-claim?-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
And herein lies the logical problem with your accusations.Jenter Brolincani wrote:I assume you mean the universl scumtell one;
Oh, yes, I think there is. Or rather, unless there are specific things you can treat as universally scummy things to do, there's never any real point scumhunting.
Among such things would be arguing in favour of a massclaim on d1 in an open setup game where it obviously doesn't have any real benefit.
In a vacuum, where everyone plays the same and puts off the same tells, there is a such thing as a universal scumtell. In this era of mafia as a whole, however, there has come a variation in playstyles that has lead to any universal scumtell being fairly useless. Anything that is a scumtell for one person is almost certainly a towntell for another nowadays.
Now when we consider this, you must ask yourself "Well then how do you scumhunt?". The answer to this is simple - you must know your opponent before you do battle with them. You must know what the other players will do in whatever situation. Said is the barrier between OK players and good players - good players know what their opponents will do in any given situation, and OK players will know what the majority will do in any given situation.
Therefore any usage of a universal scumtell has, in this day and age, become incredibly fallacious - anargumentum ad populumthat says "because a majority of people do this as ____, then everyone who does this must be _____".-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
EBWOP: Then again I suppose one must wonder if universal scumtells could be an exception as a social convention. Moral relativism and all that crap. Meta-ethical relativism would be a good argument for my side.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Nice strawman, read my damn post and then make your half-assed assumptions. Thanks.Jenter Brolincani wrote:Right... nice crap, nice crap.
Basically you're saying that because you OFTEN make scummy moves, it becomes a towntell for you?
That doesn't work, sorry.
But aren't universal scum/towntells also about people OFTEN making scummy moves?
Congratulations, from your perspective you have just disproven the entire game.
That's not the point. There is higher chance of consistency from game-to-game from a meta-tell than there is from game-to-game player-to-player from a "universal" tell.camisade wrote:But players can change their play style depending on what game they are playing in. If I acted a certain way as scum in game x, it doesn't mean that they'll act the same way in game y as scum.
Universal tells are tools of mediocrity for people too lazy to meta others and/or too dense to grasp the basic psychologies of mafia.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I have never once made the claim that doing this is a towntell. I am claiming that it is a null-tell. Stop strawmanning me. Seriously.Jenter Brolincani wrote:I have read your damn post. And yes, universal tells are about people OFTEN making scummy moves. That is why in situations like this one I look at a game ploy or action and think 'does this help us lynch scum'? If the answer is no, I ask 'is the player in question making an honest mistake'? And frankly you're too experienced for me to consider that arguing for an anti-town strategy incorrectly is an innocent slip.
You're also accusing every player on this site who doesn't metagame of being lazy... and that's a LOT of VERY good players you just called out.
You're trying to slip out of actually defending yourself by claiming that for you doing this is a towntell, and I don't buy it.
And very good players do metagame to some extent. Tell me which "very good players" don't metagame and I will show you the most foolish, over-inflated egos on the entire site. Anyone who thinks they can get away from metagaming and still be a "very good player" needs to be dragged out into the middle of the field and shot.
There is no reason to not meta-game. Any player in any given role in any given game should be using any tool at their disposal to do their job effectively.
And quite frankly your personal line of logicks are flawed when you consider that any person can make a mistake (I have not. I still stand by what I said.) at any point - experience does not make you the all-mighty mistake-free deity of mafia.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
It is no mistake. There is no accident. I indeed pushed and still stand by my massclaim idea.
A) Laziness.
B) Then that would defeat universal tells as well
C) That would also defeat universal tells
And I see how you backed away from the "very good players" thing, too. That tells me that you're fairly full of shit.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
We're working on the same definition.Jenter Brolincani wrote:You have an extremely low opinion of me, don't you Ythill?
Dodge; the second two do NOT defeat unversal tells, unless you're thinking of different Unversal Tells to me.
Arguing for anti-twn strategies is in my book the main universal scumtell, and cannont simply be a play variaton; "Oh, I just decided to try annd screw town over in this game, I'm using a varied playstyle," does not really cut the ice.
Also, lazy? I work hard from 7am-9:30pm most days. Not having time is not laziness. I genuiniely DO NOT HAVE TIME.
I agree with Ythill, though, theory discussion is completely off the point, and you still haven't in my view successfully explained why you argued for such a bad strategy.
If you're working hard from 7AM-9:30PM most days, then you will probably never be able to advance your mafia play anyways. So this is a greatly fruitless discussion.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
REALLY I HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS A TEAM GAME EVEN THOUGH I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 2 AND TWO-THIRDS OF A YEAR.Ythill wrote:You are aware this is a team game, right? Does your policy stem from the fact that you don't want people to learn their own tells?
Yes. Yes it does.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
When did massclaim become anti-town again?Jenter Brolincani wrote:Why do you think it's just playstyle? JDodge is far more experienced than I am (or indeed pretty much anyone else here), he should easily know better than to argue in favour of anti-town actions.
Statistically speaking yes. Informationally speaking no.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Ythill seems town because the bulk of his posts are non-opinionized inquisitive posts designed to give the impression of scumhunting while not committing to any actual stance.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Confusion is not an excuse for not paying attention to what I said immediately thereafter, which outright told you that I was answering goborage.Sethaniel wrote:@JDodge: goborage's post is on the previous page, and your post immediately follows Jenter's, it's confusing.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
And alternatively you could stop being a complete and utter jackass for no real reason. You could use logical reasoning instead of ad hominem attacks and saying over and over again that I'm scum and start doing some scumhunting of your own. You could stop being a damn hypocrite and look at what you yourself are saying. You are not just screwing the town over, considering that you are likely town regardless of how far up your ass the stick has become lodged, but you're screwing every player in this frickin' game over because you're an ass.Jenter Brolincani wrote:@ JDodge; Stop being an utterly obtuse, stupid, angry idiot doing an impression of a hippopotamus trying to give birth to a giant magical ten tone were-seal. You are not just screwing town over, which is bad play, you're screwing every player in this frickin' game over, which is just purely anal.
I am as convinced as ever that JDodge needs to be lynched.
Get over yourself.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I'm not trying to lynch scum. I'm trying to lynch a SK, for which "second-in-line" is fairly immaterial until I no longer believe Ythill most likely. And who are you to say that I didn't find avin asking why he wasn't #2 scummy? You jumped on that line of reasoning without thinking through all logical reasons for why someone would say that.Jenter Brolincani wrote:
Hell scummy. You don't even CARE who's your second most scummy? If you were town it would have a consequence as you would be trying to lynch scum, so you would keep at the top of your list only those committing scumtells. You just said it has no effect on you who is your second most scummy...JDodge wrote:If you want to be my second most scummy, you can be. No consequence to me.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
All my reasons for Sethaniel can really be traced mostly back to one post.
Why does he not want us to look at anyone else?Sethaniel wrote:All right, I guess I should vote. I can either put JDodge at L-1 or make it a tie between JD and avinas. (noting that JD and avinas are the two dissenting votes.) As a town, we seem pretty committed to either JD or avinas as scum, so I think voting for anyone else would pretty well be a waste of time.
1) Why doesn't this logic apply to avin?Sethaniel wrote:I'm going to base my vote on one main thing:
I don't think JDodge is the SK finder.
He's the most vocal proponent of massclaim, repeatedly saying that the SK finder should have no reason not to claim. If he's truly 100% behind that statement, then if he were the SK finder, he should say so.
So, he isn't the SK finder.
So why such a push to identify the finder? It's at least possible it's because he's the SK.
vote: JDodge
2) What is the point in publicly stating who you believe (or believe not to be) the SK finder (whom from now on I am going to refer to as the FBI Agent, as that is the term I am used to for such a role)? All you can do is narrow down the suspects. You seemed intrigued by the massclaim idea before this - now suddenly you snap against it on a line of illogic.
Any more questions or am I not presenting enough of a case on someone I don't want lynched today?-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
You mean the supposed contradiction that you pulled out of thin air that has no basis in fact whatsoever? Yeah, not touching that one.Ythill wrote:Every lynch helps the SK equally (except see below). There's no need for him to change his position, and therefore no need to risk suspicion by sitting on the fence or being vague. Not that I'm actually doing either anyway, but if I was they would be indicitive of a mafia alignment.
Killing at least one scum before D3 is crucial to the SK, because if D3 starts with 2 scum, the SK loses with town. Therefore a scum lynch is slightly more beneficial to the SK than a mislynch.
I don't believe you've explained the contradiction in your accusations.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
You admit that SK benefiting from mislynch is true - how is it a contradiction if it is true? And furthermore, how did you leap to the conclusion that what I accused you of befits mafia more than SK anyways?-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
So it's a contradiction because an SK would prefer a mafia lynch to a mislynch but what I said is still completely correct?
And fence-sitting/vague suspicions helps the SK equally considering it allows them to avoid heat on themselves. In fact, there is evenmorereason to do so since scum can still win if one of them dies - the SK has no safety net.
I maintain that there is no contradiction and that you are solely trying to shift suspicion off of yourself by disregarding my claims without basis.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
They are nearly the same thing, yes. But you must also consider that an orange and a tangerine are nearly the same thing - yet their uses are entirely different.goborage wrote:JDodge and Ythill have brought up the fact that hunting for scum and SK are different. Until now I've been treating the word scum as an all-encompassing term for town threats. I'm curious if anyone else has been playing under the same assumptions. More importantly:what role does everyone think their most suspicious players are playing as?
I think that avinashv is an SK, not mafia. Right now all I have going is the FBI claim.
It's interesting that JDodge is dichotomizing mafia-hunting and SK-hunting. Maybe I'm just a newb but aren't they nearly the same thing? Hunting either bad guy is just a matter of asking questions and pointing fingers. Can't we hunt both of these bad guys at the same time?
You can't be held accountable for your actions if you have no real actions to be held for.Ythill wrote:
Explain how this allows one to avoid heat. I think it's clear that the opposite is true.JD wrote:And fence-sitting/vague suspicions helps the SK equally considering it allows them to avoid heat on themselves.
It didn't. It refuted the claim that there was a contradiction. Stop strawmanning me.Ythill wrote:
Then explain why your first answer attempted to address the contradiction with the inapplicable statement that the SK benefits from a mislynch.JD wrote:I maintain that there is no contradiction...
Can you say that again, only this time making sense?Ythill wrote:
There was no attempt to shift suspicion. Initially, I questioned your claimsJD wrote:...and that you are solely trying to shift suspicion off of yourself by disregarding my claims without basis.with basis(that you are choosing to disregard) purely in my own defense. There was no attempt by me to reflect the suspicion back onto you. My only mention of suspicion against you came later, when you argued from a slippery stance, meaning one that embraces any claim in pursuit of the win, rather than attempting to determine and/or clarify the truth.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Do you think that me and avin are paired together as scum, or that one is SK and the other is scum?Jenter Brolincani wrote:Ythill is consistently protown and I've played with him before so I'm reasonably assured of that. Avin I have repeatedly said is my #2.
After Avin, Cam and Seth are pretty neutral/vaguely town, Gob and Ythill being town.
Dave I'm most unure about. I don't think I can call a read until day two.
And if you had to pickright this instant, who would be your pick for either scumbuddy/SK based on your response to the above?-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
This level of blackmail and forcing of hands is not in any way a pro-town action. Such a move should easily convince the non-believers that Ythill is today's lynch.Ythill wrote:
This is indeed the case. I fully intend to hammer, but I will not stand for whining about it being out of the blue. You have a few hours to pull your vote if you are uncomfortable with an Avinas lynch. Avinas has a few hours to claim.gob wrote:Instead you put him in mortal danger.
Which brings me to another question, Jenter - you say you've played with Ythill before and he's "consistently pro-town". This implies a meta previously. You have played with me before when I have acted this way and yet still insist I am scum - why are you judging your suspects on different criteria?-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Vote: Ythill
This is lylo, but scum can't quicklynch. Think it through, but no need to overly hesitate as there's still a chance that the town can win even if we lynch town today. Lynchinganyscum (mafia or SK) gives us an extra day, but SK is preferable.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Have you read anything that Ythill has said all game? If so, then why aren't you voting him already?goborage wrote:It's not quite as bad as lylo. Even if we screw up and hit town, the SK can simply choose not to NK and we'll move to Day 3. Or if his hunches are good he'll hit scum, which would be even better.
Anyhoo, I'm not quite sure who to vote for atm.
Don't be fooled by a large number of words - it all boils down to the same short answer anyways.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Forewarning of the hammer is not anti-townYthill wrote:
I don’t like the insinuation. I made that statement in reference to JD who was trying to say my warning of the hammer was anti-town. I’m assuming the question is rhetorical.camisade wrote:
Thanks for this, can you tell me what other actions that you've made are pro-town?Ythill wrote:And forewarning of the hammer isextremelypro-town.only when you are giving notice longer than 48 hours. Not everyone can check every day - expecting people to check every two days is reasonable, though.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I like for people to post every 48 hours in games that I mod, although I generally don't enforce until 72 - not arbitrary. It's based on actually knowing how play works here. "A few hours" is even more arbitrary.Ythill wrote:
Thank you, oh great decider of arbitrary deadline criteria.JD wrote:Forewarning of the hammer is not anti-town only when you are giving notice longer than 48 hours.
Your point here being...?Ythill wrote:My criteria were as follows. I had a date with my wife that night. I checked the thread before we went out and saw that the people who had explicitly stalled (and another wagoneer) had posted again after my warning. None of them had unvoted.
What did you stand to lose by waiting? Someone might unvote and make you miss your chance perhaps?Ythill wrote:Call it scummy if you like, of course, but I wasn't waiting for avin (who had been gone for a week) so theonlyperson I dissed was cam.
Gob is very pro-town and I've already stated that I find Seth suspicious. And I find it perfectly reasonable for them to leave their votes there - as an attempt to pressure avin, unvoting would have harmed that greatly.Ythill wrote:JD, don't you find it suspicious that gob and seth asked the hammer to be withheld but didn't unvote after the forewarning? Or are you tunneling so hard on me that you're not hunting anymore?-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
#1 - Needless ad hom.Ythill wrote:Replies first, then I'll get down to the business of looking at the evidence...
This is nothing but an appeal to authority. Your experience doesn't make you right about everything and, in fact, you've already demonstrated a less-than-perfect knowledge of the game with your D1 mass-claim argument.JD wrote:I like for people to post every 48 hours in games that I mod, although I generally don't enforce until 72 - not arbitrary. It's based on actually knowing how play works here.
#2 - Strawman - I never claimed that my experience made me correct. I stated my opinion on the argument., something thatyou asked for.
Ythill wrote:
That I had criteria and that they were less arbitrary than yours. For example, I might have posted a 48 hour notice and had nobody post between that and the hammer. My "few hours" was based on checking the thread later and, seeing that 3/4 wagoneers had posted without unvoting, I figured enough time had passed.JD wrote:Your point here being...?
Why are you lying? What are you trying to cover up?Ythill wrote:This is indeed the case. I fully intend to hammer, but I will not stand for whining about it being out of the blue. You have a few hours to pull your vote if you are uncomfortable with an Avinas lynch. Avinas has a few hours to claim.
The SK gains just as much.Ythill wrote:
You're mixing suspicions again. The SK (whom you accuse me of being) gains nothing from a quick lynch. Your suggestion here only befits mafia. Are you sure you don't want to start claiming I'm mafia?JD wrote:What did you stand to lose by waiting? Someone might unvote and make you miss your chance perhaps?I have already argued this. I am again asserting that you have as much of a reason as mafia would.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I think Ythill isgoborage wrote:@JD - just to be clear, you think Ythill is SK?someform of scum. And given that he is a better lead than my second suspect (Seth), I'm willing to gamble on that. I think he is slightly more likely SK than scum as it is incredibly difficult to link him to anyone in particular, and I would be more sure if he wasn't making so many good points as to why he's more likely scum than SK. Glad that he's being helpful in building a case against himself, though.
I was under the impression you had asked - my memory is slightly faulty, you see. Regardless, I was giving myYthill wrote:#2 - Show where I asked. You said something was scummy. I said it was pro-town. You said it was only pro-town under certain circumstances. I called those circumstances arbitrary. You said they were not arbitrary because of your modding experience. Period.opinion- my modding experience has leadtomy opinion, and if you want to discount it based on that go ahead and discount everything I've said as my entire case against you is based off of things I have learned in myplayingexperience.I was not in any way stating that my opinion was better than yours because of experience. I was pointing out that I have gained a knowledge from said experience that allows me to judge how long is long enough in my own opinion.
How is "a few hours" less arbitrary than 48 or 3 or 72? How is vagueness in any way helpful to the town in this instance except as a fearmongering tool? And why are you discounting that 4th person? It is implied based on the 3/4 that a majority of theYthill wrote:There was no lie. I gave a "few hours" warning. I was vague on purpose.
I checked back a "few hours" later to find that 3/4 had posted and I hammered. If I had checked back to find nobody had posted, I probably would have made a check-in post. Fact is, I didn't hammer until 3/4 of the wagon had posted.wagonthought it was a good idea, but that completely discounts the opinions of the other 4 people (assuming you yourself thought it was a good idea), which makes up roughly half the town as well as a majority of the town aside from yourself - and this included one person (myself) who was vocally opposed to the hammer.. In other words, you left half the town out of your entire decision-making process, in essence relying on the opinions of a scant 3 people.
1.) There was no argument presented, that was laid there so I could see your proof of your argument before providing proof of my own (burden of proof, procedurals, move along)Ythill wrote:This argument is the content equivilent of "nuh-uh!"
The SK must find at least one scum before D3. That fact is apparent in our current situation, where the SK may be forced to no-kill tonight. A quick-lynch is not a benefit to somone who must find scum. Nor is a townie lynch a benefit to the SK until one mafia hangs.
Let me guess, your reply is going to be some variant of "nuh-uh," right?
2.) Unless the SK is near-certain that the person they're lynching is scum, in which case they would want to lynch before they missed their chance.
3.) Needless attack.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Yet it was not explicitly stated - it was an assumption on your part. I'm tempted to say that this is likely a null-tell anyways, so that's immaterial.Ythill wrote:
It was heavily implied.JD wrote:I was not in any way stating that my opinion was better than yours because of experience.
Then isn't any criteria applied to any one person in essence arbitrary, thus meaning that any point that can be made against anyone can be brushed off in a similar fashion? You can say that only scum uses the word parakeet on Tuesdays, but where does that come from? You can say that only town would attack someone in such way, but how is that not arbitrary in and of itself?Ythill wrote:
The phrase is not. The actual timing of the hammer, being based on players' actions rather than an incriment of time, is less arbitrary. Moreover, you applying that magical number to whether someone else's actions are scummy or not makes it even more arbitrary, which was my point.JD wrote:How is "a few hours" less arbitrary than 48 or 3 or 72?
The fact of the matter is that mafia is in and of itself a game based in the theoretical and arbitrary; very little can be taken asfactand everything can be taken in any way you wish. This is why logic is more and more becoming a failing point in mafia and psychoanalysis is becoming a great and highly useful tool - you have to try to understand people's intentions by working on as many levels of competence, intelligence and rationality as humanly possible. My point being that from the expected levels of competence, intelligence and rationality from you, I cannot see the townish reason for the hammer like that.
Meh, fair enough.Ythill wrote:
A specific warning could effect the actions of the scum. For example, a player who checks in 11 hours after a 10 hour limit has been set.JD wrote:How is vagueness in any way helpful to the town in this instance except as a fearmongering tool?
It also wouldn't allow flexibility on my part. If I'd said, "I'll hammer in six hours," and then checked in six hours later to see that nobody had posted, I'd have to choose between going back on my stated course of action or hammering with zero feedback, both detrimental to town.
Finally, the vague statement "a few hours" conveys a sense of urgency, motivating concerned players to post and, if they are serious about waiting, to unvote immediately.
It was not an attempt at an argument. There was no mask. I wanted your proof of your argument so I could go from there.Ythill wrote:
That's what I was saying. It was a stance masquerading as an argument and I wanted to pull the mask off.JD wrote:There was no argument presented...
Damnit, you're right. Now that I think of it, SK has even less reason than town - he can just nightkill instead.Ythill wrote:
The same would be true of a townie. So your statement amounts toJD wrote:Unless the SK is near-certain that the person they're lynching is scum, in which case they would want to lynch before they missed their chance.Ythill is the SK because he did this thing that is a likely action from any role.Unvotefor now, I have better leads to pursue.
Vote: Sethaniel
Case forthcoming when I have the time.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
I'm not going to post my case until Seth answers Ythill's question of whether or not the FBI agent should claim.
In which case whomever is actually the FBI agent should kill themselves for not following the requests of the town.camisade wrote:I don't think that a consensus vote should make the FBI want to claim anyway.If you are a town powerrole, you are obligated to follow the consensus of the town regarding your role actions. Not doing so is acting directly counter to the best interests of the town as a whole as determined by the town itself.
3 of the people are not acting with the best intentions of the town, correct. But it is fallacious to use that as an argument as there is only one person in the town acting with the best intentions of the SK - scum wants to get rid of the SK as much as the town does, and frankly it doesn't matter for them to keep the FBI Agent alive.camisade wrote:The only person that really has a say in this decision is the FBI agent. 3 of the people still in this game are not acting with the best intentions of the town in mind, and whichever way those people vote can greatly affect the outcome of the consensus.
Because the FBI agent claiming will help us find the SK, which is definitely *goodplaying*. Already covered the first part.Sethaniel wrote:What is this vote really going to do for the town? FBI is under no obligation to abide by it.
How is this in any way a negative? It's almost as if youSethaniel wrote:I think it's most likely going to be used later as evidence towards the lynch. Either "he voted for FBI claim, so he's SK" or "he didn't vote for FBI claim, so he's Mafia" or "he wouldn't vote, so he's scum of some sort. . ."wantour lynch choice to be less informed.-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud
Ythill wrote:Unless we get a counter-claim (which we shouldn't), the SK suspects have now been narrowed down to Dave, gob, Seth, and myself.Unvote, vote: Ythill
No legitimate reason to clear me.
now, demonstrate a clear link between Dave and Seth. Go go go.-
-
JDodge Accept it
- Accept it
- Accept it
- Posts: 5926
- Joined: May 6, 2005
- Location: Atop my cloud