Dichotomafia- Games Over

[Uraj45]

/confirm village role.

Vote Fishbulb

for randomness.
(totally agree with you though Talitha)

[Uraj45]

Eeek. Just read and caught up.
I'm going to add on another

Vote: Talitha

. At this point i've seen enough that i'm suspicious of the way Talitha's been defending and i'm willing to support this bandwagon.

[Uraj45]

I'm in the "lynch" faction.
I already found that Tally was kinda suspicious. Not terribly so, but enough that i noticed it. When MMCL said he had additional info I was willing to follow him up on it.
I don't want a lynch right now though. I want a claim.

[Uraj45]

that's the "lynch Tally" position.

[Uraj45]

unvote Talitha

I can confirm that I was roleblocked last night. Just for the purposes of anylyzing though, I'm going to include PB in my following thoughts.
Now this is whole thing is probably going to sound odd but:
I can see the logic in PB's actions. Since town mostly dont have any solid information on someone, they don't really know for sure who to vote for. A vote expresses who you are currently most suspicious of based on what little you have. It's better to switch around then to sit constantly on one person. The experienced players have adopted this strategy at times.
At the same time, I can see the logic in Nanook's vote on PB. Switching often can be an issue of not caring rather than a process of trying to reasess thoughts. In this case it could indicate scuminess.
Also at the same time, I can see the logic for Talitha to vote for Nanook. Mafia uses whatever momentum they can get, and if they can find "lynch-bait" from someone who just pops right out of the crowd, it's a wise tactic for them to go for it. Once the suggestion is there, it get other people to think "hmmm. . .that is odd. . .", and a mountain is made out of a molehill.
Finally, I can see the logic in MMCL voting for Talitha. Of course, if you find an action scummy, you should have a right to vote for it and the term lynch-bait, does indicate there are actions that look scummy.
So i can see the logic, but of course scum allways wants you to think they're being logical. But if I you look at it from the other perspective, and loog for motive:
I cannot find any motive whatsoever in PB's actions. It's not likely to get people lynched very effectively at all. The votes seem genuine to me. Talitha's motives . . .i cant particularly see them leaning hugely in either direction. And MMCL is really sticking his neck out for little gain if he's scum.
But Nanook. Nanook's bandwagon started, and worked. It was extremely effective at getting at a townie. The scum-bait theory is sound and if Nanook is scum, it makes a wise move for him.
Furthermore, back to logic, Nanook said that he was well aware of PB's style. And that moves into my core belief. If someone plays consistently a prticular way, whether scum or not, how can this be an indication of scuminess? It can't. And i dont understand why a protown nanook would think that.

Vote: Nanook

[Uraj45]

Alright, looks like it is indeed that time.
I'm a cop. My choices (as well as those of my replacement/replacee) have been as follows:
Night 1: Investigate Talitha. No result
Night 2: Investigate Fishbulb. Guilty
Night 3: Investigate Peacebringer. Guilty
Night 4: Didn't get my choice in on time so it was invalidated.
Not very useful, unfortunately, except to indicate the village counterpart.

[Uraj45]

Well. . .you. . .but not in a very concrete way. I suspect that one of the claimed townies is scum and I just get the least innocent vibes from you, not particularly guilty ones.
Fuldu is who I supsect the least. The whole setup comparison may have been wrong in the end, but I don't see how scum would know enough to use it to mislead and it seemed overall sincere and town-like.

[Uraj45]

Well, I'm not really sure what the whole lynch status is right now, but I'll

vote ralphmerridew

.
And this is basically what I was saying Fuldu though it's not really the owning up part that makes me feel that way.

[Uraj45]

Well I can tell you who the lest of the mafia is.
*points to ralphmerridew*
I got innocent on him, therefore he's guilty.
Not voting yet though. Want to hear a bit.

[Uraj45]

Silence
Hrmm. . .can't say that's the response i was expecting

[Uraj45]

nNorinel (8:48:50 PM): Anyone want to make a V/LA post for me?
nNorinel (8:48:58 PM): I won't be around tomorrow or Saturday.

[Uraj45]

My primary reason for not voting at this point is because I still want discussion and I want to figure more out about the second scum that is probably lurking around somewhere.
Anyway, Ralphm's argument about balance is fundamentally flawed. As we've already clearly established, making direct comparisons between the village and the town doesen't work. We may have more useful cops than the village, but they clearly have powerful roles that we don't. Wolfsbane. Apprentice Healer. Yes, we get a vig in exchange for the wolfsbane, but what about the healer? As ,a matter of fact, without another usefull cop we may find ourslves at a lesser position than the town.
Consider this: We don't have a single cop that doesen't have a drawback. A naive or paranoid cop is

worse than a townie

It allows for dangerous assumptions that could get both the cop and the acussee killed. Insane cop is not just as good a s a sane one, as the results could easily be misleading without context. And role cop? Yes that's a good role as it allows for unjaded results. However, there's a drawback

there

too. Which brings me to my next point.
Wacky had the drawback that he would appear guilty upon investigation. Now, if you accept Ralphm's theory, you must assume that I am not a cop. Furthermore, because his theory states that an additional useful cop would unbalance the town in comparison to the village, than you must also assume that MMCL was a useless cop. So, that means that Wacky's drawback was designed specifically for MMCL. Kind of weird but believable(note that two makes more sense here.).
Now, what does "appears guilty upon investigation" mean to a paranoid cop? Nothing! paranoid gets guilty all the time anyway. What does it mean to a naive cop? Different mods would probably handle this differently, but i would expect it to be handled the same way as a paranoid cop investigating a godfather, and i think the generally accepted answer here is to ignore the godfather clause and return guilty. The argument that a naive cop would see guilty in this case is a valid one but far from rock solid.
So what we're left with is that according to Ralphm's theory, Wacky's drawback was designed for the specific purpose of one questionable scenario. That seems like a weak motive at best. Furthermore, ralphm's contention that that there is a 1 to 1 ratio of useful cops between village and town is destroyed, as this situation creats something more like 1.5 to 1.
That's quite a few flaws right there. I hope it's enough to reveal to all that ralphm is spouting craplogic at you.

[Uraj45]

There's an assumption you forgot on your list. That's
All players awware of all the assumptions listed.
Most notably, I was not aware of the confirmed Mason assumption. I'll admit that I didn't give enough attention to this game at first(the time when i replaced). I came in at night, so Day caught me off guard(which was also the cause of my late night choice i might add.)I saw the mod-error, but didn't realize the implications of it until now and didn't give it much thought. I also never saw MGM's confirmation of MoS and I don't have time to look for it now. Today also happens to be the first point where i had to do any real thinking this game. My (correct) suspicion of you was more of a hunch thing.
It's very easy to screw with a list such as RM's. As I pointed out, RM's assumption exclusion was one way. Another was something like this

Cops who are unsure of their sanity remember their results.
Cops who are sure they are useful ABSOLUTELY remember their results.

which is BS. This is an assumption that I have seen negated in many games. I constantly have to check my pms for old information( these things are long remember!) and two of the investigations weren't even mine. All I had to do to them was transport info from one place to another. Any assumption of human behaviour is doomed to failure.
Let's take a look at this. Let's assume that all players assume all asumptions stated in rm's post as well as the following: Due to the imbalance it would create between village and town, Uraj and Talitha cannot both be scum and cannot both be townies.
Using this logic, RM could eliminate UT and thus know that Uraj's partner was was fishbulb. What did he do? He advocated the exact opposite, pinning out Uraj and Talitha as the two most likely candidates.
INCONSISTENT
Logical right?
No, it's crap. I know for a faact that ralphm didn't use that logic because we still disagree on the point.
We can, however, still reach the conclusion that UT should be eliminated. The assumption that we would have to make is: One townie and only one townine is scum. That was an argument from yesterday and I think it was logical and should be carried out. So that means one of [Fishbulb vs RM] is scum and by the fact of what that leaves over, one of [Uraj vs. Talitha] is scum.
in particular, that lets us eliminate UT leaving

Fishbulb & Uraj
rm & Talitha
rm & Uraj
Which tells us the following: If Fishbulb is innocent, rm is scum. If Talitha is innocent Uraj is scum. If rm is innocent Fishbulb is scum. If Uraj is innocent, rm AND Talitha are scum.
So does that leave us, as a whole, with a conclusion? Yes. Here it is.
If all of rm's assumptions are true and one and only one claimed townie is scum then:
Either rm is scum or both Uraj and Fishbulb are scum.
Thanks for helping me sort stuff out rm. I wouldn't have figured out Talitha without your help(well maybe eventually. Who knows how observant I really am)

Vote RM

[Uraj45]

Oh and i'm not going to be around from monday and wedensday.Please don't lynch in the meantime.

[Uraj45]

RM, player behaviour is just as fuzzy a thing as game balance and you know it. The player who makes the logical move is not always innocnet and the player making the illogical one is not always scum.
This game is fuzzy. It always has been and always will be. You can't mathematically determine who is scum using

anything

short of a guaranteed cop investigation.
Both of you, MoS and Fishbulb, have informaation that you need to make an informed choice as to who is scum here. And yet you haven't. Why is that?
Because the choice is difficult clearly. Mafia is a game and nobody ever said it was an easy one. Yes, if I had gone over all of my info and matched it up with the list every step a long the way, then yes, I should have figured out that Talitha was scum. But I didn't. I got caught up in the one piece of information I was sure of. The easier one. Bad play, yes. But it's certainly not one that wouldn't be repeated by many pro-towns.
Also, I would like you to keep in mind that RM's initial argument against me was based on game balance, and now he's gone back and lessened its importance once I came up with a scenario that refuted his own. He's using whatever arguments he can pull out of the air to convince you to lynch me.

[Uraj45]

Look at my post again ralphm because you clearly didn't get any of it, or just didn't care to respons. would you like to now?

[Uraj45]

Awesome game Norinel. I never really got to enjoy the whole duality thing since I was killed night 1 in the village, but I enjoyed playing in the beginning and the end nonetheless. I got mixed up some times as well, but that's all part of the game. And I

do

understand how to read the final scene. Nice touch.
Ralphm, that was some of the best craplogic I've seen in a while. Well played.
*smacks fishbulb upside the head*
You

always

listen to Uraj. I'll tell you when I'm scum.