Newbie 595 - Game Over!

[Litral]

Finally.

vote: Demonking

for being so very evil.

Have fun everyone!

[Litral]

Craplogic 1. You're in a newbie game as a newbie as well. Does that mean you just did an obvious OMGUS vote? This would mean you're scum.

Craplogic 2. By your logic no one would vote in about three years in any newbie game just to avoid being lynched for voting first.

[Litral]

Hi there! Starkmoon's Flatmate here: She's REALLY sick at the moment and can't come to her computer. I've been reading her games out to her and she will come and catch up and post as soon as she is well enough to get out of bed.

That sounds bad. Ask her to take care, and tell her there's no rush! This game is pretty slow anyway.

Litral, just so you know, the Newbie games here typically take 2 months or so to run to completion. Speed games are saved for AIM - Vel

Muerrto, were you referring to me? I, actually, in turn felt that Demon was starting to "logicify" too early, and thus I criticized his application of logic; it almost sounded as if he was being too OMGUS.

This may turn out to be the shortest random voting stage... ever.

[Litral]

Demonking, that's my point exactly. No one admits to an OMGUS. You won't of course say that you voted for me just because I voted for you - except jokingly - but your reasons for voting me were weak at best, and clinging on to poor logic is much more scummy than just doing a random vote at that stage. It's as if you were trying to justify an OMGUS. My vote stays for now.

I'd like to ask why it is better to vote off an IC, because I can't see that. If experience is an indicator of ability, as it usually is, most likely an IC could help us find scum more efficiently.

I have a pretty newbie question concerning the forums... is it that the topic starter can edit or delete any posts in the thread?

Vel, just so you know, I wasn't complaining. Thanks for the pointer.

[Litral]

Noone learns anything at all if we only have one day.

I don't get what you mean; are you saying that we can't possibly know who's scum? Because that isn't true.

Why did you choose to do a random point?

Again I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that my point was random? My point was far from random. I was saying you did not use proper logic when voting for me, and thus it is possible that you were trying to justify an OMGUS.

If you're asking why I voted randomly, it's because that seems to be the norm, and there's no better way to get a discussion started.

[Litral]

Well, the only way we would actually

know

if someone was scum was if we were scum ourselves. Is this a little slipup by Litral, or is he just sufficiently confused by Demonking's logic (or lack of it) that his reply got confused too?

Walnut, I think you have not understood the context under which my statement was made, and I would like to explain myself. I was responding to Demonking, who was being very vague there:

Noone learns anything at all if we only have one day.

by saying that this isn't true. I was guessing he was trying to say that we shouldn't lynch randomly - or something. He said (I think) that on the first day no one knows anything. I do not profess to "know" who is scum, but I do not agree that on the first day no one knows anything, and that is what I meant. Slipups are common, especially in newbie games; some of it is quite WIFOM, but scum could generally do a lot of things to benefit themselves. We're supposed to find those things. Then, it becomes possible to restrict to a few people who the scum most likely are.

While absolute knowledge is impossible - unless one is part of the mafia, as you have rightly pointed out - it is certainly very possible to guess. Therefore the statement that "we can't possibly know who is scum" is untrue, as we can know at least partially.

[Litral]

It was a little odd that Demon voted Massive immediately after Walnut. Massive seems to have seen it too since he asked about it. I also don't like Demon questioning Litral's vote then placing his own.

Another one of my suspicions as well. If he was townie, this makes no sense, because at least he had a reason to vote me. If he was mafia, however, this could be explained as jumping on a bandwagon quickly in order to get someone else lynched, since at that time no one was voting me.

<sadness>

Hey, don't worry, I'd be seriously worried if no one questions anyone in a mafia game. It's all par for the course.

[Litral]

Walnut, care to actually respond to my explanations? You're still voting me, if you remember. I wouldn't mind you keeping the vote there longer just for its own sake, but I'd like to know if you've read my explanations and find them reasonable.

We need to post more! Roar!

[Litral]

Ladies and gentlemen, even 597 has more posts than we do now.

Mike4876 should say something.

[Litral]

Demonking, you're at L-2 now. Care to say something?

[Litral]

L-2 = Two more to lynch. He has three votes - mine, Muerrto's, and snafoo's. But please don't put him at L-1 yet. He hasn't even had the chance to talk.

I dunno about a time limit... if someone gets lynched, then the day ends. I think usually when the game isn't active, the mod imposes a time limit, and may remove it when people start progressing.

[Litral]

Yeah, maybe we can wake up the sleeping

dogs

wolves:

Unvote

Vote: Demonking

Isn't that a reason that was given? Voting just to get an answer out of someone is, to me at least, townie play, because the mafia would rather the accused keep quiet and then lynch him.

Of course they could be co-mafia, but the chances of this happening is not high.

Anyway, how do you guys quote from multiple people? It seems that for multiple quotes I have to explicitly type them out?

[Litral]

I think pure pressure votes make sense, at least until there's a general direction... heated debates are good for the town.

[Litral]

snafoo, I know that I'm not even on your suspicion list, but I feel that it is necessary for me to explain my post no. 6 in response to Demonking.

Now you're in a newbie game as a newbie. That may mean that you actually did a scum vote first mistake.

Demonking's argument was: you are a newbie suggests you made a mistake. The mistake was to vote first. This is scummy.

Here he uses my "newbie"-ness as an excuse for voting for me. I say that this is Craplogic(tm), by a similar argument:

Craplogic 1. You're in a newbie game as a newbie as well. Does that mean you just did an obvious OMGUS vote? This would mean you're scum.

My (mocking) argument: you are a newbie suggests you made a mistake. The mistake was that you did an OMGUS vote. This is scummy.

To me an OMGUS is indeed scummy, because by definition it implies that no attempt/only weak attempts are made to actually suggest real suspicious points. At best, it's bad town play.

Note that my argument is not the one I stick to. I stick to this argument: Demonking has used Craplogic in order to force reason down an OMGUS vote. If he had just said "OMGUS! vote Litral!" I would've accepted it without further questioning. But the fact that he tried to make it logical is scummy, because it seems that he's deliberately hiding something just to avoid being lynched. (Of course, as you suggest, he may have really believed that his logic was correct.) The second strange thing was that his second post never responded to any of my points, and raised incomprehensible points itself. His third post was a deliberate attempt to shift attention.

And since my vote was random to begin with, I have found no reason to remove it yet, intending to keep the pressure on him (which doesn't seem to have worked).

SA's question was a bit strange:

Sorry for my noobishness, but what does L-2 mean? The wiki doesn't have anything on it...
Also, when does the first day end? Will there be a time limit or something?

I myself find it strange that SA has asked about one of the most basic rules, because he certainly knew a lot of things (such as random voting, lynching, pro-town, IC, etc.), but not enough to know the day ends after a lynch...? Queer. SA, in this game, showing that you are new is actually discouraged (sorry for that), so even though I may not understand some of the game, I try to work it out myself. It's not very newbie-friendly, but... heck.

Until then

Unvote, Vote: Snafoo

for pushing the 'vote an IC' thing waaay too much.

I don't think he's saying that an IC is more likely to be scum. He was saying it'd be more newbie-friendly not to vote off a newbie, and that was as much as he had for the first semi-random vote. He didn't - and I don't - like the "this is a joke" response because it was rather blunt. How is he pushing it way too much?

Might want to explain some of his other suspicions if you have time.

I am particularly intrigued why you have not tried to cast suspicions on people, except those who you were voting against. Seems that a townie would not focus so much on just one target at a time. Maybe you could tell us what you think and help us find the scum instead?

He's deliberately moving his vote onto people who are not in the game. That's not townie behavior -- townie behavior would ask for those people to be replaced.

Really? The town wants to win. Selfish as it may be, the town wants to just find the mafia. Moving votes onto people who are not in the game is a good way to find out if they're mafia, because it'll pull them back into the game... uh... theoretically.

[Litral]

Scum don't care who dies as long as it's not them. They try to convince everyone that everyone else is scummy. Causing paranoia is an excellent scum tactic. If everyone's acting scummy for one reason or another, votes will be flying more.

Town very much cares.

Huh. That does not compute for me. A townie never knows who is the real scum; he has only suspicions to act on. There's no way he can be sure. But a scum does know who he points at is or is not scum. If you're townie, I'm certain you wouldn't know who the mafia is, because your reason for voting snafoo is weak (which I will discuss below).

Indeed casting about paranoia is a scummy tactic, but this does not mean townies should not analyze. It's really quite WIFOM, but as far as I know, townies hunt down whomever they suspect, and mafia hunt down whomever the townies suspect, or don't help hunting at all. Townies will definitely help the hunt because they don't know who is mafia or not. You keep seeming to know.

In fact, tunnel vision is also scummy tactic.

Okay, now about the whole "voting off an IC" thing, Muerrto... I see it this way. snafoo voted an IC as the primary basis behind his very first vote, which was basically random. He never relied on the argument again - except he pointed towards your reluctance to accept the vote. He's not pushing the argument any more. I highly suspect he ever argued that you're scum because you're an IC any more. Here is some relevant analysis.

Since it would be a shame to vote off a newb on day one, I'd rather vote for an IC.
There's one player who pretty much asks for getting lynched (given his name). So:

Vote: Muerrto

The first random vote. The entire thing is full of randomness. True, he stuffed it with a bit of logic, but I like the logic.

Soo...what's your case to lynch the IC's then? If it's this newbie-friendly crap you in the wrong game boy. This is mafia, not the frickin care bears. I'm not sacking myself so you can play an extra day. I'm here to help the town win and whether you're newbie or not I'll lynch you. That's mafia.

This is no longer his case in his suspecting you. If this was his case there were two more people he could've voted. But he voted you. He had other suspicions, which you have completely ignored up to now. Also, again, first random vote, it's better not make the newbies (such as I) feel too bad about being random voted.

Sadly, your top two suspects are both IC's and that's no coincidence. And you never miss a chance to mention both of those IC's in your post, even when the post has nothing to do with the other one, see below:

You're saying his entire campaign is to "vote out the ICs"? That doesn't make sense at all. It's not like there's some obscure role which wins if you vote out the ICs or something.... I think. That's not his purpose, since it just plain makes no sense to be a purpose at all, but you're trying to make it sound as if it is.

It's not a coincidence, I suspect, because most of us newbies haven't even posted much yet. Mike and Demonking are infamously idle and SA is still getting used to the game. There are only two ICs to attack and two newbies to attack, to him. You behaved suspiciously to him due to many reasons stated below.

Soo...I'm sposed to give an argument why not to lynch an IC when you haven't given an argument on WHY to lynch an IC?

You lynch scum, period. Being an IC doesn't make you more or less likely to be scum so it should never be a factor in deciding.

Again, not his main point any more. He only considered the IC factor in post no. 60, not because he's voting for IC, but because his first random vote for IC raised a sarcastic response for you, which seemed like a scummy way to defend yourself.

So I repeat, give me a reason why being an IC would make one more or less likely to be scum. Give me a reason why being an IC is even a factor when determining if someone is scum.

It is not. It is a factor when determining who to vote for in the first random vote. He never pursued the argument again as part of his attack on you.

Actually, what I've said here is what snafoo has said many, many times, and what you, Muerrto, are apparently ignoring.

I do want to know one thing, however, snafoo... why are you pairing Muerrto with massive? I cannot understand your argument. Keep in mind that you said that in post 60, so please use material before post 60 to convince us.

[Litral]

Actually, I notice that snafoo has never again even mentioned his argument. It seems here that he was:

Muerrto doesn't give any arguments why we should not lynch an IC. Instead he suggests that no one could/should/would vote off an IC thinking straight.

But this does not mean he supports an argument indicating Muerrto is scum. That refers to Muerrto's sarcastic response to his vote which was random in nature. It's not even his main argument.

Walnut is the only one to have elaborately defended the "vote an IC" strategy by saying it's more newbie-friendly. And that's because there was nothing to go on. If you think such an argument indicates scum, Muerrto, I think Walnut is more likely to be scum than snafoo.

[Litral]

Incorrect. I suspect, not know. If mafia hunted down who the town suspected they'd be lynched, jumping on wagons etc.

Is it tunnel vision if I'm pretty sure I've found the mafia?

I was basically wondering if you're really suspecting, or just plain knowing. You seem extremely confident who the mafia is. The fact that I share none of your confidence is strange to me. I wanted you to explain. You are not doing that, you're just playing with my words instead of any debate that is going on.

The part about mafia hunting down who the town suspected is WIFOM at best and can often go unnoticed.

My reluctance to accept the vote? His reason for voting was because I'm an IC. Now you can call that random but then again, you're not Snafoo, so you'd be speaking for him. Do you feel the need or ability to do that?

I do feel the need to speak for someone else. Why not? I observe your little argument, I find flaws in your logic, I want you to answer me as well. You're convincing all of us, because no matter what, you want us to vote.

In fact, you're doing the very same thing. You're interpreting his words in your own little way. I do so in my own little way. Do you have the ability to do that? Yes? Then why not me? Because I'm a newbie?

If it was random then why'd he keep it and pursue it? Because it got backed up by a few others. He successfully started this idea that lynching IC's is the way to go. And yet has still not told me what difference that makes in whether someone's scum or not.

You have not shown that he kept the idea and pursued it any more. Again.

How is 'lynch an IC' logic in any way shape or form? It's either random or it's not. Saying his reasoning was logical makes it non-random, yes? Make up your mind.

Part of it is random and part of it is not. Why can I say this? My logic is thus: he limited his choices to ICs, and he then chose you. The first part was not random, the second part was random.

It is logic behind a first vote, as Walnut has explained, but it is not the way to find scum.

That's my whole point in voting him, his vote makes no sense. So it's just coincidence he suspects both me and massive then? Even you found that strange as noted below:

Say again? His vote makes no sense, so you're voting him? Are people who make no sense necessarily mafia?

I'm saying you're trying to make it sound as if he's pursuing a certain campaign, but he's not, because if he was, he would make no sense. So he is then not pursuing that campaign. Everyone makes sense, more or less, but the fact that "voting ICs" being one's main campaign makes so little sense that the fact you thought it was his idea intrigues me.

In other words, it makes so little sense I highly doubt it's his method.

So why are you so convinced he just happens to suspect 2 IC's and it's nothing to do with his 'lynch an IC' idea getting acknowledgment? He may have mentioned it once but when others latched on he rode it.

Why are you so convinced that the "lynch an IC" idea is what he's pursuing at all? From the beginning till end you have not successfully persuaded me of this:

Now quote the posts where I was pushing the point. Then we'll talk.

If you can't, that proves my point that you are trying to bend the truth.

I challenge you to do this as well.

How many times are you going to claim to be inside his head in one post? Post what YOU think, not what you think others think.

I'm not inside his head. I've read all of those posts, and I believe you misunderstood his intention. That was exactly what I THINK: YOU MISUNDERSTOOD, either intentionally or not. If you're offended, too bad. But that's what I'm sticking to.

You're again speaking for him and his motivation in voting. Careful there, you're creating a pretty strong link. His only other suspiscion of me revolves around Demon, who was/is acting scummy, period.

You were as well speaking against him and his motivation in voting, and I find no difference between our behavior. If it is generally not acceptable behavior to defend someone who you found to be unjustly accused, then tell me, but I don't think this is true.

He has many suspicions of you, and I want to point out some of my own as well, because you're focusing too much on this "vote off an IC" thing and avoiding some of the much larger suspicious points.

1. You have not suspected anyone except those who you voted for. Call it confidence, I think unless you're some sort of super-oracle, you would never know, and would at least point to several other players being suspicious in the game. While voting for Demonking you never questioned anyone else.

2. snafoo's "vote off an IC" idea was on the very first page, and you have clearly posted so many times after that. Why didn't you suspect him then, but only now? He did not, in fact, push the idea any more. I know this because I read his posts, not because I'm in his head, thank you very much.

3. A little lurky until snafoo pointed you out.

4. You keep saying that his strategy is "vote off ICs", which even you admit, makes no sense at all. I am unwilling to believe that he is that senseless, and more willing to believe that you're twisting his words.

You will notice I haven't voted you, because your behavior is only suspicious to me, but almost everyone else's is But I felt the need to point out that your accusations against snafoo are weak.

[Litral]

Incorrect. I suspect, not know.

Actually, all of your behavior points to you "knowing", which is what I want you to explain: either you have some really good logic going on there which my feeble mind cannot grasp, or you're just mafia finding someone to lynch.

[Litral]

Very sorry for triple posting.

Muerrto, my entire point of arguing against your accusation of snafoo can be best summarized by observing your logic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire logic is as follows:
1) snafoo is pursuing a "vote off ICs" campaign.
2) Therefore, snafoo must be voted off.

For point 1, snafoo has asked you to show how he is doing so and I would want you to do that as well. It makes too little sense to be his strategy.

For point 2, I'd like to see how you derived that. Do you think he's scum? Do you think he's just a bad townie? Clarify yourself, because you seem to accept both points.

The entire logic is so convoluted that I cannot understand why you're so determined to vote him.

[Litral]

I've already responded to all those points and you keep saying basically 'No it's this'.

Care to point me to where you responded? I don't see it. Your best argument against him is that he's not playing as a good townie.

This kind of back and forth mess is what the mafia likes to see because it creates a smoke screen they get to hide behind.

So not posting is the way to find mafia? As far as I know you could be one.

Case in point, obviously pursuing just the IC's makes no sense so obviously he's not doing that. Obviously voting to lynch an IC made no sense so his vote was obviously random.

This is the sort of argument I wanted to see, and you have given one. Let's see what you're trying to say, shall we? You're saying that his entire vote was random, and he is clearly not pursuing a campaign against the ICs. This contradicts what you have said. Previously you have said that his two top suspects are both ICs because he is "voting off ICs". Do you still believe that?

Is he trying to vote off the ICs or not?

And if he is voting randomly, why are you voting against him? Is it not permitted to vote randomly on the first page?

As for the difference, I posted what I thought about his posts. You posted what his motivations were and his reasons for voting and saying what he said, not what you thought. You posted as fact.

There is no difference. I can say this as well. You posted what his motivations were: he wanted to vote off an IC; and I posted what I thought: this is not his motivation. I never claimed to know the Ultimate Truth, I gave my explanation of what I saw.

If he turns up scum, how will that reflect on you?

If he doesn't, how will that reflect on you? You're acting so certain.

This has nothing to do with IC/newbie other than IC gaves me more experience to have seen things like this before. Why do almost all newbies have to turn it into that? You want us to answer questions and give advice but when we disagree you turn it on us and say 'why because you're an IC?'. Did I ever even mention being right because I'm an IC?

I do not mean to start a superiority contest with you. I just felt it unfair that you said I had no ability to interpret his posts.

That's why you need to let him speak for himself and not defend him. That's why I say you act like you know why he's posting what he's posting.

I don't act like that. I act like I know what he's posting what he's posting. My main motivation here is not to defend someone, but to point out that your accusations are weak, or at least I don't understand them.

You're supposed to be convincing me here. I was hoping that you'd explain your accusation further, and not tell me to just keep quiet and wait.

[Litral]

Oops, I completely missed out the words "Case in point". Screw that.

[Litral]

Welcome back, starkmoon.

In case it is not clear to you ICs, we newbies are definitely grateful you're helping us.

I'd like to know why you, Muerrto, insist on classifying my posts as "defending snafoo", while my main intent was in fact to point out the irregularities in your accusation.

Until Demonking or his replacement arrives I'm content with viewing the debate as of now.

[Litral]

Dear Modding Vel, I realize it's really unfair to ask this of you right now since you're busy with the kid and work, but can we get replacements for both

Mike4876

and

Demonking

when you're free? The first has never posted, even after picking up his prod, and the second has been inactive for one entire week, even under huge pressure.

Walnut, you seem convinced that Muerrto is misdirecting on purpose, and that Demonking is also quite suspicious. Uh... why is your vote on me, then? You've been very reluctant to change your vote all this time.

That's a very good question. The fact of the matter is, my suspicion of massive was more gut feeling than reasoning.

Well, it seems that your logic was only to find a possible pair for Muerrto.

But I do want to give a

FoS: Muerrto

. His reasons for voting snafoo are weak and generally fabricated. He has refused to show how snafoo was pushing it, even after snafoo asked him to do so, and me again. When I started attacking his accusation, he told me to stop defending snafoo, but that was clearly not what I was doing. And that "I have responded to all of your points" comment sounded like clever dodging...

[Litral]

I did apologize for that in the very next post. I'll do so again. Sorry.

[Litral]

@Walnut:
I went bonkers. I meant massive, not Muerrto. You must admit there are certain similarities between their names ...

Massive says that he is voting for snafoo for jumping on a bandwagon, then shortly after says that everyone does it and it is ultimately a null tell.
The bit where he comes back and says that Snafoo's side comment about being "spineless enough to kick a defenseless kitten" some other time is a clever defence against later vote analysis made me genuinely laugh out loud. Either Snafoo is a criminal mastermind who has been brilliantly unmasked (phew!) or that was a wonderful piece of misdirection.

The last sentence seems to suggest that you believe either snafoo to be criminal, or massive to have misdirected on purpose. I was wondering why you put your vote on me, while you haven't even mentioned anything suspicious I've done for all this time.

Keep in mind I'm not at all convinced massive is scum, but I just wanted to see you vote. Because I find it strange that you're picking apart everyone's arguments while voting no one in particular, well, except me. That could be scummy, for two reasons: one, since if we accidentally vote out a townie we'd definitely start analyzing votes on the next day - but you'll come clean since you're not even on the bandwagon, and you could definitely know we're going to mislynch. Two: you're suggesting everyone's made mistakes, but being reluctant to actually suggest who's scummy. Of course, that's all WIFOM, and currently Demonking and Muerrto are much more suspicious.

I guess I just wanted you to explain why you're still voting me... it would be very nice to receive a list of my suspicions so I can try and convince you otherwise.

And about your post 94, uh, it's basically a huge screwup, ignore it. Or read Muerrto's explanation. Page 90 should precede page 89 in time, the rest is all misreading (big error on my part, tiny error on Muerrto's).

I try to impart that knowledge to the people I play with but most newbies, like the ones here, are more interested in assuming they know better and questioning the IC judgment.

Playing the IC card now? It's ten times worse than playing the newbie card. And in any non-newbie game being thoroughly defeatist would've led to a lynch already, or at least that's what I've read.

@Muerrto: another suspicious point. The Demonking bandwagon was clearly a good one. This is because he has acted completely suspiciously in three different posts, and that's all of his posts. Keeping pressure on him would have been good. This is the consensus in this game.

You abruptly abandoned that bandwagon to latch onto snafoo, who was only slightly suspicious at best, and your reason for voting him was "pushing something way too much" - which sounds more like gut feeling to me. Whatever you said later, that's your reason for abandoning a bandwagon and voting someone.

A townie has no reason to abandon a good bandwagon for a weak one.

If you were scum, there could be many reasons.
1) Causing confusion.
2) Since snafoo hasn't voted, quickly voting him to make him look OMGUS when he votes back.
3) Directing attention to someone else.

There. Not semantics at all. Want to respond?

[Litral]

*shakes head* Walnut, I just realized I'd completely dropped you from my radar because you were being a very friendly player and helping us have fun.

Time to reset the radar.

[Litral]

Didin't think so.

[Litral]

I guess my suspicions of Litral could fall into Muerrto's category of overanalysing posts.

I blame myself for having no life. ... Well I do have one, but I don't want to get back to it.

I mixed up two names because I was referring to your post, which had both names Muerrto and massive - I looked down, saw "Muerrto", and just typed it.

"we can know who scum are" isn't a mistake. I didn't actually say that. I said that "we cannot know who scum are" is false, because there are always hints and stuff.

"case in point" is really a serious mistake, though.

Anyway, that's fair, I guess. My bad.

[Litral]

Is this your very first game of Mafia, Walnut?

[Litral]

Would it be fair to ask, from you, for a detailed analysis of all the players in the game right now, Walnut? I just read through the thread and I found some interesting things.

[Litral]

Thanks q21 for replacing! Therefore:

unvote

Very nice, and much-needed analysis. I will now gladly explain my actions.

Your main argument against me is that I have defended snafoo, whom you believe to be suspicious. I must state that in no way is this my original intention. My intention was to attack Muerrto's vote for snafoo, which I found to be illogical. Part of me wanted to see that knowledge which he seemed to know:

if Emeril told you how to cook something, you'd listen, yes?

Analysing posts too deeply leads to mislynches. You have to know/figure out with experience what's a scum tell, what's legit, and when to argue a case and when to not.

I try to impart that knowledge to the people I play with but most newbies, like the ones here, are more interested in assuming they know better and questioning the IC judgment. Frustrating to say the least.

The other part considered that he might be the other scum we're looking for.

Walnut, my request still stands; I want an explicit argument from you.

q21, what do you think of Muerrto's behavior? I notice you have not commented much on it.

(also I see this is actually your first newbie game, even though you're in two theme games. )

I honestly don't have much to say at this point. You're all too hardcore at post analysis for me. o_o

Uh... not really... try.

[Litral]

What does it mean when a general analysis turns into an explicit argument? I think it means that my single vote sitting on you is making you edgy, and I don't mind that.

If you don't mind me paraphrasing Muerrto, I'm afraid this is what he called "grilling over semantics".

It didn't change. I was - and am - worried that you seemed to, well, "flow along", so I wanted to see what you actually thought of all players. Hence, an explicit argument considering all players. I accept your reasons not for doing so, however.

[Litral]

By the same token, I am glad that you accept my reasons for not publicising my thinking, but a little curious as to how I seem to "flow along". Would it be possible to elaborate on that at all?

It would, but you won't like it, since it's just a gut feeling. You voted for me early on and kept it there. You stayed out of the snafoo-Muerrto+Massive debate, and you stayed out of the Litral-Muerrto debate (more like bickering, really), basically pointing out everyone's mistakes equally while not really suggesting suspicion. Possible scum tactic. But it's only a feel.

[Litral]

q21, you need to unvote.

snafoo, massive, you two haven't posted for a while now... so in case you decide to vote before catching up...

Mike is at L-1.

So don't vote Mike.

That said, let us wait.

[Litral]

q21, I apologize for being very, very unclear. What I meant was that you need to unvote first, because you have not unvoted from voting for Walnut. Then you may vote. I have no opinions about putting someone on L-1 in a newbie game.

[Litral]

Litral's reaction is noted, though.

[Litral]

In case someone gets any ideas - q21, you decide whether or not to vote; snafoo, massive and I are not allowed to vote until mike returns or is replaced; just to avoid a mislynch.

[Litral]

If Mike's picked up his prod, not posted, and is sitting at lynch -1 and not posting he should be hammered, period. If he's picked up his prod he won't be replaced so waiting is pointless. Give him till monday I guess then kill him.

That's like... 11 hours later. With so few people mislynching is going to be really bad. I'd rather:

MR. VAL: Sorry for bothering you again - thanks for helping us find q21 - but if someone doesn't post for 13 days, I don't think they want to play the game. Can you replace mike before this goes out of hand? Thanks!

It's not that he's not posting. He was prodded for not posting and picked up his prod and said "I'm here" in response. He's paying attention to the game, therefore he does not get replaced. If a player chooses to lurk it's not the Mod's responsibility to deal with them. If he had not picked up his PM then he would have been replaced days ago. - Vel

I wanted to give you the space to try and derail the train on Mike further - then if he turns up as mafia you would be have done a good job of incriminating yourself.

Nice play. I'm reading some games and all I can see is on the surface - people seem to implicitly know everything underneath. I see how your "Litral's reaction is noted" would've squeezed out a defense from me if I really was suggesting you not vote him. If it doesn't affect the gameplay, I'd love to read more explanations like this.

[Litral]

Your hesitancy and insistence on replacing instead has me a little baffled.

Your impatience and insistence of having him lynched immediately leaves me very baffled.

If he's picked up his prod he's obviously playing, so he's scum.

This is a false statement. We have no idea what goes on in the minds of those who sign up for a game only not to play. I can direct you to plenty of games where a townie signs up, confirms, and then never posts again. There are also plenty of games where a mafia signs up, confirms, and never posts again, but there is no obvious ratio as to which is more likely.

It's already Monday, but I will not be hammering him, simply because it will kill the game to have 2 townies dead for no reason. You're pushing awfully hard for a lynch, you know? Do you have certain killing abilities you wish to use indiscriminately?

[Litral]

I can think of a good reason not to play as townie: "Damnit, stupid role, useless role, never going to post". Your abrupt generalization is not helpful.

[Litral]

*sigh* Tell you what, Muerrto. Let's exchange. I'll put in my vote and you decide whether or not to hammer him. Deal? Since you're so trigger-happy, I'll give you the right to do so.

[Litral]

Let me clarify, I mean I want you to unvote; once I see your unvote I will vote; and then you decide whether or not to hammer him.

[Litral]

The only thing I've done in every mafia game I've ever played is die...

[Litral]

vote: mike4876

[Litral]

Well, 7 player game now.

Also, @ Litral - AtiP works on logic that doesn't fit in normal mafia games - read it for interest sake by all means, but don't try to use anything you see in just about any other game you play.

Hey, I'm not using it in any way whatsoever. I'm laughing because in the aftermath you said you always died in every game you've played. I found it funny, that's all. Gee, sensitive, aren't we?...

[Litral]

Walnut, give us your blessings. It was really fun playing with you, and I hope to meet you in another game.

MOD: Really funny description.

It is time that we reviewed the events of yesterday.

My refusal to lynch Mike is suspicious, I admit. I offer my argument here: I believe that lynching someone purely due to not posting ruins the game and is not likely to help us find scum. It is very possible that he was just bored with getting a townie PM and refused to post. In fact, if I were scum, I really had no reason to listen to your impatience, as I'm sure the other 3 people on the bandwagon did so just to pressure him; I allowed you to hammer him because I wanted you to take the responsibility if he turned out town.

I will also say that I am not at all pleased with having lynched someone who didn't talk, even if he did turn out to be scum. This is because it is now extremely difficult to find bits and pieces from the lynched scum's words in order to link to the other one. I blame mike.

@starkmoon, snafoo and massive: Post please, kthxbai.

@snafoo: Note that your "pairing argument" no longer works in incriminating massive. I'd love to see another post carefully analyzing everyone's posts.

@Muerrto: Again, this means that my defense of snafoo is no longer suspicious. Also, please explain clearly why you think only scum wouldn't post at all, not even in the random voting stage. I'd also ask you to explain why you voted snafoo once and for all.

Something for you to chew on too.

Things never, ever to do in a mafia game, if you want to win, from bad to worst:

1. Bad. Get frustrated and stop posting.

2. Worse. Actually say "I'm frustrated, I'm going to just stop posting".

3. Worse yet: Say "Just go ahead and lynch me". There's never a good reason to say this, and there's certanly no logical reason for you to give up now; you're not even the #1 suspect based on votes at the moment , I think (although I could be wrong, this game is moving so fast).

Shrug kill me then, lately almost all my newbie games have been newbies trying to teach ME how to play...and being wrong.

Since this lesson is from someone no less than Yosarian2 himself, I think you should accept it.

@SA: I wish you would start telling us who you suspect. It is extremely necessary for the town to hear everyone's suspicions. I'm sure you know why.

@q21: If I ever use that quote against you, I will cut off my penis.

As far now, the strongest scumtell I could find is in Muerrto.

I try to impart that knowledge to the people I play with but most newbies, like the ones here, are more interested in assuming they know better and questioning the IC judgment.

The scumtell is called "appealing to authority". It also sucks so much as a general statement.

Several other strange posts:

What will we have to go on? The mafia hasn't done anything yet...

I guess you could say this is a newbie asking advice. But I find it strange. Plus, several of SA's "newbie questions" contradicted with each other, such as post 11 asking what the purpose of random voting is, and post 13 immediately sticking a random vote on someone while still ostensibly not knowing what random voting is supposed to be.

Your quote: "I didn't change my vote so I could kick another defenseless kitten this time (although I'm spineless enough to do so anytime)."

My interpretation: "I'm willing to go ahead and vote for any person, even if no reason is given for said person's bandwagon."

My long-winded interpretation: "In this specific ocassion, I did not change my vote simply to vote for someone who cannot defend himself, be it due to his or her absence from the game, or due to the fact that the evidence stacked against said person is either irrefutable or complete and utter garbage. But I withhold, for the future, my ability to do so, and consider yourself warned that I am willing to do so. I am willing to bandwagon onto trains that have no meaning, I am willing to vote for people who should be replaced, I am willing to pretty much just vote my whim. Remember this in the future when you try to lynch me for my voting habits."

massive: you have so far casted suspicion on no one except snafoo, and focused on only ONE sentence which, to me, is obviously a joke. I think you should start analyzing everyone else's posts in order to contribute.

The others simply haven't posted enough for me to be certain.

That said:

vote: Muerrto

. His other scumtells are stated below.

Tell me what about being an IC makes us more or less likely to be scum and I'll vote myself...

Until then

Unvote, Vote: Snafoo

An OMGUS vote. Muerrto still hasn't explained why snafoo was suspicious, or more suspicious than Demonking.

Scum don't care who dies as long as it's not them. They try to convince everyone that everyone else is scummy. Causing paranoia is an excellent scum tactic. If everyone's acting scummy for one reason or another, votes will be flying more.

I find this to be strange. It is necessary for town to keep an eye on everyone; missing scum is dangerous and could give them tickets to the endgame. Any dubious action should be brought out into the open. If you only throw arguments against whomever you're voting right now, you give yourself an aura of certainty which only scum has. Muerrto seems to be trying to justify this aura of certainty.

Analysing posts too deeply leads to mislynches. You have to know/figure out with experience what's a scum tell, what's legit, and when to argue a case and when to not.

This was written in a period of frustration when I attacked Muerrto for providing weak reasons for voting snafoo. Muerrto was trying to trivialize my arguments by saying that I am inexperienced.

There. Not semantics at all. Want to respond?

Not particularly.

Not explaining yourself is never good for town. If you're frustrated, you should take a deep breath, drink some tea, meditate, zenify, kill some bastards in a video game (it's very satisfying), and then come back. My argument was that him abandoning the Demonking wagon made no sense for a townie, and this was the entirety of his response.

That is all I can gather. I think if Muerrto can explain why he wanted to hammer mike, that'll count as a point for him. The non-posters follow Muerrto on my list of suspicion for now.

[Litral]

I have in no way said that you are guilty because you hammered Mike. Please read my post again. Also, I wanted to see your explanation to hammering him; that is the reaction I saw and I am satisfied.

[Litral]

@massive: Thanks for the explanation, please begin to suspect people.

[Litral]

I have in no way said that you are guilty because you hammered Mike.

Really? Are you sure?

Yes. Didn't even bother reading it, did you? Or are you trivializing the scumtells I found on you?

My last statement was used to goad a reaction from you. It did not imply you were suspicious because of hammering Mike (which is craplogic). Seriously, read it before you post gibberish.

I have stated my opinion on "not posting" v. "picking up his prod". I know he picked up his prod. I, however, did not support a lynch on him for two reasons. First of all, he may very likely be villie hating his role and content with just reading other games (as I was for quite a while); he may have just clicked instinctively and neglected it; there may be a little brother involved; etc. Second of all, and most importantly, it ruins the game, and I want my newbie game to be a full and healthy one where everyone participates.

I did not know that he had actually written a PM at any point, or I would've definitely hammered him for actively pursuing a strategy of lurking (which I didn't believe he did). Due to both not believing he's definitely scum and not wanting to ruin the game, I gave you the chance to do so. If he turned out town, it would be obvious what you were doing. And I wouldn't feel guilty for finishing day 1 so abruptly.

Also, it's the fourth and fifth vote.

This was a question you should've asked yesterday, not as an OMGUS.

[Litral]

So, okay, we now know the following things from Muerrto's reaction.
1) Muerrto has not read my post or the details of any of the scumtells I found on him. Why? The only reason is that such information is completely irrelevant to him. He does not need to defend himself in order to help the town reach an informed decision. He just has to attack someone ferociously enough and say "oops" tomorrow. Extremely anti-town and unhelpful thoroughly.
2) Muerrto decided to vote for me despite not having read my post and accusations of him at all. If this isn't OMGUS in its pure materia form, I don't know what is.

Unless something else pops up I'm happy with where my vote is.

[Litral]

I truly had no idea he was actively lurking; no one knows why the hell one signs up for games and don't play, and I thought he was in this category. I will also admit that I do not have a full comprehension of the prod system, as I thought visiting the site would automatically trigger receiving the prod.

However, I didn't want to lynch the non-poster, I wanted to replace him, exactly because of wanting a full game where everyone posts. If I received confirmation once more that he will not be replaced, I would also have hammered him. As it happens, this is not true.

q21, would you have hammered him? You yourself asked for no one to hammer him until he had a chance to speak. I was acting on the same principle.

If I were lying with my explanation of post 126 then I was scum trying to derail the bandwagon. I would definitely not be looking at whether or not you have unvoted in order to explain my post; I would say things like not wanting someone to accidentally hammer him, etc. The fact that I knew you didn't unvote for Walnut when I posted that shows my innocence.

[Litral]

Cease and desist with the personal attacks. My posts aren't 'gibberish', I read every word you said, I believed none of it. You played badly, deal with it and move on. If you're not lynched today I'll be floored and if you're not scum I'd say read over some more games before you play again.

Last I'll address this issue because I'm not getting into another argument with a newbie because they think they know how to play...

Look, this is the last time you're going to be insulting my playstyle. If you don't have an argument, stop posting. It is obvious that you did not read my post because you thought I was accusing you of hammering Mike, which is absolutely untrue.

[Litral]

@Muerrto: THERE. Finally decided to respond to one of the points, didn't you?

I will counter your argument, as we should be doing in a mafia game instead of CLAIMING SUPERIORITY. And don't say I'm the one starting a superiority contest, just look at your own friggin' posts.

In no way will a mislynch ever help the town with info. Remember that there's only 1 scum now so at least 3 townies will be voting you. The fact that you promote such a mislynch is a huge scumtell, because you're working with reverse psychology, and that's the only explanation for it. Proving yourself right by getting lynched is not a good idea.

I have responded to all the points that have been sensibly brought forth to me, mainly concerning my reluctance to hammer someone who I felt we should've replaced instead. I do so in order to convince the townies that I should not be their lynch. The fact that you won't even care to, instead using:

1) Appeal to authority. About three times.
2) Appeal to emotion.
3) "Just lynch me" playstyle

combines into a myriad of scumtells of such epic proportions.

[Litral]

Tell me when I have insulted you, ever. However, you have definitely insulted my playstyle. Look:

Last I'll address this issue because I'm not getting into another argument with a newbie because they think they know how to play...

I don't know how to play? Is that the best you could come up with?

I try to impart that knowledge to the people I play with but most newbies, like the ones here, are more interested in assuming they know better and questioning the IC judgment.

I definitely don't know better, huh? Yay, me, the newbie!

Did I ever even mention being right because I'm an IC?

Yes. As I said on another thread, if Emeril told you how to cook something, you'd listen, yes?

Uh huh!

Don't post then. Less headache for me.

[Litral]

Ok...this happens in almost every newbie game.

You think there's a reason for it?

[Litral]

Good. Let's see that shall we? Your point is that we'll mislynch you today. This will, somehow, give us so much information that we will know who's scum tomorrow. Me! Why don't you actually start giving arguments if you really believe I'm so scummy?

[Litral]

Very well. I, however, did not quote Yosarian2 to say that Muerrto is scum; that was not one of the scumtells I found in him. Therefore I was not appealing to authority in order to lynch him, and I see why neither was he. I have my terminology wrong.

[Litral]

That is not logical. Of course I am not fine with dying first. What will happen if I get lynched first? Nothing good. I, and I believe many other players, wouldn't automatically lynch you just because you advocated my lynching. Therefore my mislynch serves no purpose.

You should realize that this isn't a "either Muerrto is Litral is definitescum now since they voted for each other" situation. Also, I have not ever said that I'm sure you're scum. I said that you are suspicious, although your entire "OMGUS!! OH, NO, wait, VOTE MYSELF!" reaction doesn't help at all.

You are indeed abandoning the game if you can offer no constructive argument except that lynching you will magically find scum for us.

I do not even wish we should lynch you immediately. My vote is made to express my view that you are scummy, and I want you to explain. Your explanation is - OMGUS.

I am perfectly fine with you dying, and you're going along with that. That makes me happy.

If you're so willing to die, just die. I am not because I believe mislynches make no sense. I have no idea why not wanting to be lynched = scum.

The problem with the entirety of your argument is that you are 100% sure I am scum and that you, as a villager, dying would reveal me as scum. That is your super strategy. Guess what? That is not true in a variety of ways and you have not offered any argument for that. The only thing I have done is to vote you, and you have decided to place myself in such a way that the town can only choose 2 options. Why don't you even think anyone else can be scum? I do think so. But I think you're more likely to be scum, and that's why my vote is there.

The best you have going against me is that I wanted to replace Mike and didn't want to hammer him. There are really only two possibilities for this.

1) I am scum. I am quite blatant and very open about defending someone who was about to die anyway. I essentially hammer him, although in an indirect way anyway. I also come out the second day immediately with a post against someone who has fervently advocated his hammering, like Mike was my brother and I had to avenge him.

2) I am townie. I want a better game without mislynching due to absence and people not posting.

If this implies that I am obvscum to you, have it your way.

@SA: Nah, Walnut was being both a good player and very analytical. Dangerous to the scum. I immediately regretted quoting that paragraph from another of q21's games because q21 is also a good player, and I thought it'd give the scum ideas, for which I would be very apologetic.

[Litral]

@Muerrto: so, to summarize, your "valid strategy" is:

1. Point at someone who pointed at you.
2. Kill self.

This implies that whomever you pointed at must be scum? How?

The tunnel vision doesn't help the town at all. If you're townie, simply bring out an argument against me instead of saying killing yourself will necessarily imply I'm scum. It is not true in any way whatsoever, the only confirmed townie is Walnut.

That said, I find q21's last comments extremely dangerous.

unvote

.

@q21: I have offered my argument against simply voting off one of us as a valid town strategy in the last post and this one. Please respond ASAP with your thoughts on whether or not this is a good strategy.

[Litral]

Ooh, so that's why people should never put forth arguments. Thanks Mr. Muerrto. You've been a great help to the town in this game.

Talk about over-reacting when you actually voted for yourself...

[Litral]

Ever heard of sarcasm? Is it not permitted in these forums? Is it necessary for you to continue with the ad hominem attacks? I would argue that you are childish for being so impatient and willing to rely on the "I have more experience" mentality. But let's leave that until later.

Again, q21, please explain why you think this is a good strategy.

[Litral]

Hmm. Actually, Muerrto, you are right. If I am convinced that you are scum, another way to get you lynched is to get myself lynched. That way, everyone will see that you were pushing my lynch too hard, and that you must be scum.

vote: Litral

Everyone else should comment on Muerrto's strategy, which sadly shall lead to his own demise. If you believe it makes sense, vote for me. Especially q21.

I ask our kind mod for a

prod

on starkmoon who has not posted ever since she came back from her holiday.

[Litral]

I'm wondering if there's someone called "myself". That way, anyone who votes for him must type out vote: myself.

[Litral]

Good.

unvote

SA, unvote. I think that's all I need to see now. T'was a gambit and I think it failed, because I don't want to leave for 10 hours only to find myself lynched.

Let me explain myself. Voting oneself is in most cases not a good strategy. The only possible good that will come of it is time saved because you don't have to give any arguments, but then the town loses 2 people (most likely).

Let's see what one of us getting himself lynched will do: the other will be lynched. However, this is only good because if one of us believes the other to be so guilty that no other person is anywhere close. The only logical step is to give arguments, then; getting lynched only proves that one of us is a townie, it doesn't prove that one of us is right, or that the other must be scum.

Being lynched as a town doesn't prove you right in any way whatsoever, because townies don't have more information.

However. This situation is perfect for scum. The situation was that both of us will be lynched in Day 2 and Day 3 - a free ticket to the endgame for the scum if it's not either of us. This is very likely - I wouldn't put Muerrto's possibility of being scum above 25% (still high, but much lower than everyone else's combined). This situation is perfect for scum to take advantage of.

Thus, whomever went with this strategy would've been put under extreme suspicion. I tried to restart the strategy just to get the scum to go along with it. No one actually did. But for the first one:

I agree that you idea is essentially sound. BUT I don't want to go into day 3 with some people having hardly checked in, let alone contributed. If massive also agrees I would probably go through with it.

FoS: q21

for now.

q21, I hope to see an argument why the strategy is good. You have said that:

In essence I agree with Muerrto that should he die and come up innocent it would big finger pointing your (Litral's) way.

This is true, very true. This, however, is not "good for the town", because if you think I'm scum, you should actually lynch me today.

I have given my read in that very long post at the beginning of the day. There is nothing to add except suspicion for q21. However, I suspect this is a perfect case of "town tearing itself up by posting". I will not be voting until everyone posts.

I'm actually also surprised Walnut's town... okay, it's not good to guess what the scum thinking, but since this is a newbie game lemee share my thoughts: I think the scum got cop reads out of his play; also, no doc would try to save him because he was slightly suspicious.

I guess I'm happy that Muerrto thinks I'm only playing poorly if I'm scum. That is true. If I were scum clinging on would be bad play. I would've disappeared altogether.

[Litral]

@q21: To be more precise, you said that if massive agreed, you would probably go along with it. That is what drew my suspicion.

Actually, the confirmed innocence of one of us will only reduce the list of players, and prove that the one who was lynched had no ulterior motives when pointing at each other (which one should try to discern by reading the arguments). It should not actually increase the value and veracity of our arguments.

But for now, I do suspect this is a case of town tearing itself up.

@snafoo: Yes, we demand possssts.

@SA: Sorry to be so confusing.

@starkmoon:

[Litral]

@SA: Never think that of people.

Also, just to make sure, if I am lynched, and anyone uses the "Muerrto pointed his finger at Litral so he's obvscum" reason to vote him, in whatever wording, then that person is very likely to be scum.

I did expect to be lynched before the day began - trying to replace Mike was a bad idea and is definitely going to be your largest suspicion - but I'm going to try to milk the most out of this discussion.

Let's wait for snafoo.

[Litral]

All we're really doing is waiting for snafoo here...

[Litral]

I only have 2 games, and I'm already rather drained... participating quite a lot in the other one.

*yawns*

Uh... time to use my awesome voting powers again in this democratic game.

vote: Vel-Rahn Koon

unvote

That was fun.

[Litral]

Jump on the bandwagon!

vote: Vel

[Litral]

Moderator:

You are the moderator, and you are running this game so that the players may have fun and be grateful for this.

• You possess a variety of day powers, including: setting deadlines, votecounting, prodding, replacing, and formally ending the day.
  
• You may kill any player, any time.
  
• You may communicate with any player.
  
• You know all the roles.
  
• During NIGHT, you will receive PMs from all power roles.
  
• You cannot be daykilled, nightkilled, vigged, roleblocked, framed, investigated, protected and/or lynched. Any player who tries to do so will fail automatically without exception.
  
• You win with any party, or even individually as long as the game ends.

We're really just having some fun before the non-posters arrive.

[Litral]

Personally I like snafoo and Litral more than SA, but I'm interested to see how he responds to a vote on him. He seems to get jumpy at the mention that he may be scum, interesting to see what a vote does.

The problem with the argument against me is this: a necessary assumption is my incompetence. Suppose I

am

scum. Then right when my buddy is being lynched I keep defending him and doing things that attract a heck lot of attention, leading to most likely a cop investigation in the night if there is a cop. And then I come out on Day 2 immediately by alienating a townie, thus fueling my own lynch even more. Even if I managed to save Mike, later on if one of us is lynched and turn up scum, the other will be lynched immediately, and this could very much happen (either this or a perfect scum win).

I do not understand why the other possibility - simply not wanting someone's absence to affect the game too much - is less. I repeat that I did not know he had sent a message to Vel until Night 1, and I imagined that visiting the site immediately triggers the prod.

@SA: I think you need to write a slightly longer post to describe what suspicions you have - you seem to be avoiding this. Votes are very often used to get reactions, so don't panic, explain yourself, and don't OMGUS (you sound like you would there). Please do not say that you have no ability to do so, because I'm sure you have this ability.

I'm not voting anyone until the non-posters post.

[Litral]

Patience, young padawan.

DEAR MOD:
1) Has starkmoon picked up her prod?
2) Can we please get a prod on snafoo, who has not posted at all in 5 days?

Prodding!

[Litral]

Well, this is certainly exciting...

Official Vote Count

snafoo - 2 (q21, Muerrto)

Super Archivist - 1 (massive)

Not Voting - 4 (Litral, snafoo, shaka!!, Super Archivist)

4 to Lynch (3 at deadline, May 20).

[Litral]

Well, this is a somewhat complete reading of mine as of now.

q21

: One thing I really liked about him is the fact that he's the one who began the Mike lynch - with his very first second post (first one = "hi"):

FoS: Mike as lurkerscum. If Vel isn't trying to replace him then he has picked up his prod, which means he's floating around and deliberately not participating. This is scummy in the extreme.

He also comes into the game offering some fresh ideas. However, I did not like his half-eagerness to jump onto a Muerrto-Litral double lynch; I realize indeed that he has explained this, but there are still a few discrepancies:

Explaining post (written to me):

I thought it was implicit from the fact that I stated that I suspect you most that I'd rather lynch you. I never said that carrying out that strategy then and there was good -

actually I think I said that lynching either of you before others contributed would be bad... yep, I did. I did say in an earlier post that if some of the other ICs arrived and agreed I'd probably go along with it.

I'd still like to know what the other ICs think of the strategy.

In answer, no I will not offer an explanation as to why I think the strategy is

good

, I don't really.

I've agreed that the confirmed innocence of one of yourself or Muerrto would point at the other.

I have never agreed that we should just lynch one of you straight away to find out. If the day progresses without anyone else looking scummy then it possibly becomes an option... but not yet.

Earlier (written in response to Muerrto):

I agree that you idea is essentially

sound

. BUT I don't want to go into day 3 with some people having hardly checked in, let alone contributed.

If massive also agrees I would probably go through with it.

Litral

: Yeah, I know, I made a serious mistake. My thoughts were like, "Scum never posting? Is that even a valid strategy?" So I was unwilling to lynch Mike at all. Turns out, sadly, it actually is a strategy for someone. You know I'm just saying this, but my mouth went agape when I saw Vel announce that Mike is actually scum.

massive

: There's nothing much to say here; I still don't like how his first day focused entirely on snafoo L-2ing Demonking which he explains thus:

My vote for snafoo was not because of "one statement" as you seem to think, but due to his willingness to follow a bandwagon with little or no reason. The statement is merely him confirming it. I consider the desire to recklessly bandwagon a scum tell -- town has much more reason to be careful where their votes are, while the Mafia don't care WHO get lynched, as long as someone does.

I think snafoo needs to respond to this before I comment though. But now massive is more than willing to look at all sides.

Muerrto

: My suspicions are listed somewhere before, but one thing I didn't mention is that he was the main force behind Mike's hammer, which counts for him being pro-town. This is also why I wanted him to explain it in his own words, not because I actually suspected him for it, but just to see if it could be extreme bussing.

snafoo

: I do not like at all his appearances and disappearances. Please post. There are two possibilities.
=> That he is actively lurking. This would mean he's scum.
=> That he is actually away.
I suppose we'll know after the prod. I particularly did not like how he disappeared near the end of Day 1 (where, as we now see, reactions matter a lot).

I also did not like his willingness to pair up scum. I'm not sure if that's a scumtell or not? It certainly seems so to me, because "pairing up" could help to immunize his buddy.

starkmoon

: Sorry to pressure you in your sickness, but please post a little. I guess getting replaced to dedicate your time to resting is a good idea too - mafiascum will still be here!

Super Archivist

: I remember reading a newbie game with the winning newbie scum starting his closing statement with "Beware the village idiot." I am thus unwilling to let someone's inexperience affect my judgment. That is why I particularly did not like

I honestly don't have much to say at this point. You're all too hardcore at post analysis for me. o_o

I would hope to see a more detailed analysis of the current game from him. I think SA is clearly showing a lack of confidence, whether due to his personality or simply being scum, and I'd like to encourage him to be more daring.

I am unwilling to say who I suspect the most with two non-posters.

[Litral]

I don't think "pairing up" is a scumtell. I think it's easy for new players, given the knowledge of the setup of newbie games (specifically that there are two mafia), to make the mistake of looking for "pairs" of scum. But it's a lot harder to link scum together than a newbie might expect, because the natural tendency of scum is to try and stay away from each other. It's ESPECIALLY hard when you have no known alignments (read: dead people) to give you factual evidence to fall back on. (ie, it's much easier to link living scum to dead scum than it is to link two living scum.) I think ultimately it's a null tell.

I remember reading an argument about that, which is why I'm not too sure.

@SA: Thanks!

[Litral]

Am I correct to say that the only argument against me is my unwillingness to hammer mikescum? If later, after the non-posters post again, I have to defend myself - most likely - I don't want to be seen strawmanning your argument. I certainly haven't seen any other arguments from you, as far as I know in the latest posts it's been "I'd really want to lynch Litral" repeated several times.

If there are other arguments let's get them sorted out when there aren't so many pages yet.

[Litral]

Also, from your post 253, why are you unwilling to say who you suspect the most?

I feel that saying who I suspect the most at this point will lead to another giant argument which will allow the lurkers to hide more. Refer to my first post in this day.

[Litral]

Has snafoo picked up his prod?

If he had I would have said something

[Litral]

Thanks Vel! snafoo's absence noted. Thanks "shaka!!"! (the third exclamation mark is mine)

[Litral]

@snafoo: Get well soon.

Post 86 is by snafoo. It talks about nothing you mentioned, though, maybe you're talking about another post which I cannot find?

Just for the record I have never said that someone is scummy before they are an IC/newbie. I think I've suggested "playing the IC card" once and "playing the newbie card" once as suspicious points.

In post 78 Litral misinterprets the argument at hand grossly, and seemly on purpose, to prove his point. FoS Litral.

Care to elaborate on that? What was the argument? What was my interpretation? And what point was I trying to prove?

Litral questions how Muerrto will look if Snafoo comes up as town in post 80. Well, Litral, it will reflect on him as being wrong, can you blame someone for being suspicious of a legitimately suspicious person and voting him 'till his lynch?

shaka!!, it was in response to Muerrto's "How will you look if snafoo comes up scum?" and my response, "How will you look if snafoo comes up town?" was meant to say "If you're saying I'm defending someone irrationally, I could as well say you're attacking someone irrationally." Your argument can be used on my side too; well, if snafoo turns up scom, it will reflect on my being wrong, can you blame me for casting suspicion on the motives behind what I perceived as a bad argument?

In post 96 Litral mentions that there is no reason to abandon a good bandwagon for a weak one. In response I ask, who decides what is a good bandwagon and what is not a good bandwagon? And to that I answer the individual who is given the choice.

And yet the individual must be responsible to the town. What I was saying is that putting pressure on Demonking = obviously good, because he's disappeared. Voting snafoo at that point? I wanted more clarification on that because the reasons that were given were not good to me.

Post 138 by Litral - That is a fair enough statement, but if you were put in that situation you'd not pick your prod and just get replaced instead. You'd be pretty dumb to put the town at risk because you don't like your role and don't want to play but for some reason won't allow anyone to replace you.

I think we can establish that Mike doesn't have good play. Okay, he just plain doesn't make sense, as you agree:

I've never actually seen scum try the lurker tactic as hard as he did,

I'm just suggesting a possibility in which he is not scum and yet does not post, in order to counter the notion that he is definitely obvscum.

Post 140 by Litral doesn't read good either, why are you scared to hammer someone? Are you trying to avoid the attention on day 2?

To avoid attention, I would definitely not post. Please explain how advocating not hammering will in fact avoid attention. There's a huge difference between not hammering, and suggesting that no one hammers. And you must notice I have in no way avoided attention.

I don't like the circumstances surrounding the lynch.

I think you understand why I didn't want to hammer as well.

[Litral]

If voting for scum = town, then we've already won this game, just lynch me, snafoo and shaka!! in order.

[Litral]

What you did was take Muerrto's argument and change it into something that fits your rebuttal. The real case at hand is a lot more complicated. Instead of disproving his logic as a whole you sum it up into something similar but very different and use that to disprove his argument.

Ah, but that does not answer my question. When I asked for clarification, what I wanted was the difference between you thought Muerrto's case and my interpretation was. I don't see how it's more complicated. Also, what was your understanding of my point? Was my point simply to refute Muerrto whenever he votes? Did I want to get him lynched? Please elaborate.

if snafoo turns up scom, it will reflect on my being wrong, can you blame me for casting suspicion on the motives behind what I perceived as a bad argument?

The unfair thing is I can. Because I viewed him as someone who was legitimately scummy, so when he comes up as scum (hypothetically of course) I am going to think bad of you because I thought he was suspicious.

I see. Makes sense.

And I meant that you were possibly trying to avoid the attention given to you the next if he turned out to be innocent, which he didn't. You don't need to worry about this tell because him coming up scum nerfs it.

Indeed.

Funny that, cause right now I think you didn't want to hammer because he was your scum buddy

This is based solely on what I just realized, you not wanting to hammer him, him turning out scum. I haven't taken anything else I mentioned into the equation so don't jump the gun on this because for now I don't have much to support it and it doesn't stand strong with even myself yet, I need more evidence first.

I like this statement.

Also, Litral, you just directly contradicted yourself.

I allowed you to hammer him because I wanted you to take the responsibility if he turned out town.

To avoid attention, I would definitely not post. Please explain how advocating not hammering will in fact avoid attention. There's a huge difference between not hammering, and suggesting that no one hammers. And you must notice I have in no way avoided attention.

This proves that you did not want to hammer because you did not want any attention on you the next day.

I don't think this is a contradiction. In my second post, I am saying my not hammering him is not a ploy to avoid attention; I do not wish to avoid attention. In my first post, I am saying I did not want to be blamed for the death of a townie; I do wish to avoid blame. These statements can be simultaneously true: my motive was truly to avoid blame, but not to avoid attention. I do not mind attention, but I very much mind blame.

Now why would you say the opposite of something you said earlier in the game? I don't think this was a mistake. I think that you did not want to hammer your scum buddy and lied about the reasons surrounding his hammer to cover up.

This is not the opposite, then.

Good point on the appealing to authority tell. But I find it hard to pin it against him because I empathize with him.

A person can do both scummy and townie things separately.

Post 162 by Litral isn't good either. The mod explained that he was not going to be replaced because he picked up his prod. In fact he explained this twice. On top of that, it was thoroughly explained as to why he was scum lurking on not town, repeatedly. I don't buy this defense at all. He seems to be stretching a lot here. FoS: Litral.

Ah, when I posted that refusal to hammer, Vel hadn't written the fact that Mike was actively lurking.

Litral makes a false statement in post 167. Mislynchs, believe it or not, do help the town. It gives us plenty of information about players. Who pushed his wagon the most and who said what about who and gives us a lot of information to analysis, not to mention the night kill that goes with it. I'm not saying we should go out and mislynch people, but it's not as detrimental as you'd think. Specially now that we have 9 players in a newbie game.

When the only alternative of mislynches is good lynches, then mislynches are relatively detrimental. I'm saying we should try our very best never to mislynch anyone for any reason whatsoever. Mislynching cannot be an actual strategy used to find scum; in particular, the fact that someone is townie does not mean they were right.

Litral is very happy to help Muerrto lynch himself in post 172. I think this is more suspicious than Muerrto wanting to lynch him self.

Why?

Litral falls onto his terrible "I want a better game" defense in post 181. As I've explained previously, this doesn't give you an excuse, he was clearly scum. q21 also proved that your logic is flawed, because if you want an active game you get rid of the lurkers.

Your earlier post:

I don't like the circumstances surrounding the lynch. But was very surprised to find we hit scum!

This is a contradiction. Do you think he was clearly scum or not?

Getting rid of lurkers can be done by replacing. And that was what I wanted.

Post 253 by Litral is good to get people talking, but I really hate the idea of those lists. It pretty much gives scum their night kills because they provide scum with information about what players think about other players and it helps them set up WIFOM cases on people that some poor townsman might end up finding and end up knocking himself or his target or both out. In short, listing = bad.

I would like to say that listing people with numbers that clearly indicate who they thought was pro-town and anti-town is bad. I did no such thing; in fact, about 4 people in there have acted suspiciously to me (snafoo, SA, q21, Muerrto), so my post would not help scum to decide who to kill.

[Litral]

It's not that he's not posting. He was prodded for not posting and picked up his prod and said "I'm here" in response. He's paying attention to the game, therefore he does not get replaced. If a player chooses to lurk it's not the Mod's responsibility to deal with them. If he had not picked up his PM then he would have been replaced days ago. - Vel

If I had seen this I would definitely have hammered the lurkerscum. It was not until Night descended that I saw this; Vel wrote this a heck lot later.

[Litral]

Muerrto, when you decided that you wanted to be lynch as long as we'd lynch Litral the next day, Litral fully accepted it and even voted you to help it's progress.

After lots of pointless arguing, Litral does a complete 180 degree turn and does exactly the same as you do, even though he states he thinks it does not help town and is a reckless idea.

I fully disagree with a "lynch me" playstyle; I think it is detrimental to the town. My decision to vote myself was a complete gambit used to generate responses; it was totally fake and I do not at all agree with me lynching myself for any reason whatsoever. This is explained in a later post.

Good.

unvote

SA, unvote. I think that's all I need to see now. T'was a gambit and I think it failed, because I don't want to leave for 10 hours only to find myself lynched.

Let me explain myself. Voting oneself is in most cases not a good strategy. The only possible good that will come of it is time saved because you don't have to give any arguments, but then the town loses 2 people (most likely).

Let's see what one of us getting himself lynched will do: the other will be lynched. However, this is only good because if one of us believes the other to be so guilty that no other person is anywhere close. The only logical step is to give arguments, then; getting lynched only proves that one of us is a townie, it doesn't prove that one of us is right, or that the other must be scum.

Being lynched as a town doesn't prove you right in any way whatsoever, because townies don't have more information.

However. This situation is perfect for scum. The situation was that both of us will be lynched in Day 2 and Day 3 - a free ticket to the endgame for the scum if it's not either of us. This is very likely - I wouldn't put Muerrto's possibility of being scum above 25% (still high, but much lower than everyone else's combined). This situation is perfect for scum to take advantage of.

[Litral]

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

[Litral]

This is manipulation on purpose, something that makes no sense if he was town.

I ask that you justify this statement. I think you need to elaborate on me "misinterpreting people's arguments". I really don't see how, and as far as I know, you're just saying it.

Sorry for... what is it? Quadruple posting?

[Litral]

Litral falls onto his terrible "I want a better game" defense in post 181. As I've explained previously, this doesn't give you an excuse, he was clearly scum. q21 also proved that your logic is flawed, because if you want an active game you get rid of the lurkers.

Your earlier post:

I don't like the circumstances surrounding the lynch. But was very surprised to find we hit scum!

This is a contradiction. Do you think he was clearly scum or not?

It is not contrary. I didn't like the circumstances because I would have waited 'till Monday before voting or doing anything along the lines of that, as said by q21.

It was Monday. Therefore you must've liked the circumstances surrounding the lynch.

[Litral]

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

I don't see any WIFOM.

If you say you were calling his bluff then I can say I am calling your bluff now. See how that logic works? That is more WIFOM than my post is.
[/quote]

That is not what my logic at all. Allow me to elaborate once more.

WIFOM: It is WIFOM because it's circular. You're saying that "Muerrto is less suspicious because he wanted to get himself lynched; this would point to me", correct me if I'm wrong. So if person A were scum, person A would not say "please lynch me". But then person A may have thought of this, and he indeed was scum, because he predicted that when he said this you wouldn't vote him thinking he's town. See the WIFOM?

The bluff is that I believe he could've been using this statement as a bluff to generate towniness and to get votes off himself; people would think, "oh, scum would never say this thing, unvote", which would perfectly suit scum. That is the bluff I called.

What is my bluff? How am I using any bluff at all? I am explaining your suspicions; I am not using a ploy in order to get suspicion off me. Please explain what you mean by "calling my bluff".

[Litral]

Cursed tags!

When you decided that you wanted to lynch yourself and then have Litral lynched, he should have realized this. He should have said the same thing you did and stopped suspecting you or at least have not suspected you as much, because if he is town and he thinks you are scum, there is no reason for you lynch yourself first because then you lose the game.

He did not realize that, instead he voted you. That is not something a townie would have done.

This is WIFOM at best. If someone says "you should all lynch me now", does this mean he is townie? It does not. It in fact worsens the image, because townies should never want to be lynched save for annoyance, but scum could use this as a ploy.

If I were scum I would also have motivation not to vote him. That's because voting him out would immediately make me Day 3's lynch, thus still losing the game (merely prolonging the process). I don't think I'd like that. But I really thought he was very scummy for adopting a "just lynch me" plan; thus I was calling his bluff.

I don't see any WIFOM.

If you say you were calling his bluff then I can say I am calling your bluff now. See how that logic works? That is more WIFOM than my post is.

This is the correct post I am responding to.

[Litral]

I really hate it when people ask me obvious questions like what my understanding of their case is or something along the lines.

But your explanation helped.

About Muerrto's decision to vote snafoo: I still disagree that it was misinterpretation, but there's no point arguing this any more, we've already laid out our arguments (I can do it again if you want to though). I think Muerrto can help by explaining further on why he voted snafoo.

I think the entire snafoo argument is over a disagreement about the following sentence:

(snafoo) then lies. Because he did not mention it (lynching off an IC) once, he mentioned it twice. If you read this post properly you would realize this by now.

I believe the second time he mentioned it is this:

Since it would be a shame to vote off a newb on day one, I'd rather vote for an IC.

Please tell me this was a joke...

Muerrto doesn't give any arguments why we should not lynch an IC. Instead he suggests that no one could/should/would vote off an IC thinking straight.

I disagree that snafoo was pushing to lynch an IC here, but I think snafoo needs to explain this himself.

That only takes away one of the many warnings you received.

If I remember correctly I only saw one response from Vel about Mike's prod; that Mike received it, and he was not to replace him. It was not clear to me that Mike was actively lurking; in particular, I was uncertain as to the exact conditions which trigger a prod.

Forgive me I'm nearing on 6 hours catching up in this damned game. Perhaps it is best I take a break and answer that question later.

Sure, why not, this has been helpful.

Snafoo needs to explain a lot of things...

[Litral]

Just to note before I go to bed, I think it's ironic how shaka!!'s case against me is the case I like best among all cases made in this game.

It would be even more ironic if he's actually the scum.

[Litral]

@Massive: I could vote for any of those 3 because I don't think you or Q21 or Stark/Shaka are scum and I know I'm not. That means if we lynch all 3 we still win for town. So yeah, pick one.

Well, better not list out game lynching plans. If one of q21 and shaka!! is scum, this would already win the game for them. It's not as if I'm not suspicious of q21, but I still can't decide about shaka!!.

But I liked how he came in attacking Muerrto. Not because I particularly suspect Muerrto, but because Muerrto is not a popular choice. ... What I'm saying is, I think if he was scum, he could have easily blended in by voting (bandwagoning?) Litral, who's probably the most popular now. Instead he does something very (potentially) dangerous to himself, since no one else seems to be suspecting Muerrto.

This is a very strange sentiment. Townies should not suspect people based on how it would affect them. If there's something suspicious, bring it out. Only scum would need to consider what it would implicate if they suspected this person or that.

I noticed something.

I am even more unlikely to vote Litral.

Personally I am against a Litral lynch

Why? Not as if I want you to help me defend myself, but any judgment made without reasoning is suspicious and could possibly be buddying up. Please explain.

Now, with a bit of time, I'll explain the two remaining posts of what shaka!! thought were misinterpretations. I cannot explain the first post any more because snafoo and Muerrto are unwilling to explain their posts (request in my last longer post).

@Muerrto: so, to summarize, your "valid strategy" is:

1. Point at someone who pointed at you.
2. Kill self.

This implies that whomever you pointed at must be scum? How?

The tunnel vision doesn't help the town at all. If you're townie, simply bring out an argument against me instead of saying killing yourself will necessarily imply I'm scum. It is not true in any way whatsoever, the only confirmed townie is Walnut.

This simplification I judge as valid because:

Shrug your choice. I wanted you to kill me to prove I was town then lynch Litral.

If he won't let you do the opposite(lynch him then lynch me) then he's scum, period.

Muerrto was saying here that if he was proved to be townie, then I am more likely to be scum. His strategy then was to prove himself to be townie. My point was that I did not see how this works, because if his arguments were enough to cause me to be lynched, he needs not do this; if his arguments were not enough, then him being townie should not make his arguments more valid; mislynches, which happen as often as lynches, are necessarily made of townie mistakes.

Therefore, my interpretation of his strategy is "I really think that Litral is scum. Part of this is because he accused me falsely. However, the arguments I can/want to bring out are not sufficient to bring the town to lynch him (1). I must bolster my arguments. One way is to prove that I am town; this can be done by causing the town to lynch me (2)."

It is true that scum must now necessarily come to a false conclusion if they accuse someone of being scum, but their entire logical process could be as well-established as any townie. If we proved that Muerrto was town, this would not mean him having pointed at me was any more valid; this should also not mean me having pointed at him was any less valid. I think it is important to judge arguments by themselves and not by the perceived towniness of who wrote them; I think that's why you read blind, right, shaka?

Just to explain the third post,

1) Appeal to authority. About three times.
2) Appeal to emotion.
3) "Just lynch me" playstyle

By 2), I mean him expressing frustration at the game. It's understandable though, I know for a fact several people here don't actually read those long posts. But still something I wanted to bring up.

[Litral]

Well, I think we've squeezed out most of the suspicious points of this game so far. I believe I did okay even if I do finally get lynched *pats self*.

shaka!!, I'd prefer it if you brought up other points that did not solely focus on me and snafoo, though; suppose we get lynched and the game does not end, and you died, these would be useful. Or is it that no one else has acted suspiciously in any way whatsoever?

[Litral]

Litral: I'm neither buddying you nor defending you. I'm merely stating that I'm not voting for you. I don't believe we'll lynch you today. So exerting any more energy into your case is distractionary, for me. I'd rather focus on the other people I actually find suspicious.

Hmm, okay then.

But I liked how he came in attacking Muerrto. Not because I particularly suspect Muerrto, but because Muerrto is not a popular choice. ... What I'm saying is, I think if he was scum, he could have easily blended in by voting (bandwagoning?) Litral, who's probably the most popular now. Instead he does something very (potentially) dangerous to himself, since no one else seems to be suspecting Muerrto.

This is a very strange sentiment. Townies should not suspect people based on how it would affect them. If there's something suspicious, bring it out. Only scum would need to consider what it would implicate if they suspected this person or that.

That's pretty much my point. If snafoo was scum, it would be easier for him to blend in by voting for the most popular choice, and if he was townie, he would want to say who he really suspected.

*nod* I see. I was finding it strange that you would rather consider the target of his argument rather than the actual arguments (I have read them and I think some seemed to be pushing too much). However, I can see where you're coming from.

Unless you're suggesting that he's mafia, thought of this, and voted for someone unpopular to make him less suspicious? I dunno. o_o

I call it "WIFOM".

It's rather funny because I actually did have a list of scum, this included SA, snafoo and q21. But when I was writing those up I proved myself wrong with different logic or saw that I had misinterpreted something or mixed something up and realized that I was wrong about most of them. Believe it or not :\ lol..

Hmm... can you check post 253 and tell me what you think of the suspicious points I found?

[Litral]

snafoo needs to express his views on other players.

[Litral]

I have no idea what to make of that. No idea at all.

[Litral]

I wanna see what his replacment says but I'm ready to lynch him unless it's amazing. I think he ducked because of the heat.

Agreed. This is a pretty sucky situation for a replacement...

[Litral]

W!nt3r's at L-1, peeps.

You will excuse me for not hammering this time until we've sorted out this SA business.

W!nt3r, it is undeniably true that snafoo did not leave you in an excellent position. When there was so much counting against him, we couldn't just ignore it.

[Litral]

First of all, W!nt3r did not receive a new vote. His response made me think Muerrto voted him when he came in, which is not true. My mistake.

SA's behavior fits the "timid newcomer" persona. I've enjoyed reading some of his newer posts. SA has expressed individual opinions several times - his very last post is a valid opinion. While I agree that he has been timid, I do not think we can use this to implicate him, as he is at least consistence in timidity and getting better by the minute (if I can be a judge of this).

W!nt3r, I agree that generally it is good form not to use your predecessor's posts against you. However, when his posts are quite incriminating AND we still have three lynches to find scum, I don't think simply dismissing all of them is our best choice here. I have to say sorry for that.

I also get a bad vibe from your recent posts:

And I'm a nilla wafer.

Claiming townie only helps the scum find the power roles (if any). I don't think we've asked snafoo to claim yet. Muerrto is right in that you seem too anxious here.

Muerrto's response:

Usually when you duck tho you post in thread and say why. He was lurking almost all game and popping in then dissappeared. Not a good townie point there.

Also, why claim at 2 votes? Anxious?

Vote stands for now.

You're just focusing on him because you(muerrto) were his prime suspect day one. And psychologically you feel that because He left the game with those impressions, you feel unjustified in pursuing his arguments against you and trying your damnedest to have him believe you.

Spell it out for us please? I don't think this implicates Muerrto? If he's town, wouldn't he feel the same way?

You are willing to vote a fresh face, and someone who can give new insight to finding scum based on the "playstyle" of another player. That is rather rash and scummy. You don't want me to post my ideas and by doing so, dilute the minds of those you may have convinced of your innocence and would rather push a blind vote on a new player.

I think if at the moment you came in he voted you, your argument would work. But since he's just keeping his vote, he is not trying to kill off a newcomer. A bit paranoid.

Its not an over-reaction, It's a statement of fact. You are making a game altering choice based on information that is no longer relevant. Namely Snafoo's posts.

Again, I feel as if his choice was simply to keep his vote for now, which is not game-altering. If I voted you, you could use this argument against me.

I voted Muerrto as an OMGUS because he would, going back to an argument in the page 8 to 10 range, He would rather kill off an inactive than see new information... i don't think he's scum. I think he's blind to any new input, which in and of itself is not helpful to the town.

I feel such a blanket statement must be justified. At that point, although on the surface at least Muerrto, q21 and shaka!! believed that killing him was the correct move; I believed that replacing was a better one. But everyone agreed that he was probably never ever going to come back; how would waiting for him get new information?

Also, why do you suddenly think Muerrto cannot be scum? You believe that he is not helpful to the town. However, what has he done to suddenly make you think he can't be scum?

[Litral]

Its the basic IC: suspect everyone, trust no one scheme.

I don't get it. Isn't everyone like that? How is doing that an IC scheme?

W!nt3r, I generally believe that one claims only at L-1 and when asked to. That is why I think you acted a bit anxiously. L-2 isn't exactly the chopping block, but it's your choice to interpret it as you will, of course.

This is such a bad and old argument.

Not really. Let me explain. All of your calculations assume that we believe you're a townie. That is not true. You are in no way "confirmed". Anyone can say he's a townie. So you can't confirm yourself by saying "Hey I'm townie".

Even if miraculously you are confirmed as a townie, the calculations are shaky anyway... 1:6 is 16.7% and 1:5 is 20%... that's a 3.3% increase.

Since we cannot believe you - except the scum, if it isn't you - you've just eliminated yourself as a possible power role, and therefore increased the chances of power roles being hit, if any. Suppose the scum isn't you, and he has no idea who the power roles are amongst us 6. You just outed yourself as a townie, so he only has to choose amongst 5. That means he has a 40% chance to hit a power roles tomorrow, instead of 33%. In fact, every night he'll have a higher chance of hitting power roles.

I just claimed town. You can lynch me, and find that out regardless of how I play or snafoo played. Or you can choose to start weeding out chance as an aspect of this game.

English isn't my native language... so, uh, what are you saying here? Are you saying chance isn't an aspect of this game? Well, if it isn't, you wouldn't have made that post.

[Litral]

Really, it's strange how you assume you're already confirmed...

[Litral]

Another funny thing is that you assumed you're going to stay alive as a "confirmed townie"...

[Litral]

W!nt3r's last post is really appealing too much to emotion...

[Litral]

Self votes do count.

W!nt3r, saying that in a variety of languages without arguments is as convincing of your towniness as saying the sky is bright today. That wasn't Muerrto's point (or at least it isn't my point). The point is, snafoo made himself look scummy, and it carries forward to you.

[Litral]

wot

[Litral]

Self votes do count.

W!nt3r, saying that in a variety of languages without arguments is as convincing of your towniness as saying the sky is bright today. That wasn't Muerrto's point (or at least it isn't my point). The point is, snafoo made himself look scummy, and it carries forward to you.

George W. Bush is a bad leader. Will the next President voted be a bad leader?

That is not an appropriate metaphor. You are forced to inherit snafoo's role. The next president is not forced to inherit any of Bush's traits at all.

No one ever said you have bad play because snafoo had bad play. We have, however, considered that you may be scum because snafoo was scum. The statements accusing you of having bad play and snafoo having bad play are not related.

[Litral]

Apologies, I wrote wrongly because it's pretty late where I live. I meant "you may be scum because snafoo may have been scum".

[Litral]

Okay, triple post.

I can see the day ending pretty soon. But before anyone hammers, I'd like to see the following things.

• shaka!!'s thoughts on the other players (not me and snafoo/W!nt3r)
  
• An LoS from massive

Arigatou.

[Litral]

Let me translate.

NO U

[Litral]

W!nt3r, it may be because I haven't slept and I'm cranky, but if you don't want the town to win, you are either scum appealing to emotion, or the most anti-town townie I've ever seen.

If you think you're "winning" by having guessed the scum right at the endgame, you should be having such fun by reading games, not adversely affecting another one. You have no arguments anyway.

I promise to immediately hammer you as soon as I see what I've wanted: massive's LoS and shaka's thought on other players.

[Litral]

Put that in your signature regardless.

[Litral]

You're so anti-town it hurts. Because you SAID SO.

[Litral]

He could be scum trying a fun strategy. If the mod replaces him because of this, it would almost confirm him as town, which screws things up. I don't think the mod should intervene in this.

I

will[/i] hammer him after I see shaka!! and massive answer me. I feel this is important.

[Litral]

i no do tagz good/[color]

[Litral]

I could really care less whether Winter is town or not right now since he's said he feels he wins by guessing the scum but doesn't care whether the town wins or loses.

My thoughts exactly.

I would vote him just to get him out of the game, but I really want both shaka!!'s comment on other players and massive's LoS.

[Litral]

W!nt3r, do you retract your comment that you didn't care if the town won, then?

[Litral]

i really don't care about winning... this means I don't care if I am alive at the end of the game or not. because to win as town you have to have outlived the mafia.

Not true except in very few theme games.

Also, this contradicts your stance earlier. You said that you'd love to see us run about as headless chickens. That's the same thing.

[Litral]

W!nt3r, you're mixing up personal feelings with a game. We are grateful that you allowed the game to proceed, but to cancel out snafoo's scumniness with appreciation would not be true to the spirit of the game. This is understandable, I believe.

If you've read carefully, you'd realize I do not at all appreciate any playstyle which includes "VOTE:SELF". I'll be keeping my eye on you, but I will no longer force your lynch if you contribute.

Anyway.

The Townie PM, as included in the first page, very explicitly states that you win if all the mafia are gone, whether or not you survive until the end. Sure, you don't have to follow that, it's not as if we're playing the game for you. But you have to admit it's a bit strange when you go into a game and call yourself a loser if you get killed Night 0, but a winner if you don't help the town at all and guessed out the scum in your own head.

Then again, "play to win" is one of mith's official guidelines...

The problem with adding a "Survivor" condition to everyone is that townies have a much smaller incentive to help the town. There are a variety of strategies a townie can adopt in order to stay alive: getting suspicion onto oneself, lurking heavily, misdirecting the town on purpose, etc. And saying anything that's definitely helpful to the town will likely paint a huge target on one's own head.

[Litral]

W!nt3r, you're mixing up personal feelings with a game. We are grateful that you allowed the game to proceed, but to cancel out snafoo's scumniness with appreciation would not be true to the spirit of the game. This is understandable, I believe.

i don't understand this comment.

You're justifying voting yourself and acting entirely anti-town for the last two pages because of a personal feeling: you don't like us, as stated here:

I disliked the attitude i received when I was kind enough to replace your prime suspect. This caused me to dislike the group. If the group suffers it will justify my dislike. You can still win with your heads cut off.

Essentially I'm saying you can't justify screwing the town because you don't like us.

You say: "... but a winner if you don't help the town at all and guessed out the scum in your own head."

This is not true. I've already told you who i think is scum with very good reasoning. You refuse to it into account, because you feel my "emotional" plays are more important/more scummy than what I actually think about the other players in the game.

W!nt3r, you yourself said this:

I really don't care about winning at this point, because if I was part of this town, I would like to see you all run amok like chickens with no heads. And in the end game, when I find out who the other scum was, THAT will be when I decide weather i've won or not.

This comment implies that you think you win if you guessed who the scum is, which is my statement exactly.

I don't agree that the logic is that good anyway. I see your thoughts, I see some good points, I see some bad points. In particular: If you agree with shaka!!'s insight, I shouldn't be the second least likely to be scum after him, I think, because all he's said is against either me or you; the section on q21 is rather flawed to me, some of those arguments are made on the premises that he's town, which is weird; I disagree about SA, I think he's town-ish; and I have far more posts than Muerrto.

I brought up the Townie PM to show you that the official win conditions are different from yours. I do not actually care if you don't accept the official win conditions, I'm just saying you should expect a lot of people to follow the official win conditions and not follow your thoughts. Such as I.

A player wins if, at the end of the game, their suspicions are justifyed.

to win as town you have to have outlived the mafia.

Don't those two contradict?

W!nt3r, you should realize that I'm continuing to put pressure on you because I spot a few inconsistencies with your stance. I want those to be sorted out.

[Litral]

Great time to be asleep...

Well, to comfort ourselves, we can fully say that if snafoo wasn't replaced, we probably would've lynched him after a while. More arguing and death of brain cells this way, sure, but the result is probably the same.

massive, thanks. In my humble opinion both SA and shaka!! are really difficult to read. The "active lurker" idea does incriminate SA a bit, but reading back, it seems that his timidity was genuine. shaka!! is just weird though, because I simply cannot believe that he found about 20 posts which incriminated me and none on anyone else... while several other players have expressed their belief that I'm innocent. One explanation is that he's the sort of person who doesn't bring up suspicions until he's certain that person is scum; the other is that he's scum trying to get people lynched.

@SA: I see you're a bit confused about the "active lurker" argument. To me it's one of the better arguments out there. The difference between townies and scum is that scum aren't genuinely looking for a good lynch, while townies are. Thusly, scum pay less attention to stuff, give weaker arguments, protect their buddies, contradict themselves for a convenient lynch, and bandwagon senselessly. The more they speak the more they incriminate themselves; and so most scum simply choose to speak as little as possible while not attracting attention for not speaking. W!nt3r there was accusing you of doing this, and not holding an opinion yourself.

[Litral]

Also, maybe we should look more closely at massive tomorrow...

[Litral]

@SA: I see you're a bit confused about the "active lurker" argument. To me it's one of the better arguments out there.

Well, to clarify, I don't think you are actively lurking, SA; but the argument is a good one that can be used to find scum.

[Litral]

I don't think he confirmed me. I'm pretty sure the innocent result was on a certain person... but I won't bring this up unless he's close to being lynched, just so the scum doesn't get a confirmed innocent to slay.

I'd love to see shaka!!'s opinion on the others.

[Litral]

Ah, I didn't want to play that card so soon, but yeah. The innocent is definitely me, and I figured out massive was cop before shaka!! came in. It was kinda obvious when he suddenly jumped in when everyone was suspecting me and said that I wasn't suspicious at all and there are no good points against me, and that he would rather find the real scum. I was really alarmed by his comment, so I asked him to clarify... and then tried to cast suspicion on him. Well, didn't work.

[Litral]

Formally, q21 is a newbie too. We started with 6/9 newbies, now it's 3/5. Not much of a difference.

[Litral]

Strangely enough, I feel that both points also fit you...

[Litral]

Well, the point has been done to death, really.

Your explaining post:

I thought it was implicit from the fact that I stated that I suspect you most that I'd rather lynch you. I never said that carrying out that strategy then and there was good -

actually I think I said that lynching either of you before others contributed would be bad... yep, I did. I did say in an earlier post that if some of the other ICs arrived and agreed I'd probably go along with it.

I'd still like to know what the other ICs think of the strategy.

In answer, no I will not offer an explanation as to why I think the strategy is

good

, I don't really. I've agreed that the confirmed innocence of one of yourself or Muerrto would point at the other. I have never agreed that we should just lynch one of you straight away to find out. If the day progresses without anyone else looking scummy then it possibly becomes an option... but not yet.

Earlier post:

I agree that you idea is essentially

sound

. BUT I don't want to go into day 3 with some people having hardly checked in, let alone contributed.

If massive also agrees I would probably go through with it.

Possible scum translation: Okay, this is really good for me. But I need one more person for this to work. Hey, massive has been posting lately, I'll try to get him to go along with the plan. Now to say something so they won't suspect my bandwagoning.

Possible townie translation: They're fighting too hard, it's likely one of them is scum trying to lynch a townie. Okay, let's lynch both of them, we must certainly hit the scum then.

Either is possible.

[Litral]

Nah, I underlined good to show that there was a contradiction between your later explanation "I don't think it is good" to your earlier "It's a sound idea".

And well-explained.

[Litral]

Eh, I realize I might have sounded a bit sarcastic there. No, I'm not being sarcastic, I really think you've explained as well as you can, and there is no point in pushing this further.

[Litral]

Eh, I've been trying to hold off analyzing the last scum. It's so difficult...

[Litral]

"Happy Birthday shaka!! Your birthday present for us is a prod. "

[Litral]

It could end today if one of you lying, lying scumbags would come out and admit your guilt.

(:D)

[Litral]

Omg prodded.

I seem to have forgotten about this. It is very difficult to read this game, but I will try again soon.

[Litral]

I don't get the latest argument here. What I hear is that Battousai is saying Muerrto misrepresented snafoo, but Muerrto thinks Battousai is saying we should follow up on snafoo's suspicions. Am I right?

if we went through with the plan, two townies would have been lynched, plus night kills.

Is that a slip?

I promise to do a more detailed analysis tomorrow. Since I'm probably dying in the night, it is my responsibility to state all of my suspicions... tomorrow. Sorry!

[Litral]

Poor shaka...

vote record

Muerrto: Demon (1), snafoo (9), Mike (23) (lurkpressure), Mike (28), Litral (29), Muerrto (34), snafoo (57) (lurkpressure), Winter (snafoo) (88), shaka (104),

Battousai (shaka, starkmoon): voted me in that long series of posts

q21: Walnut (5), Mike (7) (lurkpressure), snafoo (24) (lurkpressure), SA (47) (lurkpressure),

SA: snafoo (1) (random), mike (11) (lurkpressure), Litral (14)

Now I don't really know how to do vote analysis, so this is just put here for your reference. I may have missed a few votes scanning through their posts. The numbers indicate the post number if you only view their posts.

[Litral]

I see what you mean and I agree. Consider it corrected.

[Litral]

Well, this is the end of the line for me. Go for it guys. Perhaps it's better I haven't done a detailed analysis, because I'd probably misdirect you, being completely blind and confused.

[Litral]

q21 did really well this game, I believe. My scumdar rang very little from what he said, besides readying himself to lynch both me and Muerrto.

It's a pity that the town suffered from a lack of participation and bickering (partially initiated by yours truly).

I did not particularly enjoy how much attention I got for trying to get mike replaced instead of hammered, but it did teach me an important lesson: that mafia is a game of the majority trying to root out the minority, and so doing anything a minority would do is dangerous and should be carefully thought out.

[Litral]

People are posting more after-game than in-game.