Dynamite Stick Mafia! GAME OVER

[Yosarian2]

Ok, let me say now what I was hoping to say yesterday, but never had the chance:

Usually, towns lose these "everyone has a daykill" games because of townies doing dumb things. So, can we please try to not be stupid here?

I'm not even sure why everyone fees the need to run in and right away strike a light.

In any case, we still do have to find the scum here, random kills before people have even posted aren't going to be helpful. We need to hear from everyone, we need everyone's thoughts here before we end the day, and I'd like to see us try to be at least somewhat intellegent about how we use our kills as well.

[Yosarian2]

I can undestand people thinking that by striking a light they look anti-scum, but in general it just dosn't seem like a good idea. The biggest danger in this kind of game often seems to be silly, impulsive decisions by random townies, and the more people strike a light the more chances there are for people to be impulsive. I'd rather see people strike a light for a specific reason, and give the town a chance to comment first before they blow themselves up.

On another note, this kind of setup makes it WAY too easy for scum to lurk while all the townies kill each other off. That's how the scum won in the first MAD game, and it could easily happen again here. So we've got to make sure the days are long enough so everyone has a chance to post some real content, and I'm also personally going to be keeping a very close eye on lurkers; I think lurking is an especlaly strong scumtell this game, because lurking is more likely to be a good scum tactic in this kind of game.

[Yosarian2]

...

[Yosarian2]

I have a question for Adel based on one of her posts today, but I suppose it should wait until we find out Ooba's alignment.

Anyway, I can see a ooba kill today, but the timing makes little sense. Tommorow, we really do have to be a little more patient.

I kind of like Adel's attempt to deter people from striking a light for no reason, but I would suggest she use a little bit of discression and not necessarally blow up ANYONE who strikes a light. Still, if she does force the town to use a little bit more reason, it should help our odds.

Anyway, no sense doing more scumhunting until we see what ooba's alignment was, so I guess I'll quibble a bit about stratagy stuff.

2: Once >66% of living players are voting for one of two players, one of those players strikes a light and kills the other. If both the #1 and the #2 player refuse to do this (should only happen if both are scum) a volunteer will kill one and then another volunteer will kill the other.

One problem with this method is that this could apply to more then two people. If 33% of the town is voting for person A, 33% of the town is voting for person B, and 33% of the town is voting for person C, then all three of them would fit the criteria she's given here. The same applies even if 50% are voting for person A, 30% are voting for person B and 20% are voting for person C, or whatever; basically, there could easily be more then 2 people who fit the criteria of "66% of the town is voting for one of two players".

The more fundimental problem is that we can force someone to blow someone up or be blown up himself, but we can't force him TO blow up any one person in specific; once he realizes he's going to die no matter what, we kind of lose all leverage there. I'm not sure what the solution for that is, though, other then just to hope that at least most townies are smart enough to realize the advantages to the town from them going along with the will of the town even if it means their death.

[Yosarian2]

[quote="Adel"there can not be an out. this needs to be an absolute. Scum can use the wiggle room, claiming confusion, or try to use rhetoric to give themselves room to maneuver. [/quote]

Eh...I think the threat is strong enough and the gain is small enough that scum are unlikely to strike a light, even if you temper that threat with a little bit of wisdom.

Basically I just don't want to see you pointlessly blow yourself up against someone who makes a dumb move even if you're pretty sure they're a townie; I'd like you to leave YOURSELF some wiggle room, to allow you to use your own judgement on the matter, especally since the goal here is to try to avoid more hasty and pointless pro-town deaths.

That being said, I totally agree that no one should strike a light tommorow without town consencuss behind the move.

I expect scum stuck in a position where the town is pressuring them to kill a scumbuddy to present a case that parallels Yos2's point here.

fos

yos2 for laying the rhetorical foundation for scum to attempt to resist the best interests of the town.

That dosn't make any sense, Adel. You can't pressure scum to act in a pro-town way by threating that they'll look bad after they're dead, and it dosn't make any sense to suggest that I'm trying to "lay the rhetorical foundation" for some scum to "get away" with something, if that "something" would leave them dead anyway.

The point I was making is that if we think person A is scum, we can't necessarally expect them to kill person B on our command. It might be better if the town specifically nomiates who we want to do the kill and who we want to be the target, instead of just saying "top two people kill each other", since once someone strikes a light and waits 24 hours they could basically do whatever they wanted, and we don't want that. That just common sense, right?

Basically, my main point is that your system is flawed because it gives our top suspects way too much flexability. Once we have our best two suspects for tommorow, we probably want to be more specific then that, and actually direct them, like "Person A, strike a light, and then person B, we expect you to kill person A right away before the 24 hours is up." That way, if EITHER person A or person B is town, we can pretty much guarentee that they'll both die; if person A refuses to strike a light, then we can reverse it and have person B strike a light and kill him; and if person B refuses to detonate person A, then we can have person A just blow up person B once the 24 hours is up.

[Yosarian2]

Consider the following cases for players we will call A, B and C

Players A & B are the two scummiest by town (one vote per player) consensus. C is the enforcer.

1. If A and B are both town: we tell A and B to strike a light and kill each other. One of them does, let us say A does, and the other will target him as soon as possible.

2. If A is town and B is scum: we tell A and B to strike a light and kill each other. B lurks or tries to type his way out of it. A strikes a light and kills himself and B.

The point I was just making is that if we tell A and B to kill each other, and A is town and B is scum, probably B will instead kill player X, where X happenes to be the pro-town guy that everyone already thinks is pro-town, so he can do more damage that way. That's why I think my suggestion works better, becuase it seems to avoid that risk.

[Yosarian2]

scum-A kills player X? cool, I'm down with that, dead scum being the objective.

Uh, yeah, but I'd rather townie-we-think-is-scum kills scum A instead, since that increases our odds of lynching right the next day. If both A and B are scum, then hey, we're pretty much set anyway.

Your plan allows for enough wiggle room to allow scum to maneuver and sabotage the town's chances to win. What is the advantage again?

What? My plan allows for a lot less wiggle room then yours. Did you read my plan?

Once we have our best two suspects for tommorow, we probably want to be more specific then that, and actually direct them, like "Person A, strike a light, and then person B, we expect you to kill person A right away before the 24 hours is up." That way, if EITHER person A or person B is town, we can pretty much guarentee that they'll both die; if person A refuses to strike a light, then we can reverse it and have person B strike a light and kill him; and if person B refuses to detonate person A, then we can have person A just blow up person B once the 24 hours is up.

The town saying "Person A. Strike a light now. Once he does, then person B, you must kill him." gives them a LOT less wiggle room then your vauge "Ok, guys, go ahead and kill each other now." If one of the two of them is scum, it pretty much prevents that person from taking out a different townie instead; person A can't take out a different townie, because person B kills him before the 24 hours are up, and person B can't take out anyone but person A, because (hopefully) person A's the only one who struck a light.

I think the you may be contesting this due to ^1. your alignment being anti-town and ^2. hubris.

I think you may be contesting this because you didn't really read what I said. Otherwise, I can't understand how you don't see that a vauge "you guys kill each other now" plan is less effective then my plan.

[Yosarian2]

ok then how about once we have settled on which two must die, they both must quickly strike a light and target each other? If only one strikes a light we can probably conclude that he is town and will go through with targeting the other guy who refused to strike a light.

Before either are instructed to strike a light we should confirm that both players have been on the site and therefore should be aware that their number is up.

Ok, that's fine. Just so long as we make sure it's over before the 24 hours are up.

We should also keep in mind that this process could take up to three days, so if there is deadline pressure we should make a decision three or four days before the deadline.

Good point. If it comes to a deadline, we unfortunatly might have to make a more hasty decision, but hopefully it won't come to that.

also, does >66% sound good, or is there another number that you may think is better?

Yeah, that's fine. I guess we might as well make it "greather then 66%, or else the top two vote-getters at 3 days before deadline".

[Yosarian2]

INitial thoughts:
DGB is an impulsive town player.
Yosarian2 wants town to be nonimpulsive.
Would Yos have killed DGB to prevent her from quickdynamiting him or one of his buddies?
Discuss.

I want town to be non-impulsive becasue impulsive townies in this type of game almost inevitably help the scum. See: Bad idea mafia, bad idea mafia II, Mad mafia, Mad mafia II. Every single game impulsive townies end up badly hurting the town. And look at day 1 of this game as well, for that matter.

[Yosarian2]

Hwh...well, Skruffs, when you come into a thread and say "here's a theory that demonstrates that my lurking proves I'm pro-town", you can't expect people to just accept it. I mean, if nothing else, you could theoretically have lurked just in order to make that defense when you did show up.

Besides which, considering how little time the scum have to send in night-kills in this game, I'm not sure why you're assuming that all three members of the mafia carefully discussed what they should do before sending in the kill.

[Yosarian2]

You are also giving credence to the theory, just not the person who presented it. If I turn up town, does that mean my theory has weight?

Huh? How am I giving "credence" to your theory?

We can probably assume that at least one of the scum must have been paying enough attention to send a kill in. But like I just said, I don't think we can assume that they were all extensivly talking about it. Besides which, just because a scum is paying attention to a thread, dosn't mean he's postng in it; especally in a game like this, scum could easily lurk stratigically for the first game-day or two in order to try to not be randomally killed. So, no, I don't give much credence to your theory.

Also: I didn't see anywhere that there are exactly three members of hte mafia. With 22 players, doesn't 3 seem a bit low?

Big Fos: Yos

Huh. Not sure why I said 3, I guess I've been playing too many mini games.

Hmm. (goes to check) Looks like Bad Idea Mafia II had 4 scum out of 25 people. So I actually would expect about 3-4 mafia in this game as well.

[Yosarian2]

Even in minis I consider the accidental naming of how many players are in the mafia to a decent enough scumtell for a lynch in the early phase of the game.

Seriously? You really think that me using a phrase like "3 scum" is a tell, when like 95% of the games I've played have had 3 member scum groups? Pfft.

And yes, I'm in two other large games. What you fail to mention is that one of them is cultmafia, which has no mafia groups at all, and the other has been going since approximatly the dawn of time. Sheesh.

[Yosarian2]

Claus: Exactally why is a "heavy attack on lurkers" a scumtell? I think it's very likely at least some of the scum are lurking hardcore, especally considering how many people haven't really said anything of note yet this game. In fact, I just noticed Armlx hasn't even posted once, and a lot of other people have nothing but filler posts or striking a light day 1 for no reason.

[Yosarian2]

I have a question for Adel based on one of her posts today, but I suppose it should wait until we find out Ooba's alignment.

Ok, before we got all caught up in the stratagy discussion after the LML kill, I had noticed some really odd behavior on Adel's part with that lynch.

First, when LML asked if he should kill oobo right away, she encouraged him to do so.

Someone, anyone, talk me out of dynamiting him this second.

no.

Then, she accused him of bluffing (which is often a way of pushing someone to do something, is ) while suggesting that she was fine with him and ooba dying.

I suspect that LML may be bluffing.

I now endorse ooba blowing up LML or surye

But then, after LML blew up ooba, she said this:

Assuming I am alive tomorrow, I will kill myself and the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

If I am not alive tomorrow, I think that quagmire should kill the first person to strike a light without town consensus.

As LML just demonstrated, intelligence and the ability to communicate effectively do not effectively hedge against the town's tendency to self-destruct. At the very least LML should have stalled so we could get more information from this day before we lose another to a NK.

tag fixed -- Stoofer

Which is a bizzare post, because A, after LML did exactally what she pressured him to do, she suddenly seems to think it was a bad idea, and B, that post really makes me feel like Adel already knew at this point that it was a mislynch, that she already knew both LML and ooba were town. Which is suspicious, since Adel was really pushing the ooba lynch all day.

Now, this was what I wanted to ask her right after the lynch; at that point, I thought she was quite suspicious. Her later behavior that day (especally the whole "I promise to kill the first person who strikes a light" deal) looks less like something a scum would do, so I'm not as sure anymore, but I still would like an explination for that series of events.

[Yosarian2]

That dosn't really answer my question at all, Adel. Sure, LML wouldn't make that kill as scum. But the odd thing was that you seemed to know OOBA was town, even though you'd been attacking him all day; you seemed to know LML's kill was a mistake even though you were pushing him to do it. Could you explain that?

[Yosarian2]

Once LML targeted ooba I felt like he was a total chode, like a self hammering townie. I can see that I put LML in a "can't win" posistion, but he is a grown-up and I falsely expected that he could deal with it, or at least draw a bunch of positions from people. Instead he threw an tantrum and prematuraly killed ooba, and then didn't even take the time to give us any insight from a player with a proven-by-death alignment.

But that was what he said he was going to do, he said he was going to dynimate ooba "this second", and you said you didn't have a problem with that. I donno, the whole things just feelt like you trying to distance yourself from something you basically helped orcistrate, and to do it before a townie would know that it was the wrong decision..

If ooba was scum wouldn't you be linking me to ooba as having bussed him?

No, why would I do that? Attacking a scum is not a scumtell unless it's done in a way that gives you a specific reason to think it's bussing; anyone who think it is is, well, to reference a MD discussion we had a while back, on the wrong side of the WIFOM curve.

Anyway, I'm going to let this go for now, because I don't think it's that likely a scum would promise to kill the first person to strike a light (it's be a really high risk gambit, to say the least), but I still did want to note it while it was fresh in my mind.

I'm going to go back and see if I can figure out which lurker looks scummiest; there are quite a few lurkers to choose from, probably at least some of them are scum, and we certanly need to apply some pressure and hear from some of them.

[Yosarian2]

So many people are lurking, I might as well make a full lurker list.

Lurker List:

armlx: Hasn't posted yet this game.

mod, could you please prod him?

Flameaxe: Not really a lurker since he's posted 7 times, but he hasn't really posted much content. Day 1, he struck a light and that was about it; and day 2, he quoted one line of Adel's stratagy and agred with it, then made an odd post abot how "Adel's plan needs more bussing between him and quag". So no real content yet.
PokerFace: Hasn't posted in 5 days. Decent content when he posted, though, made some good questions for CES.
Skitzer: Has only posted twice. Both had a little stratagy content, but nothing else.
Surye: Hasn't posted in 4 days. Needs to say who he's suspicious of.
UltimaAvalon: The only post he made was:

STRIKE A LIGHT
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath
deathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeathdeath

And then and edit by way of post to fix his formatting errors and to actually strike a light. So not only has he contribued less content then anyone other then Armlx, he also struck a light day 1 for absolutly no reason. Seems like a good place to start.

vote:UltimaAvelon

[Yosarian2]

Adel was just doing exactally what she promised to do, Skruffs, in order to try to deter anyone from lighting a match; and we do want to deter random people from lighting matches, after all. Unfourtantly, UA apparently wasn't paying attention to her threat. I was afraid this would happen; I did try to convince her yesterday to use her own judgement on the policy and not to ALWAYS blow up anyone who struck a light, but she refused.

Well, there's one lurker down off my lurker list. I guess he's as likely to be scum as anyone, let's cross our fingers.

By the way, I am somewhat suspicious of Skruffs here. He's gone to some pretty irratioal lengths in order to attack Adel, going so far as to suggest she'd blow herself up as scum in the hopes that townies would follow her lead, which makes absolutly no sense at all (why would townies follow her after she's confirmed scum?).

[Yosarian2]

Yos: When did I Suggest that Adel would blow herself up as scum to encourage others to follow her lead?

Ah...I thought that was what you meant here:

WHy would ADel-scum NOT potentially sacrifice herself at the expense of getting a string of townies to sacrifice themselves in killing other townies?

If that's not what you meant, then could you clarify?

I don't know who first suggested killing off the first person to light a match

Adel did. It was always her idea.

Again, we don't want people randomally striking lights, because we don't want people thoughtless killing people and because it would interfere with the "make the two scummies townies kill each other" plan. Adel was hoping to deter people from doing so by threating to kill anyone who did.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear Quagmire, even if he's the next "enforcer" under Adel's plan, will be using a little more common sense on the subject.

[Yosarian2]

OK, I'm here, but It's hard not to "lurk" when the days last no longer than a few days.

Yos2's heaviness on lurkers on day1 is not good, because most people didn't have a chance to post. Also, his 3 scum slip is another factor, so tomorrow I will vote yosarian2, but seeing as we have a lynch already....blah.

Um, I didn't actually attack anyone for lurking until day 3.

[Yosarian2]

yes, a policy lynch does result in three dead townies, probably even in this case....
but the alternative is worse: mad confusion and more irrational behavior.

I did what I promised to do, and if I had done anything else

the scum (yos2 + and skruffs)

would use it to push my lynch and confuse and mislead the town.

Huh?

I was trying to tell you yesterday that you should use your judgement, that while you trying to deter peopel from lighting was a good idea that you might not necessarally want to AUTOMATICALLY blow someone up if you think they're likely town, and you jumped down my throat for it; in fact, I think that's when you came to the false conclusion that I am scum, was because you thought I was trying to "give the scum wiggle room". No, I was trying to give YOU some wiggle room, so you wouldn't box yourself in a situation where you would feel like you had to do something stupid.

And while, yeah, I was a little suspicious of you based on the Ooba thing yesterday, all in all I thought you were town, and if you had decided to not auto-kill UA right away, and had good reasons for not doing it, I wouldn't necessarally have attacked you for that.

Meanwhile, Skruffs has been arguing even more against your "kill anyone who strikes a light" plan, right from the start. I don't really trust him at the moment, he very well might be scum, but I don't see how he even could go after you for that in this situation considering what he'd been saying.

I advocate the death of quagmire if he hesitated to follow the stated policy we agreed to.

And that's just wrong. As Skruffs pointed out, we could very well be in lynch or lose tommorow. If someone Quagmire thinks is a townie does something dumb, should Quagmire throw away the entire game just to prove a point or to maintain a policy or whatever? Should we kill Quagmire for not doing that?

I heavily advocate the death of Skruffs and Yos2 asap.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, agreed. We need to take the time to hear from everyone today, including those lurkers I mentioned, and to actually put together bandwagons and stuff instead of just someone randomally doing something.

[Yosarian2]

Also, Elmo, if you would explain why you were attacking me for "going after Lurkers on day 1", when that's both completly untrue and rather silly considering I didn't even get to post day 1 myself, that's be good.

[Yosarian2]

So anyway, I hear cases are tech.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah, you're right Elmo, I was getting you and Skitzer confused there, my bad.

Sarc: No, not especally, I was just trying to pick a fight, although I got the people confused. It was actually Skitzer who said that, who claimed that I was "going after lurkers on day 1", and I rememberd thinking that was a really scummy thing for him to say, since not only was he completly wrong, it made me notice that he himself had only posted 3 times all game, that he hadn't really said anything all game, and that it seemed like he was attacking me because he was a lurker who didn't like the idea of the town going after lurkers. It seemed like a paranoid over-reaction, and I've seen lurker scum react like that before.

So, yeah.

vote:Skitzer

until we hear more from him. And sorry Elmo.

[Yosarian2]

If a majority of the town thinks that I'm the second scummiest person, sure. But there's no bloody rush today, ok? No one needs to do anything until we get all the lurkers in and talking, and until we get a town concensess.

[Yosarian2]

Because on day 2 (where you attacked lurkers on your post no 1). We can't really know who are the lurkers.

Which is why I didn't attack any specific lurkers yet. At that point, all I made were general statements that scum might lurk and we should look out for that. Which is both true, good stratagy advice in this kind of game, and was hopefully going to be a deterent that might hopefully get people to lurk less if they knew we were going to be going after lurkers.

I didn't attack any SPECIFIC lurkers until day 3, after the game had been going for a full week. If a full week goes by and someone hasn't said anything meaningful yet, then yeah, they're a luker, especally in a game that moves this fast.

In less than 11 pages we had 9 players dead and 3 days past us by. Townies are blowing up before we wait for everyone to speak. It is ingenuous of you to accuse anyone of not speaking, when the town is not waiting for them to speak in the first place. It is a cheap shot.

The very fact you point out is why it's so easy for scum to get away with lurking in this kind of game, if the town's willing to let them do it; scum don't even have to bandwagon really, they just have to sit back and wait for townies to blow each other up and stay out of the way; if we don't want that to be a winning scum stratagy, we have to take steps to prevent it.

And, "cheap shot"? Really? Sorry, am I not being fair to your lurking scumbuddies?

If these were normal length days, with normal majority bandwagons, that can be seen a long time going, I would agree with you. A player that sees a bandwagon form and discussions happen without saying anything - possibly lurker scum.

But in this game. No. Are there some scum lurking? Probably. But there are also townies that haven't had the chance to speak yet, because of the short days.

I never said all the lurkers are scum; there are too many lurkers for that to really be likely. But we need to make them all talk, we need to pressure them to do so, because if we just ignore the lurkers and let them lurk like you seem to want to do, it pretty much guarentees that a lurker scum will in the game.

[Yosarian2]

I'm kind of sad that I'm being called out as a lurker, I mean to post, but because the nights last longer than the days it's kind of hard to find a interval in which I can post. Some people don't watch the site 24/7.

The nights last longer then the days? We've only had, what, 2 night so far, and they've been less then 24 hour each. THe game's been going for 11 days. There's been pleanty of time for you to say something.

In any case, I wasn't really going after you for lurking. The really suspicious thing was that you were lurking, you made 2 posts that were almost totally without content, and then the first post you had with ANY content was specifically attacking me for going after lurkers, which makes me think you're quite oversensitive on the subject of your own behavior, and that's a scum tell. Also, do you think that's the only thing all game that you think is worth commenting on?

I wouldn't be opposed to Skitzer and Surye taking each other out.

[Yosarian2]

Edit by way of post: To clarify before someone misinterprets that, I mean "I wouldn't be opposed to Skitzer and Surye taking each other out AFTER we've had some more time to discuss and hear from everyone and come to a general agreement". We don't want anyone blowing themsleves up this early in the day, again.

[Yosarian2]

Yos made the 3-scums-tell

I really can't believe that anyone is actually taking that seriously as a "scum tell". Why, exactally, is it suspicious if I automatically used the phrase "all three scum" when I've played like a bazillion games where 3 scum are the standard?

, followed by the 2-night-am-i-rite-tell.

And probably some more, but I've gotta look back.

[/quote]

Uh, I was pointing out that Skitzer was wrong when he claimed that the game had spent more times in day then in night, because there had only been two nights and they'd only been 24 hours each. I'd like to hear how that's supposed to be a tell.

No, on second though, I don't care.

vote:CES

Pretty sure now that he's scum. No way would he be playing this sloppy and this lazy if he was actually town looking for scum here.

[Yosarian2]

To me, the more troubling aspect of Yos' 276 wasn't the bit about two nights, but that he felt the need to hastily add 277's content afterward. He wants these guys blown up, but wants to make sure the town sees him on the side of extending the day. (Which is our best hope right now, honestly)

Uh, I want to make sure no one misunderstands me and does anything stupid, is what I want to make sure of. I'm not trying to be "seen" as anything.

[Yosarian2]

I could argue that the use of the rolleyes smiley is a scumtell too, actually.

That's not the point. There have been 3 nights. Since townies have nothing to do at night, it seems like a good idea for scum to act like they have nothing to do with what's going on at night either, by means of miscounting the number of night. Really, it says DAY 4 right there.

Huh, you're right. I was just thinking how many people got killed, and for some reason I forgot about Nightson.

So, I miscounted. Big deal. But I can't believe that you really would think that I would delibratly miscount as some sort of scum gambit. What would I have to gain from that, exactally? Would all of a sudden everyone said "Oh, Yos said there's 2 instead of 3, he must be town!" Again, .

Really, you're a better player then this. You've played enough games with me to know better then to act like I would delibaratly act stupid as scum in order to try to trick the town. Is that really all you got?

[Yosarian2]

Really, you're a better player then this. You've played enough games with me to know better then to act like I would delibaratly act stupid as scum in order to try to trick the town. Is that really all you got?

Talking down to other players always rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not talking down to him. I'm quite serious. I know he's a good player, and I don't think there's any way that a player of his caliber could really be convinced that someone is scum just because I thought there were 2 nights instead of 3, or becuase I used a rolly-eye-face (which is not only an absurd scumtell, it's also something I use a lot in pretty much every game I've ever played ever). Ergo, if that's all he's got, I think he's scum trying to manufacture a false case, which is why I'm voting for him.

I say CES and Yos blow each other up.

So, does that mean you agree with me that CES is probably scum trying to manufacture a case, or not? Because if you do, then why do you want me dead, exactally?

[Yosarian2]

because if we just ignore the lurkers and let them lurk like you seem to want to do

Yup. Exactly what I said we should do. Nothing like having a normal day with a normal bandwagon and see who does not react to it.

And then do what? Ignore those who don't "react" to it, or pressure lurkers after that?

Are you in favor of pressuring lurkers, or should we let them lurk? You seem like you're trying to have it both ways here.

And when, exactally, did I suggest we shouldn't have normal bandwagons?

Funny how you react to criticisms of your ideas
by attacking people right back.

Ok, either you agree with me that we should pressure lurkers, or you think we should ignore them and let them get away with lurking. There really is no third option here. If you think we shouldn't pressure lurkers, then you need to go back and read this game, right now.

viewtopic.php?t=5279&start=0

That's what happens when the town ignores lurkers, especally in this kind of daykilling game. The scum just all lurk, and they win while the town all kill each other off. That's why I put "nuke all lurkers" in my signature, because after modding that game, I can see the horrible ways that town tend to lose these kind of games when they ignore lurkers.

And I'm not attacking you because you're "disagreeing with me". I gave a pro-town suggestion, and YOU attacked ME for it, remember? I am trying to get the town to act in a way that will help the town win, and you are giving anti-town stratagy advice and attacking me for giving pro-town stratagy advice. So yeah, I'm suspicious of you because of that. ALthough so many people in this game look like scum, it's hard to know where to begin...

So did they choose you as the "active scum" this time?

Oh, so now I'm scum because I'm active. Or am I scum because I'm attacking you? Or am I scum because I'm offering pro-town stratagy advice on how to deal with lurkers?

[Yosarian2]

I never made any judgement on CES's reasons for voting Yos. I do think the two-night-tell is nonsense. I was only commenting on Yos's reaction, which I didn't like. And I do think saying "you're smarter than that" implies the person is acting stupid. It's a slightly disguised insult. And a manipulative way to get somebody off your back.

If you think the so-called tell is nonesense, then do you disagree with me that CES is a better player then to be using such nonesense tells?

I might have come off as condecending there; I need to stop doing that in mafia games, it's not helpful, and I apoligise to CES if I offended him. But that's besides the point; the point is that CES is a good player, and he should be trying harder to make a good case instead of spouting nonesense like that; that kind of nonesense case against someone I personally know to be pro-town, coming from a good player like CES, makes me more suspicious of him.

[Yosarian2]

Dropping the rolleyes point. I read several games with Yos, and what he said was true.

You know, there's something deeply amusing about the idea of you reading through several of my games, counting the the frequency of how often I use a certain emotacon in order to attempt to get an emotocon-meta read of my emotocon usage as scum vs town.

[Yosarian2]

Eh...Elvis Knits does look pretty scummy, Quagmire, but you look pretty town to me, so I don't want you to die today. I'd rather see CES kill her (or her kill CES, whatever), or Claus, or perhaps Skitzer. We kind of sort of get 2 lynches a day here, not one, and we really should try and use both of them to our advantage.

[Yosarian2]

Yup I do. And I still think that the timing and manner of that suggestion seemed off to me. I explained why already.

Um, no, no you really didn't, or at least not in a way that fit the facts at all. Your entire claim was that you thought it was scummy that I "attacked lurkers in my very first post on day 2", but that's just not true. In my very first post, I said we NEEDED to pressure lurkers, and we do, that's just good, solid pro-town stratagy advice, but I did NOT attack lukers until there'd been pleanty of time to see who the lurkers were.

What's wrong, exactally, with me suggesting pro-town stratagy early in the game in general terms?

So you're attacking me because I'm voting you because I thought that your "pro-town suggestion" seemed scummy (also because of the 3 scum slip and gut feeling, but nevermind). Where do we go from here?

What you need to do, is you need to answer my question.

So did they choose you as the "active scum" this time?

Oh, so now I'm scum because I'm active. Or am I scum because I'm attacking you? Or am I scum because I'm offering pro-town stratagy advice on how to deal with lurkers?

In other words, you need to explain why you're voting for me, because it seems like an incredibly scummy OMGUS vote from where I'm sitting. Also, you need to explain, exactally, why you thought I was wrong when I made this comment:

On another note, this kind of setup makes it WAY too easy for scum to lurk while all the townies kill each other off. That's how the scum won in the first MAD game, and it could easily happen again here. So we've got to make sure the days are long enough so everyone has a chance to post some real content, and I'm also personally going to be keeping a very close eye on lurkers; I think lurking is an especlaly strong scumtell this game, because lurking is more likely to be a good scum tactic in this kind of game.

I assume that's the comment you're attacking me over, am I correct? What, exactally, was wrong with that comment? And what was wrong with the so-called "timing and manner" of that comment?

You need to do all of this and explain yourself better, becuase I'm just not believing your claimed motives right now. The reasons you've given for attacking me make little sense and seem to have little to do with anything that's actually happened in the thread, and it feels like you're trying to piggyback on the attacks made against me by others to try to cause a mislynch.

[Yosarian2]

Edit: It was actually my second post, as I noticed when going back to look for that quote.

[Yosarian2]

Sarcastro, maybe, but I definitely wouldn't want to see elvis_knits blown up today.

That's kind of an unexpected comment. Why, exactally, do you think Elvis_knits is pro-town?

[Yosarian2]

@Surye- if you were able to blow someone up right now who would it be?
@Elvis- same question

one word answers please. i'll make my own informed decision based upon your answers.

Yes master.

Skitzer.

OMG Embarrassing...Totally wrong FORUM!

Mod please delete that post...I knew multitasking was a bad idea.

But since I posted, I guess I should say something...

Surye is still my biggest suspicion, and Yosarian is far behind but in second.

(i sense embarrassing custom titles emulating from the above post)

Interesting. They're both saying they're willing to blow the other one up, huh? I've got a feeling that one of them is probably bluffing.

[Yosarian2]

Yeah; I'm still waiting for Claus to answer my questions and respond to my latest post. I explained why I think he's scummy, ask him to explain himself back on Wednesday, even though he's posted 7 times on other places on the site since then. With the deadline coming up, I'm really starting to wonder if he hopes he can just lay low until someone else blows somebody else up.

[Yosarian2]

Interesting.

Oddly enough, even though it might lead to my death, Claus's striking a light is actually the closest thing to a pro-town action I've seen him do all game. Now I guess I just have to try figure out if he's a town trying to get a reaction out of me, or a scum who's trying to bluff his way our of trouble here, so I can decide if I should kill him or not now that I have the option.


So, now to respond to the meat of his posts:

You could have asked the mod to prod me also... but nah, you prefer to have the town mislynch, right? I'll finish reading this thread and then reply to your "wednesday questions".

It never occured to me that you needed a mod prod, seeing as how you just posted on Wednesday; based on the timing of your lurking and the approaching deadline, I had been assuming you were intentioanlly lurking. Why, are you now claiming you forgot about this game or something?

I disagree with you. I think we couldn't say for sure who the lurkers were by the time you start pressuring them.

Again, the first time I tried to start pressuring lurkers, the game had already been going for more then a week. Don't you think that, after a full week of gameplay, in any game, it's a good idea to note who hasn't posted content yet? And my comments about lurkers certanly were helpful in scumhunting, I think, considering the scummy-looking reaction I go from both you and from Skitzer about the scumhunting.

And for your "is it bad to discuss pro-town strategy in the beginning of the game?" question, I'd say that discussing strategy that has no immediate benefits for town, and can lead to bad policy lynches is not pro-town at all.

That's just not true. In a theme game, with different rules and different mechanics, it is ESPECALLY important to discuss pro-town stratagy. Take a look at how bad the pro-town play was before we started discussing the stratagy of when to strike a light, when to blow ourselves up, ect. That has nothing to do with policy lynches; in fact, good theoretical discussion should avoid bad policy lynches. Not that I consider going after lurkers to be a "policy lynch" in a game where lurking is perhaps the best possible theoretical scum stratagy...

I'll be glad to continue to debate how useful discussing stratagy is in theoretical terms, but since we don't have much time to have this conversation here, I'll just say that I always find theoretical discussion of that type very helpful for the town, and challange you to find one single game I have ever played in either theme forum with significantly altered mechanics where I, as a pro-town player, did NOT spend significant amounts of time in the early game discussing stratagy. I highly doubt you'll find one, because I ALWAYS discuss stratagy as a pro-town player in games with altered mechanics, especally early in the game when there's not that much else to talk about.

Lynch all lurkers is a generally good strategy, but it is not perfect. I think it fails in the context you presented it.

I never said lynch all lurkers. I said pressure all lurkers and don't let them get away with lurking, which is a radically different thing. And I think that going after lurkers is ESPECALLY important in this context, for reasons I've explained any number of times.

Funny that you say I'm incredibly scummy, but you're not voting for me.

As I mentioned in a different post, a lot of people look very scummy right now. My main suspects are CES, Elvis, you, and Skitzer, and I also understand the suspcicions on Sarc and Suarve. If I had to make a kill right now, you'd actually only be my third choice, after CES and Elvis.

I assume that's the comment you're attacking me over, am I correct? What, exactally, was wrong with that comment? And what was wrong with the so-called "timing and manner" of that comment?

I'm attacking you for this comment yes.

You realize you didn't answer my question there, right? What exactally was wrong with that comment, what was wrong with the timing of it, and what was wrong with the manner of it?

I'm also attacking you for your "three scum" slip.

We've been over this too many times...

I'm starting to wonder if certain people just keep bringing this up because they know there are actually 4 scum, and they want an excuse to keep saying "3 scum" because they don't want the town to notice that we're very likely in lynch or lose tommorow. Which is not necessarally directed at you, more at CES and Elvis since they've been beating this drum a lot more then you have, but it's making me wonder.

I'm also attacking you because you are constantly accusing me of being scummy, but have not voted me or done anything similar.

Have you noticed how many different people I've been attacking? I find a lot of people scummy, and while I've wanted answeres from you, I wasn't voting for you because you're just not at the top of my list right now. Although that could change, depending on your posts from now until deadline. We'll see.

I'm also attacking you because I have this gut feeling that you are scum. You are worrying yourself too much about one little vote from one little townie who is not that active in the game, and is not that great in argumentation or logic.

Eh? I'm not "worried" about your vote, I'm trying to figure out if you're scum. Also, it's interesting the way you find an excuse to call yourself a townie there...

So, what. Are you accusing me of being overdefensive here or something?

You're trying to paint me as scum to invalidate my argument,

Wrong. I used logic to invalidate your argument a long time ago. I've also been suspicious of you, partly because you've been trying so hard to push such bad logic, and because I just honestly have trouble believing that people still think that "Yos attacking lurkers proves Yos is scum" (I mean, I always do that, it's in my bloody signature, what else do I have to do here?). But my suspicious of you have never been my defense against you. In fact, it seems the other way around, it feels more like you've been ramping up your attack against me in an OMGUS way in order to try to invalidate my arguments against you.

but you are not willing to actually vote me, or ask other people whether they think I should be lynched or not. Your attack against me does not feel right.

Huh? So first you're attacking me because I'm attacking you, and now you're attacking me because I'm not attacking you hard enough? Why, exactally, are you getting so upset about being my #2 or #3 suspect, when no one else is even voting for you?

Anyway, back to your questioning: regarding the comment above, I think that when you made that comment, on page 2, we didn't have enough information to determine who the lurkers were, and still you were already arguing that lurking was a "Strong Scumtell".

Well, sure. Lurking is always a scumtell, and it's an even better scumtell in this type of game. I don't think I ever said it was a "strong" scumtell, I wouldn't go quite that far.

Why would town do that? I can't see strong reasons.

But I can see a better reason for scum to do that - to lead the town in a string of lurker myslinches, with the occasional bussing or two.

Any number of reasons town should do that.

1. Because it's the truth.

2. Because in a game like this, if you've got something important to say, you'd better say it damn fast, since days can end so fast and people can die so quickly. Bad Idea Mafia II, by the time I had a chance to post it was twilight, and then I was nightkilled night 1, so I never really had a chance to say anything game relevent at all.

3. Because by saying that, and making a big deal of it right from the start, I was hoping to DETER people from lurking, to get other people to start thinking about and keeping an eye on lurkers, and just because it seemed like it was going to help the town.

If I was scum trying to get a bunch of bad "policy lynches", I wouldn't have made that post then; I would have waited for someone TO lurk, and THEN tried to lynch them for it. Instead, I was trying, right from the start, to PREVENT people from lurking by making it clear that they wouldn't get away with it, BECAUSE that would help the town.

Are you still not understanding how bad lurking is in this kind of game? Did you ever go back and take a look at MAD mafia like I suggested you do?

Well. You say I'm bluffing when I attack you. I have striken a light, and I'm ready to let you explode me (or to explode you). Are you still willing to say that you don't believe my claimed motives?

(shrug) Well, I still suspect your motives, yeah. I still think there's a reasonable chance that you realized you are in trouble based on my logic and are trying to scare/bully/bluff your way out of it. However, in this situation, like I said, I think you striking a light is actually a somewhat pro-town move, and your offer to kill whoever the town votes for is another one, since either one would be very risky for scum to do. Still, if you don't want me to blow you up before deadline, I would suggest that you try to read what I've said a little more carefully respond to my questions a little better, instead of just constantly attacking me because I'm attacking you.

[Yosarian2]

I interpret that as "No one is listening to my accusations, but if you guys are willing to kill someone, I'd be perfectly willing to help."

Isn't that what mafia is all about?

[Yosarian2]

Forgot? Not really. Uninspired instead, like I said before. "Meh, I bet these new posts are more of the same, I'll check this game later".

Ok. Then why should I prod you? Prods are for people who've forgotten about the game, or who don't know the game's started, or whatever. If someone jus dosn't feel like posting or seems to be lurking tactically, you pressure them to make them change their behavior, you don't bring the mod into it.

Theoretical discussion past that detracts from scum hunting.

How does theoretical discussin "Detract" from scum hunting? Anything that you can find to talk about early in the game tends to move the conversation fowards. Anything that deters other people from lurking makes it easier to find scum, and like I said, I think lurking in this game is itself a scumtell.

(shrug) Well, I still suspect your motives, yeah. (...) Still, if you don't want me to blow you up before deadline,

Why wouldn't I want to? I have striken a light to allow you to attack me. Are you offering yourself a way out now? If your trade is "answer my questions or I will blow you up", I think I'll just shut up and see what you do.

No; I'm offering you a way out, because I tend to think that you striking a light in the situation is probably a small pro-town tell, as a scum in your position probably would have not done that, and because you were never on the top of my suspect list anyway.

I am keeping the option of blowing you up open, based on how you continue to respond, but as of right now it dosn't seem like a (Claus+Yos) death today is that likely to help the town. I wish I knew why you did think so, I'm tired of getting lynched as town all the damn time lately.

[Yosarian2]

I call BS on Surye.

Agreed. I really don't think Surye is going to go through on his threat here, he's probably bluffing.

On the off chance he's telling the truth, I'd be quite happy to Surye blow up any of my other top suspects, either Elvis, Skitzer, CES or perhaps Sarc. Or I'd be happy to see any one of those people blow up Surye, now that he's struck a light and can be killed. If Surye survives the day here, I will be most unhappy.

[Yosarian2]

Uh....care to explain that, kuribo?

[Yosarian2]

Well, I'm not going to do anything just because I've got 3 votes on me, when two are CES and Elvis, probably the two scummiest people in the game. The point of this voting system wasn't to let scum easily manipulate the town, was it?

That being said, Surye was already talking about blowing me up. If he is going to blow someone up, I'd rather he blow someone else up other then me, since that improves the odds from my point of view. But if it starts to look like he's a scum who just struck a light in order to bluff the town, then sure, I'd blow him up.

[Yosarian2]

Anyway, my vote dosn't seem to be doing much good on CES at the moment, especally since he's on vacation.

unvote

vote:sarcastro

This looks interesting, let's see where this goes...

[Yosarian2]

Excuse me? When did I refuse to do either?

[Yosarian2]

But if it starts to look like he's a scum who just struck a light in order to bluff the town, then sure, I'd blow him up.

If Quagmire thinks I'm "refusing to kill anyone", he's clearly not reading the thread.

[Yosarian2]

But if it starts to look like he's a scum who just struck a light in order to bluff the town, then sure, I'd blow him up.

If Quagmire thinks I'm "refusing to kill anyone", he's clearly not reading the thread.

that explains why you're lit.

Uh, why should I have lit, exactally? I thought the plan was that only the #1 and the #2 suspects light, and perhaps 1 enforcer as well?

If you'd wanted me to light, you should have said so back when I still could have. Deadline's in less then 24 hours now, it's no longer an option.

[Yosarian2]

I'm back, and last day was a disaster.

Surye and Yos are probably scum together. Notice how people jumped from Surye to Sarc after lights were struck, without much new reasons to do so.

Vote Yos

Oh, the guy who never mentioned Surye before today is suddenly accusing me of being scum with him for no reason, even though I've been pushing for Surye to die for quite a while now. And then you vote for me instead of for Surye.

vote:Surye

vote:CES

I know we were doing single votes, but I don't care. I'm pretty sure both CES and Surye are scum, and that CES is despretaly trying to distance and to link me to his scumbuddy here with this baiscally logic-less post.

In any case, Surye needs to die today.

Instead, we should be looking at competition between the Yos and Sarc wagons for the second candidate.

Uh, why, exactally? Sarc was town, and so am I, so I doubt scum really cared which one of us died; besides, I was only the third candidate. I never had more then 3 votes on me all day yesterday, and 2 of them were from CES and Elvis; and I can't really see any possible way for CES and Elvis to both be town here, can you? 3 votes is just barely a bandwagon at all, and mine was pretty clearly scum driven.

[Yosarian2]

Don't like the way that people who have basically lurked all game here, like Skitzer and Flameaxe, are blindly bandwagoning without giving reasons.

[Yosarian2]

Yes, Suyve is obv scum, and needs to die today.

Does someoen want to actually make a case against me, or are you all just going to keep mindless repeating "Yos needs to die"?

[Yosarian2]

Yes, Suyve is obv scum, and needs to die today.

Does someoen want to actually make a case against me, or are you all just going to keep mindless repeating "Yos needs to die"?

Your reluctance to get blown up has been duly noted, and is grounds for absolute dismissal, in my opinion.

Uh, and what, exactally, are you basing this idea that I'm somehow especally reluctent to be blown up? I'm always going cautious in daykilling games, overhasty town in these games leads to disasters, but I'm perfectly willing to blow myself up if necessary.

[Yosarian2]

Also, I really am bugged by the way that right now, when we're probably in lynch or lose, all these lurkers are coming out of nowhere and blindly bandwaogning for absolutly no reason. Quag's the only person who's given a reason for suspecting anyone at all today.

[Yosarian2]

Cautiousness in this game could easily be considered reluctance, yosarian. I'm basing this idea off of you trying to weasel your way out of getting blown up. I don't buy it, and I feel the need to blow you up myself.

When, exactally, did I try to "weasel my way out of" getting blown up? You never even suggested I should strike a light. No one did.

STRIKE A LIGHT

note: i do not support a surye explosion without yosarian dying too

(sigh) Such bad play. But I still think Quag is likely town, so if he blows me up today, then if there are 4 scum, the town loses on the spot.

STRIKE A LIGHT

At least if I blow someone up, the town has a chance to go another day, if I guess right. I'd still prefer to see Suyve blow someone up instead, of course, but me blowing someone up is obv better for the town to quag blowing me up.

So, now I'm the one in the drivers seat, I'm the one who's going to decide who gets lynched today. We're playing kingmaker, and I just appointed myself king. So you SOB's had better start answering my questions, if you want to live to see tommorow.

Flameaxe: Why have you been lurking all game? Why are you supporting me and Suyve to kill each other now? Do you have any rational reasons to suspect me here, or are you just blindly bandwagoning and hoping to get a townie to do something stupid? Why have you refused to contribute anything all game, posting just barely often enough to avoid being replaced?

Surye: Is your vote for kuribo OMGUS? Why is it you haven't really been doing much scumhunting all game? Are you really going to blow someone up finally here, or are you bluffing?

CES: You've looked scummy all game, and the scum vibe I'm getting from this post is especally bad:

I'm back, and last day was a disaster.

Surye and Yos are probably scum together. Notice how people jumped from Surye to Sarc after lights were struck, without much new reasons to do so.

Vote Yos

That's pretty much complete crap logic. If you think Surye is scum because of "how many people jumped from Surye to Sarc after lights were struck", why aren't you voting for, you know, one of the people who jumped from Surye to Sarc?

In fact, pretty much everyone who's just said "Vote:x" today without a case needs to come out and make a case right now.

Elmo: Where did you go? Why haven't you posted yet today?

[Yosarian2]

Yos:

Those people were you, NabakovNabakov, PokerFace and Elmo. The four of you are definitely high up my suspicion list, but that suspicion partially hinges on the assumption that Surye is scum. Note the word partially here because it's important and I don't want to be misrepresented.

Um, I did not, in fact, "jump from surye to sarc". Try again.

[Yosarian2]

Pokerface: What question did I have directed at me, exactally?

Anyway, I made damn clear why I had to strike a light, I'm not sure why you ignored it, Pokerface. I don't think Quagmire was bluffing, I really think he was about to foolishly blow me up, and that would have probably made the town autolose on the spot. Me blowing up someone, while not a good thing especally this early in the day, is obv. better then that, since that way the town at least has a CHANCE of not losing today.

[Yosarian2]

If a mafiosi were in danger of being 'sploded, this would certainly be one approach.

Perhaps. More relevent, though, is the fact that as town in danger of being exploded by someone else I thought was probably town, it was the best approach I could come up with, the thing that seemed most likely to save the town from what appeared to be oncoming disaster, even if it apparently wasn't. Or do you disagre with my play?

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear something useful from Flameaxe. Also, less saber ratteling and more logic from Skitzer would be helpful; the sabre rattling dosn't actually tell us anything about your alignment until you actually demonstrate if you're bluffing or not, by which point it's way too late for that to be useful. For that matter, a little more logic from a lot of people would be nice; you guys do know we're not playing AITP and it's ok to actually make logical arguments in this game, right?

[Yosarian2]

What disaster was this exactly? Could it be the post where Quag struck a light but ended by basically advocating a Surye-Yos explosion. That's like throwing chips at the pot while yelling "I'm bluffing". There's a name for somebody who assumes absolute control from exploiting a perceived-but-not-real crisis, and it's not king.

Um...did you not read Quag's post, or are you just making stuff up here?

Cautiousness in this game could easily be considered reluctance, yosarian. I'm basing this idea off of you trying to weasel your way out of getting blown up. I don't buy it, and I feel the need to blow you up myself.

STRIKE A LIGHT

note: i do not support a surye explosion without yosarian dying too

He said that he was going to blow me up himself. He also said he was OPPOSED to surye dying unless I died as well. He made it pretty damn clear that he was going to kill me.

Even if it was true that you were in immediate danger of exploding, why is assuming executive powers good town play when just about every game strategy post (and we know you love game strategy) has talked about the merits of teamwork and voting?

Teamwork and voting is great and necessary on day 1 and day 2. Today, since it might be lynch or lose, we need a scum to die, period. If I am going to die today, I intend to figure out who at least one the scum is and take him down with me. The best way to do that is to apply hard pressure to people who look scummy, and see how they react. Granted, I would still rather if one person I thought was scummy blew up someone else I think is scummy, since we still have to find all the scum and don't have many lynches left to do it, but either way, I'm not going to let the lurkerscum continue to fly under the radar, no matter what it takes.

Take a look at what I did in kingmaker II when I killed kscope, which is where I got the idea for this stratagy. Turn the heat up enough, and the lobsers start to scream. Hell, if I have to revive the "russian roulette" idea again in order to get the scum to respond to me, I will.

Do you trust your judgment over the combined judgment of the town? Why?

Generally, yeah, I do. Especally since it's likely that, what, 3/13 or 4/13 of the people in this game are probably scum, and since no one's bothering to make cases or use logic, then sure, I'll trust my judgement.

Do you plan to blow up Surye? The majority vote-getter in 1.5 weeks? If not, why not?

Oh, I might blow up Surye, especally if it starts to look like him striking a light today was just a bluff. Or I might blow up Flameaxe, especally if he continues to lurk. CES still looks like a good suspect too, and I really want to hear more from Elmo, and Skitzer, and Elvis. Basically, I'm pretty open minded at the moment, because I think that right now, today, is going to be my best chance to find scum, and I intend to find one, and either kill him or her myself or, if Surye is in fact town, it'd be even better if Surye blows up along with the scum so he dosn't get mislynched tommorow.

I'm very much willing to listen to good arguments about why I should suspect a certain person or why a certain action would be the right one to make. But I'm not really going to be that focused on the votecount, especally if people keep saying "X is scummy" without giving any damn reasons at all; paying too much attention to the votecount and not enough to common sense was why yesterday's lynch went bad after all.

[Yosarian2]

We are in probably in lylo so light striking without some organization can be bad since I believe concensus and organization has a better chance of hitting scum. I don't think I ignored/missed anything, but I'll look back nonetheless.

The thing you're missing is that it was a situation where i had good reason to believe that Quagmire was about to blow me up, and that I thought that would lead to a town loss; and I figured that if the only way to avoid that was to strike a light and try to blow up scum on my own, that that's what I'd have to do. I didn't *like* the idea, but hey, better then sitting around and waiting to die and lose for the entire town as soon as Quag's 24 hours ran up...


Anyway, you're right, I did attack Suyre; I never really did explain why, although I thought at the time it was fairly clear from the context.

The first time I started to get suspicious was after Suyre said this.

So the score so far is that all Skitzer has done is lied, mislead, and lurked?

Vote: Skitzer

This bugged me, even though Suyre was basically agreeing with me here, because it felt like he was kind of sheeping me in a suspicious way, and the case seemed to be a little over-simplified and overstated. It just felt wierd. Looking back from this point, this was also the first time he did anything that really looked like scumhunting, most of what he'd done before was just stratagy, and even his stratagy content felt kind of me-too-ish.

So, after he made that odd and kinda scummy attack on Skitzer (who I was also suspicious of ), about 2 days later, I said this:

I wouldn't be opposed to Skitzer and Surye taking each other out.

Which was the first time I mentioned I was suspicious Surye, I think. Basically, he was looking scummy, and he was doing so while attacking another one of my main suspects, so I mentioned that I'd be happy with the two of them killing each other.

And after that, my suspicion on him never really went away. And then, after attacking Skitzer, Suryre started acting like he didn't want Skitzer to blow him up, which meant he was either scum or doubting his own judgement.

By the way, this is why I tried to institute a double vote today, because I think the single-vote system we used yesterday helped screw everything up. When I voted for Sarc yesterday, I wasn't voting for Sarc to die INSTEAD of Surye. At that point, I thought Surye's death was inevitable; he'd already announced he was going to kill, and PEG made clear that if Surye didn't blow someone up by deadline that PEG would kill Surye. No, I was voting for Sarc because that was who I wanted Surye to kill. I really wasn't expecting Claus to suddenly delurk and blow someone up when all the pressure on him had basically gone away.

[Yosarian2]

LYLO? That'd mean there are 5 scum. Don't think that's balanced.

hmmm....let me think through this again.

If there's 4 scum, and we lynch wrong today (2 townies blow up during the day, scum kill 1 more at night), then tommorow, there'd be 10 people left, 6 town 4 scum. If a townie managed to lynch right tommorow (costing 1 townie and 1 scum, and the scum kill again) then the next day we'd be at 7 people, 4 town 3 scum. If town lynches right again then, then the next day there'd be 2 town 2 scum.

So if I figured that out right, if there is 4 scum, then I think we're actually at lynch or lose today, in the sense that if we lynch wrong today then the town can't win, unless the scum miss a night kill or something.

[Yosarian2]

Um, no, I voted for you yesterday, too, long before you questioned me today.

You know, you actually voted for him yesterday directly in response to him questioning you. You said you had no suspects, he asked you a question, and suddenly you were voting for him with no reason given.

Don't want the day to end just yet, but at the moment I really wouldn't mind seeing it end with you and him blowing each other up.

We also really need to hear from Elmo and Flameaxe before we do anything today.

[Yosarian2]

Right. Well, let's put it this way: I was expressing my sentiment that you two should blow each other up. If the deadline comes I will be exploding one of you two.

Well, you're the enforcer, if the deadline were to comes and it was the only way to avoid a no-lynch it'd be your job to blow someone up. I don't know why you're in such a bleeding hurry, though, and I don't know why you're making pronouncements like this now which just makes it harder for us to pressure other people into talking.

[Yosarian2]

Don't you dare suggest situations in which you do not blow up. You saved your ass (or thought you saved your ass) by promising to blow up, and that's what you're going to do. Allowing you to bow out contradicts the entirety of the system.

Bull. Shit.

I never 'promised to blow up".

I always made absolutly clear that any situation where two people I think are scummy both die > a situation where I die. Which should go completly without saying I did say I would rather blow someone up myself then have Quag blow me up, but I'll "suggest" whatever the hell I want to suggest.

Is there some specific reason you want me to blow up, NN, or are you just being oppurtinistic here?

[Yosarian2]

You struck a light, what the hell do you think that means?

It didn't "mean" anything, except that I was willing to blow myself up if necsessary and needed to have that as an option. I never "promised" to blow myself up, any more then all the other people who have struck a light during the course of the game but are still alive "promised" anything.

Quag was threatening to explode you, and he wasn't entirely unjustified; A large portion of this town wants you dead. You chose not to argue your innocence but to belet your explosion.

I'd love to argue my innocence, but no one is willing to make a case against me; Quag was the only one who made any kind of case at all, and his case seemed to mostly involve a complety misunderstanding of my motives.

Agian, stop taking in pointless generalities. If YOU think I'm scum, then YOU need to make a case to that effect, YOU need to explain why you think that. I don't like the way that, while you've been saying all game that you think I'm pro-town, you suddenly decide to take advantage of other people's suspicious and just declare that I "have" to blow myself up today, without giving a single reason why you think I should. Like I said, that makes you look like an oppertunistic scum here.

If two others explode today, it means we let you wiggle out of doing it yourself.

And if I explode today, that means you let two others "wiggle out of" dying today. Again, if you think I should die today, you need to make a case explaining why, unless you're planning on doing it yourself, which I HIGHLY doubt right now.

It means you placed your survival over the good of the town.

My surivial is good for the town, because I am pro-town. Why, exactally, is me surviving here bad for the town?

It means you win in LyLo with all your other buddies.

Um....you going to make a case for me being scum, or are you going to just keep saying it over and over again?

I'm not particuarly convinced that you're scum, but I refuse to allow you an out like Surye got an out yesterday.

That makes no sense at all, by any streach of the imagination. You're trying to get me to die, you're trying to somehow claim that me surviving is somehow bad for the town, and yet you're unwilling to even say that you think I'm scum?

vote:NabakovNabakov

, who I'm starting to think is scum who's trying to use the crap logic "if Yos lives today, then he's scum" to manipulate me and other townies.

[Yosarian2]

@Yos: So you're accusing me of using the same logic that built the Surye wagon earlier today? Surye did not fufill his obligation and is therefore scum.

Surye promised to blow himself up yesterday, and he did not. I don't know if he would have done so if Claus hadn't done so first, but personally I have my doubts, so that is a logical argument against him.

I never said anything of the sort.

The forces (Quag, CES) that forced your obligation might have been less democratic, but you embraced it no less enthusiastically.

What "obligation"? Where are you getting this wierd idea that I'm supposed to have some kind of obligation here?

You got to be King under the condition that your reign would end at the end of today. Why else would you, a player under wide if poorly-expressed suspicion, get to be in the driver's seat? I saw the conversion from "I choose who I explode" to "I choose who explodes" (one I had suspected was coming all along) and I pounced.

Um, you just quoted the post where i struck a light, and yet, you leave outthe part that totally contradicts what you're trying to say I "promised" to do...

I'd still prefer to see Suyve blow someone up instead, of course, but me blowing someone up is obv better for the town to quag blowing me up.

I made very clear, right from the beginning, that while I was willing to blow myself up if necessary, that it wasn't something I wanted to do, and that it would be better if I didn't have to.

As for the "king" thing; if I am going to have to blow someone up today, that basically makes me king, in the sense that the king in a kingmaker game is the guy who picks who dies that day. It's not like I made some kind of "deal" that makes me king; if I do have to use the dynamite today, then I AM king, and I wanted to make that clear and use that to get people to respond to my questions, so I could figure out who was scum.

If I don't have to use the dynimate today, then that's fine, although I still might if become pretty certain I've figured out who a scum is and I can't get the town to listen to me. If I do have to use the dynimate today, then I'll certanly use that to my (and the town's) best advatnage. There's no contradiction here, and there was certanly never any implied "promise".

[Yosarian2]

That doesn't seem accurate to me. I can't find anywhere that he's said he thought you were pro-town, and he's been somewhat suspicious of you since his first post. Why do you think he's flip-flopping to that extent? Also, you seem to have attacked (and voted) CES and now NabNab predominantly based on their attacks on you. Do you think your actions could reasonably be interpreted as OMGUS? (n.b. attacking people purely because they attack you).

Well, not long ago, NN was defending me against Elvis's attacks on me, using them as a way to go after Elvis. Then, today, after seeing everyone else suspect me, suddenly NN wants me dead, but in wierd ways, no actual case made for me being scum or anything. It does feel like a flip-flip.

And I don't OMGUS vote, but if someone is acting scummy, I won't NOT vote for them just because they're acting scummy while attacking me.

[Yosarian2]

I read this as resignation. Waving goodbye to a possibility that is no longer valid.

Well, I didn't think it was especally likely since I thought Quag was going to blow me up any moment, but it was still (and is still) a preferable option.

With the system established under Adel, it was pretty clear that lights were only to be struck by those slated to die.

Well, that's great, but we've pretty clearly left the reservation on that one. As soon as Quagmire suggested that he was going to blow me up right away, we appeared to have left Adel's system, so I had to do the best I could.

If I might ask, what was the purpose of your striking a light so early in the day? You were not certain who you were going to use it on and expressed no particular fear of timing debacles or surprises. Your expressed purpose for striking the light was to get Quag off your back. Why would that possibly work? How could that possibly affect Quag's opinion of you? The reason it worked, the reason you thought it would work was that it symbolized the obligation. It said to Quag "Don't blow me up now, I'll blow myself up later." But that obligation goes out the window once you start talking about others blowing up, you've escaped the obligation.

Ok, let me explain this one more time, from my point of view. Assume I am pro-town.

If Quagmire is pro-town (which I still tend to think he probably is) then about the worst result for the town would be him blowing me up. In that case, given the option between "Quagmire blowing me up" and 'Me blowing up someone I think is scum", the second one is clearly better for the town. Which should have been clear to everyone, including Quagmire, and would therefore prevent him from hastily and foolishly ending the day early with yet another townie blowing up another townie.

That justifcation ended the minute Quagmire admitted he was bluffing. Once we got past that, we were back in the situation were were origionally in, except I now had a light struck.

I struck a light because I was willing to blow myself up and try and take a scum with me if that was the only way to stop Quagmire from blowing me up on the spot. That was the most pro-town thing I could possibly do at the time. Me blowing up someone now is not necessarally the most pro-town thing I can do now.

Let me put it this way. We want to lynch correctly, and we want to do it not just today but basically every day for the rest of the game. That means we need any pro-town people who look uberscummy to die, so they don't attract random stupid kills later, and we need them to kill scum when they do.

You want a commitment? Fine.

IF A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE TOWN THINK I AM SCUM AND VOTE FOR ME, I WILL BLOW MYSELF UP TODAY, AND I WILL TAKE WITH ME THE PERSON THAT I THINK IS MOST LIKELY TO BE SCUM. IF THAT HAPPENS, I WILL TAKE OUT THE PERSON I THINK IS SCUM, BASED ON MY OWN JUDGEMENT, NOT NECESSARALLY BASED ON THE MAJORITY OF THE TOWN

That's what needs to happen today; the scummiest looking pro-town person need to blow himself up and try to take a scum with him. If that's really me, then fine, although I'd appriciate it if someone would actually make a freaking case instead of just "me-too"-ing and saying "yos is scum" for no logical reason at all.

Now, if you want me to blow myself up today, you need to make an actual case for me being scum based on my behavior, then vote for me. If a majority of people are voting for me, then I'll go back to being "king for a day", try to figure out who the scum is, and blow myself up along with whoever I think is scum. Or if you're so sure I'm scum, you could take me out yourself, since I've already lit. Is that your intention?

We don't know if Surye's escape of the obligation was intentional, but I saw a situation in which yours clearly was.

I DIDN'T HAVE ANY KIND OF OBLIGATION. I never promised to do anything, and all I've done so far is do what seemed best for the town in the situations I've been in. If you think I did something wrong, then you need to explain why my actions were anti-town.

[Yosarian2]

Hmmm...well, first thing that jumps out at me after find out Suyve's alignment is, Skitzer looks better now. Like I said yesterday, it really felt like SUyve was attackign Skitzer, and then backing off when Skitzer looked like he really might blow up Suyve.

[Yosarian2]

Hmmm...

Looking at the end of the day yesterday, I don't really like NN's behavior. It kind of feels like he's looking for some alternative to the Suyve bandwagon; first he goes after me, then just about the time when it becomes obveous I'm completly willing to blow him up he backs down and goes after kuribo.

vote:NabakovNabakov

[Yosarian2]

Yes, I noticed this too, but I think it's not very productive to go after the enforcer.

Hmm. Interesting. I guess how he goes about doing his enforcer duties today is likely to give us information about his alignment, assuming he survives, but I'm not sure that's enough reason to let him totally off the hook for today.

What do you think of Elmo/PokerFace/me?

PokerFace: He's seemed helpful and observent for much of the game. Yesterday, I was getting kind of a wierd vibe from him, but I don't know if I can really put my finger on it. I'm not sure I really see your case against him; could you explain?

You: Mixed feelings. I had some bad vibes from you earlier in the game. As for your actions yesterday...I can understand the justification you gave, but why didn't you explain them then, then that you wanted me to blow up Suyve because you thought I was town and he was scum, or whatever?

Elmo: I'll have to re-read him now to answer you on that one.

[Yosarian2]

Uh...mod, could you please remove that last set of quote tags? That's not supposed to be there; those last three comments, about pokerface, CES, and Elmo, are mine, not a quote.

[Yosarian2]

Hmmm. Elmo hasn't really done all that much this game, has he? He voted Marmalade, then later couldn't remember why; he agreed with Adel and my stratagy advice in general terms. The timing for his sarc vote looks bad. Said he didn't think Surye was scum, never explained why.

Elmo: Could you explain why you thought Surye was pro-town?

[Yosarian2]

Oh, I certanly agree that Marmalade has been lurking, Pokerface, and you're certanly right we can't let anyone get away with lurking in this game. No specific reason I didn't mention him; there's probably a bunch of lurkers I didn't mention, I haven't gone through and systamatically made a list of who's lurking and who's not.

[Yosarian2]

I ain't going to lie to you, Yosarian2. Near the end of day 5 alot of your comments seemed to come off as retalitory and omgus. Now mind you they weren't exactly that since you gave some good reasons for thinking as you did, but they still felt like omgus because of the ferocity you were displaying towards those attacking you.

Eh..I really do think that the almost completly logic-less bandwagon against me yesterday was pretty darn scummy, and that my attacks for, for example, NN was based on scummy behavior and not on OMGUS. That being said, I was also pretty darn frustrated by the nature of the wagon on me, and I'm sure that probably came through in my posts as well.

I also noticed that you attacked Elmo and Flameaxe for lurking. Yosarian you did attack every lurker except for one. I was keeping track and the one lurker you did not mention was Marmalade. In some ways I was considering you as being scum near the end of day 5 and the possibily, marmalade was a scum buddy of yours.

(nods) Yeah, I figured what you were getting at.

I can understand why you might think that there could be a link there. The truth is, though, I just hadn't ever taken the time to go through and made a complete lurker list, and I had basically compeltly forgotten Marmalade was even in the game. Flameaxe was really noticable with the way he appeared, agreed with everyone else's suspicions without any reasons, and then vanished again; and Elmo and Elvis had both gotten my attention by having some content earlier in the game but then kind of vanishing later.

ATM I don't think you are scum. I'm disagreeing with this day 5 impression. Regardless the thought did cross my mind so I thought I'd get that out there. I still think the possibility of only 3 scum is false. That's about as balanced as a 2-ton elephant walking on a fishing line thin tight rope. But that doesn't mean you can't be in a group of 4. That's all I wanted to say. My suspicions in Elmo and CEScum are alot stronger at the moment.

Fair enough. At least you're posting and sharing your thoughts.

[Yosarian2]

[Yosarian2]

[Yosarian2]

Elvis, you did great. For a long time, when it looked like we were totally screwed, the plan became "get elvis to endgame and give her a chance". And it might have worked, too, if it wasn't for that random modkill. Ah, well. Good game, everyone.

[Yosarian2]

Oh, yeah. So unfair; we killed him off for a reason, lol.

But, yeah. Best pro-town people this game probably were:

Elmo: Good instints there. I had thought I had just about talked myself out of trouble too, heh.

Quagmire: All around solid play.

Adel: The biggest contrabution she did to the town wasn't just the stratagy, it was that she sucessfully created a lethally effecitve pro-town block of her, Quagmire, and PEG, and that block then gave us no end of problems for days until we finally managed to kill them all off. Although I will mention that we deliberatly left her alive because I was completly confident she would end up killing some random townie for striking a light.

[Yosarian2]

I think my lurking got me into trouble here. Plus people were onto us from the getgo, even though mafia managed to make it to lylo.

Also, I don't think you really did anything wrong there. You were quite delibratly hanging out in the spot of being "not the worst lurker" but otherwise staying below the radar. That modkill was the main reason you lost that endgame, I think.

[Yosarian2]

Also, Quag, it wasn't your fault you got killed there at the end; I had earlier tricked Pokerface and others into thinking there was a link between me and Marmalade, so you were already in a bad position when you replaced in.

[Yosarian2]

I should have found another replacement other than Quagmire; and I should have replaced Flameaxe rather than modkilling him. I regret both decisions. I don't think that it changed the outcome of the game but nevertheless if I had my time again I wouldn't have done that.

Actually, I don't think you should have done either, especally when he posted yet another "I'm still here" message. He was still posting, the town had let him get away with lurking all game, so it should have been the town's job to try to figure out his alignment based on his sparse posting.