Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[camn]

Shadow Girl..

Don't bother with Blackberry.
He's gone.
I'm in.

He was just being silly.

[Tinsley]

It's a new strategy that I've seen done that relies on the fact that scum try to shift blame everywhere (typically picking an inactive townie) and making them seem scummy, and townies usually pick up on inactives nearer deadline when they realize that they don't have much to go on when rereading.

Could you provide links to the games you've seen it done? I think the problem with that theory is that I don't think people wait until a deadline to do a reread. I believe I had just finished a reread when I called you out for lurking.

Netlava: Has basically tunnel vision of CF Riot. Outed the doc (he thought it was the doc at the time). Goes after LG for somewhat defending Netlava (gave an excuse for Netlava's actions), and completely ignores the post by CF Riot, not even touching the discrepencies and contradictions in the post.

BB: Doesn't give this game much effort (reasonable as asked to be replaced), claims a great role out of the blue, and tells people who he feels is scummy, but doesn't give much of a reason why.

Tinsley: This is more gut than anything. He defends CF Riot, saying he is most likely town because he wrote a big post. Scum writes big posts too.

Those three are the main people who

IGMEOY

I'm surprised you didn't lump hadhfang in with me, seeing as a few here believe we could be scumbuddies based on my unvote when he reached L-2. In regards to the big posts, I was referring to the fact that to how much effort and thought went into that post.

Camn - Welcome to the game. Knowing what you do from inheriting BB's role, would you say his suspicion of Walnut and Macavenger were serious?

Mod - You don't have me listed anywhere in your vote count, but you have charter listed with a vote on camn and no vote. I think I'm supposed to be on the no vote list in charter's place.

I've got a busy weekend ahead of me so I may not post much before Monday.

[Battousai]

The game was Akatsuki Mafia in Coney Island. Scum tried this tactic, but I thought I would try it myself to see if it has any value.

[camn]

I think most of BlackBerry's stuff was based on this mysterious "last game" and not seriously on this game.

[Macavenger]

Welcome, Camn.

The "mysterious last game" would be here. This is a reset since that one got fubar'd, with originally 10/12 of the same players.

@Macavenger: charter is talking about lining up lynches, but the hypocritical part is he is talking about whether Had is still alive, then calls out another player who did exactly as he did.

I'm not seeing what Battousai did as necessarily setting up lynches, but I can see where you're coming from here. I wouldn't consider it a strong point against charter as a contradiction.

It's a new strategy that I've seen done that relies on the fact that scum try to shift blame everywhere (typically picking an inactive townie) and making them seem scummy, and townies usually pick up on inactives nearer deadline when they realize that they don't have much to go on when rereading. Now, as I said this is a new strategy, and it didn't really work that well in this game.

Lurking isn't a town strategy. The way you're presenting this also makes it look like a variant of the "I'll do something scummy and see who jumps at me for it" gambit, which is flawed because when a townie does something scummy, jumping at is the correct strategy for both town and scum. It does make a convenient excuse for scum, though. I also like how you later admit you picked up on this "strategy" from a scum player - that should tell you something.

FoS: Battousai

Tinsley: This is more gut than anything. He defends CF Riot, saying he is most likely town because he wrote a big post. Scum writes big posts too.

This is a really poor reason for suspecting Tinsley. Going with your gut is good if you have anything concrete to back it up, in my opinion, and it doesn't look like you do. Tinsley's statement about CF Riot is quite neutral, possibly unless you think Riot is also scum, which you don't indicate.

How is pushing [CF Riot's] lynch scummy?

Because you're doing it for a really bogus reason. You don't really seem to have anything other than this supposed breadcrumb, which you don't even know if it was a breadcrumb or not. You're also jumping to the conclusion that breadcrumbing doc = scum, which while possible, is a very poor conclusion to draw in the abcense of other evidence.

Macavenger claims the 3 spot over Batt for the use of the word "tempt" as well as my gut feeling. I don't think that's how a townie would think. A townie would be "unsure," but tempted suggests that there is something holding you back, such as prior knowledge of my alignment. Plus, CF Riot seems to be amused at the Riot-batt pairing.

The semantics you come up with are just amazing, really. Do you seriously believe the stuff you say? Using the word "tempt" makes me scum?

Unvote; Vote: Netlava

Your scumlist is basically just composed of people who happen to be attacking you, and you're making up ridiculously silly reasons to suspect us.

[Walnut]

Camn - Welcome to the game. Knowing what you do from inheriting BB's role, would you say his suspicion of Walnut and Macavenger were serious?

As camn has already answered this, I feel relatively free to ask Tinsley- what were you thinking? How could Blackberry's role have told him anything of note about the mafia? To be purely hypothetical (so as not to compromise anyone's thinking about the current game), is there any role that on Day One, with no Night one and therefore no prior info, would have a better idea or not of which roles the other players would have? That is, other than a role that was intrinsically linked (e.g. siblings, lovers, lyncher/lynchee). Is that what you were implying?

farside22 wrote:
@Macavenger: charter is talking about lining up lynches, but the hypocritical part is he is talking about whether Had is still alive, then calls out another player who did exactly as he did.

I'm not seeing what Battousai did as necessarily setting up lynches, but I can see where you're coming from here. I wouldn't consider it a strong point against charter as a contradiction.

Mac, who are you talking about here- Battousai or charter? The funny thing about this post is that I was recently trying to get my head around tthis combination of posts (nine minutes apart)

In concerns with Had, I think we should lynch somoene else and see what happens. Come D2 if Had is still alive he can tell us who he investigated and the result. Then we can decide on whether or not to lynch him or somoene else. That's my two cents on that.

charter wrote:
You say Tinsley will look scummy if Had turns up scum, would the opposite hold true? Say if we lynch Tinsley today, would you then think Had is scum regardless of his claim tomorrow (if he lives through the night)?


Nope, tomorrow will be completely WIFOM if we let Had live, and scum will play it up no doubt.

This at first struck me as a direct contradiction ("let Had live and deal with it tomorrow" versus "if we let Had live it is complete WIFOM"), then I thought that I had initially missed the point and that the second post was entirely based on the possiblilty of lynching Tinsley and him turning up scum. However, this is going down the same path of setting up lynches that Charter went down, even if it is in its opposite case- setting up non-lynches.

[Mizzy]

Vote Count:

Netlava 3 (CF Riot, Lord Gurgi, Macavenger)
charter 2 (farside22, ShadowGirl)
Walnut 1 (Hadhfang)
camn 1 (charter)
CF Riot 1 (Netlava)
Battousai 1 (camn)

Not Voting:

charter, Walnut, Battousai

12 alive = 7 to lynch!

[Macavenger]

Mac, who are you talking about here- Battousai or charter? The funny thing about this post is that I was recently trying to get my head around tthis combination of posts (nine minutes apart)

That bit was a reply to farside... it should be pretty self explanatory.

[Hadhfang]

Right, I've had another read through, and would like to bring up some questions mainly for Charter, since his posts are the ones that bother me the most, but also one for Walnut.

And, based on post #83, I would almost expect Had to be mafia and CFRiot a townie he is setting up for a fall.

how exactly does it seem to you that I'm setting CF up for a fall when I barely mentioned him in my post?

I will be interested in seeing who the next person to vote for Had is (assuming someone does.

Why is this? What information would it have given you?

Don't lynch him today and if he lives through the night lynch him tomorrow. Of course the mafia could always not NK him, but I see that as much more unlikely than him actually being mafia (if he lives). Saying this, there's no point in lynching him today, as there are probably two others, so I'll go ahead and
unvote had

How come you spent so long to unvote? You didn't like how I waited to vote you, so why did you wait to unvote me?

Well with Charter's statement did was exactly this: Now it will be WIFOM. If Had is NK, If Had is scum, If, if, if. It's really too soon to say any of that and I think talking about it gives the scum ideas (if Had isn't scum) what to do about the situation. The worse part about Had's claim is he doesn't know if he is sane or not.

I think you trying to pin this on me is scummy. What does everyone else think?

how is it scummy? he isn't really trying to pin anything on you Charter, He's just pointing out what you did.

However, cop claim on day one is a very easy claim for scum to make. I'm not saying Had's claim is false, but there's virtually no proof he actually is or isn't the cop, but no one wants to lynch their cop.

True, but a cop claim is a very WIFOM claim to make as well. The last line in your quote proves that, Town don't want to lynch their cop, but then they don't know if I am a cop or scum, so they have to play carefully. Even so, scum claiming cop could be risky for the same reason, as it makes them look suspicious, and if a scum player were already under a lot of scrutiny a cop claim could well get them into even deeper trouble. Of course that in itself is WIFOM, for all you know I could be scum who has just made that hypothesis to make it seem like I am town.

Why are you asking other people what they think should happen if Riot is found dead tomorrow and is doc? Why don't you say what you think will happen? What good can you hope to gain from this question? I ask these because you seem unwilling to drop the Riot being doc thing, even after he explicitly said he wasn't dropping hints at his role.

Bat was asking a what if question, its not that he was unwilling to drop CF being doc, since he wasn't asking CF anything about him being Doc.


At the moment I think Charter is probably scum, This might change depending on his answers, but for now,

Unvote, Vote:Charter

[Netlava]

Somehow I'm the one that's OMGUSing

Your scumlist is basically just composed of people who happen to be attacking you, and you're making up ridiculously silly reasons to suspect us.

Attacking my entire list? Seems like you're just disagreeing with me on principle. Does this also mean that you think the attacks on LG are baseless (other than riot's or your own)?

What does the town think? (not mac, lg, or cf)

[Macavenger]

Somehow I'm the one that's OMGUSing

Actually you are. LG and I both magically appeared on your scumlist after we had made accusatory statements in your direction.

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

I think just for that, you get the honor of being on the second spot on my scum list.

This latest response from Netlava strikes me as basically just OMGUSing LG, which is obviously not good. Very tempted to shift my vote back to him right now.

Macavenger claims the 3 spot over Batt for the use of the word "tempt" as well as my gut feeling.

Attacking my entire list? Seems like you're just disagreeing with me on principle. Does this also mean that you think the attacks on LG are baseless (other than riot's or your own)?

I've seen no valid reason for you to suspect LG or myself other than the fact that we expressed suspicion of you. Your case on CF Riot isn't OMGUS, but is pretty bad for other reasons. So yeah, I'm attacking your whole list.

[Walnut]

Is there any reason you're voting for me now rather than when I first said I'm assuming there's three mafia? I don't understand why you waited so long if that's your reason for voting me.

Only because I've had time to think about your post some more, and read through more thoroughly. Your jumping on Riot's post seems a bit over eager, since he said the assumption within a hypothesis, not openl stating that he did assume there were three mafia.

Note liking Had's waiting so long to vote for me. Also not liking Riot's misleading stat trying to make us think there's very little chance Had is scum.

Not liking this comment about Riot being "misleading" he isn't, his facts were perfectly accrurate, and added to that your assumption and then questioning the same assumption made by sumone else, albiet in a hypothesis is strange.

Your argument against Charter here appears to be:

1) You jumped on CFRiot's assumption, even though it was only in a hypothesis.
2) You commented CFRiot's stat was misleading, when it was accurate
and
3) I find it strange that you assumed something, then questioned someone else (CFRiot) making the same assumption in a hypothesis

In 3 points you mention CFRiot twice by name, and once by inference. This struck me as buddying at a time when the votes were mounting on you, so if you were lynched people would re-read Day 1 and see a close connection there.

You also say CFRiot's stat was accurate as an argument against it being misleading, but they are not opposites. The expression "Lies, damn lies and statistics" sums it up pretty well. Also, not to forget that the second part of the stat isn't accurate anyway.

[Netlava]

@ Mac: For you to characterize LG's post as an attack confirms my suspicions that you're just disagreeing with me on principle. LG's post was actually a veiled attack that he tried to disguise as "giving me a chance." Having realized this, I don't think you would shrug off the entire case on LG without a second's thought if you were town.

[Battousai]

NetLava, I don's see what LG did was an attack on you in a disguise. The only bad thing from it is that you are using the other game to dictate this game. Guess what? That doesn't make you scummy, it's only bad play. But in your last post you admit you thought/ think it was an attack. So according to you, you get attack so the person gets bumped up onto your scum list, right?

[Netlava]

That LG tries to disguise the attack as something else is what's scummy, not the attack itself.

[Lord Gurgi]

What? I was responding to your attack when I said I was going to wait to give you time to defend yourself. All I was doing was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I said nothing negative about you at all. Yet I am somehow scum for giving you due turn?

[camn]

Alright, everyone.. we need some focus around these parts. Accusations and defensiveness is the the order of the day... and we have votes on 50% of the people in the game!

We gotta pick out a person or two.. and look hard at them until we decide that they aren't worth looking at for a while..........otherwise we'll never vote for anyone.

as far as I am concerned.. this suspect-everyone ploy is anti-town, as it leads to confusion and delay.

that said.. i

unvote

Lets take a hard look at NetLava for a couple days.. simply because he is our vote-leader right now.
Let's not get distracted by other accusations for a little bit, until we are satisfied.

Sound good?
Ok.. I will read NetLava's stuff, and get back to you.

c

[Macavenger]

camn's idea here rubs me the wrong way. I don't think I like the idea of trying to force the town to all tunnel vision on a single player. While tunneling can sometimes be useful for an individual town player, I'd prefer to have a wider range of data to work with. People saying what naturally occurs to them is likely to be more useful than everyone focusing on a single target and trying to find things to say about that person. We all see things differently, and are going to see different things in different players. I see no reason to artificially restrict that.

[Walnut]

I agree with Mac here. As an example, if we focus steadily on Netlava I am sure we can get enough votes on to lynch him. After about 20 pages of playing with him I would say that his style is unorthodox enough to make enough people suspicious of him even if he were a vanilla townie. Does this mean that I think Netlava is guilty or innocent? Neither, simply that it would not be a useful test. On the other hand, if we continue to talk about every player, it becomes a case of "Is he the best person to lynch today?", which is quite different.

Accusations and defensiveness is the the order of the day... and we have votes on 50% of the people in the game!

Accusations and defensiveness sound like a good thing to me, rather than everyone being passive, lurking and afraid to speak.

as far as I am concerned.. this suspect-everyone ploy is anti-town, as it leads to confusion and delay

Confusion, as opposed to being convinced that you are right when you don't actually have much to go on? "Delay" is an interesting choice of word here too. There is no deadline and it is generally considered that a longer day is better for the town, so this strikes me as dodgy.

Lets take a hard look at NetLava for a couple days.. simply because he is our vote-leader right now.
Let's not get distracted by other accusations for a little bit, until we are satisfied.

Sound good?
Ok.. I will read NetLava's stuff, and get back to you.

In this case, I don't mind being "distracted", and I look forward to what you have to offer based on reading Netlava's posts

[camn]

Good!

Still reading...

But too be clear.. I'm not talking about tunnel vision. I'm just talking about having a conversation based on, like one topic at a time for a little bit!

I just subbed into this game.. and I can hardly tell what anyone is talking sometimes!

It's Crazy~!

And I mean confusion.. as in.. 'i'm confused' the opposite of 'i understand what you are saying'. But I'll try and read better!

[camn]

Alrighty.

First things first........
I'm not reading that other game! I don't wanna get involved!

2nd.

I don't think NetLava looks that scummy right now.
I think Mac is on his case currently for the wrong reasons, mostly OMGUS.

I just read Netlav's posts through twice, and he seems to be scumhunting pretty aggressively.. .. though he may be a LITTLE jumpy.. building cases on pretty thin ground.
But on D1, thin is all we get, right? Better a thin case than no case at all!

However.. his aggression toward CF RIOT seems out of line. First the Stat... then the so-called "doc breadcrumb". . and CF is STILL at the top of his list!
and what does this mean?

@ CF Riot: Well, I don't see anything wrong with trying to get batt to talk, but the way you talk to him makes it seem as if you already know whether batt is scum. You are at the top of my list of suspicion atm, but for quite delicate reasons. Do you know what I'm referring to?

Anyway.. it seems excessive... though NOT, as Mac puts it, OMGUS. Since CF has been in Netlava's crosshairs since page one.. I don't see how it COULD be.

My bottom line? NetLava seems town for now.. though I wonder why all the hate on CF?? is there something I don't know? what are these 'delicate reasons'?

thank you.

[Lord Gurgi]

Camn, how do you feel about the post where he said I was attacking him when I was defending him?

However, I'm getting a really off feeling from that post. Not enough for anything concrete, but I'm keeping my eyes open.

[farside22]

Camn, how do you feel about the post where he said I was attacking him when I was defending him?

However, I'm getting a really off feeling from that post. Not enough for anything concrete, but I'm keeping my eyes open.

I thought Netlava was talking mostly about that post where you said you would wait till he responded to the attack. Then when he responds mostly to you saying that you vote him. I thought your action was odd too. Why say oh that is a good point then say the person needs to respond or will get your vote. I'm seen many a scum do that tactic so I don't think Netlava pointing the finger at you for doing that is OMGUS.

[camn]

I'm with Farside.....

Hmm, I really want Netlava to defend himself first. He might be continuing on a suspicion from the last game. (I have suspicions about a number of players doing this) Did he hound you last game?

Is this what you are referring to as "defending" Netlava?

And it should be noted.. after he put you on his "list" you actually voted him!
And your vote stays with him now.
Maybe it is an OMGUS battle...?

But to answer your question.. his reaction seems normal. I didn't read that you were defending him.. it is certainly possible he didn't either.

But your point is accurate.. Netlava is all up on the Hater Tip with regards to CF Riot. I would like to know the origins of this........

[charter]

Was away, don't have much time now, but I'll address this now.

@SG, were you even in the last game? References to it completely flew over your head, I don't know why you'd point them out and put trivial comments on them.

I'm going to do a reread when I get back from this weekend with my current thoughts, I'll be

V/LA

until monday probably.

Yes... I was in the last game.

Can you elaborate on these 'references'?

The whole BB is odd... There were two or three obvious ones that weren't serious you quoted in your post and treated them as serious.


@Had, I'll get to your post later tonight/tomorrow.