Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[BlakAdder]

Wifom seems to be your general 'trick' to get out of situations that you don't like; is there a reason you want to avoid actually giving your opinion on this matter?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. Where did I respond to you with WIFOM?

[Cyberbob]

As someone who came pretty much out of the gate yesterday in support of a Netlava lynch, I have to agree that this wagon is moving a little too fast for my liking. I'm seeing a rather opportunistic votes from BlakAdder & perhaps StrangerCoug, and raider's post 991 (as a couple of others have also noted) really smells of scum appearing to support a wagon without committing to actually laying a vote down.

[raider8169]

As someone who came pretty much out of the gate yesterday in support of a Netlava lynch, I have to agree that this wagon is moving a little too fast for my liking. I'm seeing a rather opportunistic votes from BlakAdder & perhaps StrangerCoug, and raider's post 991 (as a couple of others have also noted) really smells of scum appearing to support a wagon without committing to actually laying a vote down.

Saying I agree with the bandwagon is opportunistic? You guys throw that word around way too much and I think you guys lost the meaning behind the word. With as many people needed to lynch someone people will toss their vote on there for many different reasons.

I am pro the bandwagon but I didnt like how large it got and how fast it got. I would also like Netlava to defend himself. Failure to defend would result in my vote anything else and I would need to consider.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm starting to see a couple people rise above Netlava on my scumdar, but I want to see Netlava's defense before I switch. armlx, I'm looking at you.

[Cyberbob]

I am pro the bandwagon but I didnt like how large it got and how fast it got. I would also like Netlava to defend himself. Failure to defend would result in my vote anything else and I would need to consider.

See, now this is perfectly reasonable and is something you should have included in your initial post.

[Skruffs]

Wifom seems to be your general 'trick' to get out of situations that you don't like; is there a reason you want to avoid actually giving your opinion on this matter?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. Where did I respond to you with WIFOM?

Otherwise, Skruff's post directly before mine seems a bit suspicious to me. Stepping into WIFOM territory to defend someone that's only slightly under fire tends to catch my eye.

I'll also put out an

fos: Skruffs

for responding to my WIFOM accusation with more WIFOM.

You used "He's WIFOMING!" as an excuse to avoid the subject, not once, but twice. WIFOM is offering two choices of which both are false; I was not offering any choices at all, but ra ther asking someone why they made the choices they did.

The original point was that someone acted "Very scummy" day one and that's why they were lynched. This came from someone who is (I think) very good at reading people, which makes no sense.

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?
Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house? Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

No.

And by the way, the 'police' in the metaphor, that's not a reference to any kind of claim; its more a symbology for an 'established' player acting out oddly towards an unestablished (druggie) one on day one.

[Netlava]

I think I've already addressed everything. If there's anything I need to answer in particular, feel free to ask, but hopefully it doesn't involve me repeating myself. FTR, my vote was an attempt to play less conservatively and I tried this before in another game (in which I was also lynched for this), so I've given up on this. I really do not see the big deal of voting for someone I don't think is scum if I see the lynch as being inevitable; this is not some "clever" way of avoiding responsibility. I waited for everyone to say their piece, and since I noticed that most people had voted dynamo and the lynch was pretty much inevitable, except for a bunch of replacements that might take, say, 3 weeks to read the thread, that voting is just a way to move the game along and my stance is already clear. With a couple of people repeatedly posting MOAR VOTES ON DYNAMO I decided "hey, why not, my vote is sitting uselessly around anyway, why not bring meaning to these statements?" Note that hasdgfas in particular made a couple of these posts and as soon as I voted stopped paying any attention to dynamo at all and wanted me lynched (to some extent, over dynamo). So much for fulfilling a request.

And also, why would I, as scum, choose this method to jump on a bandwagon when I could just lie about finding dynamo scummy or whatnot? And before you scream WIFOM you should probably pay attention to risk/rewards. I avoid lying as town since lying is used to determine who is scum. So I decided to adopt a new approach, but I guess it just doesn't work here, and perhaps that might be a good thing. But either way, if you think one frickin vote like this, where I state my intentions CLEARLY before I even do it is scummy, then I can't change your opinion on it.

[Korts]

Wifom seems to be your general 'trick' to get out of situations that you don't like; is there a reason you want to avoid actually giving your opinion on this matter?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. Where did I respond to you with WIFOM?

Otherwise, Skruff's post directly before mine seems a bit suspicious to me. Stepping into WIFOM territory to defend someone that's only slightly under fire tends to catch my eye.

I'll also put out an

fos: Skruffs

for responding to my WIFOM accusation with more WIFOM.

You used "He's WIFOMING!" as an excuse to avoid the subject, not once, but twice. WIFOM is offering two choices of which both are false; I was not offering any choices at all, but ra ther asking someone why they made the choices they did.

The original point was that someone acted "Very scummy" day one and that's why they were lynched. This came from someone who is (I think) very good at reading people, which makes no sense.

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?
Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house? Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

No.

And by the way, the 'police' in the metaphor, that's not a reference to any kind of claim; its more a symbology for an 'established' player acting out oddly towards an unestablished (druggie) one on day one.

That's a long analogy for bullshit. Basically, as far as I understand, it all boils down to an "if I was scum, I would/wouldn't do this" kind of circular logic.

Also, FTR the Netlava case is weak, but I like raider's explanation.

[Korts]

Wifom seems to be your general 'trick' to get out of situations that you don't like; is there a reason you want to avoid actually giving your opinion on this matter?

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are talking about. Where did I respond to you with WIFOM?

Otherwise, Skruff's post directly before mine seems a bit suspicious to me. Stepping into WIFOM territory to defend someone that's only slightly under fire tends to catch my eye.

I'll also put out an

fos: Skruffs

for responding to my WIFOM accusation with more WIFOM.

You used "He's WIFOMING!" as an excuse to avoid the subject, not once, but twice. WIFOM is offering two choices of which both are false; I was not offering any choices at all, but ra ther asking someone why they made the choices they did.

The original point was that someone acted "Very scummy" day one and that's why they were lynched. This came from someone who is (I think) very good at reading people, which makes no sense.

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?
Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house? Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

No.

And by the way, the 'police' in the metaphor, that's not a reference to any kind of claim; its more a symbology for an 'established' player acting out oddly towards an unestablished (druggie) one on day one.

That's a long analogy for bullshit. Basically, as far as I understand, it all boils down to an "if I was scum, I would/wouldn't do this" kind of circular logic.

Also, FTR the Netlava case is weak, but I can accept raider's explanation of his support.

[Korts]

DAMN YOUR INVALID SESSIONS!

[hasdgfas]

I think I've already addressed everything. If there's anything I need to answer in particular, feel free to ask, but hopefully it doesn't involve me repeating myself. FTR, my vote was an attempt to play less conservatively and I tried this before in another game (in which I was also lynched for this), so I've given up on this. I really do not see the big deal of voting for someone I don't think is scum if I see the lynch as being inevitable; this is not some "clever" way of avoiding responsibility. I waited for everyone to say their piece, and since I noticed that most people had voted dynamo and the lynch was pretty much inevitable, except for a bunch of replacements that might take, say, 3 weeks to read the thread, that voting is just a way to move the game along and my stance is already clear. With a couple of people repeatedly posting MOAR VOTES ON DYNAMO I decided "hey, why not, my vote is sitting uselessly around anyway, why not bring meaning to these statements?" Note that hasdgfas in particular made a couple of these posts and as soon as I voted stopped paying any attention to dynamo at all and wanted me lynched (to some extent, over dynamo). So much for fulfilling a request.

And also, why would I, as scum, choose this method to jump on a bandwagon when I could just lie about finding dynamo scummy or whatnot? And before you scream WIFOM you should probably pay attention to risk/rewards. I avoid lying as town since lying is used to determine who is scum. So I decided to adopt a new approach, but I guess it just doesn't work here, and perhaps that might be a good thing. But either way, if you think one frickin vote like this, where I state my intentions CLEARLY before I even do it is scummy, then I can't change your opinion on it.

Netlava, what you're missing is that voting someone that you don't think is scum just because someone asked for more votes on that person is really scummy. Why wouldn't you just vote for someone you think is scum instead of jumping on the bandwagon?

When I made those posts(I'd like you to point out the ones you're talking about), I didn't expect people who didn't think Dynamo was scum to jump on. I feel like you're trying to blame me for your scummy action, and I don't like that at all.

[Lowell]

FOS BM, Cass

I reread the pages around the dynamo lynch. I'm not overly thrilled with BMs posts on page 38. He does some slight derailment of the dynamo lynch, which wouldn't be a big deal except that clearly dynamo was searching for some allies. Later he uses the "... in case I end up dead" phrase in twilight, which always raises alarm bells to me.

I'm not a fan of Cass' 988 and 1022. Again, phrases like "... I honestly thought he'd flip scum" are suspicious. The timing of the FOS on Netlava (his biggest threat) looks bad. A wagon has started (with reasons given) for the attacks on Netlava... so I'm not sure what Cass is waiting for. It looks like a slow-roll to what will eventually be a vote, without trying to look too jumpy and OMGUSy.

[StrangerCoug]

I think I've already addressed everything. If there's anything I need to answer in particular, feel free to ask, but hopefully it doesn't involve me repeating myself. FTR, my vote was an attempt to play less conservatively and I tried this before in another game (in which I was also lynched for this), so I've given up on this. I really do not see the big deal of voting for someone I don't think is scum if I see the lynch as being inevitable; this is not some "clever" way of avoiding responsibility. I waited for everyone to say their piece, and since I noticed that most people had voted dynamo and the lynch was pretty much inevitable, except for a bunch of replacements that might take, say, 3 weeks to read the thread, that voting is just a way to move the game along and my stance is already clear. With a couple of people repeatedly posting MOAR VOTES ON DYNAMO I decided "hey, why not, my vote is sitting uselessly around anyway, why not bring meaning to these statements?" Note that hasdgfas in particular made a couple of these posts and as soon as I voted stopped paying any attention to dynamo at all and wanted me lynched (to some extent, over dynamo). So much for fulfilling a request.

Voting out of appeasement is scummy.

And also, why would I, as scum, choose this method to jump on a bandwagon when I could just lie about finding dynamo scummy or whatnot? And before you scream WIFOM you should probably pay attention to risk/rewards. I avoid lying as town since lying is used to determine who is scum. So I decided to adopt a new approach, but I guess it just doesn't work here, and perhaps that might be a good thing. But either way, if you think one frickin vote like this, where I state my intentions CLEARLY before I even do it is scummy, then I can't change your opinion on it.

Because scum generally opts for the easiest lynch they can get away with. You voted DynamoXI with the belief that he was town. Voting for someone you know to be town is scummy, especially given that the only way for scum not to know someone's alignment is if multiple anti-town factions exist.

My vote stands.

That's a long analogy for bullshit. Basically, as far as I understand, it all boils down to an "if I was scum, I would/wouldn't do this" kind of circular logic.

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

Major HoS: Korts

[Korts]

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

I call it how I see it. If I think it's bullshit, do you expect me to call it nicer names? Prove it to me that what I dismissed as bullshit isn't, then.

[StrangerCoug]

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

I call it how I see it. If I think it's bullshit, do you expect me to call it nicer names? Prove it to me that what I dismissed as bullshit isn't, then.

Let's break his example down:

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

Personally, if I were a drug dealer at a rave and I knew there were undercover cops, I would pack up my stuff and get the hell out of there. It simply arouses the least suspicion, if any at all. If I'm not mistaken, most raves happen at night, so to an innocent bystander I may simply be tired and want to go home so I can get some sleep.

Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

No; it makes arbitrary, baseless assumptions. The person flailing around has the same odds of being a drug dealer as anyone else on the dance floor, whether or not I know those odds. Drug dealers are more likely to do certain things than other people that might go to a rave, but beating people up is not one of them.

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house??

No, there's a story to be covered and it has to be done. I am a former high school journalist, and I know better than to report news in a way that's biased toward one side, belief, etc.

Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

I can't find any evidence in his example that suggests that the cop is corrupt.

The moral Skruffs is trying to teach you is that in a Mafia game, assumptions are your enemy, especially if you are town (but scum can suffer from wrongly assuming things too). "If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion. For example, "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch," where Z is someone that flipped scum, does not work because scum can and does get their buddies lynched. That's called bussing. "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

[Korts]

I find that the analogy makes perfect sense. This "circular logic" you speak of is exactly what WIFOM is if I'm not mistaken, and I only see it in Skruff's explanation because he is trying to prove it doesn't work. You've dismissed as WIFOM what isn't, and you've dismissed as bullshit what isn't. I don't see town doing this.

I call it how I see it. If I think it's bullshit, do you expect me to call it nicer names? Prove it to me that what I dismissed as bullshit isn't, then.

Let's break his example down:

Alright, and I'll translate into mafiaspeak:

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

Personally, if I were a drug dealer at a rave and I knew there were undercover cops, I would pack up my stuff and get the hell out of there. It simply arouses the least suspicion, if any at all. If I'm not mistaken, most raves happen at night, so to an innocent bystander I may simply be tired and want to go home so I can get some sleep.

"If I were scum, I would stay quiet." (I hope you do know why "if I were scum"-type statements are generally WIFOM.)

Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

No; it makes arbitrary, baseless assumptions. The person flailing around has the same odds of being a drug dealer as anyone else on the dance floor, whether or not I know those odds. Drug dealers are more likely to do certain things than other people that might go to a rave, but beating people up is not one of them.

"You shouldn't lynch the guy being obviously scummy."

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house??

No, there's a story to be covered and it has to be done. I am a former high school journalist, and I know better than to report news in a way that's biased toward one side, belief, etc.

"You shouldn't question why it's not WIFOM" is the most I could make of this one. Seriously, Skruffs (or SC because you seem to know what's going on), what does this mean in context of a mafia game exactly?

Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

I can't find any evidence in his example that suggests that the cop is corrupt.

"Or was it scum who lynched Dynamo?" I think is most appropriate.

The moral Skruffs is trying to teach you is that in a Mafia game, assumptions are your enemy, especially if you are town (but scum can suffer from wrongly assuming things too).

In my irrelevant opinion, Skruffs is asking the town questions derived from a bad analogy that boils down to circular logic (a.k.a. WIFOM).

"If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion.

Exactly. So I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being WIFOM.

For example, "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch," where Z is someone that flipped scum, does not work because scum can and does get their buddies lynched. That's called bussing.

Why the mafia lecture? I asked why the analogy made sense, not to explain the basic dynamics of the game.

"If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

Also WIFOM is "If I were a drug dealer (scum), I wouldn't start punching people (act scummy)", plain and clear.

Actually.

unvote, vote: Skruffs

You're better than this stuff.

[StrangerCoug]

For example, if YOU are a drug dealer, let's say, and you knew that somewhere in this rave you are at are some undercover cops, are you going to stand in the middle of the dance floor and start punching people?

Personally, if I were a drug dealer at a rave and I knew there were undercover cops, I would pack up my stuff and get the hell out of there. It simply arouses the least suspicion, if any at all. If I'm not mistaken, most raves happen at night, so to an innocent bystander I may simply be tired and want to go home so I can get some sleep.

"If I were scum, I would stay quiet." (I hope you do know why "if I were scum"-type statements are generally WIFOM.)

I do know, but keeping as quiet as possible so as not to arouse too much suspicion is simply common sense. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a noisemaker for a Mafioso, but I'm ironically the only person I'm able to think of where that's the case. If you know of a game I wasn't in (that's been completed, mind you) with vocal scum, please let me know.

Similarly, if someone is a cop and they see someone start flailing around on a dance floor, are they going to shoot them under the pretenses that a drug dealer is more likely to flail around then, say, some kid doped up on PCP and ecstacy?

No; it makes arbitrary, baseless assumptions. The person flailing around has the same odds of being a drug dealer as anyone else on the dance floor, whether or not I know those odds. Drug dealers are more likely to do certain things than other people that might go to a rave, but beating people up is not one of them.

"You shouldn't lynch the guy being obviously scummy."

If no other options are feasible, then to use a term I have a dislike of, the most obvscum player should probably be lynched. The operative word, however, is "if". The cop should probably go after the guy that's flailing, but he shouldn't assume he's the drug dealer.

And lastly, is the journalist standing outside the house questioning the polie officer about the brutality that occurred inside the house more likely to be the drug dealer than the kid who was flailing around inside the house??

No, there's a story to be covered and it has to be done. I am a former high school journalist, and I know better than to report news in a way that's biased toward one side, belief, etc.

"You shouldn't question why it's not WIFOM" is the most I could make of this one. Seriously, Skruffs (or SC because you seem to know what's going on), what does this mean in context of a mafia game exactly?

Skruffs can probably answer this better than I can, but think of the journalist as scumhunting town. You don't report news by saying "Oh, so and so committed such and such, so he must be guilty!" News reporters don't decide who's guilty or not; jurors do. I find it easier to explain jurors than news reporters when using a real-life example to explain Mafia.

In theory, news reporters can go out on their own on the story they're supposed to cover, though in my actual journalism experience we sometimes had two people working on the same story. Jurors, however, must work as a team: As valuable as they are, they still must reach a consensus (in Mafia, the majority is sufficient, though in the real court it must be unanimous) to get a verdict (in mafiaspeak, a lynch)—no one person decides it. The failure to be able to decide on a verdict is called a hung jury; its Mafia equivalent is a no lynch. If you watch a lot of court cases, you will be familiar with the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt". Jurors must prove that the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; until then, he or she must be assumed innocent. If the jury has reason to believe that the person did not in fact commit the crime or has a legal justification for his actions, then they must announce the verdict as "not guilty". Juries have been known to make mistakes (that's why we have the term "mistrial", which is the equivalent of a mislynch), but if you have rational, educated jurors that shouldn't be a problem.

Or is it a case of a corrupt cop?

I can't find any evidence in his example that suggests that the cop is corrupt.

"Or was it scum who lynched Dynamo?" I think is most appropriate.

I'm pretty sure scum did lynch DynamoXI, and I'm after Netlava in particular.

The moral Skruffs is trying to teach you is that in a Mafia game, assumptions are your enemy, especially if you are town (but scum can suffer from wrongly assuming things too).

In my irrelevant opinion, Skruffs is asking the town questions derived from a bad analogy that boils down to circular logic (a.k.a. WIFOM).

I see no proof of this.

"If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion.

Exactly. So I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being WIFOM.

I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being common sense.

For example, "If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch," where Z is someone that flipped scum, does not work because scum can and does get their buddies lynched. That's called bussing.

Why the mafia lecture? I asked why the analogy made sense, not to explain the basic dynamics of the game.

I'm adding on to what Skruffs said here.

"If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

Also WIFOM is "If I were a drug dealer (scum), I wouldn't start punching people (act scummy)", plain and clear.

If I knew of undercover cops, I wouldn't. If I had reason to believe that I can get away with it, then I would probably do it, but if I knew I could get into trouble that way, I would avoid it.

[armlx]

I am asking to what ends you based your opinion that scum would act that way, in the very beginning of the game.

You apparently are operating under this assumption that everyone plays optimally, choosing only things that are +EV instead of just looking for what gives them gain wihtout looking much at the backlash. there were gains to potential scum doing what Dynamo did with joining the alliance thing which have been explained many times.

This reminds me a lot of SK Skruffs in Cultafia.

[BlakAdder]

@Skruffs: That is not the defintion of WIFOM. You just described a leading question. WIFOM is generally an "if I were scum" or "why would scum" type of statement. Search the wiki and you'll see what I mean. Also, I don't think your long-winded analogy has much to do with any of this.
In related news, it may be obvious, but I'm thinking of a Skruffs-Netlava connection. I think Netlava might be our lynch today, but if either of them flips scum, the other will be my first vote the next day.

[Korts]

I do know, but keeping as quiet as possible so as not to arouse too much suspicion is simply common sense. I'm not ruling out the possibility of a noisemaker for a Mafioso, but I'm ironically the only person I'm able to think of where that's the case. If you know of a game I wasn't in (that's been completed, mind you) with vocal scum, please let me know.

The only problem with this is that meta doesn't necessarily coincide with whatever common sense dictates. If you want examples where I'm vocal scum, feel free to visit my wiki page, all my completed games are listed there. I tend to be vocal either way. I can't really give examples other than mine off the top of my head though, I don't keep thorough track of players in relation to alignment in my finished games and I don't much read games I'm not in.

"You shouldn't lynch the guy being obviously scummy."

If no other options are feasible, then to use a term I have a dislike of, the most obvscum player should probably be lynched. The operative word, however, is "if". The cop should probably go after the guy that's flailing, but he shouldn't assume he's the drug dealer.

Please, stay out of the analogy and keep the discussion in the realm of mafia, because it's unnecessarily confusing.

I agree that the town shouldn't assume things, but conviction in votes is necessary for a lynch. I wasn't arguing with the statement that assumptions are bad, I was arguing that Skruffs' point seemed to be an anti-town point ("don't lynch the scummy guy").

"You shouldn't question why it's not WIFOM" is the most I could make of this one. Seriously, Skruffs (or SC because you seem to know what's going on), what does this mean in context of a mafia game exactly?

Skruffs can probably answer this better than I can, but think of the journalist as scumhunting town. You don't report news by saying "Oh, so and so committed such and such, so he must be guilty!" News reporters don't decide who's guilty or not; jurors do. I find it easier to explain jurors than news reporters when using a real-life example to explain Mafia.

The town is both reporters and jurors. But yeah, I guess. It still doesn't change that the basis of the whole analogy was circular logic.

"Or was it scum who lynched Dynamo?" I think is most appropriate.

I'm pretty sure scum did lynch DynamoXI, and I'm after Netlava in particular.

Yeah, I'm not questioning your conviction, I just think the question itself from Skruffs is a loaded one. It implies the answer Skruffs is expecting, nay, demanding, and is thus anti-town.

"If I were X, I would do/not do Y" is not an excuse to escape suspicion.

Exactly. So I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being WIFOM.

I don't know why you aren't seeing my POV about Skruffs' analogy basically being common sense.

It being common sense does not mean it can't be WIFOM. Common sense isn't the optimal way to scumhunt.

"If I were scum, I would not have been on Z's lynch" is therefore WIFOM. The more open-minded and willing to consider other options you are, the higher your chances of winning.

Also WIFOM is "If I were a drug dealer (scum), I wouldn't start punching people (act scummy)", plain and clear.

If I knew of undercover cops, I wouldn't. If I had reason to believe that I can get away with it, then I would probably do it, but if I knew I could get into trouble that way, I would avoid it.

You're just restating the same thing, but that doesn't change the fact that it being common sense=/=it not being circular logic.

[Korts]

@Skruffs: That is not the defintion of WIFOM. You just described a leading question. WIFOM is generally an "if I were scum" or "why would scum" type of statement. Search the wiki and you'll see what I mean. Also, I don't think your long-winded analogy has much to do with any of this.
In related news, it may be obvious, but I'm thinking of a Skruffs-Netlava connection. I think Netlava might be our lynch today, but if either of them flips scum, the other will be my first vote the next day.

We're not exactly five pages into Day 2. I really don't like the way you're so confident in Netlava winding up as our lynch. Are you in a hurry?

[BlakAdder]

@Skruffs: That is not the defintion of WIFOM. You just described a leading question. WIFOM is generally an "if I were scum" or "why would scum" type of statement. Search the wiki and you'll see what I mean. Also, I don't think your long-winded analogy has much to do with any of this.
In related news, it may be obvious, but I'm thinking of a Skruffs-Netlava connection. I think Netlava might be our lynch today, but if either of them flips scum, the other will be my first vote the next day.

We're not exactly five pages into Day 2. I really don't like the way you're so confident in Netlava winding up as our lynch. Are you in a hurry?

Not particularly, it's just that just a lot of people suspect him and he hasn't offered much defense. Besides, saying "

I think

Netlava

might

be our lynch" doesn't sound that confident to me.

[Korts]

Not particularly, it's just that just a lot of people suspect him and he hasn't offered much defense. Besides, saying "

I think

Netlava

might

be our lynch" doesn't sound that confident to me.

Well, it's hardly your opinion that counts in this case

[StrangerCoug]

I understand why Korts is responding to Skruffs the way he is, so I'll downgrade to just an

FoS: Korts

. His shooting off cases without much of a good reason is still noted.

[Korts]

I understand why Korts is responding to Skruffs the way he is, so I'll downgrade to just an

FoS: Korts

. His shooting off cases without much of a good reason is still noted.

Um, what cases did I shoot off?