AT LAST! LOGIC!!Goatrevolt wrote:This is going to be a long post. I'm reading through the thread and pointing out things as I go:
Why did you assume mykonian's vote was serious? To me it seemed obvious it was a joke (though I'll admit I was thrown off by his later explanations), and I'm curious why this didn't even cross your mind.Panzerjager wrote:@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
Right, I caught that reference. However, if you knew he wasn't serious, then why would you even bother to discuss other possibilities?Dourgrim wrote:Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian was serious, so I explored the possibility.
When you say "GIEFF is unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame" you are making the implicit statement that a cop could possibly out himself in pregame with information on 3 scum. My question was probing you to figure out how that would even be possible. In other words, why would you even consider cop a possibility, when a cop couldn't possibly have information on 3 players pregame?Dourgrim wrote:He wouldn't, of course, since the game began with Day. What Cop are you referring to? I didn't even imply anyone was a Cop. Rather, I said GIEFF's unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame. And where did the "3 players" part come from? Are you referencing GIEFF's "obvscum" comment in pregame, or did I miss something?
I just don't get why you would even suggest the possibility of a cop, and then say why that reasoning doesn't work if:
1. A cop couldn't possibly fit the situation
2. You admit that you knew he was joking.
Why even discuss it in the first place?
Again, I'm talking strictly about your post. You talk about the possibility of GIEFF as a SK and then write it off as unlikely because a SK wouldn't out themselves so early. My question to you was along the lines of: "Why would a SK have information on 3 scum anyway?" Your reasoning for doubting the SK theory was because the SK wouldn't out themselves, instead of the more obvious answer of "the SK wouldn't have info on 3 scum". I was curious why that wasn't a part of your reasoning.Dourgrim wrote:He wouldn't... but he would have more information as to the setup of the game than a Townie would, which is what I said above. Also, here you reference the "3 mafia" again. Do you know something the rest of us don't? This isn't an open setup game to my knowledge, and the only weight I gave to the "knowledge pre-game" theory was because, via the roundabout thinking I detailed in my last post, mykonian's logic isn't complete crap. It's certainly not great, but it's not total garbage either.
Ok. You had said "GIEFF can't possibly be mafia if he's trying to lynch mafia" but I mistakenly attributed that to your own point of view, rather than your interpretation of mykonian's.Dourgrim wrote:I'm certainly not clearing him... I'm voting for him, for cryin' out loud.
Why only a FoS?dejkha wrote:FoS: Dourgrimbecause this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.
I'm not sure on the theory, but I figure it's not all that meaningful anyway. At this point in the game we have no knowledge of there being a SK, so we don't hunt for a SK, we hunt for mafia. If there is a SK, and if we get to a point in the game where we know someone is the SK and know someone else is mafia and we have to make a decision between which to lynch, we can return to this discussion.MacavityLock wrote:Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.Panzerjager wrote:Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer.
So, Macavity, you say we don't know whether or not there even is a SK, but then you vote Panzer based on the notion that if there is a SK it's him? Why would you vote for the "SK" when you yourself point out that we don't even know if there is one? Fishy.
Why bother with this explanation if your post was a joke?mykonian wrote:damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there
You don't catch scum without pressuring them first. Early in the game little things are all you have to go off of, and pressuring those little things is what eventually leads to bigger and more meaningful things. I'll agree that Dour is jumping on things that I wouldn't even bat an eye at, but I haven't seen any underlying scum motivations for his actions, at least not yet.dejkha wrote:I do think being aggressive is important, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. To me, little things like that are way to little to be taken the wrong way. But that's just me.
Why apply a second random vote to the same target? And why place a second random vote in the midst of legit discussion?mykonian wrote:randomvote GIEFFbecause he had the last post.
Random votes and interactions in the "random phase" are surprisingly meaningful. Not placing a random vote actually denies the town potentially useful information.GIEFF wrote:That's not necessary. But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it? Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.
There are other ways of telling. A SK has a specific win condition and will play in such a way to further that win con. SK's are interested in the death of everyone except for themselves. One potential telltale sign of a SK is not caring about who gets lynched as long as it isn't them.dejkha wrote:Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.
Scum: An overarching term for anyone anti-town.subgenius wrote:One more question, just a clarification for a newer player. Are the terms 'scum' and 'mafia' entirely interchangeable, or does 'scum' also include SK or any other non-town aligned roles? The reason I ask is that GRIEFF's pre-game accusation referred to 'obvscum' which most people seem to interpret as meaning mafia, but could mean 2 mafia + 1 SK, or some other combination of non-town roles. On the first and second page, Mykonian and Goatrevolt both seemed to take it for granted that GRIEFF was referring to 3 mafia players. Is it possible that one or all of them inadvertently showed a more complete knowledge of the game set up than a townie would have?
Mafia: A specific type of scum.
You are correct in that my assumption was that GIEFF's 3 players thing was referring to 3 mafia members. The standard setup for a 12 player normal mini is 9 townies against 3 mafia. When GIEFF calls 3 people scum, I immediately connected the idea that he's calling out the entire mafia team. It would have been unnatural for me to assume he's talking about 2 mafia + 1 SK or some other variation.
------
Unvote, Vote MacavityLock
Why are you voting for your SK suspect when you yourself admit we don't know there is a SK?
@Gieff, with the exception of the past few days, I post about once each day per game. I will have a low post count, but I will have large posts.
I agree.GIEFF wrote:If you think it's a joke post, then why did you assume he didn't want to lynch mafia?Panzerjager wrote:No That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I know his tried to be funny but he let loose a slip.
I agree that the first person to mention anything about a serial killer is more likely to actually be the serial killer, but only marginally so.
This is another post by you that seems to indicate you took mykonian's vote seriously. If you thought it was a joke-post, you wouldn't think he was really calling me anti-town.Panzerjager wrote:@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
You didn't realize he was trying to be funny; you thought he was really calling me anti-town. This is abundantly clear based on your past posts.
And you just lied about it.
Let's not. Why must you be extra careful? Are you attempting to say that town cannot make errors or that you are mafia, and shouldn't make errors. I am seeing minor connection of you with grim, under the assumption that you are mafia. However, maybe this is how you react to criticism.GIEFF wrote:I wasn't trying to be condescending; sorry if it came off that way.Dourgrim wrote:To be blunt, I don't particularly like GIEFF's condescending tone in his posts
It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.Dourgrim wrote:...nor am I fond of his "accidental" spin-doctoring
On this note: You shouldn't concern yourself with appearing protown. You need to scumhunt and assume that, live or die, your alignment will become known and your opinions and theories will actually have some merit because of your alignment (proven in death/by cop) or because they make sense. (I prefer the latter, actually.)
My only problem with this is that you leave this here as a veiled threat. Looking into the future, should we expect you to randomly attack Dourgrim later, or does this post and claim lead somewhere later within the post...?GIEFF wrote: The above two quotes appear to me as if you are trying to make this emotional; let's keep it based on facts. When we start voting with emotion, the scum win. I am not trying to upset you.
This is @mykonian, not me. I know you and I both know that, Dourgrim, just making sure everyone else does, too. I agree that it's an odd thing to say.Dourgrim wrote:However, you calling Panzer's early game "undoubtedly protown" is iffy at best. Why do you seem to be defending Panzer?
I'm glad you voted even though you thought I might find it scummy. I only think unvoting me is appeasement because you haven't convinced me that you really did think the reasons you presented for voting for me were valid.Dourgrim wrote:Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to FoS: mykonian and vote: Panzer. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?
You don't even have to convince me that they really are valid; just that you thought they were. Unvoting me before this is resolved looks like you are hoping I drop the subject. But I will not drop it, as the vote on me wasn't the issue; the logic behind it was.
Oh, I guess not. Just going to wait it to appear in the future later then.GIEFF wrote: --------------------------------
How what? How are you lying?Panzerjager wrote:How? Unless he is part of the mafia, no one can know the whole scum right now.
You said you knew mykonian's post was a joke, yet your subsequent reactions to it prove beyond a doubt that you took it seriously.
FOS Panzerjager
Why the Dejkha wagon? Do you not feel that the interactions between Gieff and Dour could rouse any usefulness? (Note, I like the reasons you vote for Dejkha, however.)springlullaby wrote:dejkha wrote:Sounds like you're overreacting way to much to what seemed like an obvious joke (calling you and two others obvscum is his confirm post).Dourgrim wrote:We have 9/12 voting so far. Not voting: GIEFF, springlullaby, dejkha
Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.
unvote: Panzerjager
vote: GIEFF
This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all. This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?Dourgrim wrote:Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote (or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation) after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting, despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.
FoS: springlullaby
FoS: Dourgrimbecause this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.Vote djekha
The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.
This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.
I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO. Note here that the SK talk may be interesting in the future but not now. Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.
Myk's post 99 is going to be useful once we find out the alignment of Dour... (NOTE to SELF)
[quote="Goatrevolt"
@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)[/quote]
Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)
Yes, I agree. This is why I don't like Gieff's posts lately. It feels that he is trying to look town by attacking the same people (looks like scum hunting), presenting a lot of things for theory analysis, and by pointing out that someone else not scum hunting and thus must be scum.springlullaby wrote:It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.
First point: A mislynch can actually lead to town victory, so while your statement is a generaltiy=true, it does not always hold still and seems to indicate that a nolynch is always better than a mislynch, which is almost never true.Goatrevolt wrote: A mislynch is not in the interest of the town, but that doesn't mean everyone on that lynch is scum for making a bad play.
Townies won't always play in the best interest of town. Townies will play in what they perceive to be the best interest of the town. There's a huge difference.
Second point: You are also correct, but a townie should perceive, quite obviously, that they are to find scum, not preserve themselves. Hell, even power roles should act this way, to a point.
Point one: WHOA... really? You have never mislynched someone because they were particularly anti town or the led the way to a mislynch? REALLY?Dourgrim wrote:Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.springlullaby wrote:This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.
Agree/disagree?
Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.
Point 2: Should cop just come out and say (day 2 on) HOLY F***, I GOT A GUILTY!? Or should he try and find an argument or failings in the person post to logically get him lynched as to hide his identity?
I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.Goatrevolt wrote: A better example is this: Someone claims cop in their first post of the game. That is bad play. They've set themselves up to be night killed. However, it's not scummy, because scum claiming cop in their first post is a pretty stupid play. This person exhibits bad play, but that bad play is more of a townie bad play than a scummy one.
In other words, I disagree entirely about your assessment of dejkha. You're saying he's scummy because he's attacking early aggressive play (which is pro-town). I agree with you that doing so is wrong, but I don't see how it's scummy.
If we were all infallible in our logic, then only the most illogical is always scum. This theory is true from being based off of the idea: only scum need to fabricate details to prove others are mafia. So, killing off the worst player is wrong, but VOTING for the worst player is right, as it tells you the most information from the reaction of other players and lets you know if the player in question is able to push you back and prove themselves more town then scum, during which, a scummier player will probably present him/herself.Goatrevolt wrote:I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.Dourgrim wrote:Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.
If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.
Bah, I don't believe with this. If people believe their logic is strong, but their logic is completely faulty, I think they are probably scum.GIEFF wrote:It's one level further removed from that. If people BELIEVE their logic is good, they are town. If they don't believe their logic is good, they are faking logic, as scum do.Goatrevolt wrote:I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.Dourgrim wrote:Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.
If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.
At this point, Spring made a post that I am going to surmise with my own thoughts on the matter:
ANTI-TOWN=/=scummy.
Similarly,
Pro-town=/=Confirmed/cleared Town aligned.
These are just indicators we have as to the persons actually alignment, but we don't know anything for certain.
You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?GIEFF wrote:Dourgrim and mykonian seem to be much more interested in the meta-discussion about theory than the discussion about who is scum.
Not to defend, but we haven't heard from Panzer in a while on this.GIEFF wrote:First of all, I don't like you defending him. Let him speak for himself. I assume you were talking about Post 91, but I have unanswered questions to Panzer about that post, and for you to step in and try to clear him before he has a chance to explain for himself is scummy to the extreme.Goatrevolt wrote:Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum.Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.
Make sense?
He says, however, that we shouldn't kill the sk in the next few lines... sounds like we can't really guess from this post what Panzer was thinking, which is scummier than flat lying.GIEFF wrote: Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:
It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?Panzerjager wrote:@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SKlynch him.Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.
@Goatrevolt:He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.
Now this IS scummy. You knew it was meant to be a joke, but you blatantly ignored this to make a case with the assumption he did not mean it to be a joke...?Panzerjager wrote: I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.
eh heh heh...NO.
This tips the scales out of your favor, panz.
Now would be a great time to "explain your playstyle" the way Dour would, as you claim. You officially make no sense.